A Challenge To All Creationists

[Reggie Miller]

Which is a theological position not an academic one.

That depends on who you ask. Paul was a well learned man as well as many of the great Church theologians. It is an academic stance as well.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course, ST is omniscient. How dare me not accept what he says.

You refuse to accept the collectively understood definition of word. That makes you wrong about it, not everyone else. Sorry.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Duh... because eye witnesses wrote the original accounts. Yeah.

A retelling of an "eyewitness" account is not an eyewitness account. That would make it a secondhand account.

We don't even have original copies of the New Testament.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why do you try to change my one assumption to your 3?

I am pointing out that you are actually making 3 assumptions. NOT just one.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hmm.. There is direct evidence of God's Son. You interested?

I'd love to see that.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Dolphins talk. They have a rudamentary language that even has distinct dialects. What is really unique in humans is our pattern recognition ability and how it has been reflected in our behavior. But it is unfair to simply take one single thing that we have as a species and cut off all the rest as though we were not related. Especially when it isn't true. We also had many other species capable of language but all but homo sapiens have died out at this point.

 

[savagewind]

Dolphins talk. They have a rudamentary language that even has distinct dialects. What is really unique in humans is our pattern recognition ability and how it has been reflected in our behavior. But it is unfair to simply take one single thing that we have as a species and cut off all the rest as though we were not related. Especially when it isn't true. We also had many other species capable of language but all but homo sapiens have died out at this point.

It seems to me that the homo sapiens would have killed them, according to my extremely limited understanding of your evolution.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It seems to me that the homo sapiens would have killed them, according to my extremely limited understanding of your evolution.

That is one theory yes. We do know that clashes with neanderthals were commonplace.

 

[Reggie Miller]

A retelling of an "eyewitness" account is not an eyewitness account. That would make it a secondhand account.

We don't even have original copies of the New Testament.

We have reliable, accurate accounts. And it isn't a retelling. It's copies of the originals. That makes it eyewitness accounts.

 

[Reggie Miller]

I'd love to see that.

Bible Gateway passage: John 1 - New International Version

 

[omega2xx]

Bloodline, childhood, census, birth place, birth date, virgin birth, resurrection account and slaughter of innocents.

IOW you can't be specific, so forget it.

 

[omega2xx]

A retelling of an "eyewitness" account is not an eyewitness account. That would make it a secondhand account.

We don't even have original copies of the New Testament.

What is in the gospels is not a retelling.

 

[omega2xx]

Dolphins talk. They have a rudamentary language that even has distinct dialects.

Get real. What dolphins do is not in the same ball park with a language. You have no idea if he sounnds the make are dialects. Even if it is, it does not link apes and humans.

What is really unique in humans is our pattern recognition ability and how it has been reflected in our behavior. But it is unfair to simply take one single thing that we have as a species and cut off all the rest as though we were not related Especially when it isn't true..

What is unfair is to make the link with no scientific evidence to support it. Without some evidence, you don't it is true.

We also had many other species capable of language but all but homo sapiens have died out at this point.

What is unfair is making a statement like that with absolutely no evidence.

 

[Ganondorf]

Evidently you don't have a clue about the function of genetics. Let me says it slowly for you: the gene pool of the parents determine ALL of the characteristics of the offspring. If the parents of packicetus do not have THE gene for a blowhole they will never have a kid with a blowhole. If they don't have the gene for fins, they will neveR have a kid with fins. It is GENETICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

The offspring can get some characteristics the parents don't have, since mutation will step in. As such, genetic differences could manifest themselves as slight phenotypic modification. Now, if those slight modification are beneficial in a given environment, they'll likely spread to the population. Repeat the process with slight modifications accumulating and you may end up with population with new features.
Your very insightful explanation omits the concept of mutation, very strange for someone knowledgable about genetics.

Wonderful. Now instead of a picture, present the scientific evidence they use to make their case.

The evidence is presented in the peer-reviewed paper I cited.

You have to fill in the holes with scientifically proven science. There is none to link humans with apes. You have just admitted there are holes. As long as ther are, you can make the connection.

There will always be holes, since science isn't perfect. Rejecting an explanation just because there are holes is textbook example of hypercriticism, a feature of science denial.

If you really understood DNA, you would understand that different DNA, no matter how similar, separates the species, not link them together.

Let's extract DNA from a bee, a lion, a house cat and a wasp and make a comparison:
The house cat and the lion will be more similar to each other than any is to bee and wasp. The bee and the wasp will be more similar to each other than any is to the house cat or the lion.
Thus, we'll put house cats and lions in the same box and wasps and bees in another.
So, yes you can categorize species with genetic comparisons.

I know but it should.

Basically, you're insisting that you're right without giving any argument. Great!

It does until they need to tweek the classification to fit their preconceived ideas.

Show us where the human classification as great apes requires tweaking.

If you think having 2 eyes, arms, 2 legs 2 ears, one nose and one head is enough to link apes and humans you have drunk the evo kool ade.

If you think the criteria behind the hominidae group are that superficial.....
.....then you've drunk too much strawman's kool-aid.
What's significant with the set of traits I quoted is
its exclusivity to great apes and humans.
When you show me any other four-limbed placental mammal sharing all of the following characteristics, you will be entitled to mock human classification as great apes. Good luck!

- forward-facing eyes
- close, downward-facing nostrils
- dental formula: 2/2, 1/1, 2/2, 3/3
- digits with flattened nails
- lack of tail
- lack of ischial callosities
- high cognitive abilities (self-recognition, abstract thinking,...)
- complex social behaviors

Speech and other human unique traits can be considered autapomorphous and thus don't constitute ground to refute our belonging to great apes in a cladistic sense. Those differences could, at best, exclude us from great apes only paraphyletically.

Oh... and are we to assume Linnaeus drank the evo kool-aid and tweaked his results?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Bible Gateway passage: John 1 - New International Version

A chapter from the Bible is your "direct evidence?" Really?

Well that was disappointing.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Get real. What dolphins do is not in the same ball park with a language. You have no idea if he sounnds the make are dialects. Even if it is, it does not link apes and humans.

No the apposable thumbs, jaw structure, skull structure, 98% similar DNA, vocal chords and fossil record do that.

What is unfair is to make the link with no scientific evidence to support it. Without some evidence, you don't it is true.




What is unfair is making a statement like that with absolutely no evidence.

Both of these points simply ignore the evidence. It makes me feel like this conversation is over. I hope I am wrong.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What is in the gospels is not a retelling.

Not sure why you think so.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We have reliable, accurate accounts. And it isn't a retelling. It's copies of the originals. That makes it eyewitness accounts.

How do you know that, considering we don't even have the originals?

Besides the apparent fact that they were written decades after the events supposedly took place, by mostly anonymous writers.

 

[Reggie Miller]

A chapter from the Bible is your "direct evidence?" Really?

Well that was disappointing.

Hmm... an eyewitness account from a reliable witness is disappointing, yet you believe in abiogenesis? Not sure I can take you seriously.

 

[Reggie Miller]

How do you know that, considering we don't even have the originals?

Besides the apparent fact that they were written decades after the events supposedly took place, by mostly anonymous writers.

Wrong. They were originally written by the Apostles or dictated to someone who wrote what they said.

You don't have a foggy clue about the "first organism" yet you believe 100% that abiogenesis happened. What is wrong with you?