Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution is a myth? Please explain:

You asked me to explain my reasoning and I declined - because it would take several years and you'd throw up straw men like a poorly translated bible quote anyway.

You are free to decline. No need to justify your claims when you can just assert them.

You are wrong about translation error when it comes to violence in the bible. That is well recognized. Nor does it rest on any single verse.

The Bible and violence

''The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament contain narratives, poetry, and instruction describing, recording, encouraging, commanding, condemning, rewarding, punishing and regulating violent actions by God, individuals, groups, governments, and nation-states. Among the violent acts included are war, human sacrifice, animal sacrifice, murder, rape, and criminal punishment.[1]:Introduction The texts have a history of interpretation within the Abrahamic religions and Western culture that includes justification and opposition to acts of violence.[2]

Sociologists Frank Robert Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn question "the applicability of the term [genocide] to earlier periods of history, and the judgmental and moral loadings that have become associated with it."[149] Since most societies of the past endured and practiced genocide, it was accepted as "being in the nature of life" because of the "coarseness and brutality" of life.[149]:27 Chalk and Jonassohn say the Old Testament contains cases they would consider genocide (if they were factual) because of women and children being killed even though it was war and casualties in war are excluded from the definition of genocide. They also say: "The evidence for genocide in antiquity is circumstantial, inferential, and ambiguous, and it comes to us exclusively from the perpetrators."[149]:64''

DBT said serious questioning is discouraged , not that there is no questioning...its no wonder you are blind or oblivious
to the clear and concise words in scripture.

anyway,..why would all those folks with the holy sprit have any need to doubt or question?



Faith is nothing more than mans belief in his own kaleidoscope imagination.



christians were at each other throats in the time of Constantine, squabbling and on the verge of civil war over their differences
regarding christianity, such is the loving peaceful comforting power of the Holy Spirit Jesus organized for them.

I gather those who believed in Thor would squabble over a trivial matter like what his hammer weighed.

or over how much of a warrior ones needs to be to attain an afterlife in Odins great hall of Valhalla in Asgard.




root of all evil?

how about; God purposely planted the seed of evil?

I asked you earlier if its POSSIBLE that God has a purpose for evil and thus created evil for such purpose ,
thus being RESPONSIBLE for evil, ..but Not be evil himself,

did you reply?

Exactly

So let's be specific--did Lucy precede Homo habilis? Is she the trans-specie link?

We have discussed your attempts at contrived contradictions on another thread. I'm not going to play along and hijack this thread's topic with any further discussion on your alleged contradictions. You have yet to offer one that takes context, logic, and common sense into account.

This extract really illustrates that using the fossil record to try to establish transitional life forms is not even a scientific process--because we don't have the scientific data to make it so. As some honest paleontologists have reported its more speculative assumptions that lead to unproven conclusions.

In 1978, fossil expert Gareth Nelson, of the American Museum of Natural History in New York, wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”4

Henry Gee, a science writer for Nature, doesn’t doubt Darwinian evolution, but he likewise admits that we can’t infer descent with modification from fossils. “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate,” he wrote in 1999. “That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way.” According to Gee, we call new fossil discoveries missing links “as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices.” He concluded: “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story — amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”5

In short, fossils cannot demonstrate Darwinian evolution.

Apparently you don't read much. There is no single "trans-specie link". "Lucy" preceded Homo habilis by about 1.5 million years and is one of several ancestral species. BTW: Homo habilis is not the same as Homo sapiens, our own species.

Then that still doesn't help your cause.

Re: Dawkins video....whales

Lots of bafflegab and a nice drawing. Reminds me of the semi-famous depiction of the “evolution” of the horse..... small ones, big ones, three toes, two toes.... but all were horses. Some guy made fun of it by using the same format but used dogs in the illustration.

But, as ever, let me ask a couple of questions..... you say “we” have the fossils.... ok, show me. Seems we had a great leap from a small land animal to a whale like creature. Let’s see the “more transitional fossils.”

Further, pls provide info or reference to the “having the DNA.”

Small land mammal to whale? DNA trail? I would like to see that.

Pls, if the only evidence is a similarity between hippo and whale DNA is all you have, just say it. There seems to be much similarity chicken hemoglobin and human hemoglobin. That is not proof of common ancestry.








Btw.... I:consider Dawkins to be primarily an entertainer, much like that pervert Larry Krause.

Yes, the red herring here is the diversion away from my post to the simple statement that “Actually birds are......”

Other than you....to your credit....Not one of the “evolutionists” offer up any real topic for discussion or opportunity for debate and discussion.

Evolutionary thinking is fraught with logical gaps, so no I don't spend my my time chasing all the possibilities offered by various competing theories of evolution. Because there are competing theories I was asking which one the folks here are following. I have seen Lucy appear in evolutionary charts as the the predecessor to Homo Habilis. So I was asking if that is what you guys think? Since that doesn't seem to be going anywhere, I will take a different approach since you are recognizing Lucy in the chain. Lucy has been heralded as finding evidence for a missing link. So let's examine some of the assumptions in this.

