Evolution is a Joke part XII

And clearly avoiding my question about sufficient evidence for evolution, bravo.

Why do you think evolutionary theory is a "solid belief"? It is a scientific theory, for Christ's sake. If new evidence comes along, it changes. It has for 154 years. It is no different from any other scientific theory. If tomorrow experimental evidence came around that evolutionary theory is incorrect, it would be a gold-mine for the scientist who showed this. Science is about the evolution of our knowledge as we collect more observations about this world.

I'm sorry, but if you think evolutionary theory is useless, I dare you to go ahead and Google "practical applications of evolution".

Why wouldn't they use clay tablets to publish their mistakes as they developed mathematics? Uh... because it would be a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) to do? Babylonians could use other mediums of writing, such as using chalk or dirt, to work out the mathematics. THEN, they post the solutions after they have figured out the problem, and mathematical tables, and geometric formulas, etc.

When has any civilization taken the mathematics of a third grader (paraphrasing you) and publish them to the rest of society? They wouldn't unless for entertainment purposes. Do you understand how few people wrote and could read back then? They would engrave their solutions and formulas, not waste the time to post their failures.

Of course, I agree, why wouldn't anybody agree with that?

 

The Bible has been verified in many instances where doubt existed by archeology. The Bible is primarily a book about God's plan of redemption of mankind. The fall of original sin changed the whole of creation. Even understanding. Do you think that God would need to lie about things in order to have us believe?

 

Yes, for example, the global flood... Oh wait, no, that wasn't verified, that was debunked by every available line of evidence. Or how about the slaves in egypt and the 40-year trip through the desert? We should find evidence of such a thing... but we don't.

No, but I think that the fact that the holy book is full of misinformation is a pretty big flaw in any analysis that would claim it to be literal truth.

 

Why do you even bother? This guy is ignorant and proud of it. Just deprive him of debate. He doesn't need a debate partner, he needs remedial education.

 

I can review the millions of fossils that physically exist which overwhelmingly establish that evolution has occurred but I have yet to see any physical evidence of god. I can review the physical DNA that establishes that evolution has occurred but there is no physical evidence of god.

Believing in something for which no evidence exists is based upon faith. Believing something that is established by physical evidence is not faith but instead reflects knowledge.

 

You can find the opposing view as well. Yawn...boring

Misinformation? Hummm...OK, if you say so. Like what?

 

It should be noted that theories on evolution relate to the mechanics of evolution which attempt to explain how evolution occurred and not that it occurred. There was no question that evolution occurred over 150 years ago based upon the physical evidence. As with all scientific theories the theories attempt to explain what we find in nature and "evolution" was found in nature. Science observed evolution in nature and then attempted to explain it by proposing theories. The theories, such as the Theory of Natural Selection, are a scientific attempt to explain "How evolution occurred" and not "That evolution occurred."

Theories are based upon the Scientific Method which has never failed over time as the Scientific Method is self-correcting as new knowledge is gained.

 

You're right! And the Flat Earth Society is still kicking around. However, every single person who believes in it - and I mean every single person - either doesn't understand the evidence, or is ignoring the evidence. At least when it comes to the flood; I'm not exaggerating when I say that every single place we could look for independent verification of the flood account has turned up evidence that proves that there was no flood.

Leviticus 14 describes a way of curing Leprosy. This way involves sacrificing animals. Not much about antibiotics or actual treatment, just a lot of "sacrifice animals to god and hope he heals you". Then there's the genesis account, which is demonstrably false on pretty much every point. Bats being birds and rabbits chewing their cud - both false. Hell, even the way the bible describes rainbows is nuts, because rainbows existed long before the supposed date of Noah's Flood. How do we know? Because rainbows are a natural phenomenon of light refraction in water - you'd have to fundamentally change how light and water work to prevent them.

 

Additionally, writing was expensive prior to the advent of the printing press. Literacy was relatively expensive for people to acquire, and it was a huge pain to write out an entire treatise. It took relatively expensive materials (parchment, papyrus, and so forth; even paper was expensive until the 13th century when water-powered paper mills were developed) and a very specialized skill set that took a long time to develop properly.

And while there were methods of writing things down that didn't require such expensive materials or skills, they were also far more ephemeral. Using a stylus to write in wax, for instance, or chalk on slate. Neither of which, obviously, are going to be easily preserved for posterity.

Thus, when things were written down in a permanent form in a codex or scroll, it would be mainly important things and not things like bad math, because it would be expensive as hell to do for no real benefit to the person spending the money on it.

 

If there is evidence for either view then only those who disagree wuth are "Ignoring the evidence". Hummm...OK...

