Yeah, saying ape instead of common ancestor is using vocabulary that my English teachers call figurative language, which in this case could be either hyperbole or sarcasm. I'm not sure which.
Evolution vs. Creation Topic
- Thread starter Saved By Grace
- Start date
Yeah, saying ape instead of common ancestor is using vocabulary that my English teachers call figurative language, which in this case could be either hyperbole or sarcasm. I'm not sure which.
I was just trying to make the point that Darwin thought we evolved from one form of creature to another, which the Bible, God's word, does not teach.
This is one of my dad's maxims: Think outside the box.
Things that we believe affect the intelligence we find in information. And sometimes researchers change information to fit their theories. That is almost certainly true of Mendel. His results are way too perfect to have actually happened.
A creationist shovel makes a smaller hole than an evolutionist shovel. Darwin, the creationist, collected one finch from each island. A hundred years later, when evolutionists collected Galapagos finches, they collected hundreds of finches from each island because they wanted to see variation.
When I look at an Australopithecine, it looks ape-like. When a physical anthropologist exmines bones, he or she measures the bones. I have seen a CSpan video about the process. They can tell if bones are European or Asian, so surely that can tell if bones are ape or human.
In a way yes, but strictly speaking I don't think so : )
Darwinian Evolution is a conclusion from a valid premise (Natural Selection).
As there many cases: The Premise is valid, but the conclusion can be/maybe/is questionable.
Precisely, imo: Hard Science (observation, gathering data, testing, retesting) boils down to Logic: formulating the "conclusion".....
It reminds me of what I learned from a Chemistry class*, and echoed in an Auditing class : )
Just stick to an observation, don’t add anything…
Hmmm, sounds like interpreting a bible verse? : )
Food protein turns litmus paper to blue...
A “thing” was given…..
"Wrong" conclusion: the thing contains protein…
"Safe" conclusion: the thing turns to blue : )
Just stick to an observation, don’t add anything…
Hmmm, sounds like interpreting a bible verse? : )
Food protein turns litmus paper to blue...
A “thing” was given…..
"Wrong" conclusion: the thing contains protein…
"Safe" conclusion: the thing turns to blue : )
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not….. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”
“If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.”
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."
That seems a bit convoluted to me. However, do you want to say;
If there is natural seclection, then there is change in species.
That could be a false statement if there is not change in species. Howerver, the fossil record clearly shows a change in species. Even Curvier agreed with that.
The problem with that statement is the fossils are not in random order. If a flood piled up mud it would be all mixed up but that is not the case here.
That's not true. When you have rapid settling of mud and debris, they settle in layers. There are several videos demonstrating this, I just forgot where to find them.
So what you are telling me is it is possible to get order from chaos?
Nope. I am telling you mud separates by density when sloshed around and given a chance to settle.
That is not a false statement.
Just mixing up what is the proper premise and conclusion.
Premise: Natural Selection, Conclusion: Change in species.
An accepted conclusion can in turn be a new Premise.
Premise: Change in species.
Conclusion: _______
How about the studies done on strata and layering after the Mt. St Helen's eruption that mirrored things we see at Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon?
Yellowstone (and elsewhere) : petrified trees that extend through supposedly 'billions of years' worth of the geologic column. Spirit Lake at the base of Mt. St. Helen's is a testimony as to how the layers of coal, sediment, and petrified trees ended up together like at Yellowstone during the Flood. And it has only been a few decades-not billions of years...
The strata formation in the 'mini-grand canyon' took only days at Mt St. Helen's as the result of this "local flood" from flowing minerals and elements from the 'dam burst'. This same phenomenon occurred after the Global Flood of Noah forming the Grand Canyon in a matter of weeks or months (in theory).
That is-if you want to believe the Bible...
Yellowstone (and elsewhere) : petrified trees that extend through supposedly 'billions of years' worth of the geologic column. Spirit Lake at the base of Mt. St. Helen's is a testimony as to how the layers of coal, sediment, and petrified trees ended up together like at Yellowstone during the Flood. And it has only been a few decades-not billions of years...
The strata formation in the 'mini-grand canyon' took only days at Mt St. Helen's as the result of this "local flood" from flowing minerals and elements from the 'dam burst'. This same phenomenon occurred after the Global Flood of Noah forming the Grand Canyon in a matter of weeks or months (in theory).
That is-if you want to believe the Bible...
I've read the studies before. The effects of a lot of water over a little time can be seen after flash floods. It doesn't take millions of years of a gentle trickle to carve the earth.
Since you hung that off my post; I ask ....that relates to my post....how exactly?
Okay, I think the two statements should be: p = There exists a theory Natural Selection and q = There exists observations, change in species.
The statement p may or may not be true because it is a theory. The statement q is true because change in species can be observed in the fossil record.
The conditional statement if p then q is a true statement because a conditional statement is true when the conclusion is true.
The conditional statement if q then p is a true statement or not depending on whether one believes the theory.
Maybe if q then p could be thought of as an inference rather than a deduction. I have this observation about change in species and I infer that that the reason for the change is that the environment selects changes in species.
The odd thing about Natural Selection is that it appears to have been picked as the answer because it is less unlikely than all the other possibilities.
You asked "Who are they?"
"He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not." John stating about Jesus coming to His creation....
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not."
Man chooses 'self' and "logic" / knowledge and chooses the darkness rather than believing the light-what is good; instead of believing what God has done; we create our own reality in our vain imagination.
And fossils found in "layers" really don't prove jack squat without 'theory' other than we have found bones in the dirt sorted out by density and weight because of the flood. Dating methods used have been proven time and again to be flawed-but for some reason that doesn't stop 'science' from using them.
When we eliminate the reality of the Global flood; we ignore the truth in God's Word. Maybe we should meditate on God's Word and look at the data and evidence of what we can observe and draw conclusions from both sides and see what is observable factual science and what is influenced by theory.
Evolution 7 Liebig and Wöhler
Today we know that chemicals of life follow the same rules as chemicals in a laboratory, but in the early nineteenth century that was not so obvious, In 1828, several decades after Lavoisier, two German scientists Justus von Liebig (1803–1873) and Friedrich Wöhler (1800–1882) discovered the first chemical, which had been known only in organisms, but could also be made in outside an organism.
In 1825 Liebig synthesized silver fulminate and Wöhler synthesized silver cyanate The two compounds have the same composition, but different characteristics. Liebig’s silver fulminate is explosive, but Wöhler’s silver cyanate, is not. That was the first time that anyone had found a compound with two sets of properties. The discovery led chemists to suspect that substances are defined not simply by the number and kind of atoms in the molecule but also by the arrangement of those atoms. Today chemists have a word, isomers, for chemicals with the same composition but different shape.
In 1828 Wöhler accidently synthesized urea when he was attempting to synthesize ammonium cyanate. He realized that he had imitated nature, and he sounds excited when he wrote in a letter, “I can no longer, so to speak, hold my chemical water and must tell you that I can make urea without needing a kidney, whether of man or dog; the ammonium salt of cyanic acid is urea.”
The fact that the shape of chemicals affects characteristics has been found to be important in how living chemistry works. The fact that urea, which had previously only been made in kidneys and can be made in a laboratory, means that the chemistry of living things follows the rules of the chemistry of nonliving things.
http://www.chemheritage.org/discove...-structure-and-bonding/liebig-and-wohler.aspx
Today we know that chemicals of life follow the same rules as chemicals in a laboratory, but in the early nineteenth century that was not so obvious, In 1828, several decades after Lavoisier, two German scientists Justus von Liebig (1803–1873) and Friedrich Wöhler (1800–1882) discovered the first chemical, which had been known only in organisms, but could also be made in outside an organism.
In 1825 Liebig synthesized silver fulminate and Wöhler synthesized silver cyanate The two compounds have the same composition, but different characteristics. Liebig’s silver fulminate is explosive, but Wöhler’s silver cyanate, is not. That was the first time that anyone had found a compound with two sets of properties. The discovery led chemists to suspect that substances are defined not simply by the number and kind of atoms in the molecule but also by the arrangement of those atoms. Today chemists have a word, isomers, for chemicals with the same composition but different shape.
In 1828 Wöhler accidently synthesized urea when he was attempting to synthesize ammonium cyanate. He realized that he had imitated nature, and he sounds excited when he wrote in a letter, “I can no longer, so to speak, hold my chemical water and must tell you that I can make urea without needing a kidney, whether of man or dog; the ammonium salt of cyanic acid is urea.”
The fact that the shape of chemicals affects characteristics has been found to be important in how living chemistry works. The fact that urea, which had previously only been made in kidneys and can be made in a laboratory, means that the chemistry of living things follows the rules of the chemistry of nonliving things.
http://www.chemheritage.org/discove...-structure-and-bonding/liebig-and-wohler.aspx
Is there a connection here between evolution vs creation?