Because... just because! Isn't that good enough of a reason for you?
Evolution... Do we believe?
- Thread starter PopeFrancieLXIX
- Start date
Because... just because! Isn't that good enough of a reason for you?
6days writes:
We'll know that when you show us something from the literature that says so. You're making stuff up again, aren't you?
As you know, creationists called Neandertals "apes", and didn't even consider them human.
But modern genetics, with DNA analysis shows that they are a subspecies of H. sapiens.
Remember, give us that cite from the literature. Assuming you didn't just make it up.
We'll know that when you show us something from the literature that says so. You're making stuff up again, aren't you?
As you know, creationists called Neandertals "apes", and didn't even consider them human.
But modern genetics, with DNA analysis shows that they are a subspecies of H. sapiens.
Remember, give us that cite from the literature. Assuming you didn't just make it up.
6days
New member
Perhaps true... and it's an interesting point. Darwin seems to have been heavily influenced by evolutionists that preceded him such as Patrick Matthew and his grandfather Erasmus.alwight said:
Science helps us understand that the universe and life didn't magically pop into existence. Science helps us understand our universe and life are evidence of an Intelligent Creator.alwight said:
alwight said:
That is your belief based on the 'religion' of God didn't do it. My belief is that God stretched the heavens out. Evidence for my 'religion' includes mature galaxies in what you believe is the distant past.*
alwight said:
You think the world accreted because you believe in Goldilocks stories 'it was just right'. You essentially need to believe that our universe which appears designed, was uncaused. You have an illogical belief, because everything we know which begins to exist..... always has a cause. You believe, it would seem, that nothing caused everything and that life comes from non life.
Shifting the goalposts... you asked for evidence, but you suddenly shift to interpretation of evidence.*alwight said:
(Evidence from genetics, astronomy, geology etc provide excellent evidence for the truth of God's Word and the young earth)
Thanks to science some of those evolutionary beliefs have receded. *alwight said:
What does the date have to do with what we were discussing? You asked for evidence that we are descendants of Neandertals.*alwight said:
Simple.... evolutionists believe human intelligence and humanity evolved from apes. So it's a tough pill when science shows Neandertals as human as you and I... That is the Biblical model.*alwight said:
Barbarian observes:
YE creationist. That wasn't invented until the 20th century.
6days writes:
Your argument was shown to be dishonest before...
Well, let's take a look...
The Protestant consensus since the time of the Reformation has been that the physical universe and its history are real, not illusory. As God’s creation, the physical world conveys genuine information about the Creator and can serve to inform our interpretations of the Bible. Therefore, when geologists (many of them devout Christians) in the early 1800’s found that the rock layers showed the earth to be far older than the 6000 years derived from a literal reading of Genesis, Bible-believing Christians did not ignore, suppress, or lie about these findings. Rather, they adjusted their interpretation of the relevant Bible passages away from a simplistic literal reading, just as they had done 200 years earlier with the verses that depicted a stationary earth. Through about 1960, nearly all Christians, including conservative Old Testament scholars and most fundamentalists, were comfortable with interpretations of Genesis which accommodated an earth that was many millions of years old.
Today’s young earth creationism is based on “Flood geology”. Flood geology, which teaches that most sedimentary rock layers were deposited in a single global Flood about 2500 B.C., was developed in its modern form in the early twentieth century by Seventh-day Adventist George M. Price to conform to visions of a six-day creation reported by Adventist prophetess Ellen White. Despite being advised by geologists that it was incorrect, John Whitcomb and Henry Morris took over Price’s Flood geology and repackaged it in The Genesis Flood (1961), which rapidly became dogma among conservative Protestants. Like White, Whitcomb and Morris assumed their interpretation of the Bible was infallible, which justified ignoring and distorting any scientific findings which did not agree with their Flood geology.
Thus, modern young earth creationism did not develop from improved Bible exegesis or new geological findings. Rather, it derives from extra-biblical revelation or assumptions, and scientific claims known at the time to be false. This approach is at odds with the historic Christian understanding of God’s works and God’s Word.
https://letterstocreationists.wordp...xposing-the-roots-of-young-earth-creationism/
But you already know this. Do you think repeated denial will help you?