Bats are simply listed among the 'birds' that shall not be eaten. Straining out knats and swallowing camels. Rabbits are not in the Bible, but conies are, and those are basically 'rock chucks' that do chew their cude. Before the flood the earth was watered by a mist from the ground and the sky was water, which protected the earth from harmful UV rays and explains why people lived extrodinarily long lives. After the flood that was caused by what had never before been seen, rain. All that water was now on the earth instead of above it and rainbows were impossible while it was in the atmosphere. I detect no "misinformation" but there is lots of "misunderstanding".

 

No. There is no evidence to support a global flood. None. Those who support the idea will trot out their own badly-misinterpreted take on the evidence, but if you actually have a clue what you're talking about, every one of their ideas quickly becomes unmasked for what it is: bull(*)(*)(*)(*). For example, one piece of evidence Eric Hovind constantly brings up is that supposedly, the Colorado River would have had to have flown uphill for millions of years to carve out the grand canyon, and that it's better explained by a global flood. But anyone who understands geology knows about the simple geologic uplift that occurred in the region, and how a massive flood event would not cause a meandering, narrow, deep channel but rather a wide, straight, and shallow one.

To say there is evidence for either view is like saying that there's evidence that the earth is flat. Yeah, sure, they think there's evidence, but they are scientifically illiterate - they have no idea what they're talking about. They either have no education on the facts, or they are lying to us - in cases of prominent creationists like Hovind or Comfort, it's usually the latter.

And yet it's still a fairly large zoological error - Bats are not morphologically similar to birds at all. It'd be the kind of mistake that an uneducated, bronze-age shepherd would make, not the kind of error those divinely inspired would be.

Whoops, fact-checking. My bad. This was apparently a mistranslation, as conies never actually existed in Israel in biblical times. Many scholars believe that it refers to the Hyrax.

First of all, protection from UV radiation alone would not significantly increase human life expectancy. Second of all, the amount of water necessary in the atmosphere to flood the earth would be impossible to maintain in the air - in fact, it wouldn't just block UV radiation, it would block all radiation - the earth below would be pitch black, nothing would grow. Keep in mind, we're talking about enough water in the atmosphere to cover the entire planet. That's miles of water. And light barely permeates even a few hundred feet in clear conditions.

Now see, even if all of this made any sense (which it doesn't - it fails on a very basic level), you'd still need to prove that that's actually what happened. And I don't think you can, because what you describe would leave definitive markings. We can tell when there was a long-standing drought in the geologic record, just like we can tell when there was a long-standing flood. And those signs just aren't there. And you're right, there is a lot of misunderstanding. Do you know why? Because the bible presents us with things which we have to contort the evidence into bizarre loops to make any sense of.

 

Remember that the "ark" of Noah referred to early Homo Sapiens, whose head was considerable different than that of people today, Modern Homo sapiens after undergoing further evolution for 40,000 years and differentiating fro the initial Three Racial Stocks into the present seven genetic racial types.

Then, compare the data for all skulls, length of the face by the depth from fore head to the back of the head, and range of possibilities include the scale of 30 to 50.

 

In history the Flood narrative was a lot easier to sell because the number of creatures known before the great age of discovery was fairly small. The Flood story was one of the sparks that drove naturalists in the early 1800's to ponder what might have really happened. Today as our knowledge advances we are finding increasing evidence of human structures that pre-date Usher's dating, none of which show the sort of damage a mega flood should cause

 

There is no evidence to support a global flood unless the idea is applied to the paleontological Theory called Out-of-Africa:


"Out-of-Africa" or "Noah's Ark Theory" of Christopher Stringer and Peter Andrews:
Christopher Stringer and Peter Andrews proposes that modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens 200,000-150,000 years ago only in Africa and then some of them migrated into the rest of the Old World replacing all of the Neanderthals and other late archaic Homo sapiens beginning around 100,000 years ago.

If this interpretation of the fossil record is correct, all people today share a relatively modern African ancestry. All other lines of humans that had descended from Homo erectus presumably became extinct.

From this view, the regional anatomical differences that we see among humans today are recent developments--evolving mostly in the last 40,000 years.

 

The range has been extended, not replaced by the 150,000 year figure.
This further confirms that this was Noah, because Noah had the three sons a 100 (thousand) years BEFORE the flood, and this new extension better fits what Genesis tells.

 

Gen 6:4 records the uncanny claim that various kinds (species) of mankind co-existed and inbreed with one another.
Science now supports this.


Not only did Neanderhal man inbreed with Modern Homo sapiens according to genetic research, but paleontologist tell us that so did two different types of Homo erectus (giants in regard to their physical prowess).

"The origin of Homo is not clear, but it is very likely that climatic factors played an important role in the evolution of Homo.
At Dmanisi in Georgia, there is an 1.8 million year old Homo erectus skull. This is roughly similar to the start of the ice-ages in Eurasia."

"It is very likely that brain expansion was largely driven by the unstable climate of Eurasia, which required constant adaptations from their inhabitants.
These selective pressures never existed in Africa.

