Creationist Inquiry

[jomen112]

I doubt ignorant, illiterate Americans (read: creationists) know where France is, even less where Lyon and Marseille is, since it is not mentioned in the Bible. :-D

.... is like saying Gospel of Mark is more in the Bible than Acts of the Apostles is.

I think they will get it now. :-D Nevertheless, I have not seen that particular claim before, but it would not amaze me if creationist did use it. It is a certain kind of intellectual gymnastic one must perform in order to deny all and every evidence in biology. Ignorance (read: not to check what science claims but trust their preachers on their words) helps a lot here.

In any case, if we are, as creationist claims, not like primates then what are we more like; rodents perhaps?

 

[abelcainsbrother]

[evolutionary biologists] refuse to admit life does not evolve and just keep on believing it despite their findings that showed they were wrong.

Yep, keep on living in your fantasy world of denial....

Mito-Eve is still there for a reason. Man is unique compared to primates,neanderthal and apes hence the Mito-Eve theory to kick the can down the road for you.

 

[Rumraket]

Wow! You evolutionists were teaching him so wrong.Have you forgot about the mitochondrial Eve theory and why they came up with it?It is because they did not like what they discovered about primates,neanderthals,apes and man,with apes and neanderthals being more like the primates than man is.So they come up with the mitochondrial eve theory,they refuse to admit life does not evolve and just keep on believing it despite their findings that showed they were wrong.

You have apparently no fucking idea what mitochondrial eve is about. :lol:

 

[jomen112]

Yep, keep on living in your fantasy world of denial....

Mito-Eve is still there for a reason. Man is unique compared to primates,neanderthal and apes hence the Mito-Eve theory to kick the can down the road for you.

Every species is unique - that is why we call them species in the first place. In fact almost every organism is unique, slight different from their parents, all nested into an observed hierarchy known as the tree of life. (For the record, this is caused by a basic evolutionary mechanism; inheritance of unique characters - and that is what creates and explains the observed nested set of life - that is, if you prefer proven natural mechanisms, and accept forensic science to determine kinship, as explanations before unproven magical creation of "kinds" out of nothing).

Simply put for you to understand, you can as well (and just as pointless) say; chimpanzees is unique compared to primates or tarsiers is unique compared to primates, or lemurs is unique compared to primates. Man is, just like chimpanzees, tarsiers and lemurs, per taxonomic definition, and careful observation and studies, classified as being uniquely nested within, the dry-nosed primates. It falls out per definition that they are unique, otherwise they would not have their unique names to start with but be labeled under the same name. In other words, if you remove what makes chimpanzees, tarsiers and lemurs and man unique they are all the same. That sameness is known under the name dry-nosed primates.

Just like the sameness of Golden Retriever, German Shepherd, Staffordshire Bull Terrierm etc is collectively known as dog, does not mean there is some dog that is "more unique" than other dogs, or do you also believe there exists some dog that is less like a dog than any other dogs?

This means; there is no such things as a "unique primate" since all primates are the same - per definition of what it means to be a primate. (And just as I predicted in a previous post about the errors in saying that one French city is more in France than another; a true creationist will just refuse to understand, or pretend not to understand - read: deny - why this is so).

So where is your point with your drivel about uniqueness? Perhaps, give me a consistent definition of a dry-nosed primate that does not include man, but chimpanzees, tarsiers and lemurs etc, and then we can start discuss whether man is "more like" a primate or not.

However, I don't think you will manage - Carl von Line did not, nor anybody else after him - so instead of writing a cryptic statement about "Mito-Eve" and making ignorant claims about man not being a "good enough" primate , while at the same time pretending you understand (and misrepresent) taxonomy and try to imply that there, somehow, exists some kind of unnamed flaw with the classification system (which no biologist so far has been able to discovered), just because you do not understand, refuse to understand, or simply has not bother to learn taxonomy, why don't you instead cite taxonomists or other experts, that actually knows what they talks about, to support what - whatever it is - you try to claim?

Or is you next assertion going to be, since we are not good enough primates in your liking, that we are not good enough mammals as well?

 

[abelcainsbrother]

"abelcainsbrother"]

Yep, keep on living in your fantasy world of denial....

Mito-Eve is still there for a reason. Man is unique compared to primates,neanderthal and apes hence the Mito-Eve theory to kick the can down the road for you.