Barbarian observes:
He (Carolus Linnaeus )did discover the nested hierarchy of taxa that only happens in case of common descent. And he wrote that he probably should have classified humans as apes.
That's testable. Give us an example in nature. Prediction: no such example will be forthcoming.
YE creationist. That wasn't invented until the 20th century.
6days writes:
Your argument was shown to be dishonest before...
Well, let's take a look...
The Protestant consensus since the time of the Reformation has been that the physical universe and its history are real, not illusory. As God’s creation, the physical world conveys genuine information about the Creator and can serve to inform our interpretations of the Bible. Therefore, when geologists (many of them devout Christians) in the early 1800’s found that the rock layers showed the earth to be far older than the 6000 years derived from a literal reading of Genesis, Bible-believing Christians did not ignore, suppress, or lie about these findings. Rather, they adjusted their interpretation of the relevant Bible passages away from a simplistic literal reading, just as they had done 200 years earlier with the verses that depicted a stationary earth. Through about 1960, nearly all Christians, including conservative Old Testament scholars and most fundamentalists, were comfortable with interpretations of Genesis which accommodated an earth that was many millions of years old.
Today’s young earth creationism is based on “Flood geology”. Flood geology, which teaches that most sedimentary rock layers were deposited in a single global Flood about 2500 B.C., was developed in its modern form in the early twentieth century by Seventh-day Adventist George M. Price to conform to visions of a six-day creation reported by Adventist prophetess Ellen White. Despite being advised by geologists that it was incorrect, John Whitcomb and Henry Morris took over Price’s Flood geology and repackaged it in The Genesis Flood (1961), which rapidly became dogma among conservative Protestants. Like White, Whitcomb and Morris assumed their interpretation of the Bible was infallible, which justified ignoring and distorting any scientific findings which did not agree with their Flood geology.
Thus, modern young earth creationism did not develop from improved Bible exegesis or new geological findings. Rather, it derives from extra-biblical revelation or assumptions, and scientific claims known at the time to be false. This approach is at odds with the historic Christian understanding of God’s works and God’s Word.
https://letterstocreationists.wordp...xposing-the-roots-of-young-earth-creationism/
But you already know this. Do you think repeated denial will help you?
Barbarian observes:
He (Carolus Linnaeus )did discover the nested hierarchy of taxa that only happens in case of common descent. And he wrote that he probably should have classified humans as apes.
That's testable. Give us an example in nature. Prediction: no such example will be forthcoming.
Jose Fly
New member
Yep, and by your definition, all life on earth is the same "kind".
alwight
New member
The idea of some form of evolution clearly didn't start with Charles Darwin, but the possibilities of evolution by natural selection only became more realistic after the famous pioneer of geology James Hutton showed the great age of the Earth as evidenced in the ground.
When evidence is brought together from all fields of natural science the wider picture can be seen more clearly.
Science hasn't exactly replaced any god but afaic it has debunked YECism as a by-product.
Rubbish, that is my belief based on science, the observable evidence and the speed of light, not whether a god was behind it originally or not.
I don't claim to have any beliefs about the ultimate cause of the universe but I see no reason to have a very specific supernatural belief.
I therefore restrict my beliefs to only those based in the physically possible rather than the miraculous.
If there is a rational alternative naturalistic explanation then what you rush to conclude is evidence of your God is not in fact evidence of anyone's specific god or even a god.
I don't see Neanderthals as being particularly relevant to Darwinian evolution, just an incidental feature of interest. They simply show that forms of human life also adapt, come and go just as with other life.
You did quote it as new, that's all, no need to bristle.
Actually I don't really like to be labelled "evolutionist" simply because I believe that Darwinian evolution happens to provide the best rational explanation for life as we know it.
"Atheist" however is OK.
OK, to you I may be an "evolutionist" while you are to me a "Young Earth Creationist" but it isn't what I am and I'm not trying to force anything on anyone, if asked then that is my explanation and rationale based in natural science. If you see more sense in believing in a specific supernatural YE creation and can shrug off all the contradicting science perhaps by remaining ignorant of it, then that's your business.