1. There is only 1 of Lucy--otherwise she wouldn't be so heralded. We have a tremendous fossil record for data, so why is there not an abundance of comparative and similar evidence for more similar transitional life forms that support macro-evolution? This one point alone is sufficient to establish the speculative nature of conclusions drawn from Lucy.
2. There two knee joints used--one from near and one from far away. "The one found far away was found two to three kilometers away from the skull and 60-70 meters deeper in the strata. Dr. Johansen does not claim that the knee joint belonged to Lucy. Instead, it was part of another fossil he found some time earlier. He does put them together logically, though, claiming that they were of the same species." This is very speculative because when you are assembling the first data point of 1 you cannot make assumptions that there were more and that you can just borrow from them to assemble the whole and then conclude if they were or were not walking upright.
3.Dr. Charles Oxnard completed the most sophisticated computer analysis of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken, and concluded that the australopithecines have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever, and are simply an extinct form of ape (Fossils, Teeth and Sex: New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, 1987).
4. Stern and Sussman write in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology (60:279-313):

"In summary, the knee of the small Hadar hominid shares with other australopithecines a marked obliquity of the femoral shaft relative to the bicondylar plane, but in all other respects it falls either outside the range of modern human variation (Tardieu, 1979) or barely within it (our analysis). Since, aside from the degree of valgus, the knee of the small Hadar hominid possesses no modern trait to a pronounced degree, and since many of these traits may not serve to specify the precise nature of the bipedality that was practiced, we must agree with Tardieu that the overall structure of the knee is compatible with a significant degree of arboreal locomotion." (p.298)

The paper by Stern and Sussman also mentions that the hands and feet of Australopithecus afarensis are not at all like human hands and feet; rather, they have the long curved fingers and toes typical of arboreal primates. Notwithstanding, the St. Louis Zoo features a life-size statue of Lucy with perfectly formed human hands and feet.
5. One of the world's leading authorities on australopithecines, British anatomist, Solly Lord Zuckerman has concluded (based on specimens aged much younger than Lucy) that australopithecines do not belong in the family of man. He wrote "I myself remain totally unpersuaded. Almost always when I have tried to check the anatomical claims on which the status of Australopithecus is based, I have ended in failure." (Beyond the Ivory Tower, 1977, p. 77)
6.Dr. Chas. Oxnard (USC) writes "Although most studies emphasize the similarity of the australopithecines to modern man, and suggest, therefore that these creatures were bipedal tool-makers at least one form of which (A. africanus--"Homo habilis," "Homo africanus") was almost directly ancestral to man, a series of multivariate statistical studies of various postcranial fragments suggests other conclusions." He further concludes, "Finally, the quite independent information from the fossil finds of more recent years seems to indicate absolutely that these australopithecines of half to 2 million years and from sites such as Olduvai and Sterkfontein are not on a human pathway." In Oxnard's opinion, australopithecines were neither like humans or apes but more like Pongo, the orangutan...even more "distant" from man, than a gorilla... "to the extent that resemblances exist with living forms they tend to be with the orangutan" (U. of Chicago Magazine, Winter, 1974, pp. 11-12).
7.Over the years, various objections to Lucy’s bipedality have emerged among evolutionists. For example, anthropologist Russell Tuttle from the University of Chicago, as reported in Science News, believes that the Laetoli prints were made by a contemporary but much more human-like creature than Lucy.18 More recently, experts have decided that Lucy walked on flat feet but that others of her species had arched feet.1
Stern and Susman in 198320 as well as Tuttle21 believed that Lucy’s pelvis was well-adapted for arboreal (tree-dwelling) life. They, like many others, noted that the orientation of the iliac blade on the pelvic bone matched that of [bleep], not humans. (The iliac blade is a wing-shaped part of the pelvis, or hip bone.)


Just too many logical holes and speculative assumptions in using Lucy as the proof that humans evolved from ape-like creatures.

33,000 denominations? Further evidence that god is created by man. So many versions!

The information is out there, all you have to do is look for it, but since it goes against your religious beliefs, you simply ignore it.

Nothing contrived about them. The contradictions are there for anyone to see. It seems that you are not willing to acknowledge their reality.

The statement that God punishes generations for the sins of their fathers contradicts the statement that God is good to all, referring to His love and tender mercy .

If one is true, the other is false. Or God is bipolar.

It's basic logic.

or bipolar analysis as the other thread would illustrate

Does Creationism go against your beliefs?

We are happy to be known as men of faith and confidence in the facts and evidence. I have no interest in presenting my position from the basis of doubt, uncertainty, and speculative theory.

Why in the world would you say such a thing?

The happiness of my spouse and family very much matters.
My reputation as honest and trustworthy very much matters.
My kids and grandchildren growing up to be happy and productive matters.
The nation and world we leave behind for our grandchildren and great grandchildren to live in very much matters.

These things matter all the more, because that is all there is to matter.