TheologyOnline, religion, politics, forum
Go Back   Theology Online | Christian Forums & More > Politics, Religion, And The Rest > Religion
Reload this Page Pat Robertson is an old earther?
Religion Discuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  (#76) Old
Yorzhik Yorzhik is offline
LIFETIME MEMBER
 Yorzhik's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Yorzhik is well respected by his peers
Yorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peers
December 2nd, 2012, 12:28 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulos View Post
That "the OEC position is wrong" is your belief, and you are entitled to it, but a belief cannot be proven.
It is my belief, but I say it is right and the OEC is wrong because there is more scientific evidence for YEC than OEC.

Quote:
If it could, it would no longer be a belief, it would be a fact. You wouldn't have to believe it because you'd know it. But we aren't saved through knowledge (gnosticism), we are saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8). Faith, by definition, deals only with things that are not seen (2 Cor 4:18, Heb 11:1) while science, by definition, deals only with what we can see or observe with physical instruments. If faith could be proven by science, faith would no longer be faith--it would be knowledge (Rom 8:24). Then, rather than being saved by our faith, we could be saved by our knowledge. Faith is not knowledge, and knowledge is not faith. Science is knowledge. 2 Corinthians 5:7 says that "we walk by faith, not by sight". Science and faith appear to be mutually exclusive.
Yes, yes, science can prove nothing but only offer evidence for or against a particular thing. So I only say YEC is right because the evidence is on the side of YEC.

But when you say science and faith appear to be mutually exclusive, that can't possibly be right. Science and faith affect each other, because one's faith should be real, and science is the description of what is real.


Quote:
Out of curiosity, who are you referring to when you say that a couple of high profile evangelists have defected from the faith due to evolution? I didn't know about that.
First admit that I didn't say they defected "due to evolution." They defected from the faith and evolution was major foundation to that process.

Quote:
Again, that does not logically follow. If YEC and OEC are not salvific issues, then they are not salvific issues, end of.
I assume you meant to end the sentence with "discussion." However, you need to realize that there is a concept of good and better, which can properly be termed as better and worse. The bible said if you don't hate your immediate family, you don't love God. That is the same figure of speech I'm using.

Quote:
My own view leans toward theistic evolutionism, and I believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. I have experienced Jesus Christ personally. One's views on tertiary issues are neither here nor there when it comes to salvation.
Ok. One can't tell from a username on a forum, but I'd guess you aren't a church leader. If you are, then you could very well be leading people to God. Pat Robertson has lead many more to Christ than most people. But you could do better, and so could Pat Robertson, if you simply took the bible as a historical and grammatical text, and looked into the science, and held the stronger position. The stronger position is YEC according to both the bible and science.





Good things come to those who shoot straight.

Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe
   
Reply With Quote
  (#77) Old
Alate_One Alate_One is offline
Over 4000 post club
 Alate_One's Avatar

 


Reputation:
Alate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peers
December 2nd, 2012, 12:34 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorzhik View Post
YEC is still a minority position.

OEC is still wrong.
That's still your opinion and you're still wrong.

What I find interesting is there have been many disputes like this in the past.

Past scientific, theological disputes


Quote:
Bingo! In a science class it's healthy; in religious leaders it's weak because their context should always be in line with the bible which is YEC on its surface (and still young earth even when looking deeper).
How is holding an OEC/evolutionary creation doubting? That's holding a position. If the leader isn't sure or doesn't know that's something else.

Quote:
Figures you are the one that can't handle teaching both YEC and OEC like I can. Especially when Ken Ham supports his view so heavily with scientific evidence.
Ken Ham and scientific evidence in the same sentence? The guy hasn't a clue what he's talking about. I've seen his presentations where he tried to explain meiosis. It was completely wrong. YEC has nothing to add scientifically. It's a theological position. You can talk about it as an interpretive framework for Genesis but it has no scientific basis. Any more than geocentrism or denial of people living in the antipodes or anything else Christians have held to in the past in the face of scientific evidence.

Quote:
You don't seem to know anything about what I believe or teach. I'm the one that acknowledges the supporting points of the OEC model. I'm the one that supports teaching both views.
Where, in science class?

Quote:
While you don't seem to know anything about Ken Ham except a cartoon version.
I've watched the guy and I've read the YEC materials since I was a kid. It's a cartoon version of reality.

Ken Ham Critiqued step by step


Quote:
I don't think you've ever understood the YEC position. Hypocrite.
Oh I was one as you may forget. I remember how it worked and it was great until I learned more about the world and the simple framework just fell apart.





“We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.

Some of the Evidence for Climate Change

The Biologos Foundation - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

What Darwin Never Knew
   
Reply With Quote
  (#78) Old
Yorzhik Yorzhik is offline
LIFETIME MEMBER
 Yorzhik's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Yorzhik is well respected by his peers
Yorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peers
December 2nd, 2012, 01:04 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alate_One View Post
That's still your opinion and you're still wrong.

What I find interesting is there have been many disputes like this in the past.
First, my ability to see videos has been greatly restricted. So if you could summarize in your own words it would help.

Second; I'm right.

Quote:
How is holding an OEC/evolutionary creation doubting? That's holding a position. If the leader isn't sure or doesn't know that's something else.
Because when a leader holds a weak position when a stronger one is available, it fosters doubt. I can't believe you can't figure that out.

Quote:
Ken Ham and scientific evidence in the same sentence? The guy hasn't a clue what he's talking about. I've seen his presentations where he tried to explain meiosis. It was completely wrong.
I'm guessing he could be wrong about details and right about the overall point. You make the mistake of missing the point even if a detail is wrong repeatedly in our conversations. There is no reason to believe you are qualified to assess how much scientific support Ken Ham has for what he says.

Quote:
YEC has nothing to add scientifically.
It certainly was correct that more of the genome was useful than previously thought. YEC was right about that a long time ago. There are a number of other things, like the degradation of the genome per generation, that the scientific community would be wise to adopt. Again, there is no reason to believe you are qualified to assess how much scientific support Ken Ham has for what he says since you don't recognize the good point YEC makes. The fact that you are blind to them is a testament to your blind faith in CD that can't risk even the slightest disagreement.

Quote:
It's a theological position.
Sure, but science is consistent with YEC.

Quote:
You can talk about it as an interpretive framework for Genesis but it has no scientific basis.
Except for the mountain of genetic and geological evidence.

Quote:
Any more than geocentrism or denial of people living in the antipodes or anything else Christians have held to in the past in the face of scientific evidence.
But YEC is has more scientific evidence than OEC. You make no sense here.

Quote:
Where, in science class?
Of course.

Quote:
I've watched the guy and I've read the YEC materials since I was a kid. It's a cartoon version of reality.

Ken Ham Critiqued step by step


Oh I was one as you may forget. I remember how it worked and it was great until I learned more about the world and the simple framework just fell apart.
I'll watch the video if I get a chance.

I didn't forget you were YEC at one time. But it was only because it was what you were told, not because you looked into the science. Don't forget that at one time I was OEC until I looked into the science.





Good things come to those who shoot straight.

Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe
   
Reply With Quote
  (#79) Old
Alate_One Alate_One is offline
Over 4000 post club
 Alate_One's Avatar

 


Reputation:
Alate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peers
December 2nd, 2012, 09:52 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorzhik View Post
First, my ability to see videos has been greatly restricted. So if you could summarize in your own words it would help.
Essentially Christians argued over the fixed nature of the earth, using phraseology that's very similar to what is used for YEC today. Mr. Glover also points out that there's far more Biblical support for a fixed earth than for a young one. There were also NO Christian theologians that doubted the fixed, geocentric nature of the universe until scientific evidence came along. There have been lots of different positions on Genesis down through the centuries. Point being YECs are willing to, in essence, believe science over scripture in one area, but not another.

Quote:
Because when a leader holds a weak position when a stronger one is available, it fosters doubt. I can't believe you can't figure that out.
I agree. YEC is a weaker position by far. It may "feel" better at times, but it's a house built on sand.

Quote:
I'm guessing he could be wrong about details and right about the overall point. You make the mistake of missing the point even if a detail is wrong repeatedly in our conversations. There is no reason to believe you are qualified to assess how much scientific support Ken Ham has for what he says.
Oh other than the PhD in where I made transgenic plants, cloned and sequenced genes and studied molecular biology. Other than teaching biology and biochemistry at a college level for several years now.

Ken Ham it appears is at a similar level to a high school biology teacher. And it doesn't appear he taught much either. Since he's about the same age as my parents, he didn't get his education during the age of genomics. I studied during the very beginning of this era but I have the knowledge base to understand the papers coming out.

From his Wiki Page:

Ken Ham earned a bachelor's degree in Applied Science, with an emphasis in Environmental Biology, at Queensland Institute of Technology and a diploma in Education from the University of Queensland.



Quote:
It certainly was correct that more of the genome was useful than previously thought. YEC was right about that a long time ago. There are a number of other things, like the degradation of the genome per generation, that the scientific community would be wise to adopt. Again, there is no reason to believe you are qualified to assess how much scientific support Ken Ham has for what he says since you don't recognize the good point YEC makes.
Creationists love to claim scientific backing. Very few of them have degrees in the area of interest. I'm not blind to anything, I simply understand how things work which you and most YECs don't.

Taking Molecular biology courses tossed all of those ideas you're talking about out the window. Most genomes are messy, some much more so than others. Why should some be more full of excess if they've all been changing at the same rate since the flood? How could you obtain the level of genetic diversity in humans and other animals in a mere 4000 years since the flood?
You can't.

It's hard on YEC to find that so many genomes are larger than the human genome, or that the human genome has so many viral derived elements, some of which perform important functions.

Quote:
Except for the mountain of genetic and geological evidence.
Geology has no support for YEC. You think Genetics supports YEC? You don't have a very good understanding of it then. Based on the Ken Ham video, perhaps you're at his level. You've never posted anything that is evidence for YEC. And if you don't know what it is, how does it exist?

Quote:
But YEC is has more scientific evidence than OEC. You make no sense here.
Honestly I really don't know how you can say this. There's no scientific evidence that supports YEC. The best you can do is claim there are gaps and that YEC fills them somehow. But when you look at the big picture, YEC answers nothing. It makes you have to twist every new scientific finding to fit into the worldview. The cognitive dissonance got to me, that's the main reason I rejected YEC.

Quote:
I didn't forget you were YEC at one time. But it was only because it was what you were told, not because you looked into the science. Don't forget that at one time I was OEC until I looked into the science.
No. You're making assumptions about me.

At one time I had two copies of the Genesis Flood. I'd read it through many times from a very young age. My Mother donated to ICR and we received their science issue "tracts" on a monthly basis. I read them all. I do remember thinking several of them were trying very hard to make the evidence seem like one thing but not another. (Specifically one about humans born with tails)

I had plenty of other creationist books, the best of which was probably Bones of Contention which I read during my freshman year in college. I believe it was the year after I was confronted with magnetic striping and ocean spreading (totally by accident I just sat into the class once for fun). My mother continued to buy me creationist books even after I was realizing the writers didn't know what they were talking about.

The worst of them was Hank Hanegraff's "FACE" which I believe I got around the beginning of graduate school. It was so bad it helped push me further towards rejecting YEC (that and learning more science). I didn't accept evolution until later but YEC was pretty obviously wrong once I learned more science.





“We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.

Some of the Evidence for Climate Change

The Biologos Foundation - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

What Darwin Never Knew
   
Reply With Quote
  (#80) Old
Lighthouse Lighthouse is offline
An idiot with a box
 Lighthouse's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Lighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peers
Lighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peers
December 2nd, 2012, 01:24 PM

Whatever happened to believing in something only when it was shown to be the case? I mean, so many arguments demanding that macro evolution happened and that there were transitional animals though no fossils have ever been found and what these "missing" links supposedly looked like is mere speculation.

And why do they call them "missing links"? Because they've never found any. But can they admit that maybe that's because they never existed? No; they must just be missing from the record.





   
Reply With Quote
  (#81) Old
Alate_One Alate_One is offline
Over 4000 post club
 Alate_One's Avatar

 


Reputation:
Alate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peers
December 2nd, 2012, 02:12 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
Whatever happened to believing in something only when it was shown to be the case?
Yeah . . . YEC certainly has no evidence to support it. Why accept it as truth?

Quote:
I mean, so many arguments demanding that macro evolution happened and that there were transitional animals though no fossils have ever been found and what these "missing" links supposedly looked like is mere speculation.
That's a lie and you should know better. There are many many famous transitional fossils. YECs just go through creative reinterpretation to pretend they don't exist.


Tiktaalik - a "fish-o-pod" transitional between fish and land animals (along with others).




Anchiornis huxleyi
- a feathered dinosaur, older than Archeopteryx.


Ambulocetus "walking whale"

Whale evolution - with more transitions and fossils

This one was found just last year: "Transitional mammalian middle ear from a new Cretaceous Jehol eutriconodont".

And here's the entire transitional series of reptiles to mammals showing the movement of the bones of the jaw to the bones of the inner ear.


Lastly, we don't need fossils to confirm "macroevolution" (the creationist definition). Genetic data does that for us.
All of the same genes to make arms and limbs are already present in fish.

Quote:
And why do they call them "missing links"? Because they've never found any. But can they admit that maybe that's because they never existed? No; they must just be missing from the record.
The only people that call them "missing links" are creationists because they apparently can't use science textbooks well enough to find them. The term came into use during the Victorian era when there were few fossils known.

Scientists have uncovered many fossils since Darwin's day. There are many lists of them all over the web if you'd just take a moment to look.





“We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.

Some of the Evidence for Climate Change

The Biologos Foundation - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

What Darwin Never Knew
   
Reply With Quote
  (#82) Old
Lighthouse Lighthouse is offline
An idiot with a box
 Lighthouse's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Lighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peers
Lighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peers
December 2nd, 2012, 02:35 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alate_One View Post
Yeah . . . YEC certainly has no evidence to support it. Why accept it as truth?
Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

By the way, I was using the phrase because it is touted as a mantra of those who believe in evolution.

Quote:
That's a lie and you should know better. There are many many famous transitional fossils. YECs just go through creative reinterpretation to pretend they don't exist.


Tiktaalik - a "fish-o-pod" transitional between fish and land animals (along with others).




Anchiornis huxleyi
- a feathered dinosaur, older than Archeopteryx.


Ambulocetus "walking whale"

Whale evolution - with more transitions and fossils

This one was found just last year: "Transitional mammalian middle ear from a new Cretaceous Jehol eutriconodont".
And where, exactly, are the before and after fossils showing these to be, for certain, transitional?