Every species is unique - that is why we call them species in the first place. In fact almost every organism is unique, slight different from their parents, all nested into an observed hierarchy known as the tree of life. (For the record, this is caused by a basic evolutionary mechanism; inheritance of unique characters - and that is what creates and explains the observed nested set of life - that is, if you prefer proven natural mechanisms, and accept forensic science to determine kinship, as explanations before unproven magical creation of "kinds" out of nothing).

Simply put for you to understand, you can as well (and just as pointless) say; chimpanzees is unique compared to primates or tarsiers is unique compared to primates, or lemurs is unique compared to primates. Man is, just like chimpanzees, tarsiers and lemurs, per taxonomic definition, and careful observation and studies, classified as being uniquely nested within, the dry-nosed primates. It falls out per definition that they are unique, otherwise they would not have their unique names to start with but be labeled under the same name. In other words, if you remove what makes chimpanzees, tarsiers and lemurs and man unique they are all the same. That sameness is known under the name dry-nosed primates.

Just like the sameness of Golden Retriever, German Shepherd, Staffordshire Bull Terrierm etc is collectively known as dog, does not mean there is some dog that is "more unique" than other dogs, or do you also believe there exists some dog that is less like a dog than any other dogs?

This means; there is no such things as a "unique primate" since all primates are the same - per definition of what it means to be a primate. (And just as I predicted in a previous post about the errors in saying that one French city is more in France than another; a true creationist will just refuse to understand, or pretend not to understand - read: deny - why this is so).

So where is your point with your drivel about uniqueness? Perhaps, give me a consistent definition of a dry-nosed primate that does not include man, but chimpanzees, tarsiers and lemurs etc, and then we can start discuss whether man is "more like" a primate or not.

However, I don't think you will manage - Carl von Line did not, nor anybody else after him - so instead of writing a cryptic statement about "Mito-Eve" and making ignorant claims about man not being a "good enough" primate , while at the same time pretending you understand (and misrepresent) taxonomy and try to imply that there, somehow, exists some kind of unnamed flaw with the classification system (which no biologist so far has been able to discovered), just because you do not understand, refuse to understand, or simply has not bother to learn taxonomy, why don't you instead cite taxonomists or other experts, that actually knows what they talks about, to support what - whatever it is - you try to claim?

Or is you next assertion going to be, since we are not good enough primates in your liking, that we are not good enough mammals as well?

I will admit it has been awhile since I looked into the Mito-Eve theory and so I'm going on memory about it but I know the reason they came up with the Mito-Eve theory is because they discovered man is unique compared to primates,neanderthals and apes.Why come up with the Mito-Eve theory and instead just stick to man and apes evolving from the primates? They even included neanderthals too but the evidence did not bear it out and so they came up with the Mito-Eve theory.Now I know very much how serious scientists are when it comes to life evolving and I'm a skeptic because of a real lack of evidence and so it does look to me like they refuse to admit life does not evolve but kept on pushing anyway hence the Mito-Eve theory.

You see primates were living in trees like apes but man doesn't and niether did neanderthal but neanderthal is still more like apes and primates than man is.Man was created in the image of God to rule over the beasts of the field,etc and does,while none of the others do or did like man does.But no!They cannot accept the bible and so come up with Mito-Eve to kick the can down the road.

 

[Inferno]

I will admit it has been awhile since I looked into the Mito-Eve theory and so I'm going on memory about it but I know the reason they came up with the Mito-Eve theory is because they discovered man is unique compared to primates,neanderthals and apes.

Not even close.

All mitochondrial DNA (or mtDNA) is passed on in the maternal line without recombination. We can trace that DNA back roughly 150,000 years (+-) and find that there was one common ancestor, the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA). Mitochondrial Eve wasn't the only woman at the time and she didn't live at the same time as Y-Chromosomal Adam, who lived about 350,000 years ago. (+-) Adam also wasn't the only man around.

This has absolutely nothing to do with uniqueness.

Now I know very much how serious scientists are when it comes to life evolving and I'm a skeptic because of a real lack of evidence and so it does look to me like they refuse to admit life does not evolve but kept on pushing anyway hence the Mito-Eve theory.

I'll point this out once more: You're simply ignorant of the science. You don't know what mitochondrial Eve was, you don't know how Evolution works and you don't understand that Evolution has moved on since Darwin, something Creationists are typically ignorant of.

neanderthal is still more like apes and primates than man is.

Based on what criteria? There's a huge cock-up by creationists here: They claimed Australopithecus to be "just ape" first, then "just human", then "just ape" once again. Homo Neanderthalensis is much more recent and I doubt even creationists will deny that Neanderthals are mostly humans. Hell, we even have part Neanderthal DNA! This is so basic, you just can't deny it without looking like a total idiot.

 

[jomen112]

I will admit it has been awhile since I looked into the Mito-Eve theory and so I'm going on memory about it but I know the reason they came up with the Mito-Eve theory is because they discovered man is unique compared to primates,neanderthals and apes.Why come up with the Mito-Eve theory and instead just stick to man and apes evolving from the primates? They even included neanderthals too but the evidence did not bear it out and so they came up with the Mito-Eve theory.Now I know very much how serious scientists are when it comes to life evolving and I'm a skeptic because of a real lack of evidence and so it does look to me like they refuse to admit life does not evolve but kept on pushing anyway hence the Mito-Eve theory.

You see primates were living in trees like apes but man doesn't and niether did neanderthal but neanderthal is still more like apes and primates than man is.Man was created in the image of God to rule over the beasts of the field,etc and does,while none of the others do or did like man does.But no!They cannot accept the bible and so come up with Mito-Eve to kick the can down the road.

I could write quite a long respond trying to explain your misuse of terminology and misconception about primates above. However, based on what you written above, I doubt you even read my post. If you did, then you possible cannot have understood it or you simply ignored everything what I wrote about primates. Therefore I stand by my first statement; keep on living in your fantasy world of denial. If it makes you feel happy with your life, who am I to say you are wrong to believe so, because it does not matter what the truth is as long we feel happy, right?

 

[jomen112]

neanderthal is still more like apes and primates than man is.

Based on what criteria? There's a huge cock-up by creationists here: They claimed Australopithecus to be "just ape" first, then "just human", then "just ape" once again. Homo Neanderthalensis is much more recent and I doubt even creationists will deny that Neanderthals are mostly humans. Hell, we even have part Neanderthal DNA! This is so basic, you just can't deny it without looking like a total idiot.

Not to mention that, according to Svante Paabo's research, human DNA is "contaminated" with about 3-5% Neanderthal DNA, which from a genetic point of view is roughly equal to have a neanderthal as grand-grand parent (4-5 generations away). The point is that evidence shows that humans and neaderthals has interbreed with each other. Therefor, if neanderthal (in creatonistic terminology) is an ape and this ape can "bring forth" with humans does that not suggest that human are apes as well? I already know the ad hoc explanation some creationists has to this in order to keep deny these evidence, so spare me...

But like you said, denying the current state of evidence will make you look like an idiot...

we even have part Neanderthal DNA!

The draft sequence of the neanderthal genome is a little bit more than a "part", as of 2010, it was 4 billion nucleotides sampled from from three individuals. They (Svante Paabo's research group) is still working on gathering a more complete Sequence of the neanderthal genome, not to mention the sequenced denisovian genome as well. In other words, we got the genomes from three separate species in the genus Homo.

 

[jomen112]

man is unique compared to primates,neanderthals and apes

I already explain in my previous post that all species are unique. You are breaking up open doors and try to make a point where there is no point to make.

Taxonomy for dummies:

All panthers are cats but not all cats are Panthers. Some cats are felines .
All lions are panthers, but not all lions are panthers. Some panthers are tigers or jaguars.

All apes are primates but not all primates are apes. Some primates are lemurs.
All chimpanzees are apes but not all apes are chimpanzees. Some apes are humans or neanderthals.

To treat primate, apes and hominids as separate categories, as you do above, is just drivel and nonsense, since they are related in a hierarchy (tree) based on the observed, and well documented, nested set of life. This has been known since Carl von Line's time. What is your excuse not to know this? What you written above only show that you do not even posses the most basic knowledge about how life is organized, even less what a primate or an ape is and how primates and apes are classified and related to each other. In other words, you don't know, or understand, what you are talking about.

It helps to first learn at least the basic facts in a topic before you start discuss it., not to mention be critical towards it. Your ignorance about basic and elementary pre-highschool biology does not put you in any credible position to be critical or have strong opinions about the origin of humans.

But ignorance about a subject has never stopped a creationist, has it? Far to well known, creationist, disrespect and spit on scholar knowledge and thinks their armchair thinking and google univesity (and their contradicting bible) is just as good as any academic scientific education, in whatever scientific subject they please to have a critical opinion about... When it comes to science, humble is a word that does not exist in a creationists dictionary.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

I will admit it has been awhile since I looked into the Mito-Eve theory and so I'm going on memory about it but I know the reason they came up with the Mito-Eve theory is because they discovered man is unique compared to primates,neanderthals and apes.

Not even close.

All mitochondrial DNA (or mtDNA) is passed on in the maternal line without recombination. We can trace that DNA back roughly 150,000 years (+-) and find that there was one common ancestor, the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA). Mitochondrial Eve wasn't the only woman at the time and she didn't live at the same time as Y-Chromosomal Adam, who lived about 350,000 years ago. (+-) Adam also wasn't the only man around.

This has absolutely nothing to do with uniqueness.

Now I know very much how serious scientists are when it comes to life evolving and I'm a skeptic because of a real lack of evidence and so it does look to me like they refuse to admit life does not evolve but kept on pushing anyway hence the Mito-Eve theory.

I'll point this out once more: You're simply ignorant of the science. You don't know what mitochondrial Eve was, you don't know how Evolution works and you don't understand that Evolution has moved on since Darwin, something Creationists are typically ignorant of.

neanderthal is still more like apes and primates than man is.

Based on what criteria? There's a huge cock-up by creationists here: They claimed Australopithecus to be "just ape" first, then "just human", then "just ape" once again. Homo Neanderthalensis is much more recent and I doubt even creationists will deny that Neanderthals are mostly humans. Hell, we even have part Neanderthal DNA! This is so basic, you just can't deny it without looking like a total idiot.

I know scientists have moved on from Darwinian evolution and it is because of what I explained that they have and now have the Mito-Eve theory. How can you say I don't know about it based on what I explained? I know you're not going to look at it like a creationist does and there are different views in creationism about this too,just like it is in science and we know more is going to be revealed in time too but you accept evolution and look at and interpret everything from that perspective,creationists look at it differently and are not totally settled yet no matter if it is theistic evolutionists,OEC's,YEC's,ID or Gap theorists like me.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

I will admit it has been awhile since I looked into the Mito-Eve theory and so I'm going on memory about it but I know the reason they came up with the Mito-Eve theory is because they discovered man is unique compared to primates,neanderthals and apes.Why come up with the Mito-Eve theory and instead just stick to man and apes evolving from the primates? They even included neanderthals too but the evidence did not bear it out and so they came up with the Mito-Eve theory.Now I know very much how serious scientists are when it comes to life evolving and I'm a skeptic because of a real lack of evidence and so it does look to me like they refuse to admit life does not evolve but kept on pushing anyway hence the Mito-Eve theory.

You see primates were living in trees like apes but man doesn't and niether did neanderthal but neanderthal is still more like apes and primates than man is.Man was created in the image of God to rule over the beasts of the field,etc and does,while none of the others do or did like man does.But no!They cannot accept the bible and so come up with Mito-Eve to kick the can down the road.

I could write quite a long respond trying to explain your misuse of terminology and misconception about primates above. However, based on what you written above, I doubt you even read my post. If you did, then you possible cannot have understood it or you simply ignored everything what I wrote about primates. Therefore I stand by my first statement; keep on living in your fantasy world of denial. If it makes you feel happy with your life, who am I to say you are wrong to believe so, because it does not matter what the truth is as long we feel happy, right?

Look I do not ignore what you wrote to me but you are looking at everything from an evolution perspective when it comes to species.You look at the primates and automatically assume man evolved from them,you overlook that you jumped over evidence that demonstrates life evolves then built a tree around the assumption life evolves linking life as if life evolves even when you have never seen any evidence in science that demonstrates life evolves.

I do not look at the evidence in the earth from an evolution perspective like you do.You see primates,dinosaurs,trilobites,wooly mammoths,sabre tooth tigers,etc all lived in the former world that existed on this earth that perished and there was a gap of time until God created this world so there is Noway dinosaurs evolved into the birds in this world yet you look at dinosaurs as if life evolves,not knowing if it does but still do and so you think dinosaurs evolved into birds but there is no way the life that lived in the former world evolved into the life in this world.I'm looking at the same evidence you are,the earth is very old and the evidence of massive death and extinction but it is proof that a former world full of life perished before God created this world.

How do you know Neanderthal's were not the descendants of Cain that God put a mark on him and changed him so no man would mess with him? No man would've wanted to mess with a Neanderthal.Or how do you know Neanderthals were not the hybrid breed of humans produced by angels that married humans and had children,a human half breed? Why do you look at them from an evolution perspective when you don't even have evidence that demonstrates life evolves?

Is it because of DNA? That does not prove or demonstrate life evolves just because all life seems related.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

I believe scientists and Christian theologians are talking past each other and scientists don't know enough about the bible and theologians don't know enough about science and so they talk past each other without understanding perspective.I know most assume I am a young earth creationist and so they will automatically assume I don't know what I'm talking about.But I think scientists and specifically gap theory Christians have part of the picture but not the whole view.If the truth matters to scientists instead of just pushing a scientific evolution dogma if they are really open to the truth I think it can be realized,however evolution dogma may have to be dropped and I'm not sure scientists are willing to drop evolution dogma and so what do we do?

