RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence

RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

gluadys -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (5/12/2008 9:08:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: Evolution can be part of the catalogue of explanations which is not dropped from heaven but discovered through research. Oh indeed, gluadys! Jacob used his knowledge of evolution (the change in the proportional distribution of alleles in a population over generations) to select out better animals during breeding. I'm quite surprised you didn't know this reference to "evolution" in the Bible. Better take it up with theo_book. He's the one who said creation didn't come with a catalogue of explanations. Apparently you disagree.

drmark -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (5/12/2008 9:11:48 PM)
No, I disagree with your faulty, limited, irrelevant definition of evolution, that's all.

gluadys -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (5/12/2008 9:29:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark No, I disagree with your faulty, limited, irrelevant definition of evolution, that's all. Which means you disagree with the definition of evolution used in every major biology department. You would rather have a strawman definition that does not describe reality so that it can be easily falsified. Unfortunately for you, proving the worthlessness of a strawman is child's play. Let us know when you are ready for the big leagues.

theo_book -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (5/14/2008 9:22:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: Evolution can be part of the catalogue of explanations which is not dropped from heaven but discovered through research. Oh indeed, gluadys! Jacob used his knowledge of evolution (the change in the proportional distribution of alleles in a population over generations) to select out better animals during breeding. I'm quite surprised you didn't know this reference to "evolution" in the Bible. So you are including "selective breeding" in your understanding of EVOLUTION?

theo_book -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (5/14/2008 9:35:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book But what is even more significant, Apes are NOT men, and MEN are NOT Apes. Apes are the members of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, which includes humans. I could arbitrarily assign an artificially designated name to a category of space ships and call it "vine swinger," then claim since apes swing from vines, they must belong to that category of space ships. Just because men have arbitrarily made up a name for an artificially assigned category does not mean man and ape are related by descent from a common ancestor. And ESPECIALLY in light of God's remarks to the contrary.

drmark -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (5/14/2008 10:24:36 AM)
quote: So you are including "selective breeding" in your understanding of EVOLUTION? No, that would be gluadys' faulty understanding of evolution that you're thinking of. I know the correct definition as used by naturalist biologists for several decades now.

essentialsaltes -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (5/14/2008 11:41:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes Apes are the members of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, which includes humans. I could arbitrarily assign an artificially designated name to a category of space ships and call it "vine swinger," then claim since apes swing from vines, they must belong to that category of space ships. You would be the only person to be using this definition. However, the definition of ape is the definition that all biologists use. And because of the shared physical features, humans belong to this grouping known as apes. Genetic similarity confirms this placement.

theo_book -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (5/14/2008 1:27:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes Apes are the members of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, which includes humans. I could arbitrarily assign an artificially designated name to a category of space ships and call it "vine swinger," then claim since apes swing from vines, they must belong to that category of space ships. You would be the only person to be using this definition. However, the definition of ape is the definition that all biologists use. And because of the shared physical features, humans belong to this grouping known as apes. Genetic similarity confirms this placement. So Genetic similarity then places apes "a little lower than the angels?" "In the image of God?"

essentialsaltes -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (5/14/2008 2:11:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book So Genetic similarity then places apes "a little lower than the angels?" "In the image of God?" I don't know anything about that.

swan42 -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (5/14/2008 2:52:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes Apes are the members of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, which includes humans. I could arbitrarily assign an artificially designated name to a category of space ships and call it "vine swinger," then claim since apes swing from vines, they must belong to that category of space ships. You would be the only person to be using this definition. However, the definition of ape is the definition that all biologists use. And because of the shared physical features, humans belong to this grouping known as apes. Genetic similarity confirms this placement. So Genetic similarity then places apes "a little lower than the angels?" "In the image of God?" Yes, if God and Angels had DNA; but you know you are just playing word games.

theo_book -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (5/14/2008 3:45:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: swan42 quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes Apes are the members of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, which includes humans. I could arbitrarily assign an artificially designated name to a category of space ships and call it "vine swinger," then claim since apes swing from vines, they must belong to that category of space ships. You would be the only person to be using this definition. However, the definition of ape is the definition that all biologists use. And because of the shared physical features, humans belong to this grouping known as apes. Genetic similarity confirms this placement. So Genetic similarity then places apes "a little lower than the angels?" "In the image of God?" Yes, if God and Angels had DNA; but you know you are just playing word games. Probably some truth to that. However, I am trying to get across a concept, that if all of creation were related by DNA, MAN is not part of that element of creation, for man alone was made in the image of God, therefore, whatever else he shares with animals or plants or minerals, he is uniquely MAN.

swan42 -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (5/14/2008 4:34:38 PM)
quote: Probably some truth to that. However, I am trying to get across a concept, that if all of creation were related by DNA, MAN is not part of that element of creation, for man alone was made in the image of God, therefore, whatever else he shares with animals or plants or minerals, he is uniquely MAN. Yep, that's a tough nut for some to swallow huh! 100 years ago, before the discovery of DNA, this question did not even bother anyone. There will likely be similar discoveries in the coming centuries that are equally difficult for some people to reconcile with scripture.

drmark -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (5/14/2008 5:16:17 PM)
quote: 100 years ago, before the discovery of DNA, this question did not even bother anyone. There will likely be similar discoveries in the coming centuries that are equally difficult for some people to reconcile with scripture. Please clarify why you feel the discovery of DNA contradicts the Bible, swan42. I have a standing challenge for anyone to share a scientific fact that negates any Scriptural truth. I'm all ears.

Method -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (5/14/2008 6:33:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book Probably some truth to that. However, I am trying to get across a concept, that if all of creation were related by DNA, MAN is not part of that element of creation, for man alone was made in the image of God, therefore, whatever else he shares with animals or plants or minerals, he is uniquely MAN. Every species is unique. Chimps are uniquely chimp. Gorillas are uniquely gorilla. Orangutans are uniquely orangutan. Gibbons are uniquely gibbon. And yet, all are apes. You can not give a description of all apes using the traits that they all share without also describing humans. That is why humans are apes just as chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons are apes even though each species is unique. We put things in the same category based on the traits that they share, not by the traits that they do not share. Also, if God is omnipotent and all creative then it really makes me wonder why humans are so ape like. Couldn't God make us completely different from any known animal, even to the point of giving us unique codon usage? It would seem so, and yet we share not only the same codon usage as the rest of life but 95% of a chimps DNA. We have all of the same bones and muscles as every other ape. We also have the same number of hair follicles. We are unmistakably ape.

Method -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (5/14/2008 6:34:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark Please clarify why you feel the discovery of DNA contradicts the Bible, swan42. I have a standing challenge for anyone to share a scientific fact that negates any Scriptural truth. I'm all ears. You tell us, doc. What DNA evidence would, if found, contradict the Bible?

swan42 -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (5/14/2008 8:42:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: 100 years ago, before the discovery of DNA, this question did not even bother anyone. There will likely be similar discoveries in the coming centuries that are equally difficult for some people to reconcile with scripture. Please clarify why you feel the discovery of DNA contradicts the Bible, swan42. I have a standing challenge for anyone to share a scientific fact that negates any Scriptural truth. I'm all ears. You don't understand what I said. Additionally, I rarely express a specific opinion and did not mention the words contradict or negate. I did not say I feel the discovery of DNA contradicts the Bible. During the 17th century, some felt that heliocentricism required scriptural reconciliation. Some (not myself) feel that the discovery of DNA requires scriptural reconciliation. In the future, some will feel that new discoveries (like life on another planet) requires scriptural reconciliation.

drmark -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (5/14/2008 11:11:15 PM)
quote: What DNA evidence would, if found, contradict the Bible? Aww, you're wasting our time, Method. You know that I know there is no scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible, only faulty human interpretations of that evidence! However, I would be in serious theological trouble if someone demonstrated one kind of animal reproducing an entirely different kind of offspring. Got any evidence? quote: I did not say I feel the discovery of DNA contradicts the Bible. Thanks for your clarification, swan. I misunderstood your usage of "there will", "similar", and "difficult to reconcile".

Veritas -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (5/15/2008 2:11:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark However, I would be in serious theological trouble if someone demonstrated one kind of animal reproducing an entirely different kind of offspring. Got any evidence? The theory of evolution would be in serious troube if someone demonstrated one kind of animal producing an entirely differnet kind of offspring. If you think that's what evolution says, you really don't understand evolution at all.

theo_book -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (5/15/2008 9:05:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method if God is omnipotent and all creative then it really makes me wonder why humans are so ape like. Couldn't God make us completely different from any known animal, even to the point of giving us unique codon usage? It would seem so, and yet we share not only the same codon usage as the rest of life but 95% of a chimps DNA. We have all of the same bones and muscles as every other ape. We also have the same number of hair follicles. We are unmistakably ape. "Same bones and muscles?" How then does the archeologist know when he is disturbing the local cemetary, or whether he is in fact discovering an ancient ape's remains? No, my friend, I do not think we have what could be categorized as "the same" bones and muscles. Length, thickness, density of bone material and musculature, all would tend to distinguish between ape and man.

