Evolution question of the day (Adam and Eve, curse, experiences, genesis)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe man has always been man, and at no time did they come from another species. I do not believe that they came from some past primitive life form. I believe that evolution occurs to a degree. How tall we are can be changed by diet, and skin color can be changed by the climate we find ourselves in. Yet, that is about it, and not much more.
This is at least progress. When one is convicted by belief for whatever reason while ignoring all the evidence, it thus removes you from the debate.
This needs repeating
Quote:
I believe that evolution occurs to a degree. How tall we are can be changed by diet, and skin color can be changed by the climate we find ourselves in.
The creationist must accept evolution to an extent to support the "after its kind" of genesis' flood as the ark could never hold all the animals.
Not to stray off topic, please can you explain how we are able to adjust our height by diet and and skin color simply by climate? Based on your YEC claims and sp. the 4k flood scenario, and what we know in history of recent human migration - let's take Africa. I am a 7th generation "settler" spanning some 200 years and I am white. My kids are white and in fact my daughter has long straight blonde hair taking on my ancient dutch and German heritage. She is already nealy 6' tall at 16 taking on the tall Hollander heritage from my mother's side.
Based on your logic in my daughters case (8th) there should now be a 5% evolutionary adjustment to her genetic make up if climate was it. How about your African Americans? Are they getting whiter/"redder" (depending on who you think are natives)
This is a way creationists try and fit the many races that exist to the flood myth of only 8 people. (those darn black Africans are really a fly in the YEC ointment aren't they?)
The only color variance we have in Africa is where Europeans and have cross bred with the native Africans - much like your white slave owners did with their black slaves in the south.
Quote:
The travesty occurs, when you ignore hard evidence, and embrace assumptions.
True
Quote:
And there is more hard evidence out there then the figurines of El Toro Mountain.
Sadly the figurines is all that you have - artwork suggesting coexistence yet no fossils ever found with human ingested bones.
The dilemma you are now faced with, we have proven over and over the flood was not global, what made the dino's suddenly go extinct? It's not like there are only a few fossils.
Want a living transitional? Seems our legged fish drew no response from you.
The bizarre appearance of this egg-laying, venomous, duck-billed, beaver-tailed, otter-footed mammal baffled European naturalists when they first encountered it, with some considering it an elaborate fraud. It is one of the few venomous mammals; the male Platypus has a spur on the hind foot that delivers a venom capable of causing severe pain to humans.
So is it a bird, a reptile, mammal or a fish? What "kind" is this? Or was God just messing with our minds when He made this critter?
The travesty occurs, when you American YEC's ignore hard evidence, and embrace assumptions.
Apart from Dr Bortolet who was convicted of fraud, do you have any LIVE scientists? The rest of the scientists you list are all dead, so they can't refute what Creationist sites are claiming in their name. And I can't find ANY mention of any of these scientists in relation to this Collection, apart from Creationist sites.
Don't be silly, YEC use historical or archaic figures to argue against science.
Maybe you should do all the marsupials in Aus as you are closer to the evidence. Be interesting how that "kind" with all it's diversity would say have minor changes between the different types.
Maybe you should do all the marsupials in Aus as you are closer to the evidence. Be interesting how that "kind" with all it's diversity would say have minor changes between the different types.
I think you know more than I do in this area. But Australia certainly does have some strange-looking creatures...both real and mythical. (Yowie, Dropbear etc)
This is at least progress. When one is convicted by belief for whatever reason while ignoring all the evidence, it thus removes you from the debate.
This needs repeating
The creationist must accept evolution to an extent to support the "after its kind" of genesis' flood as the ark could never hold all the animals.
Not to stray off topic, please can you explain how we are able to adjust our height by diet and and skin color simply by climate? Based on your YEC claims and sp. the 4k flood scenario, and what we know in history of recent human migration - let's take Africa. I am a 7th generation "settler" spanning some 200 years and I am white. My kids are white and in fact my daughter has long straight blonde hair taking on my ancient dutch and German heritage. She is already nealy 6' tall at 16 taking on the tall Hollander heritage from my mother's side.
Based on your logic in my daughters case (8th) there should now be a 5% evolutionary adjustment to her genetic make up if climate was it. How about your African Americans? Are they getting whiter/"redder" (depending on who you think are natives)
This is a way creationists try and fit the many races that exist to the flood myth of only 8 people. (those darn black Africans are really a fly in the YEC ointment aren't they?)
The only color variance we have in Africa is where Europeans and have cross bred with the native Africans - much like your white slave owners did with their black slaves in the south.
True
Sadly the figurines is all that you have - artwork suggesting coexistence yet no fossils ever found with human ingested bones.
The dilemma you are now faced with, we have proven over and over the flood was not global, what made the dino's suddenly go extinct? It's not like there are only a few fossils.