I say either scientists can be open to other views or they risk being proven wrong.I know the other creation theories have had no effect against evolution but the gap theory is different and is the only one that can defeat evolution.And as more people learn about it and understand it more are going to see the truth in it.

Here is a teaching about it if you can handle listening to it.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VpMFo_2M0Zk

 

[Grumpy Santa]

I know scientists have moved on from Darwinian evolution and it is because of what I explained that they have and now have the Mito-Eve theory. How can you say I don't know about it based on what I explained? I know you're not going to look at it like a creationist does and there are different views in creationism about this too,just like it is in science and we know more is going to be revealed in time too but you accept evolution and look at and interpret everything from that perspective,creationists look at it differently and are not totally settled yet no matter if it is theistic evolutionists,OEC's,YEC's,ID or Gap theorists like me.

It can be a little difficult catching up to well-aged discussions when a new arrival, however... I have no idea what you're going on about here so please forgive me. What do you mean "moved on from Darwinian evolution"? If it means what I think it means then you're saying that evolutionary theory is a lot more complete today than it was when Darwin first put pen to paper with Origins, in which case I'd agree. Darwin didn't know nearly what we know now and didn't have access to things like genetics that further solidify evolutionary theory. If you're saying they've moved on from evolution in general then that's just silly. I haven't determined just yet if you're simply a silly person so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the first, that modern evolutionary theory is much more complete than in Darwin's day.

Also I keep seeing this "gap" thing mentioned? When was it accepted as theory in the scientific community? (You keep calling it theory.) Where exactly are the peer-reviewed articles relating to it, the experiments, the predictions that have been verified? What would falsify this gap hypothesis? Where's the data?

Finally, I'm not sure what you're getting on about regarding mitochondrial Eve? All this did was to demonstrate around when, based on our mitochondrial, the most recent human female common ancestor of all of us existed from a mitochondrial perspective only. This has nothing to do with other common ancestors or any other aspects of our evolution. It says nothing about our ancestry with other human (now extinct) species, or ancestry with bonobos and chimpanzee, with the other great apes, primates, mammals, chordates, etc. It's just a very specific window into our more recent genetic history as a species, nothing more or less.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Look I do not ignore what you wrote to me but you are looking at everything from an evolution perspective when it comes to species.You look at the primates and automatically assume man evolved from them,you overlook that you jumped over evidence that demonstrates life evolves then built a tree around the assumption life evolves linking life as if life evolves even when you have never seen any evidence in science that demonstrates life evolves.

I do not look at the evidence in the earth from an evolution perspective like you do.You see primates,dinosaurs,trilobites,wooly mammoths,sabre tooth tigers,etc all lived in the former world that existed on this earth that perished and there was a gap of time until God created this world so there is Noway dinosaurs evolved into the birds in this world yet you look at dinosaurs as if life evolves,not knowing if it does but still do and so you think dinosaurs evolved into birds but there is no way the life that lived in the former world evolved into the life in this world.I'm looking at the same evidence you are,the earth is very old and the evidence of massive death and extinction but it is proof that a former world full of life perished before God created this world.

How do you know Neanderthal's were not the descendants of Cain that God put a mark on him and changed him so no man would mess with him? No man would've wanted to mess with a Neanderthal.Or how do you know Neanderthals were not the hybrid breed of humans produced by angels that married humans and had children,a human half breed? Why do you look at them from an evolution perspective when you don't even have evidence that demonstrates life evolves?

Is it because of DNA? That does not prove or demonstrate life evolves just because all life seems related.

More puzzlement at what you're thinking. Of course we look at it "from an evolution perspective" when talking about the species because, most simply put, with all the data we have nothing else even remotely makes sense. I suppose we could try looking at it differently, however that would require ignoring or discarding facts and would reek of dishonestly because of that. As far as not seeing evidence that life evolves, that's just pure fallacy at it's finest. As a matter of fact, there isn't any evidence to the contrary. In the over 150 years since Origins was first penned no one has ever come up with evidence that falsifies evolutionary theory. Not once, not ever. That's a pretty good track record. Everywhere we look, from fossil record through examination of modern species (and the genetics within them), we find more and more evidence that life evolves and has been throughout time. Evolution is so well established as fact that it's not even a question as to whether or not it happened, just a question of the details.

"You see primates,dinosaurs,trilobites,wooly mammoths,sabre tooth tigers,etc all lived in the former world that existed on this earth that perished and there was a gap of time until God created this world so there is Noway dinosaurs evolved into the birds in this world yet you look at dinosaurs as if life evolves,not knowing if it does but still do and so you think dinosaurs evolved into birds but there is no way the life that lived in the former world evolved into the life in this world."

Is this part of your gap hypothesis here? Seems like it might be... correct me if I'm wrong. This, however, can never and will never be considered "theory" (in the proper sense). You've stuffed it with supernatural mumbo-jumbo for one thing. It's also built on assertion that requires ignoring actual data (the part about the dinosaurs being unable to have evolved into birds). It's just an inane pile of ramblings, a strange combination of words that seem to have lost any hope of significant meaning when combined in such an unusual configuration. Why would you type this? What are you trying to say? It's very confusing.

From what I can tell, there's only one part of your quote that seems to properly reflect your view of things, that properly explains the perspective from which you're coming from... "I do not look at the evidence".

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I haven't determined just yet if you're simply a silly person so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the first...

Oh, he is indeed just a silly person. That is why I only respond to him with memes.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Look I do not ignore what you wrote to me but you are looking at everything from an evolution perspective when it comes to species.You look at the primates and automatically assume man evolved from them,you overlook that you jumped over evidence that demonstrates life evolves then built a tree around the assumption life evolves linking life as if life evolves even when you have never seen any evidence in science that demonstrates life evolves.

I do not look at the evidence in the earth from an evolution perspective like you do.You see primates,dinosaurs,trilobites,wooly mammoths,sabre tooth tigers,etc all lived in the former world that existed on this earth that perished and there was a gap of time until God created this world so there is Noway dinosaurs evolved into the birds in this world yet you look at dinosaurs as if life evolves,not knowing if it does but still do and so you think dinosaurs evolved into birds but there is no way the life that lived in the former world evolved into the life in this world.I'm looking at the same evidence you are,the earth is very old and the evidence of massive death and extinction but it is proof that a former world full of life perished before God created this world.

How do you know Neanderthal's were not the descendants of Cain that God put a mark on him and changed him so no man would mess with him? No man would've wanted to mess with a Neanderthal.Or how do you know Neanderthals were not the hybrid breed of humans produced by angels that married humans and had children,a human half breed? Why do you look at them from an evolution perspective when you don't even have evidence that demonstrates life evolves?

Is it because of DNA? That does not prove or demonstrate life evolves just because all life seems related.

More puzzlement at what you're thinking. Of course we look at it "from an evolution perspective" when talking about the species because, most simply put, with all the data we have nothing else even remotely makes sense. I suppose we could try looking at it differently, however that would require ignoring or discarding facts and would reek of dishonestly because of that. As far as not seeing evidence that life evolves, that's just pure fallacy at it's finest. As a matter of fact, there isn't any evidence to the contrary. In the over 150 years since Origins was first penned no one has ever come up with evidence that falsifies evolutionary theory. Not once, not ever. That's a pretty good track record. Everywhere we look, from fossil record through examination of modern species (and the genetics within them), we find more and more evidence that life evolves and has been throughout time. Evolution is so well established as fact that it's not even a question as to whether or not it happened, just a question of the details.

"You see primates,dinosaurs,trilobites,wooly mammoths,sabre tooth tigers,etc all lived in the former world that existed on this earth that perished and there was a gap of time until God created this world so there is Noway dinosaurs evolved into the birds in this world yet you look at dinosaurs as if life evolves,not knowing if it does but still do and so you think dinosaurs evolved into birds but there is no way the life that lived in the former world evolved into the life in this world."

Is this part of your gap hypothesis here? Seems like it might be... correct me if I'm wrong. This, however, can never and will never be considered "theory" (in the proper sense). You've stuffed it with supernatural mumbo-jumbo for one thing. It's also built on assertion that requires ignoring actual data (the part about the dinosaurs being unable to have evolved into birds). It's just an inane pile of ramblings, a strange combination of words that seem to have lost any hope of significant meaning when combined in such an unusual configuration. Why would you type this? What are you trying to say? It's very confusing.

From what I can tell, there's only one part of your quote that seems to properly reflect your view of things, that properly explains the perspective from which you're coming from... "I do not look at the evidence".

Its the same old mantra declaring it true based on a bunch of evidence built on the assumption life evolves and yet not one scientist has ever demonstrated life evolves since Darwin.I have not ignored data and why are you looking at everything from an evolution perspective?

What would you expect to find in the earth if a former world full of life existed that perished? You would find evidence for it.You would find fossils and evidence of death and extinction of both biological life and plant and tree life.But you look at this evidence with the assumption life evolves and yet have no evidence that demonstrates it does.When we look through the evidence in science you accept we find evidence of reproduction or adaptation used as evidence life evolves.

Based on this the evidence in the earth used as evidence for evolution is being looked at all wrong because it is forensic scientific evidence that a former world existed that perished and has nothing to do with life evolving.

And this was the case before Charles Darwin wrote "On the origin of species" in 1859.William Buckland who discovered the very first dinosaur and became Oxford's very first geology professor was teaching the Gap theory so Charles Darwin who had just got out of biblical seminary went out on his boat and thought about how to make evolution fit into the known scientific evidence of the time,he put forth his theory but after 150 years scientists still do not know if life evolves.

 

[Inferno]

looking at everything from an evolution perspective

This really annoys me.
If there were "an evolution perspective", how did it come up? Why would anyone interpret anything from "an evolution perspective" to begin with, if we had the perfect "gap theory" before?

OK to start off, it's not the "gap theory", it's the "gap idea".

Second, we're not looking at things from any perspective, we're looking at the evidence and trying to see what theory it fits. (Or what theory fits it, however you look at it.)

You mention fossils: You're right, both the "gap idea" and the theory of evolution would predict fossils.
However, the "gap idea" would predict one group of "kinds" first, then a second group of "kinds" later with absolutely no intermingling. This is not what we find. We find birds at the time of the dinosaurs (duh) and we find mammals at the time of the dinosaurs as well. We find things that look like dinosaurs today but they certainly aren't dinosaurs. And we find things that look like they're hundreds of millions of years old (older than dinosaurs) today.
None of that should be true if the "gap idea" had any validity.

What would you expect to find in the earth if a former world full of life existed that perished? You would find evidence for it.You would find fossils and evidence of death and extinction of both biological life and plant and tree life.

And the extinction of microbes, bacteria, phages, viruses, etc. etc. Yes you are right, we would expect to find that.
We would also expect to find that there are some periods where not a single living thing lived. Nothing. Not one. Nada. Why don't we find that? Why do we find bottlenecks, why do we find very small populations but why do we never find that no life existed? This should raise red flags all around for your "gap idea".

And this was the case before Charles Darwin wrote "On the origin of species" in 1859.William Buckland who discovered the very first dinosaur and became Oxford's very first geology professor was teaching the Gap theory so Charles Darwin who had just got out of biblical seminary went out on his boat and thought about how to make evolution fit into the known scientific evidence of the time,he put forth his theory but after 150 years scientists still do not know if life evolves.

Though Buckland was a proponent of the "gap idea", he rejected a global flood in favour of glaciation, today known as "ice ages".
You've also got it wrong: Darwin didn't want to "make evolution fit into the known scientific evidence of the time", he challenged the contemporary views of scientists and brought about a paradigm shift.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

looking at everything from an evolution perspective

This really annoys me.
If there were "an evolution perspective", how did it come up? Why would anyone interpret anything from "an evolution perspective" to begin with, if we had the perfect "gap theory" before?

OK to start off, it's not the "gap theory", it's the "gap idea".

Second, we're not looking at things from any perspective, we're looking at the evidence and trying to see what theory it fits. (Or what theory fits it, however you look at it.)

You mention fossils: You're right, both the "gap idea" and the theory of evolution would predict fossils.
However, the "gap idea" would predict one group of "kinds" first, then a second group of "kinds" later with absolutely no intermingling. This is not what we find. We find birds at the time of the dinosaurs (duh) and we find mammals at the time of the dinosaurs as well. We find things that look like dinosaurs today but they certainly aren't dinosaurs. And we find things that look like they're hundreds of millions of years old (older than dinosaurs) today.
None of that should be true if the "gap idea" had any validity.

Stop denying it,it is true that scientists look at everything in the earth from an evolution perspective.The gap theory is not young earth creationism,we accept the earth is billions of years based on the evidence in science that points to it,although I myself tend to think it was overstated for the sake of evolution,they stretch out time to give enough time for life to evolve however it makes no difference.
How can you claim the way the dead life is arranged disqualifies the gap theory because the former world went on for billions of years as far as we know.But it speaks of extinction and quickly.

What would you expect to find in the earth if a former world full of life existed that perished? You would find evidence for it.You would find fossils and evidence of death and extinction of both biological life and plant and tree life.

And the extinction of microbes, bacteria, phages, viruses, etc. etc. Yes you are right, we would expect to find that.
We would also expect to find that there are some periods where not a single living thing lived. Nothing. Not one. Nada. Why don't we find that? Why do we find bottlenecks, why do we find very small populations but why do we never find that no life existed? This should raise red flags all around for your "gap idea".

Yes,all life perished when the former world perished,we are talking,all life suddenly dying and quickly because of a flood of the heavens and earth which blocked out sunlight causing all life to die,we get this from what the bible describes in many places and the evidence in the earth confirms it.There were at least 3 extinction events before the former would perished until God created this world on the earth in Genesis 1.

And this was the case before Charles Darwin wrote "On the origin of species" in 1859.William Buckland who discovered the very first dinosaur and became Oxford's very first geology professor was teaching the Gap theory so Charles Darwin who had just got out of biblical seminary went out on his boat and thought about how to make evolution fit into the known scientific evidence of the time,he put forth his theory but after 150 years scientists still do not know if life evolves.

Though Buckland was a proponent of the "gap idea", he rejected a global flood in favour of glaciation, today known as "ice ages".
You've also got it wrong: Darwin didn't want to "make evolution fit into the known scientific evidence of the time", he challenged the contemporary views of scientists and brought about a paradigm shift.

But does that make him wrong just because he differed from others? That is quite common,people can differ on things but it doesn't make everything they say wrong.We I'm not trying to bash Darwin,however before he wrote his book the evidence in science was being used by Buckland as evidence for the Gap theory he taught it at Oxford,imagine that today,but that was over 150 years ago. I mean he was excited to find evidence for a former world existing from biblical studies and although evolution became popular after 150 years science still does not even know if life evolves but they believe it and yet the truth is being overlooked because of evolution today and its time to set the record straight about what the evidence in the earth really confirms and it is the gap theory interpretation of the bible.We have a lost world because of evolution.

 

[Inferno]

ACB, please learn to use the quote function, it's not that difficult.

Stop denying it,it is true that scientists look at everything in the earth from an evolution perspective.The gap theory is not young earth creationism,we accept the earth is billions of years based on the evidence in science that points to it,although I myself tend to think it was overstated for the sake of evolution,they stretch out time to give enough time for life to evolve however it makes no difference.

I'll deny it until I get evidence to the contrary. Most people outside of biology get evolution badly wrong and they need to be corrected on it, so how they can look at the earth "from an evolution perspective" is beyond me. Inside of biology it's a different question: Is there anything other than "the evolution perspective"? The abundance of evidence in favour of biological evolution over miraculous creation obviously favours "the evolution perspective".

About the time needed: A few studies tried to estimate how long evolution would have needed, as opposed to how long it actually took. The eye, to take but one example, could have evolved in under half a million years. Nobody's "giving evolution time", it's just a fact that it took this amount and not less.

Yes,all life perished when the former world perished,we are talking,all life suddenly dying and quickly because of a flood of the heavens and earth which blocked out sunlight causing all life to die,we get this from what the bible describes in many places and the evidence in the earth confirms it.There were at least 3 extinction events before the former would perished until God created this world on the earth in Genesis 1.

Evidence? None? Shame...

But does that make him wrong just because he differed from others? That is quite common,people can differ on things but it doesn't make everything they say wrong.We I'm not trying to bash Darwin,however before he wrote his book the evidence in science was being used by Buckland as evidence for the Gap theory he taught it at Oxford,imagine that today,but that was over 150 years ago. I mean he was excited to find evidence for a former world existing from biblical studies and although evolution became popular after 150 years science still does not even know if life evolves but they believe it and yet the truth is being overlooked because of evolution today and its time to set the record straight about what the evidence in the earth really confirms and it is the gap theory interpretation of the bible.We have a lost world because of evolution.

"Gap idea", not "gap theory". It's not a theory, please don't treat it as such. It's an idea and a bad one at that.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

LOL! This is ridiculous! Only biologists accept evolution and all of the evidence of fossils and death and extinction is not looked at from an evolution perspective.And just hide behind all the made up evidence used to explain how life evolves without evidence that demonstrates life evolves.

I have evidence a former world perished in this earth and you do not have evidence that demonstrates life evolves.One theory is backup by evidence and the other is based on belief.How can you deny this? Is it because you have a bias against the bible being right to the point that no evidence will change your mind?I can tell you this,I would accept evolution if there was real evidence life evolves,but there is'nt.