Neanderthals, like us were apes, evolved Great Apes and thus perfectly consistent with Darwinian evolution, who lived and died out a great many years before your supposed global flood and creation.
See how a definition works? People can use it no matter what they believe. It is useful to express the differences between conflicting ideas; evolutionists must believe there is only one kind, but creationists believe there were many created kinds. Science.
However, species has no set definition. We hear it said that it needs no definition, there is no definition or there is a myriad of definitions. Not science.
Stipe finally admits:
Wouldn't it have been better to just admit from the start, that you didn't have a definition? Yes, it's an embarrassing problem for creationism, which predicts discrete taxa. But it's better to face up to problems.
Evolutionary theory, starting with Darwin, predicts that there can be no universally-applicable definition. This is another reason scientists reject creationism. The world does not look as creationism predicts it to be.
There are all sorts of working definitions, but as Darwin said, they are all tentative, and subject to revision. This might seem bothersome, but God is not obliged to make the world fit anyone's expectations.
Wouldn't it have been better to just admit from the start, that you didn't have a definition? Yes, it's an embarrassing problem for creationism, which predicts discrete taxa. But it's better to face up to problems.
Evolutionary theory, starting with Darwin, predicts that there can be no universally-applicable definition. This is another reason scientists reject creationism. The world does not look as creationism predicts it to be.
There are all sorts of working definitions, but as Darwin said, they are all tentative, and subject to revision. This might seem bothersome, but God is not obliged to make the world fit anyone's expectations.
alwight
New member
Contrary to what Stripe will tell us, that the definition of "kinds" is easy, Creation Wiki seems to think otherwise:
http://www.creationwiki.org/Created_kind
This is the complete list of creationist "Kinds" according to Creation Wiki:
Notice that although humanity is listed at the bottom creationists are apparently far too ashamed of our common ape heritage to include "Hominoidea" as a "kind", best keep quiet no one will ever notice. :chuckle:
| "The project of determining the precise boundaries between the kinds is not easy, because it is in essence a historical project, in which the evidence is strictly limited by the evidence available today. This problem is analogous to the problems in constructing phylogenetic trees, where evolutionary biologists struggle to determine which criteria should be used in determining how life is related." |
This is the complete list of creationist "Kinds" according to Creation Wiki:
| "Felidae — Scientists from Creation Ministries International and the Institute for Creation Research have proposed that the original feline kind was comparable to the Liger and the Tigon. Canidae — Including Wolves, Foxes, Jackals, Coyotes, and Domestic dogs. Camelidae — Including both the Camel and the Llama, which are reproductively compatible, their hybrid offspring being known as "Camas." Bovidae — Including Cattle, Buffalo, Bison, and Yaks. Equidae — Including Horses, Zebras, and *****. Caprinae — Including Sheep, Goats, and Ibex. Crocodilia — Including all the varieties of Alligators, Crocodiles, and Gharials. Elephantidae — Including African and Asian elephants, Mammoths, Mastodons, and Gomphotheres. Thus the created kind corresponds roughly to the family level of taxonomic classification, and possibly even the order, with the notable exception of humanity wherein the genus is representative.[10] Humanity — Dr. Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer of the University of Munich concluded that H. erectus/H. ergaster, Neanderthals and H. sapiens were members of the same basic type (which corresponds to a monobaramin) genus Homo." |
Jose Fly
New member
Based on what?
I thought you were leaving. :loser:
They are talking about the "project of determining the precise boundaries between the kinds," not the definition.
A common mistake among evolutionists. Definitions and classification programs are entirely different things.
One more matter of scientific importance that you have gotten dramatically wrong in this thread. You're yet to retract any of them.
It doesn't matter where an idea comes from. Those who think the origins of an idea are important are practicing a logical fallacy. I think evolutionists have been fooled by the name of the error — the genetic fallacy — which would explain why they keep using it. :chuckle:
alwight
New member
(Stripe thinks that this thread revolves around him.)
lain:
I was just waving you goodbye, not the thread, to stop me from having to gnaw my right arm off Stripe.
So you agree now that it isn't easy, good, progress.:up:
The confusion is all yours Stripe.:hammer:
Getting the Stripe Seal of Disapproval is actually not the same thing as being wrong, and probably quite the opposite in fact.
lain:
(Stripe thinks that this thread revolves around him.)I was just waving you goodbye, not the thread, to stop me from having to gnaw my right arm off Stripe. So you agree now that it isn't easy, good, progress.:up:The confusion is all yours Stripe.:hammer:Getting the Stripe Seal of Disapproval is actually not the same thing as being wrong, and probably quite the opposite in fact.
:darwinsm:
What a maroon. :wave2:
6days
New member
True....evolutionism has existed in various forms for more than 2000 years.alwight said:
Science has helped confirm the truth of God's Word, debunking many evolutionary beliefs along the way, such as "junk" DNA....transitional humans...."simple" cells, etc.alwight said:
Not entirely true. Rather, you interpret evidence in a way that supports your belief. Whether you are Hindu, Atheist, or Christian we all have the same observable evidence.alwight said:
I'm sure you are aware of atheists who held similar views, eventually coming to the realization they were being religious... not scientific. As atheists they were committed to not follow the evidence if it seemed to point to an Intelligent Creator. Science is the search for knowledge. ... not an unwillingness to follow the evidence to a Creator.alwight said:
That's the typical evolutionist response after the fact... when science proves the evolutionary assumptions wrong.alwight said:
For example...just a few years ago the fossil 'Ida' was hailed as an important transitional link leading to humans. Now that science has debunked that, evolutionists say 'Ida' was interesting but not important.
No... ha, I quoted a 2011 article that claimed it was new back then.... we are descendants of Neandertals.*alwight said:
Neandertals like us are humans, descendants of Adam and Eve... and we are descendants of them. Distinct people groups such as Neandertals are perfectly consistent with the Biblical model and observable science. *(While evolution from apes is an in observable belief and not science)alwight said:
alwight
New member
Perhaps we should stick to evolution by natural selection?
Junk DNA in the Bible? Really?
You really didn't need to capitalise the "a" in atheist here 6days, it isn't a proper noun just like "theist" but is unlike "Christian" and "Hindu" with all their many cultural traditions and doctrine based beliefs.
The word "atheist" simply describes someone who does not believe in gods, nothing more, just as you cannot know what religious beliefs a person has if all you know is that they are a "theist".
I may not see facts and evidence through your perhaps particularly thick industrial strength God-goggle lens 6days (YEC prescription no doubt?) but I do rather think I can see it more clearly and undistorted than you can. :sherlock:
Be sure to let me know when you have some God-specific Creator indicating evidence to show me.
That's rather how you can tell that science is working to peer review and falsify previous conclusions, and how science corrects its own interpretations if they are not totally accurate. If scientists were really stuck in a rut of evolutionary bias then no such corrections would ever happen and science would be in a mess.
I think some of us only have some Neanderthal DNA, but it's a gross overstatement to say we are descended from them, since clearly many of us are not.
So you say but since they lived and died out long before your supposed creation event, it isn't exactly the Bible according to YECs anyway.
Hmmm....
Abstract
Genetic diversity patterns in nuclear versus mitochondrial systems and in low versus high mutation rate systems do not support the hypothesis of a recent African origin for all of humanity following a split between Africans and non-Africans 100,000 years ago, nor do genetic distance data. Geographical analyses of nuclear and mitochondrial gene trees do not support the hypothesis of a recent global replacement of humans coming out of Africa, although a local replacement event in Europe is indicated by these analyses and recent studies on Neandertal DNA. The gene tree analyses instead indicate that genetic interchanges have ensured that all of humanity has evolved as a single evolutionary lineage with no major splits.
Curr Opin Genet Dev. 1997 Dec;7(6):841-7
A quick look at the literature a couple of decades old refutes that.
Jose Fly
New member
I didn't ask you where it came from; I know where it came from (the Bible).
But remember, we're talking science here. So my question is, what's the scientific basis for "groups of kinds"?
Jose Fly
New member
What in the world are you talking about? We know there are non-functional genetic sequences and "transitional" human fossils.
Stationary-earth geocentrists at ToL make the exact same argument.