What of the dinosaurs?

[Bowman]

We also have the claim that dinosaurs and people co-existed - which this thread is about. Obviously the claim has been debunked time and time again.

Not from me...

We have a plethora of evidence linking humans to ancient ape.

Actually, the opposite is the case for the past decade+.

You must be googling outdated articles from the defunct TalkOrigins website...

All of the above I am willing to discuss in more detail but I won't bother wasting my time unless you're willing to do two things:

1. You have to admit that it's possible that evolution is true and that your understanding of the Bible is flawed.
2. You have to be willing to change your mind about creation and evolution in the presence of evidence.

If you're not willing to question your understanding of the Bible, or change your views about the Bible, no matter what evidence is presented, then there's no point going on since obviously you'll automatically reject all evidence by default and look for excuses just to confirm your own bias.

I'm willing to admit that creation might be true and I'm willing to accept it if there's legitimate evidence. But there isn't legitimate evidence, so I reject creationism.

I accept your terms in light that I am already an OEC and have already spent decades studying all positions in the debate.

Now that your usual polemics have been utterly lampooned before even being launched...where is that scripture that you owe me...?

 

[Bowman]

Ah, sorry, my bad. I'll have to look more into OEC before I can give you a sufficient answer since I want to make sure I don't misrepresent what OEC actually argues.

Yes....please do, as ALL of your pet-polemics simply don't apply...

 

[Percepi]

Actually, the opposite is the case for the past decade+.

You must be googling outdated articles from the defunct TalkOrigins website...

Intriguing, because last I checked over 99% of biologists still hold the view that man evolved from ancient ape. So it's hard to accept the claim that evolution of man has been debunked. If the science has been debunked and new evidence has come to light disproving the evolution of man, could you please provide your sources since this is clearly news to me?

 

[Bowman]

Intriguing, because last I checked over 99% of biologists still hold the view that man evolved from ancient ape. So it's hard to accept the claim that evolution of man has been debunked. If the science has been debunked and new evidence has come to light disproving the evolution of man, could you please provide your sources since this is clearly news to me?

There are only three possibilities for what we see in the record of nature:

1) No designer
2) Many designers
3) One designer


The fact that we share much of the same genetic material as animals is because we share the same Creator.

No designer, and many designers would produce life completely dis-similar from each other....however, that is NOT what we find.

 

[Percepi]

There are only three possibilities for what we see in the record of nature:

1) No designer
2) Many designers
3) One designer


The fact that we share much of the same genetic material as animals is because we share the same Creator.

No designer, and many designers would produce life completely dis-similar from each other....however, that is NOT what we find.

Actually, if our DNA was completely different from those of other animals, then that would throw a wrench in evolution theory. The reason our DNA is similar to that of other animals is because we evolved from common ancestors. And you'll find that the similarities between animal DNA become more drastic the more distantly related animals are from one another.

 

[Tintin]

Again....you assume that I'm a YEC...I'm not.

Its a relatively easy task to debunk a YEC....which, apparently, you spend all of your time doing, and is no challenge whatsoever.

Move up to an OEC, and your task is now much more formidable.

The flood was local - NOT global - and there was no need to fit global life onboard....so there goes that pathetic polemic.

Stick with your Trinity arguments. You're good with them.

 

[Bowman]

Actually, if our DNA was completely different from those of other animals, then that would throw a wrench in evolution theory. The reason our DNA is similar to that of other animals is because we evolved from common ancestors. And you'll find that the similarities between animal DNA become more drastic the more distantly related animals are from one another.

All the latest nuclear DNA testing shows that Homo Sapiens Sapiens are NOT related to ANY known ancestor.

So much for Darwin's Neandertal man, etc, etc...

 

[Bowman]

Stick with your Trinity arguments. You're good with them.

Indeed...spend the time on what's real....

 

[Percepi]

All the latest nuclear DNA testing shows that Homo Sapiens Sapiens are NOT related to ANY known ancestor.

So much for Darwin's Neandertal man, etc, etc...

Source please.

 

[Bowman]

Source please.

Its wherever you care to look...

Smithsonian...

'These results confirmed the earlier findings that showed that Neanderthals were unlikely to have contributed to the modern human genome.’

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/neanderthal-mitochondrial-dna

 

[Percepi]

Its wherever you care to look...

I checked out the source you linked and I don't think it says what you think it says.

There's this common misconception that Homo Neanderthalensis was supposed to link modern humans to ancient apes as a direct ancestor. Today, we know that Neanderthals and Sapiens were cousins, two separate species who share a much more recent common ancestor than we do modern apes.

This doesn't prove Homo Sapiens didn't evolve from ancient apes, it merely proves Homo Sapiens didn't evolve from Neanderthals.

The Neanderthal and modern human sequences differed by approximately 27.2 substitutions. Using this mtDNA information, the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans dates to approximately 550,000 to 690,000 years ago, which is about four times older than the modern human mtDNA pool. This is consistent with the idea that Neanderthals did not contribute substantially to modern human genome.

- Ancient DNA and Neanderthals | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

The very source you provided states that modern humans and Neanderthals share a common ancestor, so I'm not sure how it's supposed to prove humans didn't evolve.

As with the previous study of Neanderthal mtDNA, results were consistent with separation between the Neanderthal and modern human gene pools or with very low amounts of gene flow between the two groups.

The reason for this sentence stems from the fact that Homo Sapien and Homo Neanderthalensis lived during the same time period and it's possible some Homo Sapiens mated with Homo Neanderthalensis. See the following:

If Neanderthals had interbred with modern humans in Europe, then researchers would have expected to find more similarities between Neanderthals and Europeans than between Neanderthals and other modern humans. However, Neanderthals were equidistant from modern human groups, which is consistent with genetic separation between modern humans and Neanderthals. However, this does not explicitly disprove admixture because interregional gene flow between modern humans could have swamped the Neanderthal contribution to Europeans (Relethford 2001).

I'm fairly certain TalkOrigins is up to date with this information too. If you want me to verify, just ask and I'll do some digging.

Any more sources?

 

[Bowman]

I checked out the source you linked and I don't think it says what you think it says.

There's this common misconception that Homo Neanderthalensis was supposed to link modern humans to ancient apes as a direct ancestor. Today, we know that Neanderthals and Sapiens were cousins, two separate species who share a much more recent common ancestor than we do modern apes.

This doesn't prove Homo Sapiens didn't evolve from ancient apes, it merely proves Homo Sapiens didn't evolve from Neanderthals.

There goes Darwin's centerpiece for human 'evolution'...!

- Ancient DNA and Neanderthals | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

The very source you provided states that modern humans and Neanderthals share a common ancestor, so I'm not sure how it's supposed to prove humans didn't evolve.

That's what they HAVE to say...but are unable to show it....

The reason for this sentence stems from the fact that Homo Sapien and Homo Neanderthalensis lived during the same time period and it's possible some Homo Sapiens mated with Homo Neanderthalensis. See the following:

'Admixture' is pure speculation.

There are more holes in it than Swiss cheese...

I'm fairly certain TalkOrigins is up to date with this information too. If you want me to verify, just ask and I'll do some digging.

Dig away....

Any more sources?

I figured that I would start at the top, with what the Smithsonian (National Museum of Natural History) had to state on the topic of genomics...and they claim that there is NO known genetic link to ANY other species.

Just pure speculation...

 

[Percepi]

There goes Darwin's centerpiece for human 'evolution'...!

Whether or not Darwin believed man evolved directly from Neanderthals is irrelevant. Because even if he is wrong, this error doesn't disprove evolution by any means. It's already known that Darwin was wrong about quite a few things regarding evolution. This is perfectly normal when it comes to science. That's because all theories are corrected over time - whether they're entirely wrong, moderately wrong, or only slightly wrong.

That's what they HAVE to say...but are unable to show it....

There's plenty of evidence for common decent and I'll dig up what I can later. But for now, you stated that DNA testing disproves common ancestry, so could you please provide a source for this claim?

'Admixture' is pure speculation.

There are more holes in it than Swiss cheese...

Yes, it is speculation. They even admit that they don't yet have an answer for this particular claim. It's something scientists are still currently working on and they aren't hiding that fact.

I figured that I would start at the top, with what the Smithsonian (National Museum of Natural History) had to state on the topic of genomics...and they claim that there is NO known genetic link to ANY other species.

Where does it say this? Can you please provide a link to where they make this statement? Because the link you provided did not make this claim.

 

[Bowman]

Whether or not Darwin believed man evolved directly from Neanderthals is irrelevant. Because even if he is wrong, this error doesn't disprove evolution by any means. It's already known that Darwin was wrong about quite a few things regarding evolution. This is perfectly normal when it comes to science. That's because all theories are corrected over time - whether they're entirely wrong, moderately wrong, or only slightly wrong.

Cracks in the naturalistic explanation have begun.

There's plenty of evidence for common decent and I'll dig up what I can later.

No.

There's plenty of evidence for a common Creator.

But for now, you stated that DNA testing disproves common ancestry, so could you please provide a source for this claim?

The Smithsonian website.

Yes, it is speculation. They even admit that they don't yet have an answer for this particular claim. It's something scientists are still currently working on and they aren't hiding that fact.

Then we must dismiss 'admixture' as a viable alternative....

Where does it say this? Can you please provide a link to where they make this statement? Because the link you provided did not make this claim.

In the very same article.

Be sure to read through it all.....including the bio at the end.

Trumps the outdated TalkOrigins material by at least a decade...


Face the facts....you are merely clinging to a naturalistic explanation for the supernatural.

You have nothing....otherwise you would have brought it to the table already...

 

[Dr_GS_Hurd]

Cracks in the naturalistic explanation have begun.

Is this the famous creationist crazy person Lee Bowman?

I can hope...

 

[Percepi]

Cracks in the naturalistic explanation have begun.

Darwin helped advance evolution, but it wasn't required that everything he said be spot on 100%. This is literally true for every single field of science. Literally all scientists occasionally get things wrong that doesn't obliterate an entire theory.

Then we must dismiss 'admixture' as a viable alternative....

It's not an alternative, it's a possibility that is currently being looked into. We aren't telling people, "Maybe they did interbreed, maybe they didn't, you decide." No, we're telling people, "We're trying to figure out whether or not they interbred, this is what we have so far."

In the very same article.

Be sure to read through it all.....including the bio at the end.

I must be blind because I read the entire thing. Can you copy and paste it?

Trumps the outdated TalkOrigins material by at least a decade...

Can you source the outdated article on TalkOrigins?

Face the facts....you are merely clinging to a naturalistic explanation for the supernatural.

The supernatural is quite inconvenient since it is literally impossible to prove within natural means - being that we live in a natural world in which supernatural occurrences would literally be impossible concepts to grasp if they even do exist.

You have nothing....otherwise you would have brought it to the table already...

Well, no. I'm trying to focus on your claim that DNA studies have disproven common decent. I learned that if you try to tackle too many questions at the same time in a debate, you'll find that you often get nowhere since people jump around every time they can't think of a rebuttal. Therefore, I'd like to focus specifically on your claim that DNA studies disprove common decent and I don't intend on moving this conversation forward until you provide reliable sources.

And again, I see nothing in the article you linked stating that humans aren't connected to any other species. Please copy and paste the segment for me.

 

[Bowman]

Darwin helped advance evolution, but it wasn't required that everything he said be spot on 100%. This is literally true for every single field of science. Literally all scientists occasionally get things wrong that doesn't obliterate an entire theory.

Let the scientists figure out for themselves what the Holy Bible has ALWAYS said from the very beginning.

Each creature was made according to its own species.

It's not an alternative, it's a possibility that is currently being looked into. We aren't telling people, "Maybe they did interbreed, maybe they didn't, you decide." No, we're telling people, "We're trying to figure out whether or not they interbred, this is what we have so far."

Its what you do when you are at a dead-end.

There would have been no reason to postulate interbreeding if you had evidence without it in the first place.

I must be blind because I read the entire thing. Can you copy and paste it?

You cannot copy and past from their website, as you already know...

Can you source the outdated article on TalkOrigins?

TalkOrigins is YOUR source...NOT mine....come on...

Stall.

The supernatural is quite inconvenient since it is literally impossible to prove within natural means - being that we live in a natural world in which supernatural occurrences would literally be impossible concepts to grasp if they even do exist.

When you hit dead ends in the naturalistic approach, this is what you have no other choice but to do...as you are finding out, and will continue to find out as time goes by...

Well, no. I'm trying to focus on your claim that DNA studies have disproven common decent. I learned that if you try to tackle too many questions at the same time in a debate, you'll find that you often get nowhere since people jump around every time they can't think of a rebuttal. Therefore, I'd like to focus specifically on your claim that DNA studies disprove common decent and I don't intend on moving this conversation forward until you provide reliable sources.

And again, I see nothing in the article you linked stating that humans aren't connected to any other species. Please copy and paste the segment for me.

You're stalling again.

Look at how you can bring NOTHING to the table....all talk...and nothing behind it....NOT even a link....lol...


Btw...you still owe me the scripture that you disagree with....simply more meritless assertions on your part as we can see...

 

[Percepi]

Its what you do when you are at a dead-end.

There would have been no reason to postulate interbreeding if you had evidence without it in the first place.

Yes, there is a reason. To keep people up to date with where we're at with scientific studies.

You cannot copy and past from their website, as you already know...

Yes, you can. I did.

TalkOrigins is YOUR source...NOT mine....come on...

Stall.

You're the one who claimed it was outdated, so it's up to you to find the outdated article.

You're stalling again.

Look at how you can bring NOTHING to the table....all talk...and nothing behind it....NOT even a link....lol...

You're the one who made the claim that DNA testing disproves common decent. You made the claim, back it up.

Since you're insisting, I'll dig up what material I can to back up my claim that there is proof hopefully tomorrow.

Btw...you still owe me the scripture that you disagree with....simply more meritless assertions on your part as we can see...

You asked what parts of creation science I disagree with. I don't recall agreeing to naming scripture I disagree with. But if I must, I'll list those segments. But I want you to copy and past, screenshot, or type word for word, the segment of the linked article that states humans aren't related to any other species first.

 

[Timeline]

As proven by science? No.



Based on science? No.



Based on science? No.

In fact, if the earth suddenly stopped spinning, all life would instantly be destroyed.



Based on science? No.



Assumptions.



Suppose Genesis is wrong, would it be impossible for man to determine what a day is?



As based on science? No.



What it sounds like you're arguing is that the Earth is much older than 6,000 years, but God had the Earth stopped or slowed. This doesn't change the actual age of the Earth.

Regardless, is this based on science? No.

Creation science? Where's the science?

Look around Percepi!...This is not a science forum. Yes, it is a science thread, but it is located on a Christian forum. Faith is not altered by a non-Christians observations (and assumptions) of the earth or the universe. God is not subject to the physical laws that He put into place for us. Miracles and "supernatural" occurrences by definition do not fit into science.

 

[Human]

Look around Percepi!...This is not a science forum. Yes, it is a science thread, but it is located on a Christian forum. Faith is not altered by a non-Christians observations (and assumptions) of the earth or the universe. God is not subject to the physical laws that He put into place for us. Miracles and "supernatural" occurrences by definition do not fit into science.

Then why try to address any of it scientifically?