Quote:
And here's the entire transitional series of reptiles to mammals showing the movement of the bones of the jaw to the bones of the inner ear.
A drawing? Why am I not surprised?

Let me guess, this is what it would look like if one was ever found...

Quote:
Lastly, we don't need fossils to confirm "macroevolution" (the creationist definition). Genetic data does that for us.
All of the same genes to make arms and limbs are already present in fish.
And do something differently in fish than in arthropods, right?

Quote:
The only people that call them "missing links" are creationists because they apparently can't use science textbooks well enough to find them. The term came into use during the Victorian era when there were few fossils known.
I know this is a lie. I was watching The Nerdist on BBC America and one guest was a scientist who had a tattoo of what she called one of the missing link fossils. She used the terminology on national television.

Quote:
Scientists have uncovered many fossils since Darwin's day. There are many lists of them all over the web if you'd just take a moment to look.
And? What does that prove?





   
Reply With Quote
  (#83) Old
Letsargue Letsargue is offline
TOL Subscriber
 Letsargue's Avatar

 


Reputation:
Letsargue is well respected by his peersLetsargue is well respected by his peersLetsargue is well respected by his peersLetsargue is well respected by his peersLetsargue is well respected by his peersLetsargue is well respected by his peersLetsargue is well respected by his peersLetsargue is well respected by his peersLetsargue is well respected by his peersLetsargue is well respected by his peersLetsargue is well respected by his peers
December 2nd, 2012, 02:50 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by rainee View Post
Hi Alate One,
Wow, I really wanted to say something on this thread and your post just begs for some reality, imo. (TH doesn't like us admitting it is always our opinion apparently if we add it is our humble opinion so that is why I put that.)

Oh, but I said reality - and my guess is you won't be able to recognize it, and I am not saying you wouldn't want to = but that you can't.

First there is the evil one, and I fear he is working against any men who publicly try to stand up for Christianity or teach. So any men
who are cowed by evolution currently are being messed with.

Sadly if they would have dug their heels into the Word of their God then instead of over stepping then they would have had a safety strap to save them.

Does the Word of God say He will use nature to bring man to Himself?

No, actually doesn't it say the opposite?
Romans 1:19
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
Romans 1:20
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Romans 1:21
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.


S it appears to me man had his chance with that and now they are given over to darkness. When did this happen? Probably at the Tower of Babel. They were idiots, what can you say?

If any one trusts evolution they are forgetting why we have quantum physics in addition to classical physics instead of replacing it.
Because what was true on the surface or at a certain temperature can cease to be true radically when those are changed.

Most points in science strangely mimics the truth of the Bible - incorrectly. Many evolutionists will start off with the big bang for example and claim offendedly they do not care how much it may resemble the Word of God - it is NOT supporting Christianity!!!

The same is true with evolution - a thousand points resemble the truth but not enough to make a difference. It is the deception.

What was the Flood - or end of the world the first time - like?
Bad enough to make radioactive dating off? Or was it the way things were before the Flood that was so alien that now they date so old?

I don't know, but it is all real in possibilities. God knows. Nature, ha.

Anyway men are folding under the pressure with out being grounded in their Word and these are leaders = men who would make better women right now..

There is Science, - the knowledge of the Carnal, and there is Truth, - the Knowledge of the Spirit. – God uses the carnal to bring about the Spiritual. – The first flood brought the purifying of the World of sin, -- and God brings again a flood of rain at the end. - It’s call a flood of rain by God himself, therefore it is a “Flood of Rain” the second time. -- THEY just can’t hear God!!! --- Isaiah 28:2 KJV ---&--- Ezekiel 38:22 KJV ---&--- Daniel 9:26 KJV -------///--- However, the flood is a flood of armies, but a Flood of over running waters never-the-less in TRUTH!!

That’s what God says, no matter what any one else says about it!!

Paul – 120212





---Gal. 4:16.
---"Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth"???
   
Reply With Quote
  (#84) Old
Alate_One Alate_One is offline
Over 4000 post club
 Alate_One's Avatar

 


Reputation:
Alate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peers
December 2nd, 2012, 03:22 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

By the way, I was using the phrase because it is touted as a mantra of those who believe in evolution.
K cause it doesn't work the other way around.

Quote:
And where, exactly, are the before and after fossils showing these to be, for certain, transitional?
You don't know what transitional is. A transitional fossil shows the traits of an ancestral group and a derived group from which it is thought to have evolved. A fish with legs, a neck and a shoulder girdle (found in all later tetrapods) while still retaining fishlike features such as scales, fins and gills would be transitional fossil from fish to amphibians.

And yes Tiktaalik is only one of many transitional fossils between fish and tetrapods.

Look up the names if you want to find the originals.

Plus early amphibians are very fish-like themselves.



Later amphibians diverged into the groups we know today as frogs and salamanders and unsurpriginly there's a fossil called a "frogamander" that may represent the common ancestor between the two.



A transitional fossil between theropod dinosaurs and birds would have teeth, claws on the "wings" a long bony tail, feathers etc all combined in one organism. (the same as the one I posted)

Quote:
A drawing? Why am I not surprised?

Let me guess, this is what it would look like if one was ever found...
They've all been found (maybe you didn't notice there's quite a few of them)? But it'll take up even more space for me to post images of them all. If you bothered you could find images of the actual fossils.

Quote:
And do something differently in fish than in arthropods, right?
Huh? You can't tell the difference between tetrapods and arthropods? No wonder you reject evolution, you don't even have basic biology straight.

Arthropods = Creatures with an exoskeleton: Insects, spiders, scorpions, crustaceans etc.

Tetrapods = all land living vertebrates (ancestrally all have four limbs): Amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds.

The same genes make the same bones of the upper arm, the two lower arm bones and the wrist bones. And the same pattern of bones is found in all tetrapods.

You want the long scientific explanation? Watch this.

Quote:
I know this is a lie. I was watching The Nerdist on BBC America and one guest was a scientist who had a tattoo of what she called one of the missing link fossils. She used the terminology on national television.
It's a colloquial term, not a scientific one.

Quote:
And? What does that prove?
You said they don't exist. Why don't you go through the list of them and tell me how they all don't exist?





“We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.

Some of the Evidence for Climate Change

The Biologos Foundation - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

What Darwin Never Knew
   
Reply With Quote
  (#85) Old
Yorzhik Yorzhik is offline
LIFETIME MEMBER
 Yorzhik's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Yorzhik is well respected by his peers
Yorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peers
December 2nd, 2012, 04:30 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alate_One View Post
Essentially Christians argued over the fixed nature of the earth, using phraseology that's very similar to what is used for YEC today. Mr. Glover also points out that there's far more Biblical support for a fixed earth than for a young one. There were also NO Christian theologians that doubted the fixed, geocentric nature of the universe until scientific evidence came along. There have been lots of different positions on Genesis down through the centuries. Point being YECs are willing to, in essence, believe science over scripture in one area, but not another.
But the science supports the YEC position. It's as simple as that.

Quote:
I agree. YEC is a weaker position by far. It may "feel" better at times, but it's a house built on sand.
It's a stronger position because it is what the bible says, and has more support from science than CD does.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorzhik
I'm guessing he could be wrong about details and right about the overall point. You make the mistake of missing the point even if a detail is wrong repeatedly in our conversations. There is no reason to believe you are qualified to assess how much scientific support Ken Ham has for what he says.
Quote:
Oh other than the PhD in where I made transgenic plants, cloned and sequenced genes and studied molecular biology. Other than teaching biology and biochemistry at a college level for several years now.

Ken Ham it appears is at a similar level to a high school biology teacher. And it doesn't appear he taught much either. Since he's about the same age as my parents, he didn't get his education during the age of genomics. I studied during the very beginning of this era but I have the knowledge base to understand the papers coming out.

From his Wiki Page:

Ken Ham earned a bachelor's degree in Applied Science, with an emphasis in Environmental Biology, at Queensland Institute of Technology and a diploma in Education from the University of Queensland.
So you've got a lot of education. You still repeatedly pointed out a wrong detail and missed the overall correct point in our past conversations.

Quote:
Creationists love to claim scientific backing. Very few of them have degrees in the area of interest. I'm not blind to anything, I simply understand how things work which you and most YECs don't.
If you understood how things work, then you would know that Haldane's dilemma has not been answered.

Quote:
Taking Molecular biology courses tossed all of those ideas you're talking about out the window.
Only because you were more interested with the narrative gloss than the obvious problems. Did they even mention Haldane's dilemma in those courses?

Quote:
Most genomes are messy, some much more so than others. Why should some be more full of excess if they've all been changing at the same rate since the flood?
Because they haven't all changed at the same rate since the flood. That you think YEC's in general claim that shows a blind spot.

Quote:
How could you obtain the level of genetic diversity in humans and other animals in a mere 4000 years since the flood?
You can't.
Todd Wood thinks you can. And before you mention his blog post where he says evolution makes good points... this isn't one of them.

Quote:
It's hard on YEC to find that so many genomes are larger than the human genome, or that the human genome has so many viral derived elements, some of which perform important functions.
It's not hard on YEC to find larger genomes than the human genome. That you think so is just another blind spot on your part.

Quote:
Geology has no support for YEC.
Another blind spot.

Quote:
You think Genetics supports YEC? You don't have a very good understanding of it then. Based on the Ken Ham video, perhaps you're at his level. You've never posted anything that is evidence for YEC. And if you don't know what it is, how does it exist?
Yes, genetics supports YEC. That you've never paid attention to the questions you never answered in our prior conversations is another blind spot on your part.

Quote:
Honestly I really don't know how you can say this. There's no scientific evidence that supports YEC. The best you can do is claim there are gaps and that YEC fills them somehow. But when you look at the big picture, YEC answers nothing. It makes you have to twist every new scientific finding to fit into the worldview. The cognitive dissonance got to me, that's the main reason I rejected YEC.
That fact that you acknowledge no point in favor of YEC shows that you don't consider it properly. In our great lack of knowledge of the genome, both sides are bound to make good points based on assumptions we aren't sure about.

You probably didn't understand what I just said. You could if you thought about it, but you prefer willful blindness.

Quote:
No. You're making assumptions about me.
Yes, but I base them on good evidence.

Quote:
At one time I had two copies of the Genesis Flood. I'd read it through many times from a very young age. My Mother donated to ICR and we received their science issue "tracts" on a monthly basis. I read them all. I do remember thinking several of them were trying very hard to make the evidence seem like one thing but not another. (Specifically one about humans born with tails)

I had plenty of other creationist books, the best of which was probably Bones of Contention which I read during my freshman year in college. I believe it was the year after I was confronted with magnetic striping and ocean spreading (totally by accident I just sat into the class once for fun). My mother continued to buy me creationist books even after I was realizing the writers didn't know what they were talking about.

The worst of them was Hank Hanegraff's "FACE" which I believe I got around the beginning of graduate school. It was so bad it helped push me further towards rejecting YEC (that and learning more science). I didn't accept evolution until later but YEC was pretty obviously wrong once I learned more science.
Ee gads. It sounds like you went to public school.

Tracks? I remember some terrible creation tracts from my youth. I'd bet they were the same ones because there was only 1 popular set of those at Banner Books. I remember my dad didn't like them, and he was YEC with a degree in biology. Of course they could be different.

I don't know or would have expected a YEC book from that person named Hank Hanegraff. I never liked him much and he could never discuss anything nearly as well as Walter Martin. But that's neither here nor there.

I haven't ever read any creationist book except just this last year I read Walt Brown's.

I was YEC until I went to college. In college I didn't take a lot of courses in geology or biology but I switched to OEC because all my professors, many of whom were Christian, were OEC and they were very reasonable. A good while later I had my own kids and so I started to actually look into the evidence for "evolution" (which at the time was what we laymen called CD). I didn't use creationist sources primarily. But the evolutionist sources had holes in their stories, especially the long ages geologists. When you look at the strata near your house, or any picture of the Grand Canyon, it doesn't line up with the story that each strata is a separate age. And without long ages, CD falls apart.

So that's the bottom line and what you won't discuss honestly. Geology shows ages a great deal less than the millions of years required for CD (positive evidence). And CD doesn't have much of a theory since there are so many barriers to mutation + NS being a mechanism for it that it should have been thrown out as an idea long ago.

But let's go further and try again. How many mutations, on average, does it take to create a new feature from an old one?





Good things come to those who shoot straight.

Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe
   
Reply With Quote
  (#86) Old
Yorzhik Yorzhik is offline
LIFETIME MEMBER
 Yorzhik's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Yorzhik is well respected by his peers
Yorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peersYorzhik is well respected by his peers
December 2nd, 2012, 04:37 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alate_One View Post
That's a lie and you should know better. There are many many famous transitional fossils.
It is a lie that there are many transitional fossils and you know it. There are possible examples of organisms that show features one would expect in a transitional, but not a single transitional fossil can be shown to be an organism that evolved from one body plan and what body plan they evolved in to.

In other words, all the transitional fossils are the tips of branches instead of a trunk of the tree. Or, as wiki says it: "Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral species from which later groups evolved, but most if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor."





Good things come to those who shoot straight.

Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe
   
Reply With Quote
  (#87) Old
Paulos Paulos is offline
Over 4000 post club

 



Reputation:
Paulos is well respected by his peersPaulos is well respected by his peersPaulos is well respected by his peersPaulos is well respected by his peersPaulos is well respected by his peersPaulos is well respected by his peersPaulos is well respected by his peersPaulos is well respected by his peersPaulos is well respected by his peersPaulos is well respected by his peersPaulos is well respected by his peers
December 2nd, 2012, 06:06 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alate_One View Post
That's an excellent video!



   
Reply With Quote
  (#88) Old
Alate_One Alate_One is offline
Over 4000 post club
 Alate_One's Avatar

 


Reputation:
Alate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peers
December 2nd, 2012, 06:06 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorzhik View Post
But the science supports the YEC position. It's as simple as that.
It isn't because science doesn't support it. If YEC is so supported by science, how about you give us one piece of evidence that actually *supports* YEC. Not what you consider evidence against evolution, but evidence FOR YEC. I'm waiting.

Quote:
So you've got a lot of education. You still repeatedly pointed out a wrong detail and missed the overall correct point in our past conversations.
Perhaps you could be more specific? I remember your understanding of many topics as being quite confused on a number of points. Not to say that anyone can't get occasionally tripped up in these sort of conversations. But in general, I have seen in my conversations with you that you have a particular viewpoint you want to disseminate, regardless of evidence.

Quote:
If you understood how things work, then you would know that Haldane's dilemma has not been answered.
Sigh. We've been over this dozens of times. Haldane's dilemma was answered a long time ago. And arguing over it is, as I said before, arguing that airplanes can't fly while they are buzzing over your head.

Quote:
Only because you were more interested with the narrative gloss than the obvious problems. Did they even mention Haldane's dilemma in those courses?
Why would they when it's been answered? Plus Molecular biology doesn't deal directly with evolutionary theory though it did come up fairly frequently.

Quote:
Because they haven't all changed at the same rate since the flood. That you think YEC's in general claim that shows a blind spot.
In 4000 years, the rate of change difference would have to be absolutely massive. Like on the order of human beings able to see within their lifetimes.

Quote:
Todd Wood thinks you can. And before you mention his blog post where he says evolution makes good points... this isn't one of them.
And because he "thinks you can" it can happen? Talk about appeal to authority. It could happen, but only as a literal miraculous occurrence, essentially a second creation - but with all of the hallmarks of evolution (that are written in the genome) included.

There are more differences in DNA between a mouse and a rat than a human and a Macaque. Explain that one.

Quote:
It's not hard on YEC to find larger genomes than the human genome. That you think so is just another blind spot on your part.
I don't know of a YECer that's "found" any genome on their own. But the problem is you have no way to explain it. Under YEC, humans should be the pinnacle of God's creation, and thus have the largest or at least the most complex genome of any creature on earth.

Quote:
Yes, genetics supports YEC. That you've never paid attention to the questions you never answered in our prior conversations is another blind spot on your part.
Maybe you missed this, but you don't support an idea by another idea not answering questions you have. (I don't recall any of these unanswered questions anyway, unless they were areas where we simply don't have the information or technology to answer them yet)

You support an idea with positive evidence and evolution and an old earth has that in spades. Where's yours?


Quote:
That fact that you acknowledge no point in favor of YEC shows that you don't consider it properly.
No, it shows it's a scientifically useless idea. It offers no testable hypotheses or ideas. Perhaps you'd care to gift us with one?

Quote:
You probably didn't understand what I just said. You could if you thought about it, but you prefer willful blindness.
Oh I understand what you're trying to say about willful blindness. I think you need to look in the mirror more often.

Quote:
Ee gads. It sounds like you went to public school.
Only for part of my education. I went to a Christian school and knowing what I know now, it was very out of date. Even the history was riddled with falsehoods (I still have one of my history texts so I could check).

However even in my public school education there was essentially NO coverage of evolution at all. My teachers were either YECs themselves (though they didn't really talk about it) or were too afraid to talk about evolution. Sadly I mostly learned about evolution from TV documentaries.

Quote:
Tracks? I remember some terrible creation tracts from my youth. I'd bet they were the same ones because there was only 1 popular set of those at Banner Books. I remember my dad didn't like them, and he was YEC with a degree in biology. Of course they could be different.
Tracts is probably the wrong word. They came from ICR - the institute for creation research. I believe they were called Impact articles. Looks like ICR still puts them out. As far as YEC literature goes, they're about as good as it gets (which is still not very good), imo.

Quote:
I haven't ever read any creationist book except just this last year I read Walt Brown's.

I was YEC until I went to college. In college I didn't take a lot of courses in geology or biology but I switched to OEC because all my professors, many of whom were Christian, were OEC and they were very reasonable. A good while later I had my own kids and so I started to actually look into the evidence for "evolution" (which at the time was what we laymen called CD). I didn't use creationist sources primarily. But the evolutionist sources had holes in their stories, especially the long ages geologists. When you look at the strata near your house, or any picture of the Grand Canyon, it doesn't line up with the story that each strata is a separate age. And without long ages, CD falls apart.

So that's the bottom line and what you won't discuss honestly. Geology shows ages a great deal less than the millions of years required for CD (positive evidence).
Except it doesn't show that at all. Long ages have been known and understood for centuries now. Your simple assertion has little meaning in the face of evidence.

The grand canyon is a great piece of evidence for an old earth since there are layers of clearly different environments lying on top of one another and layers that were tilted, then eroded and more layers on top of one another.



There are other geologic layers with corals growing with other layers stacked on top. The message over and over is old, not young as early *Christian* geologists figured out long ago.

If you have any time to watch a video at all, I'd recommend this one:

Flood Geology


Quote:
But let's go further and try again. How many mutations, on average, does it take to create a new feature from an old one?
Again, we don't know for sure and it depends on what you decide is a new feature. It doesn't actually matter to the theory of Evolution.For many of the drugs we use every day, the mode of action is still not clearly understood. It doesn't matter much since the drugs are clearly efficacious, much like evolution. Certainly we want to know the answers to those questions as they will be helpful to us.

We don't quite have the understanding of genomic data to answer your question effectively. There are a few examples we can talk about, but that's about it at current.





“We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.

Some of the Evidence for Climate Change

The Biologos Foundation - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

What Darwin Never Knew

Last edited by Alate_One; December 2nd, 2012 at 08:17 PM..
   