Africa instead acted a lot like a refugee area where larger populations could survive for extended periods of time.
Frequent hybridization between advanced Eurasian Homo erectus and refugee African Homo erectus, )i.e.; egaster or early Homo erectus), ensured that Homo evolved larger brains."


But the complicated tale in Genesis 6:4 also suggests that we should see a hybridization between Homo antecessor, which was the conduit through which both we and Neanderthals gained common genes.

- - - Updated - - -

Gen 6:4 records the uncanny claim that various kinds (species) of mankind co-existed and inbreed with one another.
Science now supports this.


Not only did Neanderhal man inbreed with Modern Homo sapiens according to genetic research, but paleontologist tell us that so did two different types of Homo erectus (giants in regard to their physical prowess).

"The origin of Homo is not clear, but it is very likely that climatic factors played an important role in the evolution of Homo.
At Dmanisi in Georgia, there is an 1.8 million year old Homo erectus skull. This is roughly similar to the start of the ice-ages in Eurasia."

"It is very likely that brain expansion was largely driven by the unstable climate of Eurasia, which required constant adaptations from their inhabitants.
These selective pressures never existed in Africa.

Africa instead acted a lot like a refugee area where larger populations could survive for extended periods of time.
Frequent hybridization between advanced Eurasian Homo erectus and refugee African Homo erectus, )i.e.; egaster or early Homo erectus), ensured that Homo evolved larger brains."


But the complicated tale in Genesis 6:4 also suggests that we should see a hybridization between Homo antecessor, which was the conduit through which both we and Neanderthals gained common genes.

 

Wait, so your hypothesis was confirmed by Y chromosomal Adam living 40,000 years ago.... but somehow your hypothesis (which was flat out wrong even compared to the initial date of 59,000 years ago) is even further confirmed since the date has been pushed back?

You're just making this (*)(*)(*)(*) up as you go.

And no, the range hasn't been pushed back, the date has.

Also, bravo on ignoring the rest of the post.

 

What you call "pointing out to me" is just your denial of the scientific facts.

Japanese Journal of Human Genetics
December 1978, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 341-369
The theory of genetic distance and evolution of human races
• Masatoshi Nei
Genetic distance estimates suggest that among the three major races of man the first divergence occurred about 120,000 years ago between Negroid and a group of Caucasoid and Mongoloid and then the latter group split into Caucasoid and Mongoloid around 60,000 years ago. It is also shown that the genetic identity between man and chimpanzee corresponds to a divergence time of 4–6 million years if the assumption of constant rate of amino acid substitution is correct.


Why don't you STOP trying to dispute the rather clear correspondences between Science and Genesis and give up attempt to bash the Bible as foolishness?
The metaphor of a flood by men who lived to be 950 years old can be understood as a necessary literary contrivance to telling this story.

The "flood" tale had to pass through all the seven ages of man until it reached us, people who OUGHT be wise enough to understand why the tale could not be more specific before now.

 

Angels are NOT mentioned in Genesis 6:4.
Sons of god are presumably a reference to the Modern men who survived the extinction that all other homo species experience.

They entered in the daughters of the men who would become extinct during the flood described thereafter.

 

The two things have literally nothing to do with each other.

 

Sons of God are usually defined as angels, bud. And how would they be modern men left from the extinction if the extinction hasn't even occurred in the story yet? You're reaching.

 

Pushing the numbers back as they review the evidence works to the advantage of associating Noah and his wife with the appearance of the Three Racial Stocks of Ham, Japheth, and Shem, because Genesis 5:32 tells us these three racial stocks appeared 100 (thousand) years BEFORE the flood.


The "flood" out of Africa last for 40 (thousand) years, so that would mean Modern Homo sapiens actually has been here for 140,000-150,000 years which Genesis AND Genetics both support.

 

How are you dating when the Flood was in the Genesis account? The Genesis account says literally nothing about when the Flood took place. Where are you getting this 40,000 year number?

 

Yeah, it could be understood that way, but I see no reason why it should when you have to do mental gymnastics to get the numbers to even remotely line up.

Seven ages of man? There is no reason why the Genesis story should be considered an evolutionary tale. The only reason you're assuming that this ludicrous hypothesis is correct is because you don't think that Genesis can be wrong, therefore you try to mesh it together with science. And yet to do that you've admitted to me that you basically fudge numbers. You literally did it a few posts ago when I corrected your dates. You are just willfully adapting the story to the science.

 

Again, the word angel does not appear in Genesis 6 anywhere.
YOU may like telling what the story is about by assuming angels.\


I am telling what the story is about by comparing Scientific Facts to the an analysis what these writers set down 3362 years ago, limited by the acceptability of what they could actually say to people then.

That sons-of-god is a reference to us makes sense, in that we are the ONLY survivors of the "flood."
That makes it possibly that we can all become the sons of god, as promised:

John 1:12
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: