For the dismally ignorant

[Subduction Zone]

Do you need a change in yours?

Can you at least attempt to be an honest interlocutor? You made a poor argument. Why get snarky about your failure?

 

[Kenny]

I was not talking about junk DNA. By the way, most of it is still junk. Go back and reread my post. ERV's are slam dunk evidence for evolution. You may not be letting yourself understand how. That could be that old creationist cog. dis. kicking in.

And asking about Noah and his magic boat was not moving the goalposts. Believing in that myth is another example of calling God a liar.

No... you haven't presented a case that God is a liar. What you have offered is your personal opinion. Even scientists have different views as they look at the same evidence

 

[Kenny]

Can you at least attempt to be an honest interlocutor? You made a poor argument. Why get snarky about your failure?

But you seem like you are so angry.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No... you haven't presented a case that God is a liar. What you have offered is your personal opinion. Even scientists have different views as they look at the same evidence

Sorry Kenny, but your inability to understand is your problem. A case was made. You proved that you were not listening. That is not my fault.

Any rational person can see how you failed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But you seem like you are so angry.

Please, you are rudely trying to goad. That tells others that you know that you are wrong. You want your opposition to get angry.

Can you deal with the arguments presented?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's try this one more time.

An ERV is evidence that an ancestor got a disease and survived.

Having an ERV attach to one's genome is an extremely rare event.


The odds of some ancestor of a chimp getting the same virus and getting it attached to its genome in the same place is a one in a billion event. And yet it has happened.

The odds of it happening twice would be a billion squared.

And yet it has happened.

The odds of it happening three times would be one out of a billion cubed.

Tell me what would the odds of it happening 450,000 times?

A little background reading for you:

Endogenous retroviruses in the origins and treatment of cancer | Genome Biology | Full Text.

 

[Kenny]

Please, you are rudely trying to goad. That tells others that you know that you are wrong. You want your opposition to get angry.

Can you deal with the arguments presented?

I did ... I wish you could actually read my posts and digest it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did ... I wish you could actually read my posts and digest it.

No, denial and running away is not dealing with it. You made the error of thinking that I was talking about junk DNA. You only linked another article that you did not understand about it. How is that dealing with it.

Sorry, you are still calling God a liar and now you are without excuse.

 

[Kenny]

No, denial and running away is not dealing with it. You made the error of thinking that I was talking about junk DNA. You only linked another article that you did not understand about it. How is that dealing with it.

Sorry, you are still calling God a liar and now you are without excuse.

LOL - If that makes you happy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL - If that makes you happy.

Let's forget about your past losses and bad behavior. Since you could not understand the argument I fleshed it out for you a bit.

 

[Heyo]

So we find that (without a time frame) the heaven and the earth was created. - 4.5 Billion years ago? With beings, animals et al. where you can find the bones of what man thinks is our ancestry.

But a cataclysmic event happened and a recreation happened where man was created.

What kind of cataclysmic event?
When?
What evidence is there for it?
Why do humans so much like those pour creatures which went extinct in the cataclysmic event?

 

[metis]

I see that he is traveling for a day or so. But I always did think that it was rather blasphemous of some Christians to try to tell God how he made the world. If one actually studies the Adam and Eve myth properly it puts God at fault. The imperfections of man are rather obvious and do not need a mythical source. The story just allowed people with no scientific education to accept that they were not perfect. It does work that way.

I agree that it doesn't make sense on multiple counts, but if one takes it as being allegorical, then it can make sense. My hypothesis is that it was "penned" as a counter to the earlier and much mor widespread polytheistic Babylonian creation narrative.

 

[metis]

In the arena of faith concerning you and I, Metis, it wouldn't matter as knowing whether we "evolved or were created" isn't the basis of our salvation or our shalom.

The issue of salvation doesn't rely on a direct creation of that which is supposedly unchanged.

Secondly, scientifically, I can't see how an amoeba (or any other cell) can create the complexities of the human being even over 4.5 billion years. I don't see it reproducible unless man "creates" another human being by manipulating DNA which only support my position.

Amoebas don't create anything directly but other amoebas. However, what we know with certainty is that natural forces, and possibly Divine ones, can indeed lead to changes, and the ones that are more successful can be more readily replicated even though they will change as well over time one way or the other. Even us humans do this with selective breeding that will speed up the process.

Lastly, socially, comes with a question. Have we evolved more than apes? Intellectually, are we more advanced?

So? Apes can climb trees better than you and I.

We are large-brained apes, and when we go back through time with human fossils, the head sizes keep getting smaller and smaller. Looking at your avatar, you could be the prime example of an "evolutionary throwback".

 

[metis]

I have heard that position. But, for me, it doesn't line up with the definition of the Holy Spirit that Jesus presented to us. Power can't be "grieved" or be "quenched". Neither does power speak or teach.

Can you establish without a doubt that the HS doesn't kick in with the ape line? other primates? before them?

You know I'm a big fan of the HS and why, so I do not in any way see a wall of separation that says the HS ["God's Spirit" in Torah] only started with us humans.

Even though I came from a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught that the ToE was bogus, I left that church and ended up getting a graduate degree in anthropology and taught it for 30 years. The amount of information on human evolution is vast, and the problem I had was not trying to find data but deciding which evidence I had to trim or cut to fit into the allotted time I had.

 

[Kenny]

What kind of cataclysmic event?
When?
What evidence is there for it?
Why do humans so much like those pour creatures which went extinct in the cataclysmic event?

I don't think that was the issue nor the subject matter we were talking about... don't know if we are changing subjects here.

But, what happened to the the dinosaurs? What caused the climate change? When did it exactly happen? Was it a comet that hit the earth?

Since we are moving forward, do you agree with this statement? "That’s because fossil fuels can shift the radiocarbon age of new organic materials today, making them hard to distinguish from ancient ones." ?

Thanks to Fossil Fuels, Carbon Dating Is in Jeopardy. One Scientist May Have an Easy Fix | Science| Smithsonian Magazine

 

[Kenny]

The issue of salvation doesn't rely on a direct creation of that which is supposedly unchanged.

I think that is what I said?

Amoebas don't create anything directly but other amoebas. However, what we know with certainty is that natural forces, and possibly Divine ones, can indeed lead to changes, and the ones that are more successful can be more readily replicated even though they will change as well over time one way or the other. Even us humans do this with selective breeding that will speed up the process.

Yes, I agree totally with this position.

So? Apes can climb trees better than you and I.

We are large-brained apes, and when we go back through time with human fossils, the head sizes keep getting smaller and smaller. Looking at your avatar, you could be the prime example of an "evolutionary throwback".

Hmmmm... I don't think that answered my question?

 

[Kenny]

Can you establish without a doubt that the HS doesn't kick in with the ape line? other primates? before them?

You know I'm a big fan of the HS and why, so I do not in any way see a wall of separation that says the HS ["God's Spirit" in Torah] only started with us humans.

Even though I came from a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught that the ToE was bogus, I left that church and ended up getting a graduate degree in anthropology and taught it for 30 years. The amount of information on human evolution is vast, and the problem I had was not trying to find data but deciding which evidence I had to trim or cut to fit into the allotted time I had.

I believe that everything that breathes, breathes because of God's presence and life.

And i believe creation is waiting:
22 For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.23 And we believers also groan, even though we have the Holy Spirit within us as a foretaste of future glory, for we long for our bodies to be released from sin and suffering. We, too, wait with eager hope for the day when God will give us our full rights as his adopted children, including the new bodies he has promised us.

 

[Heyo]

I don't think that was the issue nor the subject matter we were talking about... don't know if we are changing subjects here.

I don't think we are. I'm still intrigued by your specific 1% of science denial. (#158)
You except evolution, just not human evolution and I'm still missing an explanation how you come to that in light of all the evidence we have for it. I want to know your alternative hypothesis and how it explains the evidence away.
But I come more and more to the conclusion that you don't have an explanation and you know it. It's just "my granddaddy ain't no monkey".

Since we are moving forward, do you agree with this statement? "That’s because fossil fuels can shift the radiocarbon age of new organic materials today, making them hard to distinguish from ancient ones." ?

Thanks to Fossil Fuels, Carbon Dating Is in Jeopardy. One Scientist May Have an Easy Fix | Science| Smithsonian Magazine

I agree, but I don't see the relevance. Carbon dating is only one tool of many.

 

[Kenny]

I don't think we are. I'm still intrigued by your specific 1% of science denial. (#158)
You except evolution, just not human evolution and I'm still missing an explanation how you come to that in light of all the evidence we have for it. I want to know your alternative hypothesis and how it explains the evidence away.
But I come more and more to the conclusion that you don't have an explanation and you know it. It's just "my granddaddy ain't no monkey".

I thought I had explained... my apologies. The point I was making was that at some point those who were like unto today's man fell by the wayside because of external forces between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2

But man, as we know him, was still created by God.

I agree, but I don't see the relevance. Carbon dating is only one tool of many.

It made me wonder... if external events can alter Carbon 14, how does one know without a shadow of a doubt that Carbon 14 has always been a constant when we date things? Is it possible that other factors can change radiocarbon age of organic materials that were of days gone by?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Fresh in today, for the non-chimps.

Teens are risk-takers and think like young primates, study finds

Young chimpanzees are risk-takers like human teenagers, a study finds. But offered the choice of taking one treat right away or waiting a minute for three snacks, most chimps were happy to pause. Teens proved more impulsive and tended to immediately grab the first snack. In another test, 40 chimps housed at a Republic of Congo sanctuary chose between two containers of food. One always contained peanuts, which they like. The other had either cucumber, which they hate, or banana, their favourite food. Young primates took the risky option more often than adults and threw more tantrums when it backfired. When given the choice of gambling on an unknown snack or taking a safe option, most adolescent humans and primates rolled the dice, tests showed. ‘They, in some sense, face the same psychological tempest that human teens do,’ said Dr Alexandra Rosati, of Michigan University. The study gets at the age-old nature or nurture question about why teens take more risks, she added.