Reply With Quote
  (#89) Old
Alate_One Alate_One is offline
Over 4000 post club
 Alate_One's Avatar

 


Reputation:
Alate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peersAlate_One is well respected by his peers
December 2nd, 2012, 06:56 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorzhik View Post
It is a lie that there are many transitional fossils and you know it. There are possible examples of organisms that show features one would expect in a transitional, but not a single transitional fossil can be shown to be an organism that evolved from one body plan and what body plan they evolved in to.
So now you're going to throw in "body plan" so that you can move the goal posts. Classic YEC behavior. No evidence is good enough for you. You'll always demand more and more until you get to the point where scientific knowledge becomes fuzzy and then stand up and say "See! You don't know!"

Under any standard definition of transitional form, there are many, many examples. I'm sorry you don't like them, but they exist.

Quote:
In other words, all the transitional fossils are the tips of branches instead of a trunk of the tree. Or, as wiki says it: "Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral species from which later groups evolved, but most if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor."
And? Life isn't ideal. I probably can't go back 30 generations to find the bones of any of *your* direct ancestors either. And you expect, no DEMAND, that you find a representative of THE ancestor in the middle of a bushy evolutionary tree. Perhaps you forget that fossils preserve organisms only rarely? You expect the fossil record to be a complete book of every creature and it's immediate ancestors. Another example of moving the goalposts.





“We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.

Some of the Evidence for Climate Change

The Biologos Foundation - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

What Darwin Never Knew

Last edited by Alate_One; December 2nd, 2012 at 07:17 PM..
   
Reply With Quote
  (#90) Old
Lighthouse Lighthouse is offline
An idiot with a box
 Lighthouse's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Lighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peers
Lighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peersLighthouse is well respected by his peers
December 3rd, 2012, 02:40 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alate_One View Post
K cause it doesn't work the other way around.
Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Quote:
You don't know what transitional is. A transitional fossil shows the traits of an ancestral group and a derived group from which it is thought to have evolved. A fish with legs, a neck and a shoulder girdle (found in all later tetrapods) while still retaining fishlike features such as scales, fins and gills would be transitional fossil from fish to amphibians.
I'm glad you could admit it.

So now we have confirmation that what is thought to have happened is not supported by any actual definitive evidence.

Quote:
And yes Tiktaalik is only one of many transitional fossils between fish and tetrapods.
Prove it.

Quote:
Look up the names if you want to find the originals.
I've said it before: drawings of what is believed to have happened while no actual fossils supporting these theories have ever been found proves absolutely nothing.

Quote:
Plus early amphibians are very fish-like themselves.
Things that live in the water are similar to other things that live in the water?! Tell me more! I'm both fascinated and dumbfounded!

Quote:


Later amphibians diverged into the groups we know today as frogs and salamanders and unsurpriginly there's a fossil called a "frogamander" that may represent the common ancestor between the two.
"May represent"? Is that seriously all you've got?

Quote:


A transitional fossil between theropod dinosaurs and birds would have teeth, claws on the "wings" a long bony tail, feathers etc all combined in one organism. (the same as the one I posted)
So?

Where are the transitional fossils between theropods and Anchiornis huxleyi?

Quote:
They've all been found (maybe you didn't notice there's quite a few of them)? But it'll take up even more space for me to post images of them all. If you bothered you could find images of the actual fossils.
Are you incapable of resizing images?

Quote:
Huh? You can't tell the difference between tetrapods and arthropods? No wonder you reject evolution, you don't even have basic biology straight.

Arthropods = Creatures with an exoskeleton: Insects, spiders, scorpions, crustaceans etc.

Tetrapods = all land living vertebrates (ancestrally all have four limbs): Amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds.
Excuse me for not knowing the correct term.

Now, did you really need to be so boorish as to accuse me of not knowing the difference between the two based on my not knowing the correct term? Rather childish of you, don't you think?

Quote:
The same genes make the same bones of the upper arm, the two lower arm bones and the wrist bones. And the same pattern of bones is found in all tetrapods.
So?

Quote:
You want the long scientific explanation? Watch this.


None of this goes to show that it means what you and your ilk claim.

Quote:
It's a colloquial term, not a scientific one.
Irrelevant.

Quote:
You said they don't exist. Why don't you go through the list of them and tell me how they all don't exist?
No I didn't. I said that those particular animals, or the fossils thereof, that would be considered transitional links and have yet to be found may not have ever existed; and still evolution proponents are unwilling to admit the possibility that such things do not exist but rather insist they must have and they just haven't been found yet, with absolutely no basis, going so far as to draw their ideas of what these fossils, or animals, would [have] look[ed] like and claiming those animals or fossils are/were real and just undiscovered. These are the same people who used to tell us all that brontosaurus was a real dinosaur.





   
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
evolution, fossil


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright ©1997-2014 TheologyOnLine



Logos Bible Study Software Up to 15% OFF FOR THEOLOGYONLINE MEMBERS! Study twice, post once.
Logos Bible Software —take your Bible study to the next level.