User Tag List

Page 24 of 104 FirstFirst ... 14212223242526273474 ... LastLast
Results 346 to 360 of 1554

Thread: If Evolution

  1. #346
    Over 5000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,789
    Thanks
    1,049
    Thanked 3,734 Times in 2,235 Posts

    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1710241
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian
    The title of his paper refers to them as "transitional forms."
    Dr Wise states evolutionists deny the veracity of scripture: "It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis "


    Dr. Wise does not ever claim a fossil is actually transitional. He does says there is fossil evidence interpreted as transitional forms (by evolutionists) It is in the very first line of the abstract.
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    Tambora (January 12th, 2018)

  3. #347
    Over 2000 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,486
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 767 Times in 519 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    296198
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post

    The concept of tectonic plates was originated by a theologically informed scientist when he was in the coincidence of studying the Genesis texts on that AND saw some of the first pictures of earth from space, back in the 70s or whenever.
    You cannot even get the basic information correct. The concept of tectonic plates was first put forth as a coherent theory by Alfred Wegener in 1915. He wrote a small monograph "The Origin of Continents and Oceans". I have a copy of it. Go to your local college library. His theory was not accepted until the work of Bruce Heezen and Marie Tharp in the mid 1950's that evidence began to be discovered showing the mid-ocean ridge.

    I have no idea what the theology of Wegener, Heezen or Tharp was but I'd bet it had NO impact on their science.

    Oh, and a citation to the Brisbane Mayan calendar report if you please.

  4. #348
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    126
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 51 Times in 36 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11750
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Barbarian calls RD's bluff:
    What differences do you see that are greater than can be found within a single species of animal?

    Show us your list, and then we'll go on and see if we can find a transitional between Orohippus and whatever is next. It's a long series. Let's see what you've got.

    RD cuts and runs:


    He didn't last long. Any other creationist want to step up and try it?
    I'll give it a shot; actually, I'm still waiting on a response from you in regards to my last post in which I addressed your "known" transitional fossils. However, lets address the pictures in which you are referring in your post above.

    First, you must define what you mean by "species," because just like "kind," it is a very ambiguous term. They do look very similar, and as you said the differences could have happened within a single "species" of animal. But we must go a little deeper to see the ruse here do we not? Speciation has never been opposed by creation (at least it shouldn't be because we observe this constantly); however, there are some questions that need to be answered about the two examples that you have given. First, why have these two skeletons been scientifically classified in different families? If the differences could be have happened within a single “species”, why place them in a completely different class of family? There is no logical explanation as to why these two skeletons do not come from the same family. Aside from that, they are both dead, and they both died a long time ago. Other than that, they tell us nothing. Did they produce offspring? Were their parents something other than a similar creature? How long have they been dead? Science cannot answer any of those questions. It is impossible to answer those questions without fabricating information that has not been observed, ever.

  5. #349
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    13,717
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 715 Times in 633 Posts

    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    205730
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    You cannot even get the basic information correct. The concept of tectonic plates was first put forth as a coherent theory by Alfred Wegener in 1915. He wrote a small monograph "The Origin of Continents and Oceans". I have a copy of it. Go to your local college library. His theory was not accepted until the work of Bruce Heezen and Marie Tharp in the mid 1950's that evidence began to be discovered showing the mid-ocean ridge.

    I have no idea what the theology of Wegener, Heezen or Tharp was but I'd bet it had NO impact on their science.

    Oh, and a citation to the Brisbane Mayan calendar report if you please.




    No, the dates on what I'm talking about are about 200 years earlier; the same who had the 4 events linked to what we now call by sample names--Cambrian etc.

    btw, the same article that featured the Mayan calendar also discussed that the rock staples (to stablize structures) found at Naszca are only also found in modern Thailand, being used the same way.

    I don't see any point in sending you anything as long as you don't understand the presuppositional issues involved. There is nothing about the Bible that does not make sense once those are understood as such, which is why I wrote about Hyperborean element of the Third Reich's cosmology yesterday: they knew you either deny it all or dialecticize it so that the evil, gigantic, long-living people before the deluge were the 'good' guys.

    There are about 10 items in the bibliography I posted several months ago that relate to this topic. But as I said until you allow for the elements of the presupposition of it, what's the point? I'm not asking you to put a few odds and ends upon a basis that says God is not there, does not speak or act. Do you realize this and do you realize it would be stupid to try to do so?

    'All the mathematician can tell you is that X days from now, there will be X number of units accumulated there. They can never tell you what a psychic or detective or psychologist sees about the situation.'--C. S. Lewis, "Religion and Science" GOD IN THE DOCK.
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  6. #350
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    126
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 51 Times in 36 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11750
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Jennings View Post
    Never mind that there isn't enough water to do that

    But you know that...
    I hope that you are kidding here. If you could reverse the tectonic shifts and collisions that created the current mountain ranges and dropped the floor of the oceans there is enough water to submerge the planet up to 8,000 feet. The ice caps alone have enough water to raise sea levels by 200 feet if they melted. Flooding is still a major concern for scientists who subscribe to global warming.

  7. #351
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    8,422
    Thanks
    109
    Thanked 2,216 Times in 1,551 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    243690
    Quote Originally Posted by Veritas veritate View Post
    I'll give it a shot; actually, I'm still waiting on a response from you in regards to my last post in which I addressed your "known" transitional fossils.
    Sorry I missed it. Could you point me to the number of the post?

    However, lets address the pictures in which you are referring in your post above.

    First, you must define what you mean by "species," because just like "kind," it is a very ambiguous term. They do look very similar, and as you said the differences could have happened within a single "species" of animal.
    You have a good point. Would you be willing to use the accepted biological species definition? It works well for sexually reproducing organisms. Perhaps it would be best to use recognized mammalian species as a benchmark?

    But we must go a little deeper to see the ruse here do we not? Speciation has never been opposed by creation (at least it shouldn't be because we observe this constantly); however, there are some questions that need to be answered about the two examples that you have given.
    I'm aware of this. Hence, I'm using differences small enough that each step is acceptable to creationists.

    First, why have these two skeletons been scientifically classified in different families?
    Not families. Different genera. The hierarchy is: species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain. "Domain" is a fairly new idea, separating eukaryotes, bacteria, and archae.

    If the differences could be have happened within a single “species”, why place them in a completely different class of family?
    They didn't. These are different genera. You could make an argument for later Hyracotherium being almost the same as early Orohippus. It is precisely because evolution leads to speciation that classifications are messy.

    There is no logical explanation as to why these two skeletons do not come from the same family.
    They do. Although I'm pretty sure creationists admit Mesohippus into the "horse kind", it seems they don't allow Orohippus there. But as you see, they could be extreme varients of a single species.

    Aside from that, they are both dead, and they both died a long time ago.
    Evolutionary theory allows that. Extinction is a fact, and organisms that go extinct still existed in the past.

    Other than that, they tell us nothing.
    They tell us that the general trend in horse evolution (there were a lot of branches, and some didn't follow the general trend) is toward larger size, more robust teeth more adapted to grazing than browsing, reduction in toes and a less flexible spine.

    This occurred during a cooler and drier time in the Earth's history, when forest were reduced and grasslands spread widely. So it makes sense.

    Did they produce offspring?
    It only matters that some of them did, not the particular one that happened to fossilize.

    Were their parents something other than a similar creature?
    As Darwin pointed out, every organisms is slightly different than its parents.

    How long have they been dead?
    Depends on the fossil. Dating fossils is accurate in the context of geologic ages.

    Thanks for your answer. Let me know about your question that I missed.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  8. #352
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    8,422
    Thanks
    109
    Thanked 2,216 Times in 1,551 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    243690
    Barbarian observes:
    The title of his paper refers to them as "transitional forms."


    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    Dr Wise states evolutionists deny the veracity of scripture:
    No. He states that they deny his particular interpretation of scripture, as your quote makes clear:

    "It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis "

    He's an honest creationist. You could learn from him. However, you again dodged the point. Dr. Wise freely acknowledges that the horse series (among many others) is good evidence for evolution.

    In this thread, I'm now showing you why.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  9. #353
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    126
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 51 Times in 36 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11750
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Sorry I missed it. Could you point me to the number of the post?
    Sure, the post is #306, but it looks like we will be going over a good amount of what I covered there in our current discussion, which should be interesting. Thank you for taking the time to reply. I will have to give a better response to your post later. Right now I do not have access to my computer and trying to do advanced coding for quotes and such on my phone frustrates me to no end. I hope you can understand. I would also like to have a discussion on the age of the earth without touching the subject of biological evolution in a future thread if you are up to it.


    Sent from my iPhone using TOL

  10. #354
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    12,545
    Thanks
    9,827
    Thanked 17,342 Times in 9,759 Posts

    Blog Entries
    5
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147665

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Jennings View Post
    Do you think you're coming off smart here?

