Creation vs. Evolution

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, are you suggesting that all 400 Neanderthal skeletons found have been fabricated by fraudsters?

If not then your evidence of a tiny number of frauds will be outweighed by the number of frauds found in Christian ministries. Does the presence of pastors in prison show Christianity is bunk?

Did I suggest that all 400 Neanderthals have been fabricated?

Why don't you read what I wrote, again.

The fact is the first construction of Neanderthal was not a fact of science, it was science fiction along with Piltdown and Nebraska man.

I'll wait for a few more comments and I'll move on to other fossils that are believed to prove the evolution of man.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

@DFT... Yes there have been some interesting frauds and deceptions. But most of all it has been a case of evolutionists overselling their beliefs. They over emphasize human characteristics on apes and over emphasize human characteristics found on non human fossils.

For example..... Remember the hugs hype from 'Ida' a few years ago? There was a huge news conference and I think every network in the world made mention of this "important" transitional fossil. The hype dies quickly as other paleontologists realized this almost perfectly preserved fossil was simply an extinct lemur... about the size of a large house cat.

You mentioned Neandertals. Thats my favorite example showing how false evolutionary beliefs, interpret the evidence incorrectly. Its been a slow process, but good research has slowly proved the evolutionists wrong.

:up: --Dave

 

[noguru]

Hedshaker... I think you would agree that there are also highly educated Nobel Laureates who have "bought the God concept"?
But belief in a Divine Being or a Creator do not really effect operational science. Science is accomplished equally by be believers and atheists.

:rotfl:

I'd be curious to see how many of those theistic Nobel Prize winners are YECs as opposed to theistic evolutionists like me. You know the the type many YECs continuously question as being "real/not real" Christians.

 

[noguru]

:up: --Dave

I am not surprised two cowardly morons like you and 6gays agree on this issue.

 

[noguru]

Did I suggest that all 400 Neanderthals have been fabricated?

Why don't you read what I wrote, again.

The fact is the first construction of Neanderthal was not a fact of science, it was science fiction along with Piltdown and Nebraska man.

I'll wait for a few more comments and I'll move on to other fossils that are believed to prove the evolution of man.

--Dave

:rotfl:

Well if your first examples were actually significant we all might be interested in seeing more of what you have to offer. You see Dave having the courage to be honest with yourself does have an impact on the confidence other people place on your words. Simply labeling yourself "Christian" is not your "get out of jail free" card.

 

[DFT_Dave]

I am not surprised two cowardly morons like you and 6gays agree on this issue.

So, I guess you can't refute my last post.

--Dave

 

[noguru]

So, I guess you can't refute my last post.

--Dave

:rotfl:

Yes, Dave that's it. I think you are now in line for the next Nobel Prize.

:rotfl:

But just to entertain that spoiled little child in you can you tell me exactly what it is I need to refute in your last post?

Dave, do you go by the philosophy:

If one has nothing to offer, one can at least carry the pretense that their contributions are valuable.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Well if your first examples were actually significant we all might be interested in seeing more of what you have to offer. You see Dave having the courage to be honest with yourself does have an impact on the confidence other people place on your words. Simply labeling yourself "Christian" is not your "get out of jail free" card.

Does labeling one's self "an evolutionist" a "get out of jail free" card?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

:rotfl:

Yes, Dave that's it. I think you are now in line for the next Nobel Prize.

:rotfl:

But just to entertain that spoiled little child in you can you tell me exactly what it is I need to refute in your last post?

Dave, do you go by the philosophy:

You're right, there is nothing there to refute.

--Dave

 

[noguru]

Does labeling one's self "an evolutionist" a "get out of jail free" card?

--Dave

No. Where have I used anything of the sort?

Are you now pushing the envelope for how much of a mindless parrot you can be?

 

[noguru]

You're right, there is nothing there to refute.

--Dave

:rotfl:

Is this the same kind of lip service you give to the principle of honesty in Christianity?

 

[gcthomas]

Did I suggest that all 400 Neanderthals have been fabricated?

Why don't you read what I wrote, again.

The fact is the first construction of Neanderthal was not a fact of science, it was science fiction along with Piltdown and Nebraska man.

I'll wait for a few more comments and I'll move on to other fossils that are believed to prove the evolution of man.

--Dave

The modus operandus of science is to steadily improve its provisional conclusions, so it is very easy to find some issues over the detail of early tentative conclusions, even when the overall work was good. And the more recent the studies the more reliable they are, as you must accept since you routinely use recent reports to criticize older ones. This feature of Science, the systematic identification of weakness which leads to steady advances, is entirely absent in your assertion based religious opinion. Tell me Dave, what would it take to falsify your faith? Is there anything that could shake your confidence in it? A willingness to improve and correct is a strength, even if you try to use it against science. Referring to old, incomplete papers will not harm modern conclusions that are based on better evidence.

 

[6days]

The modus operandus of science is to steadily improve its provisional conclusions, so it is very easy to find some issues over the detail of early tentative conclusions, even when the overall work was good.

That is totally true GC. However, we are talking about examples where the "overall work" was shoddy (or even fraudulent in some cases) based on a belief system....not based on science.

 

[noguru]

That is totally true GC. However, we are talking about examples where the "overall work" was shoddy (or even fraudulent in some cases) based on a belief system....not based on science.

What belief system serves as a basis for those "shoddy (or even fraudulent cases)"?

Have you ever tried to turn that same light of critical analysis around and point it at your chosen methodology?

At any rate, your objections here do not change the overall progress of science. If the shoddy (or sometimes fraudulent work) were the only evidence we use then you might have a point. But in reality such cases are either due to old corrected errors, or a very small portion of the vast and current amount of evidence.

Do you really think one is justified in rejecting all of science simply because you have found some human error in past research?

Oh no, that's right. You only want us to reject scientific conclusions that contradict your attempts to get your specific interpretation of Genesis taught as accurate science.

What do you call a fraud who accuses another less fraudulent discipline of being "fraudulent"?

 

[DFT_Dave]

The modus operandus of science is to steadily improve its provisional conclusions, so it is very easy to find some issues over the detail of early tentative conclusions, even when the overall work was good. And the more recent the studies the more reliable they are, as you must accept since you routinely use recent reports to criticize older ones. This feature of Science, the systematic identification of weakness which leads to steady advances, is entirely absent in your assertion based religious opinion. Tell me Dave, what would it take to falsify your faith? Is there anything that could shake your confidence in it? A willingness to improve and correct is a strength, even if you try to use it against science. Referring to old, incomplete papers will not harm modern conclusions that are based on better evidence.

The fossil and geologic record, it will either say creation and flood or it will say evolution and uniformitarianism.

--Dave

 

[noguru]

The fossil and geologic record, it will either say creation and flood or it will say evolution and uniformitarianism.

--Dave

Dave, do you understand what "uniformitarianism" is?

Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It has included the gradualistic concept that "the present is the key to the past" and is functioning at the same rates. Uniformitarianism has been a key principle of geology and virtually all fields of science, but naturalism's modern geologists, while accepting that geology has occurred across deep time, no longer hold to a strict gradualism.

From here.

Your black and white thinking is failing you again. Also you need to brush up on the difference between uniformitarianism and strict gradualism. It would help your understanding and perhaps your argument if you actually made a real effort to review this subject matter before pretending to understand.

 

[alwight]

I've seen Richard Dawkins on several videos and I speak from experience!
Perhaps you would agree with me that he is full of hot air?

Yes, we might agree that some people can be irritating for whatever reasons.

For me Lee Strobel seems to have nothing more than his "infectious" enthusiasm (read "tedious") to share with us the sound of his own voice while at least Richard Dawkins also has science, evidence and falsifiable conclusions as a second string to his bow. Not that creationists will be interested in any of that of course.


(I do realise than some people find Richard Dawkins voice somewhat "tedious")

 

[DFT_Dave]

Richard Leakey
“There is now clear evidence that in eastern Africa a large brained, truly upright and bipedal form of the genus Homo existed contemporaneously with Australopithecus more than 2.5 million years ago.”​

"Ancient bones found in Africa have been assembled into a skull that may extend man's immediate ancestry back more than one million years earlier than previously believed. The fragments, making up a skull with striking resemblances to that of modern man, were found in a layer of material that had been deposite about 2.6 million years ago.

Richard Leaky, co-leader of the expedition that found the bones, said the skull seemed to displace two other man-like creatures widely thought to represent the early stages in man's development. One of them, a beetle-browed type known as Homo erectus lived far more recently—a million years ago—yet is less like modern man than the lately found skull.

The other reputed ancestor, Australopithecus, an ape-like "man" that walked relatively erect, lived 2.5 to 3 million years ago. It now appears to have been a contemporary of the more modern-looking type, rather than ancestral to the men of today." --The New York Times, November 1972​

Skull KNM-ER 1470 and leg fragment KNM-ER 1481 originally dated 2.5 to 3 m.y.a. resemble modern humans and were more likely than Afarensis Lucy to have left the Laetoli foot prints dated just over 3 m.y.a.

The changes made in the dating of skull 1470 since the original dates were established demonstrate how theory comes before facts in the theory of evolution. Putting 1470 along side "Lucy" takes australopithecines out of the picture of human evolution and provides evidence for creation.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, do you understand what "uniformitarianism" is?

From here.

Your black and white thinking is failing you again. Also you need to brush up on the difference between uniformitarianism and strict gradualism. It would help your understanding and perhaps your argument if you actually made a real effort to review this subject matter before pretending to understand.

I think you should wait until we get to that subject before you make a whole lot of false assumptions as to what I know?

--Dave

 

[6days]

The changes made in the dating of skull 1470 since the original dates were established demonstrate how theory comes before facts in the theory of evolution.

It demonstrates a belief system that is not falsifiable.