Page 5 of 8

Re: Baptizing H floresiensis

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:54 am
by hughfarey
Audie wrote:
crochet1949 wrote:You guys have been hilarious this morning -- I've needed a good laugh. Thank you for unknowingly / unwittingly 'making my day more complete'. Are you Sure they weren't simply a different species of monkeys.
Glad you liked it. A little banter beats getting all heavy and serious for entertainment. They were the same Genus as people, different species. Definitely not monkeys.
As creationists often tell us that God didn't create "species", but "kinds", which in most cases include whole families of distantly related species, it seems creationistically possible that numerous species of the genus Homo could have diverged from the original "Adam" including, perhaps, floresiensis, neanderthalis, sapiens, heidelbergensis, and so on.

Re: Baptizing H floresiensis

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 10:19 am
by Audie
hughfarey wrote:
Audie wrote:
crochet1949 wrote:You guys have been hilarious this morning -- I've needed a good laugh. Thank you for unknowingly / unwittingly 'making my day more complete'. Are you Sure they weren't simply a different species of monkeys.
Glad you liked it. A little banter beats getting all heavy and serious for entertainment. They were the same Genus as people, different species. Definitely not monkeys.
As creationists often tell us that God didn't create "species", but "kinds", which in most cases include whole families of distantly related species, it seems creationistically possible that numerous species of the genus Homo could have diverged from the original "Adam" including, perhaps, floresiensis, neanderthalis, sapiens, heidelbergensis, and so on.
Kinds. Yes. Baraminology, hyperevoluion of created kinds after the ark, no end of silliness.

Creationistically possible. :D

You know, I wonder if it strikes any of our friends on the 6 day poof side
to wonder why it is that with God, the angels, the bible and the universe and all of reality on their presumed side..

Why is it that to date, all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism?*

Seems like there outta be at least one lonely little datum point they could
cite.

("philosophizing" about an uncaused causing-thing is not data; its an indirect admission they dont have any)


* I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate


Dr. K Wise, paleontologist

Re: Baptizing H floresiensis

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 10:33 am
by Jac3510
Audie wrote:They were the same Genus as people, different species. Definitely not monkeys.
Obviously not. Even cucumbers know that much.


Re: Baptizing H floresiensis

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 10:41 am
by Audie
Im probably lucky the sound doesnt worl

Re: Baptizing H floresiensis

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 10:58 am
by Byblos
Audie wrote:("philosophizing" about an uncaused causing-thing is not data; its an indirect admission they dont have any)
Perhaps you can share with us the process by which you determined that to be a fact?

Re: Baptizing H floresiensis

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:44 pm
by Audie
Byblos wrote:
Audie wrote:("philosophizing" about an uncaused causing-thing is not data; its an indirect admission they dont have any)
Perhaps you can share with us the process by which you determined that to be a fact?
Which part? The tacit admission?

Re: Baptizing H floresiensis

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 1:33 pm
by abelcainsbrother
hughfarey wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:It makes no difference whether you understand the Gap Theory interpretation or not.
But I do understand the Gap Theory. Perfectly. And it's unsupported by evidence, logically inconsistent and theologically unsound.
It will still be a more believable theory than the theory of evolution is if taught side by side and based on much of the very same evidence you are going by.We just show how the evidence in the earth proves there was a former lost world that has been overlooked.
No, you don't. You mostly ask questions.
The evidence will show to an unbiased audience that there was a former world much,much different than this world we now live in now with much different kinds of life that lived in the former world.
That is obviously true, but neither the Gap Theory nor Evolution deny it. What Gap Theory insists upon, and Evolution denies is that the transition from one to the other was instantaneous.
This is what the fossils tell us,they do not and will tell nobody life evolves,it will be you adding your evolution imagination to the fossils.
No. The opposite is true. The discovery and investigation of fossils was an important part of the formulation of the theory of evolution, not the other way round.
I'd like to see how you explain looking at a dinosaur proves it evolved into a bird,because they show that they lived in a much different world than this world
With the greatest respect, this query, and it's the second time you've asked, shows very clearly how little you understand of the fossil record, which, since the fossil record seems to be your main source of scientific evidence, is a bit of a downer for your Gap Theory. Of course you cannot look at a dinosaur and 'prove' it evolved into a bird. Since the dinosaur came first, no 'vestige of the future' is embedded in it. It would be a bit more sensible to inquire how looking at a bird 'proves' (not a good word - avoid it, is my advice) that it evolved from a dinosaur. But you haven't. Twice.
This is why I accept the Gap Theory over all other interpretations.
You are very welcome to your beliefs, of course, however irrational.
You just doubt the Gap Theory will be more believable,that is all.But you have probably never seen a debate between a Gap Theorist and somebody who believes the theory of evolution but once the evidence is laid out the Gap Theory is more believable and the Gap Theorists wins the debate based on the evidence and fossils is just one area of evidence I usually bring up but fossils alone are evidence for a former world totally different than this world,with different kinds of life that lived in it,but there is more evidence.Also fossils were not an important part of the formulation of evolution which is why Charles Darwin admitted there were no transitional fossils,but predicted they would be found but they never were,instead the fossils were just put together to make them look like transitional fossils.Meanwhile fossils at that time were apart of the evidence for the Gap Theory.But it makes no different because a former lost world is more believable,still.

Re: Baptizing H floresiensis

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 1:36 pm
by Byblos
Audie wrote:
Byblos wrote:
Audie wrote:("philosophizing" about an uncaused causing-thing is not data; its an indirect admission they dont have any)
Perhaps you can share with us the process by which you determined that to be a fact?
Which part? The tacit admission?
No, the tacit admission I took as your opinion so I dismissed it (as fact). I mean the underlined assertion.

Re: Baptizing H floresiensis

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 1:47 pm
by Audie
Byblos wrote:
Audie wrote:
Byblos wrote:
Audie wrote:("philosophizing" about an uncaused causing-thing is not data; its an indirect admission they dont have any)
Perhaps you can share with us the process by which you determined that to be a fact?
Which part? The tacit admission?
No, the tacit admission I took as your opinion so I dismissed it (as fact). I mean the underlined assertion.
Ok solve both with one fell, as they say, swoop; what philosophy-generated data is there?

Re: Baptizing H floresiensis

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 1:55 pm
by Audie
abelcainsbrother wrote:
hughfarey wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:It makes no difference whether you understand the Gap Theory interpretation or not.
But I do understand the Gap Theory. Perfectly. And it's unsupported by evidence, logically inconsistent and theologically unsound.
It will still be a more believable theory than the theory of evolution is if taught side by side and based on much of the very same evidence you are going by.We just show how the evidence in the earth proves there was a former lost world that has been overlooked.
No, you don't. You mostly ask questions.
The evidence will show to an unbiased audience that there was a former world much,much different than this world we now live in now with much different kinds of life that lived in the former world.
That is obviously true, but neither the Gap Theory nor Evolution deny it. What Gap Theory insists upon, and Evolution denies is that the transition from one to the other was instantaneous.
This is what the fossils tell us,they do not and will tell nobody life evolves,it will be you adding your evolution imagination to the fossils.
No. The opposite is true. The discovery and investigation of fossils was an important part of the formulation of the theory of evolution, not the other way round.
I'd like to see how you explain looking at a dinosaur proves it evolved into a bird,because they show that they lived in a much different world than this world
With the greatest respect, this query, and it's the second time you've asked, shows very clearly how little you understand of the fossil record, which, since the fossil record seems to be your main source of scientific evidence, is a bit of a downer for your Gap Theory. Of course you cannot look at a dinosaur and 'prove' it evolved into a bird. Since the dinosaur came first, no 'vestige of the future' is embedded in it. It would be a bit more sensible to inquire how looking at a bird 'proves' (not a good word - avoid it, is my advice) that it evolved from a dinosaur. But you haven't. Twice.
This is why I accept the Gap Theory over all other interpretations.
You are very welcome to your beliefs, of course, however irrational.
You just doubt the Gap Theory will be more believable,that is all.But you have probably never seen a debate between a Gap Theorist and somebody who believes the theory of evolution but once the evidence is laid out the Gap Theory is more believable and the Gap Theorists wins the debate based on the evidence and fossils is just one area of evidence I usually bring up but fossils alone are evidence for a former world totally different than this world,with different kinds of life that lived in it,but there is more evidence.Also fossils were not an important part of the formulation of evolution which is why Charles Darwin admitted there were no transitional fossils,but predicted they would be found but they never were,instead the fossils were just put together to make them look like transitional fossils.Meanwhile fossils at that time were apart of the evidence for the Gap Theory.But it makes no different because a former lost world is more believable,still.
The part in bold, is, among other thiags,false.

I usually bring up but fossils alone are evidence for a former world totally different than this world,with different kinds of life that lived in it,
Interesting. Totally different kinds of life. Totally different.

So none of the plants or animals of this "former world" are present now.
In fact, everything now is totally different, not related in any way to the
"former world".

That is what you have said. Stick to it, or start to backpeddle?


Could I ever make mincemeat of you in a debate in front of an audience!

Re: Baptizing H floresiensis

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:45 pm
by crochet1949
Audie wrote:
hughfarey wrote:
Audie wrote:
crochet1949 wrote:You guys have been hilarious this morning -- I've needed a good laugh. Thank you for unknowingly / unwittingly 'making my day more complete'. Are you Sure they weren't simply a different species of monkeys.
Glad you liked it. A little banter beats getting all heavy and serious for entertainment. They were the same Genus as people, different species. Definitely not monkeys.
As creationists often tell us that God didn't create "species", but "kinds", which in most cases include whole families of distantly related species, it seems creationistically possible that numerous species of the genus Homo could have diverged from the original "Adam" including, perhaps, floresiensis, neanderthalis, sapiens, heidelbergensis, and so on.
Kinds. Yes. Baraminology, hyperevoluion of created kinds after the ark, no end of silliness.

Creationistically possible. :D

You know, I wonder if it strikes any of our friends on the 6 day poof side
to wonder why it is that with God, the angels, the bible and the universe and all of reality on their presumed side..

Why is it that to date, all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism?*

Seems like there outta be at least one lonely little datum point they could
cite.

("philosophizing" about an uncaused causing-thing is not data; its an indirect admission they dont have any)

I use the terms 'species' / 'kinds' interchangeably. Any relative of Adam and Eve would look like Them. So - what did 'them' look like? They were created in the image and likeness of God -- when Jesus Christ was on earth -- He looked like the average Jewish man. The Old Testament was populated by lots of Hebrew people / Egyptians / Syrians, the various people groups mentioned. So - the question is -where Did those various people groups Come from. Obviously they were off spring Of Adam and Eve. After all people lived for hundreds of years back then. Some for 900+ years.

Actually I don't think it Does turn against creationism. Just because we don't understand How God did all that He did in that time frame, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
How many people are skeptics of the bodily resurrection of Jesus after His crucifixion. Lots of people believe that He was simply a great religious teacher of His day who got crucified and died as a result. End of story. But That wasn't the End at all.
Lots of people want to toss out Adam and Eve's start in life because That doesn't make sense. But that Is where civilized man started out. And then after the flood that's also supposedly improbable -- Noah and his family is where the rest of us came from.


* I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate


Dr. K Wise, paleontologist


And I agree with him. I go by what the Word of God says.

Re: Baptizing H floresiensis

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:47 pm
by crochet1949
Seems that I messed up by interjecting my thoughts in the wrong place. Didn't go clear to the end of the article.

Re: Baptizing H floresiensis

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:54 pm
by hughfarey
abelcainsbrother wrote:You just doubt the Gap Theory will be more believable,that is all.But you have probably never seen a debate between a Gap Theorist and somebody who believes the theory of evolution ...
True, I haven't, so I thought I'd look one up, but YouTube doesn't seem to have any. It seems that the most vociferous of the opponents of Gap Theory are other biblical literalists.
... but once the evidence is laid out the Gap Theory is more believable and the Gap Theorists wins the debate based on the evidence ...
No. There isn't any evidence. We keep asking you for some and all you do is ask questions or make unsubstantiated assertions.
... and fossils is just one area of evidence I usually bring up but fossils alone are evidence for a former world totally different than this world,with different kinds of life that lived in it,but there is more evidence.
There is no dispute that the earth millions of years ago was very different from modern earth. That is not Gap Theory. The dispute is about the possibility of the instantaneous destruction of one world and its instantaneous replacement by a different one. For which there is no evidence.
Also fossils were not an important part of the formulation of evolution which is why Charles Darwin admitted there were no transitional fossils,but predicted they would be found ...
This is factually incorrect. The emergence of geology, and the discovery of fossils within stratigraphic layers had generated evolutionary ideas long before On The Origin Of Species, and Darwin uses fossils to help support his argument throughout. A good example plucked more or less at random is:

"Let us now look to the mutual affinities of extinct and living species. They all fall into one grand natural system; and this fact is at once explained on the principle of descent. The more ancient any form is, the more, as a general rule, it differs from living forms. But, as Buckland long ago remarked, all fossils can be classed either in still existing groups, or between them. That the extinct forms of life help to fill up the wide intervals between existing genera, families, and orders, cannot be disputed. For if we confine our attention either to the living or to the extinct alone, the series is far less perfect than if we combine both into one general system. With respect to the Vertebrata, whole pages could be filled with striking illustrations from our great palæontologist, Owen, showing how extinct animals fall in between existing groups. Cuvier ranked the Ruminants and Pachyderms, as the two most distinct orders of mammals; but Owen has discovered so many fossil links, that he has had to alter the whole classification of these two orders; and has placed certain pachyderms in the same sub-order with ruminants: for example, he dissolves by fine gradations the apparently wide difference between the pig and the camel." [Emphasis mine]
... but they never were,instead the fossils were just put together to make them look like transitional fossils.
Unless you are accusing paleontologists of devising endless numbers of Piltdown-style chimera, this is meaningless, and if you are so accusing them, it is untrue.
But it makes no different because a former lost world is more believable,still.
Not to me, it isn't.

Re: Baptizing H floresiensis

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:55 pm
by hughfarey
crochet1949 wrote:I go by what the Word of God says.
Me too! That and the evidence he has strewn around for us to discover how to read his word correctly.

Re: Baptizing H floresiensis

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:59 pm
by Jac3510
Audie wrote:
Byblos wrote:
Audie wrote:
Byblos wrote:
Audie wrote:("philosophizing" about an uncaused causing-thing is not data; its an indirect admission they dont have any)
Perhaps you can share with us the process by which you determined that to be a fact?
Which part? The tacit admission?
No, the tacit admission I took as your opinion so I dismissed it (as fact). I mean the underlined assertion.
Ok solve both with one fell, as they say, swoop; what philosophy-generated data is there?
For a young earth (or an old earth, or any age of any earth), none. Nor can there be. Nor would any young earth creationist claim that they get any data from "'philosophizing' about an uncaused causing-thing." (Nor would theistic evolutionists or day-age creationists, or framework theorists, or gappists, or anyone else.) It's sort of irrelevant to the question . . . :P