    You are literally flaunting your own ignorance.

    As a side note: thanks. You and your silly remarks are part of what keeps me coming back
    Smart enough to understand bone tricks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    You preach against me for preaching obedience to Christ for salvation.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

    Tambora (January 12th, 2018)

  12. #355
    Over 5000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,789
    Thanks
    1,049
    Thanked 3,734 Times in 2,235 Posts

    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1710241
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian
    No. He (Dr. Wise) states that they deny his particular interpretation of scripture, as your quote makes clear:

    "It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis "

    He's an honest creationist.
    Yes... He honestly believes that your belief system denies the veracity of Scripture. Because of that Dr. Wise does not believe fossils represent millions of years of change, but calls it an interpretation . He also says that the creationist interpretation is often a better fit to the evidence.
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    Tambora (January 12th, 2018)

  14. #356
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    8,422
    Thanks
    109
    Thanked 2,216 Times in 1,551 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    243690
    Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    Dr Wise states evolutionists deny the veracity of scripture:
    Barbarian observes:
    That's not true. He states that they deny his particular interpretation of scripture, as your quote makes clear:
    It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis

    He's an honest creationist.

    Yes... He honestly believes that your belief system denies the veracity of Scripture.
    But that's not what you claimed he said, was it?

    In spite of his beliefs, he openly acknowledges that the horse series is very good evidence for evolution, as he wrote in his paper Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  15. #357
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    8,422
    Thanks
    109
    Thanked 2,216 Times in 1,551 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    243690
    Quote Originally Posted by Veritas veritate View Post
    Sure, the post is #306, but it looks like we will be going over a good amount of what I covered there in our current discussion, which should be interesting. Thank you for taking the time to reply. I will have to give a better response to your post later. Right now I do not have access to my computer and trying to do advanced coding for quotes and such on my phone frustrates me to no end. I hope you can understand.
    No problem. Feel free to bring it up whenever it's convenient for you.

    I would also like to have a discussion on the age of the earth without touching the subject of biological evolution in a future thread if you are up to it.
    I'm a biologist, so I'm not an authority on the age of the earth. However, I do have a friend who is an expert in geochronology, so perhaps I can discuss it with a little help.
    Last edited by The Barbarian; November 30th, 2017 at 03:43 PM.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  16. #358
    Over 5000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,789
    Thanks
    1,049
    Thanked 3,734 Times in 2,235 Posts

    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1710241
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian
    He states that they (evolutionists) deny his particular interpretation of scripture, as your quote makes clear:
    It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis
    Ha... yes Dr Wise states "It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis".


    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian
    He's an honest creationist.
    Of course.

    * As an honest creationist he feels that you are denying the veracity of Scripture upon which the Gospel is based.

    * As an honest creationist he rejects interpretations of evidence that contradict God's Word such as transitional fossils.

    * As an honest creationist he discusses how scientific evidence supports the truth of God's Word and a young creation.

    * As an honest creationist, he has learned that evolution is not the only claim of modern 'science' which must be rejected if Scripture is assumed to be true.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian
    In spite of his beliefs, he openly acknowledges that the horse series is very good evidence for evolution, as he wrote in his paper Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms.
    Unlike the honest creationist, we now see the dishonest evolutionist. Wise does not consider the horse series to be transitional. After all, he believes God's Word and talks about how there is scientific evidence for the young earth... and how there are in some cases better explanations for the evidence than evolutionary explanations.
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    Tambora (January 12th, 2018)

  18. #359
    TOL Legend Arthur Brain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    13,472
    Thanks
    6,891
    Thanked 5,741 Times in 3,893 Posts

    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147729
    Quote Originally Posted by Right Divider View Post
    I've already shown you that your "facts" are not facts at all. And that your pretty pictures with their fake "information" are no better.

    You can continue to brag like a junior high-school kid, since that seems to make you feel all superior.
    Dude, your description to me about evolution was an "organism crawling out of a pile of poop" so give it up.

    You're the one acting like some kid who's been denied X Box privileges...

    Well this is fun isn't it?


  19. #360
    TOL Legend Ktoyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Alabama and Florida
    Posts
    9,365
    Thanks
    2,132
    Thanked 6,512 Times in 4,546 Posts

    Blog Entries
    7
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147711
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    like some kid who's been denied X Box privileges...

    Quote Originally Posted by marhig View Post
    Christian theology isn't to be in Christ.


    So, what?

    believe it!

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Ktoyou For Your Post:

    Tambora (January 12th, 2018)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us