theo_book -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (5/15/2008 9:16:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Method You can not give a description of all apes using the traits that they all share without also describing humans. That is why humans are apes just as chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons are apes even though each species is unique. We put things in the same category based on the traits that they share, not by the traits that they do not share. Apes swing from trees, eat bugs, insects, fruit, and raw meat of victims they kill with their own hands and teeth. What humans are you referencing?

gluadys -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (5/15/2008 12:19:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: ORIGINAL: Method You can not give a description of all apes using the traits that they all share without also describing humans. That is why humans are apes just as chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons are apes even though each species is unique. We put things in the same category based on the traits that they share, not by the traits that they do not share. Apes swing from trees, eat bugs, insects, fruit, and raw meat of victims they kill with their own hands and teeth. What humans are you referencing? Humans certainly can do all those things, and have done so. Most kids, who have the opportunity to do so, will swing from trees. Many cultures include bugs/insects in their diets. Fancy restaurants will charge you a pretty penny to serve you raw meat (steak tartare) and the word "Eskimo" means "eaters of raw meat". It is not unknown for humans to kill with their own hands and teeth. We tend to use instruments because a) we are smart enough to create them and b) our nails and teeth are not as efficient at tearing apart victims as are those of other animals.

theo_book -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (5/15/2008 2:13:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: ORIGINAL: Method You can not give a description of all apes using the traits that they all share without also describing humans. That is why humans are apes just as chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons are apes even though each species is unique. We put things in the same category based on the traits that they share, not by the traits that they do not share. Apes swing from trees, eat bugs, insects, fruit, and raw meat of victims they kill with their own hands and teeth. What humans are you referencing? Humans certainly can do all those things, and have done so. Most kids, who have the opportunity to do so, will swing from trees. Many cultures include bugs/insects in their diets. Fancy restaurants will charge you a pretty penny to serve you raw meat (steak tartare) and the word "Eskimo" means "eaters of raw meat". It is not unknown for humans to kill with their own hands and teeth. We tend to use instruments because a) we are smart enough to create them and b) our nails and teeth are not as efficient at tearing apart victims as are those of other animals. Good point. Now, when apes join in the controversy about evolution, I will believe it.

drmark -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (5/15/2008 4:03:02 PM)
quote: Now, when apes join in the controversy about evolution, I will believe it Better point!! quote: If you think that's what evolution says, you really don't understand evolution at all. It's pretty much impossible to understand something that has never happened, is not happening now, and will never happen. But it's nice to see that you have no scientific observation that contradicts Scripture either, Veritas.

Method -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (5/16/2008 5:58:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark Aww, you're wasting our time, Method. You know that I know there is no scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible, only faulty human interpretations of that evidence! I probably am wasting my time asking this again, but your refusal to give a straight answer is very illuminating. What evidence, IF FOUND, would contradict the Bible? I am not asking for what evidence in hand falsifies the Bible. I am asking what evidence if found in the future would contradict the Bible. Or is there no possible evidence that could contradict the Bible, imagined or otherwise? Are you saying that if we observed an IC system evolve that this would not contradict the Bible? What about the evolution of a species with a new and novel morphological structure? What about the discovery of a transitional fossil? You know, all that stuff that creationists claim doesn't exist. quote: However, I would be in serious theological trouble if someone demonstrated one kind of animal reproducing an entirely different kind of offspring. Got any evidence? This would also falsify evolution. So are you saying that evolution does not contradict the Bible?

Method -> RE: Evolutionist's exercise? Jumping to wrong conclusions based on faulty evaluation of evidence (5/16/2008 6:00:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: ORIGINAL: Method You can not give a description of all apes using the traits that they all share without also describing humans. That is why humans are apes just as chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons are apes even though each species is unique. We put things in the same category based on the traits that they share, not by the traits that they do not share. Apes swing from trees, eat bugs, insects, fruit, and raw meat of victims they kill with their own hands and teeth. What humans are you referencing? Humans certainly can do all those things, and have done so. Most kids, who have the opportunity to do so, will swing from trees. Many cultures include bugs/insects in their diets. Fancy restaurants will charge you a pretty penny to serve you raw meat (steak tartare) and the word "Eskimo" means "eaters of raw meat". It is not unknown for humans to kill with their own hands and teeth. We tend to use instruments because a) we are smart enough to create them and b) our nails and teeth are not as efficient at tearing apart victims as are those of other animals. Good point. Now, when apes join in the controversy about evolution, I will believe it. Apes are writing these posts. That's the point. Are gorillas not apes because they do not swing from tree to tree like orangutans? Are chimps not apes because they are smaller than gorillas?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI