Creation vs. Evolution

[DavisBJ]

So I watched, and you are correct that they didn't find the part of Ambulocetus's skull where the nasal opening was. What they did find was the top of the skull until about halfway down the upper jaw, and also the entire lower jaw (which is how they know exactly how long the snout was). So yes, the part of Ambulocetus skulls on display do all have casts that make up the end of the snout, for the sake of not displaying a skull that is missing half of its top jaw. That you are spot on about.

The problem comes when you say that they fabricated a blowhole. They didn't fabricate a blowhole, they fabricated a nasal passage on the nose, roughly in the same spot that modern crocodiles have. Those are just meant to be nostrils. If you look at a whale or porpoise, you'll notice that blowholes are always on the top of the head, not on the nose. If scientists had wanted to fabricate Ambulocetus to make it more whale-like, they would drilled a blowhole in the top of the head, but that's not what they did.

For Rhodocetus, I'll check into your claim momentarily, but I just want to first point out that you don't need flippers or a tail to identify a cetacean ancestor. The gradual transition of the earbone in the skull is what they normally use to determine whale relatives, as all primarily aquatic mammals exhibit the finger-boned fins that whales do.
Good post, though. You correctly pointed something out instead of doing dishonest things. Respect

Are you aware that modern whales have finger bones inside of their fins? That's why reconstructions of cetaceans that have missing fins are given fingerbones

Kdall, I see you respond here with some information that needs to be seriously looked at. But I find it more than a little difficult to critically evaluate this when I just had to wade through an extended series of infantile exchanges between you and StanJ. When your opponent wants you to get in the gutter of name-calling and throwing gratuitous insults, then the gutter is exactly the place you should not go. Anyone honestly evaluating what is said in these threads can see who holds their position based on credible logic (or faith, or some of each). But face it, the way a poster conducts himself is no minor factor either.

 

[Kdall]

Kdall, I see you respond here with some information that needs to be seriously looked at. But I find it more than a little difficult to critically evaluate this when I just had to wade through an extended series of infantile exchanges between you and StanJ. When your opponent wants you to get in the gutter of name-calling and throwing gratuitous insults, then the gutter is exactly the place you should not go. Anyone honestly evaluating what is said in these threads can see who holds their position based on credible logic (or faith, or some of each). But face it, the way a poster conducts himself is no minor factor either.

To be honest, I've somewhat given up on the idea of convincing any established young Earther here of anything. It's just not possible when you won't even examine real scientific evidence honestly and objectively. Am I proud of letting my exasperation with Stan get the best of me and making repeatedly more sarcastic comments? No. But after trying for days unsuccessfully to get him just to say he would look at information from a reliable source, I gave up on reasoning and spoke the only language that he understood back to him

 

[MichaelCadry]

To be honest, I've somewhat given up on the idea of convincing any established young Earther here of anything. It's just not possible when you won't even examine real scientific evidence honestly and objectively. Am I proud of letting my exasperation with Stan get the best of me and making repeatedly more sarcastic comments? No. But after trying for days unsuccessfully to get him just to say he would look at information from a reliable source, I gave up on reasoning and spoke the only language that he understood back to him

Dear Kdall,

You know that God said He created things in 6 days and rested on the 7th. He created male and female. And He called their name Adam in the day they were created. You want to believe evolution and creation. You want your cake and eat it too! Out of reverence to God, we choose to believe what He says in Gen. 1 about the Creation. Is that so wrong. At least we are acknowledging what God told Moses. Now you want to believe that man was evolved, right? You've got a long mountain to climb.

May He Be With You!!

Michael

:wazzup:

:think:

 

[noguru]

Which means you are worse than a broken clock because you're NEVER right, just supercilious.

:rotfl:

Oh the irony, it is too much sometimes.

Well Stanj, you are certainly entertaining.

:rotfl:

 

[alwight]

Well from your POV probably, but not from the Christian POV. In any event, even Carl Sagan wrote about the need to investigate the science you believe. It wasn't that he believed in God in any way, but did expect to be sure of what He believed.
In my case, I am sure....are you?

Being sure is one thing, however, being right is another.
No, I am not sure, I don't claim to know any such ultimate answers anyway, which is rather the whole point. I believe that such answers are in all probability unknowable.
You claiming that you do know, based apparently on little more than a pre-concluded assumption of inerrancy of an ancient scripture, gives me the right to suspect that what you may think of as sure knowledge is actually nothing of the kind.
Anyone believing they have such knowledge, theistic or atheistic, is imo clearly deluding themselves.

 

[noguru]

Dear Kdall,

You know that God said He created things in 6 days and rested on the 7th. He created male and female. And He called their name Adam in the day they were created. You want to believe evolution and creation. You want your cake and eat it too! Out of reverence to God, we choose to believe what He says in Gen. 1 about the Creation. Is that so wrong. At least we are acknowledging what God told Moses. Now you want to believe that man was evolved, right? You've got a long mountain to climb.

May He Be With You!!

Michael

:wazzup:

:think:

Do you sincerely believe that God wants us, out of reverence for Him, to ignore all the empirical evidence around us? Rather than actually try to understand the text within its proper context?

 

[noguru]

Being sure is one thing, however, being right is another.
No, I am not sure, I don't claim to know any such ultimate answers anyway, which is rather the whole point. I believe that such answers are in all probability unknowable.
You claiming that you do know, based apparently on little more than a pre-concluded assumption of inerrancy of an ancient scripture, gives me the right to suspect that what you may think of as sure knowledge is actually nothing of the kind.
Anyone believing they have such knowledge, theistic or atheistic, is imo clearly deluding themselves.

As I have said before, YEC have no problem sacrificing accuracy, for a perceived smug feeling of certainty.

 

[noguru]

i found this interesting -


from biblehub - commentary from David Huzik -

4. The fossil discoveries of our “human ancestors” such as Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, and Homo Erectus show that the search for our “human ancestors” has been one filled with dishonest science and wishful thinking.

a. Quoting Johnson: “The psychological atmosphere that surrounds the viewing of hominid fossils is uncannily reminiscent of the veneration of relics at a medieval shrine.” In 1984, the American Museum of Natural History held an unprecedented showing of original fossils said to depict human evolution titled Ancestors.

b. From Johnson: “The ‘priceless and fragile relics’ were carried by anxious curators in first-class airplane seats and brought to the Museum in a VIP motorcade of limousines with police escort. Inside the Museum, the relics were placed behind bullet-proof glass to be admired by a select preview audience of anthropologists, who spoke in hushed voices because ‘It was like discussing theology in a cathedral.’ A sociologist observing this ritual of the anthropologist tribe remarked, ‘Sounds like ancestor worship to me.’ ”

c. Solly Zuckerman is a committed evolutionist and one of Britain’s most influential scientists. He also regards much of the fossil evidence for human evolution as nonsense. Zuckerman has subjected key fossils to years of biometric testing and declares that the idea that they walked and ran upright is flimsy wishful thinking. He remarked that the record of reckless speculation in the field of human origins “is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field at all.” (Johnson)

d. “The story of human descent from apes is not merely a scientific hypothesis; it is the secular equivalent of the story of Adam and Eve, and a matter of immense cultural importance. Propagating the story requires illustrations, museum exhibits, and television reenactments. It also requires a priesthood, in the form of thousands of researchers, teachers, and artists who provide realistic and imaginative detail and carry the story out to the general public .... The scientific priesthood that has authority to interpret the official creation story gains immense cultural influence thereby, which it might lose if the story were called into question. The experts therefore have a vested interest in protecting the story, and in imposing rules of reasoning that make it invulnerable. When critics ask, ‘Is your theory really true?’ we should not be satisfied to be answered that ‘it is good science, as we define science’.” (Johnson)

e. Evolutionists are not interested in testing if their theory is true. They simply believe once you ignore the creating hand of God, it is the only explanation available, so their job is to figure out how it works, not if it is true.

5. Why is evolution so universally believed today?

a. In the 1920’s, a former substitute teacher in a Tennessee school volunteered to be the defendant in a case meant to challenge a state law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in the public schools. The teacher wasn’t even sure he had taught evolution, but the trial went ahead.

b. Prosecuting the case was William Jennings Bryan, former Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson, and a three-time Democratic candidate for President. Bryan believed in the Bible, but not literally. He thought the “days” of Genesis referred not to 24-hour days, but to historical ages of indefinite duration. Leading the defense was Clarence Darrow, a famous criminal lawyer and agnostic lecturer. Darrow maneuvered Bryan to take the stand as an expert witness on the Bible, and he humiliated Bryan in a devastating cross-examination. Once that purpose was accomplished, Darrow pleaded guilty on behalf of his client and paid a $100 fine.

c. The trial was therefore inconclusive, but the “Scopes Monkey Trial” was presented to the world by sarcastic journalist H.L. Mencken, Broadway, and Hollywood, and was a huge public relations triumph for Darwinism. People who believed in God’s creation came to be thought of as fools and hicks, and evolution was given the veneer of respectability. Combine this with a strong anti-supernaturalism on the part of many scientists and educators, and today’s acceptance of evolution is understandable.

d. The same attitude is used to squelch debate and questions about evolution today. “When outsiders question whether the theory of evolution is as secure as we have been led to believe, we are firmly told that such questions are out of order. The arguments among the experts are said to be about matters of detail, such as the precise time scale and the mechanism of evolutionary transformations. These disagreements are signs not of crisis but of healthy creative ferment within the field, and in any case there is no room for doubt whatever about something called the ‘fact’ of evolution.” (Johnson) - david guzik - biblehub -

That's a very interesting spin on all that. Who would you say is more likely to be deceiving us?

I know from my past experiences that it is YECs 99% of the time who think that the goal of converting others is more important than the means of a proper methodology for epistemology. Now this might be a person who falls into that slim %1, but I certainly doubt it, based on past claims I have seen made consistently by YECs. They do not even admit when they are wrong. I don't have much confidence in that.

 

[noguru]

So I watched, and you are correct that they didn't find the part of Ambulocetus's skull where the nasal opening was. What they did find was the top of the skull until about halfway down the upper jaw, and also the entire lower jaw (which is how they know exactly how long the snout was). So yes, the part of Ambulocetus skulls on display do all have casts that make up the end of the snout, for the sake of not displaying a skull that is missing half of its top jaw. That you are spot on about.

The problem comes when you say that they fabricated a blowhole. They didn't fabricate a blowhole, they fabricated a nasal passage on the nose, roughly in the same spot that modern crocodiles have. Those are just meant to be nostrils. If you look at a whale or porpoise, you'll notice that blowholes are always on the top of the head, not on the nose. If scientists had wanted to fabricate Ambulocetus to make it more whale-like, they would drilled a blowhole in the top of the head, but that's not what they did.

For Rhodocetus, I'll check into your claim momentarily, but I just want to first point out that you don't need flippers or a tail to identify a cetacean ancestor. The gradual transition of the earbone in the skull is what they normally use to determine whale relatives, as all primarily aquatic mammals exhibit the finger-boned fins that whales do.
Good post, though. You correctly pointed something out instead of doing dishonest things. Respect

Are you aware that modern whales have finger bones inside of their fins? That's why reconstructions of cetaceans that have missing fins are given fingerbones

I find it amazing that YECs have no problem spreading these attempts at deception. And when the deceit is pointed out, they neither acknowledge their error nor correct it in the future. But yet they want others to have confidence in their claims.

:rotfl:

 

[The Barbarian]

I know from my past experiences that it is YECs 99% of the time who think that the goal of converting others is more important than the means of a proper methodology for epistemology.

They accept Luther's idea that a "good strong lie" for God would be all right.

 

[Stripe]

They accept Luther's idea that a "good strong lie" for God would be all right.

Speaking of liars, you pretend that your "billions of years" is compatible with the Bible, which says: "Six days."

 

[noguru]

Speaking of liars, you pretend that your "billions of years" is compatible with the Bible, which says: "Six days."

Neither Barbarian or I lie about how the use of 6 days in Genesis is not a scientific account of origins. You are lying by claiming that is what we are doing. But that is certainly your MO.

 

[alwight]

Speaking of liars, you pretend that your "billions of years" is compatible with the Bible, which says: "Six days."

Except that Barbarian does not mindlessly adhere to written words that were probably never intended to be presumed as literal or historically accurate, while you do.

 

[Stripe]

Except that Barbarian does not mindlessly adhere to written words that were probably never intended to be presumed as literal or historically accurate, while you do.

:yawn:

Meanwhile, Barbarian claims that "six days" is compatible with his "billions of years." He denies what the Bible plainly teaches; an attempt to keep his religion afloat.

That he has atheists leaping to his defense over such a matter shows just how desperate both groups are.

 

[noguru]

:yawn:

Meanwhile, Barbarian claims that "six days" is compatible with his "billions of years." He denies what the Bible plainly teaches; an attempt to keep his religion afloat.

That he has atheists leaping to his defense over such a matter shows just how desperate both groups are.

:yawn:

I see some atheists leaping to your defense in claiming Genesis was meant to be a literal scientific account of origins. You seem to like it when they leap to your defense. But this is just another example of your deceit and double standard.

Sometimes atheists are accurate though. Like when Alwight posted this.

Except that Barbarian does not mindlessly adhere to written words that were probably never intended to be presumed as literal or historically accurate, while you do.

He is right in this regard. You do "mindlessly adhere" and then you try to compensate by creating a facade of being clever. I have to admit that you have a lot of people hoodwinked, just like most snake oil salesmen.

 

[The Barbarian]

I see some atheists leaping to your defense in claiming Genesis was meant to be a literal scientific account of origins. You seem to like it when they leap to your defense. But this is just another example of your deceit and double standard.

Luther once wrote that God would not mind a "good strong lie" if it was for a good cause. It seems as though Stipe has taken that as his credo.

 

[alwight]

:yawn:

Meanwhile, Barbarian claims that "six days" is compatible with his "billions of years." He denies what the Bible plainly teaches; an attempt to keep his religion afloat.

That he has atheists leaping to his defense over such a matter shows just how desperate both groups are.

Fortunately I at least don't have to worry about whether science may seem conflict with an ancient scripture. I can however see the totemic value in allegory and metaphor but also the dangers within mindless adherence. lain:

BTW I see that Sherman is once again helping you out.

 

[noguru]

Fortunately I at least don't have to worry about whether science may seem conflict with an ancient scripture. I can however see the totemic value in allegory and metaphor but also the dangers within mindless adherence. lain:

BTW I see that Sherman is once again helping you out.

Yes, Sherman is a gem.

:rotfl:

A stand up kind of guy.

:rotfl:

 

[Stripe]

Fortunately I at least don't have to worry about whether science may seem conflict with an ancient scripture.

Nobody cares about your problems.

I can however see the totemic value in allegory and metaphor but also the dangers within mindless adherence.

Neither of which have anything to do with the situation. Barbarian reads the Bible, which says "six days," and demands that it is compatible with "billions of years." This eliminates him from a rational discussion. You tolerate this nonsense because you share his religion.

 

[noguru]

Nobody cares about your problems.

Nobody cares about your emotional/intellectual problems. But you keep leaving a mess around here as a result of them.