Want a living transitional? Seems our legged fish drew no response from you.
The bizarre appearance of this egg-laying, venomous, duck-billed, beaver-tailed, otter-footed mammal baffled European naturalists when they first encountered it, with some considering it an elaborate fraud. It is one of the few venomous mammals; the male Platypus has a spur on the hind foot that delivers a venom capable of causing severe pain to humans.
So is it a bird, a reptile, mammal or a fish? What "kind" is this? Or was God just messing with our minds when He made this critter?
The travesty occurs, when you American YEC's ignore hard evidence, and embrace assumptions.
If we look to the fossil reccord the Platypus is found consistently throughout, but show no signs of change other than size. So, it appears to be wonderfully made to fit into its environment. It functuion perfectly. It's bill is well suited for the type of food it eats. It appears to be well designed. Or in other words it is an example of another perfect creation by God, fully functioning the way it was created to be.
If we look to the fossil reccord the Platypus is found consistently throughout, but show no signs of change other than size. So, it appears to be wonderfully made to fit into its environment. It functuion perfectly. It's bill is well suited for the type of food it eats. It appears to be well designed. Or in other words it is an example of another perfect creation by God, fully functioning the way it was created to be.
But it is a transition in progress? You are expecting it to change suddenly? That is not how evolution works.
I do wish you would back up your claims with links.
The Platypus and other monotremes were very poorly understood and some of the 19th century myths that grew up around them—for example, that the monotremes were "inferior" or quasi-reptilian—still endure.[48] In 1947, William King Gregory theorised that placental mammals and marsupials may have diverged earlier and a subsequent branching divided the monotremes and marsupials, but later research and fossil discoveries have suggested this is incorrect.[48][49] In fact, modern monotremes are the survivors of an early branching of the mammal tree, and a later branching is thought to have led to the marsupial and placental groups.[50][48]
The oldest discovered fossil of the modern Platypus dates back to about 100,000 years ago, during the Quaternary period. The extinct monotremes (Teinolophos and Steropodon) were closely related to the modern Platypus.[49] The fossilised Steropodon was discovered in New South Wales and is composed of an opalised lower jawbone with three molar teeth (whereas the adult contemporary Platypus is toothless). The molar teeth were initially thought to be tribosphenic, which would have supported a variation of Gregory's theory, but later research has suggested that, while they have three cusps, they evolved under a separate process.[16] The fossil is thought to be about 110 million years old, which means that the Platypus-like animal was alive during the Cretaceous period, making it the oldest mammal fossil found in Australia. Monotrematum sudamericanum, another fossil relative of the Platypus, has been found in Argentina, indicating that monotremes were present in the supercontinent of Gondwana when the continents of South America and Australia were joined via Antarctica (up to about 167 million years ago).[16][51]
Because of the early divergence from the therian mammals and the low numbers of extant monotreme species, it is a frequent subject of research in evolutionary biology. In 2004, researchers at the Australian National University discovered the Platypus has ten sex chromosomes, compared with two (XY) in most other mammals (for instance, a male Platypus is always XYXYXYXYXY).[52] Although given the XY designation of mammals, the sex chromosomes of the Platypus are more similar to the ZZ/ZW sex chromosomes found in birds.
So if the fossils as you claim remain unchanged, the age of the fossils are OK with you then?
(Which, clearly, shows a plantoid-animalic transitional form. You can grow it right in your home, and see it, unlike us hoaxy scientist fraud type's pseudo-evidence! What's not to believe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
I believe man has always been man, and at no time did they come from another species. I do not believe that they came from some past primitive life form. I believe that evolution occurs to a degree. How tall we are can be changed by diet, and skin color can be changed by the climate we find ourselves in. Yet, that is about it, and not much more.
Again, Tom, thanks for proving my point that you do not understand even the basic definition of Evolution, yet you fight it so diligently. This is not honorable, Tom. It's stupid.
An organism's height, very much influenced by the nutritional ingredients available to them during their youth, coupled with their hereditary height traits, has...
(Oh wait for it... I gotta go find the hyper-bold text form here...):
"NUTTIN' TAH DO WITH EVOLUTION!"
(Let's try some different language forms
"Body height change in one generation has nothing, old chap, to do with Evolution! Rawlly, old boy... get it right for a change Go to school perhaps?!"
riflemen, (Actually, Tom, I know I'm bigger than life, but there is only one of me, I'm not a global conspiracy.... it's rifleman!) the El Toro collection, has been tested four times now, and each test shows ancient. How many times will they have to be tested until you agree with the results?
Three were by the wrong technique, and one was done too long ago with no report filed anywhere! How does anyone, even you, know if it was done right, Tom?
I'll reconsider when they do it right, with today's equipment, and where it's then not easily picked apart as to technique and the scientific credibility of the testers.
Or do you support Hoax Work as a general rule, Tom?
I've offered to pay to get it done right, by techniques which, BTW, you usually call a hoax. But when they are used incorrectly, as they were here, they are suddenly accurate. How does that go again?
Anyone can claim anything these days on the 'Net, Tom. You know that. and yet, you still choose to just outright believe anything and everything from such luminary sites like AiG who have been proven to be liars..
Me? I'm not so gullible, and I also know exactly how science works.
I'll revise my understanding of these fraud toys when they use the correct methodology (which I'll be the judge of, not you, 'cause you've proved you don't know "beans" about correct dating methodologies). I'll believe it then.
You? You're happy to accept WHATEVER AiG says. They lie, you say "OK". How's that been working' for you so far, Tom?
I've not been shown any links to a verified and accredited scientific study report, just AiG's relentless nonsense and some names and credentials which (see notes above from JayAmx on your aclaimed Dr. Bortolet as a shining example...) usually prove to be the real hoaxes here.
You? You just re-cite them a few days or weeks later. Stunning debating technique, Tom.
It's simple, Tom. Just link me to that accurate dating study. Link me to that study. Link me to that study. (Is he getting it?)
And you're so right, science no longer does investigate things, especially if the finding could put another nail in the coffin of evolution.
"Science no longer does investigate things". Another classic (and easily disproved) statement, Tom. Say, give me your address and I'll grant you a year's subscription to Scientific American.
We just don't chase cars like a rabid dog does. No need. Why re-prove proven things, Tom? We see no need in wasting time and funding on nonsense that outright disproves (again and again) your erroneous and invalid ideas.
You, by comparison, believe anything that AiG says. Anything. At all. Valid, erroneous, invalid, outright lies, hoaxes, frauds, etc. Anything, 'long as it supports YEC dogma.
So I guess you have fully embraced the science of ASSUMPTIONS.
Really? Where can I read about that? It's patently illogical on its face, since, by definition, Science NEVER makes assumptions. But then, you have NO UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE, so your statements about it have the validity of a cow f@rt in a Nebraska windstorm.
And of course, that is your main evidence for the Theory of Evolution. And that is why you can not produce transionals that would be the slam dunk for evolution.
Again, you simply ignore, as I so well pointed out in my last post. Thanks for that!
I provide a lot of transitional form info, you say I didn't. I've tried to educate you about dating techniques and even their limitations, which science so openly admits. You use that against us. I ask you to read simple links; you won't. So I lowered them to the level of Sunday School picture books, and you ignore even those.
So... You're quite the convincing debator, aren't yah? Are your co-conspirators (family & friends) proud of what you accomplish here, Tom?
Say... I wonder if there's something wrong with your Internet connection and you can't access what we all are psoting here? You think? Seems like that's gotta be the case, 'cause you surely aren't apparently getting the stuff we post!
The travesty occurs, when you ignore hard evidence, and embrace assumptions.
Boy, finally! What a mouthful, and straight from the HORSE! You've FINALLY learned, Tom! Huzzah, Huzzah; God in Heaven, & Praise The Lord!
I gotta highlight & copy that one, Tom. Thanks!
The travesty occurs, when you ignore hard evidence, and embrace assumptions.
The travesty occurs, when you ignore hard evidence, and embrace assumptions.
The travesty occurs, when you ignore hard evidence, and embrace assumptions.
The travesty occurs, when you ignore hard evidence, and embrace assumptions.
The travesty occurs, when you ignore hard evidence, and embrace assumptions.
And there is more hard evidence out there then the figurines of El Toro Mountain.
A tantalizer, Tom? "More hard evidence" for what, exactly? That men cuddled with T-Rexs in warm friendly caves, and fed them tid-bits of nicely cooked tilapia on a stick while the 'Rexs purred contentedly and drempt of a Vegan diet on an Ark?
Or that Noah convinced a minimum of 70 million animals (and no plants) onto his flimsy wooden Ark, and set sail for 18 mo without any food or water supplies? And that, when they all got off, they magically (of course!) then set to the easy task of completely re-populating an ecologically devastated planet, though all the plant life was salt-soaked, dead and inedible?
And thus Evolution's "only a theory!"???
Of course! My (and science's..) logic is "off the ball"? I understand, Tom. Now take your meds.
Yep. That's logical and believable.
(Oh, BTW, what about those necessary 70 million Ark boarders? Still waiting.)
Is this what a dinosaur with a tail like a middle eastern cedar tree might look like?
Who said it was a middle eastern cedar. The story of Job has no known location. The names given do not relate to modern locations. Job could have lived in Canada for all we know!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cr@p-Fest Revisited...
I'm surprized you still hang out here ??? 
