"Unlike Naturalists, You Creationists Have a Blind Faith"

www.apologeticspress.org ^ | 7/1/2013 | Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

[bray]

You do realize that most of those so called skulls are fakes.

Pray for America to Wake Up

[BroJoeK]

RaceBannon: "I have more than enough to know how to refute evolution..."

Sorry, but you don't know nearly as much as you think you do, and much of what you do "know" is flat wrong, as I will be happy to explain.

RaceBannon: "I don’t need anymore reading comprehension..."

I'm trying to give you all the benefits of the doubt.
When you post statements which are obviously flat-wrong, I like to think that comes from simple mistakes of reading comprehensiohn, not deliberate dishonesty.

RaceBannon: "Evolutionists believe they are related to oak trees, water lilies, and frog paddocks, along with salamanders and condors."

By contrast, I would not even admit to being related to you -- even assuming you are a human being but not of my family.
We are not relatives in any specific sense.

On the other hand, astronomers tell us that our basic bodily chemicals (especially carbon) were all manufactured inside exploding stars, and so in the most broad, general sense imaginable, we are all "star children" and "related" to every twinkling light in the sky!

As for salamanders and frogs... well, yes the "relationship" is a bit distant...
After all, we're not talking about third and fourth cousins here.
We may, if anything, be talking about third or fourth billionth cousin, a hundred million times removed.
I mean, if you like that salamander, and wanted to marry her, there'd be no incest law forbidding it, FRiend...
But really, the "relationship" is so distant, I doubt if your children could happily adjust to both worlds. ;-)

Bottom line: the more distant the "relationship" the more metaphorical that term becomes.

[BroJoeK]

kimtom: "interestingly, these are not to scale."

Says whom, based on what?
But assuming you are correct, and some should be shown as larger than others -- i.e., some are adult males, others females or children -- how might that effect the overall point?

kimtom: "similarities of structure does not a relative ,make!!!!"

So, are you also playing games with the word "relative"?
My "relatives" are my family, my cousins, in-laws, even third and fourth cousins.
So, in all probability, you are not my relative, in that sense.

But in the broader, metaphorical sense, we are all related to most everything, somehow or other, including those ancient pre-humans.

Precisely how we are related is near-impossible to say, since we don't know which if any of those critters were in our direct line of descent.
But what they certainly do illustrate is numerous "transitional forms" between very chimpanzee-like beasts millions of years ago, and more recent anatomically-modern human beings.

kimtom: "Also, this does not prove your supposition, ie; transition.
To me (as shown) I see large differences until “J”."

"I" above, is a very early form of pre-Neanderthal, circa 300,000 years ago.
J, K & L are all Neanderthals, 70k, 60k, and 45k years ago.
M & N are anatomically modern humans from 30k and today.

I see small changes in each one, each leading to the next, each becoming slightly more human-like.
In short, they are obviously "transitional figures".

Yes, I recognize you have a problem with that term, "transitional", but I honestly don't understand why.

kimtom: "Also according to some studies I have read (seen) some of the fragments when assembled are not reconstructed correctly."

I would certainly give those scientists the benefits of doubts in assuming they all did the best they could with whatever material they had.

Yes, doubtless we are seeing some of the best examples the author could find, and potentially one might be "too good to be true."
But even if we had to replace one or two of these photos with other examples from those same species, the point would still remain that these are good examples of pre-human "transitional forms".

[BroJoeK]

bray: "You do realize that most of those so called skulls are fakes."

Only in the same sense that I could define you as a "fake", since no human being is everything he or she wants to be.

But by any reasonable standards, these are accurate representations of physical evidence found and described at various sites.
To falsely claim they are "fakes" just avoids the obvious fact they represent valid "transitional forms" between chimpanzee-like creatures and modern human beings.

[BroJoeK]

kimtom: "we interpret the data collected. (or purposely mis-interpret...whatever the case...)"

Yes, and scientific explanations must, by definition, be: natural explanations of natural processes.
If you introduce some supernatural or metaphysical explanation, then it's no longer "science."

[bray]

No, I call fakes skulls that were actually Gorilla skulls or modern man skulls which most of those turned out to be. It is a nice story though.

Like I said, I don’t have enough faith to believe in that hoax. I certainly sympathize with your finding out your religion is a cult.

Pray for America to Wake Up

[RaceBannon]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH

So, the proof, is that there is no proof...

[BroJoeK]

bray: "No, I call fakes skulls that were actually Gorilla skulls or modern man skulls which most of those turned out to be.
It is a nice story though."

Sorry, FRiend, but that's just an outright lie, and whoever told it to you is, really, not a good person.
You should consider finding more truthful sources for information.

bray: "Like I said, I don’t have enough faith to believe in that hoax.
I certainly sympathize with your finding out your religion is a cult."

Sorry, FRiend, but that is a statement of great ignorance, and I'm starting to wonder if it might be willful on your part.

[BroJoeK]

RaceBannon: "So, the proof, is that there is no proof..."

Sorry, FRiend, but science is what it is.
You don't "prove" a hypothesis, you confirm it by testing.
If confirmed the hypothesis becomes a theory and remains so until some new test falsifies it.
Then you go back to work on a new hypothesis.

Of course, I realize that many people loathe, despise and mock science, and love to do so using all the latest high-tech gizmos.

That's what I call laughable, FRiend.

[RaceBannon]

HAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAH

your still calling something that you believe on blind faith SCIENCE

how is your cousin, the acorn, doing these days?

[bray]

Well here is one fake you have listed:
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=76

Do you want me to debunk the rest of your fakes or will you take back your calling me an ignorant liar?

Like I said, I don’t have the faith to believe in Darwinism.

[BroJoeK]

RaceBannon: "HAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAH"

And here we see the ultimate argument against science.

[BroJoeK]

bray: "Well here is one fake you have listed:"

Your link tries to "dethrone" Lucy, aka AL 288-1.
Lucy is not shown or listed in my post #47 above.

Your link never uses the word "fake".
Instead, in essence, it says that "Lucy" was less human-like and more ape-like than the scientists who found it claim.

That's fine, no problem, it sounds to me like an argument for experts.
But note that: even if 3.2 million year old Lucy had been included in my post #47, she would appear between the Chimp in A and the 2.6 million year old Australopithecus africanus (STS 5) in B.

In other words, Lucy would be the most ape-like of all the pre-humans shown.
So your link "debunks" nothing.

bray: "Do you want me to debunk the rest of your fakes or will you take back your calling me an ignorant liar?"

"Debunk" away, FRiend.
But I doubt if you're lying, since you appear to believe what you post, at least when you post it.

I'm saying, whoever told you those things knows better.

This is "Lucy":

[RaceBannon]

yet, claiming that people are related to oak trees and salamanders is supposed to be the great comeback?

uh huh.

Tell me how your cousin, the 3-toed sloth is doing these days.

And your evolutionary predecessor, the paramecium, has he bothered to write?

The fairy tale of evolution is an evil construct. It denies the God who created men on day 5 of creation. It denies that sin came into the world through Adam. It denies that God promised a savior be cause of that sin. It denies that Jesus Christ is that savior for the sin of the world that came through Adam.

Evolution is a fools faith, one that there is zero evidence for and that must be accepted by faith and faith alone, at the expense of calling the Bible a lie.

[BroJoeK]

RaceBannon: "claiming that people are related to oak trees and salamanders is supposed to be the great comeback?"

I say any "relationship" is plenty distant enough that you could happily marry your salamander girlfriend without interference from incest laws. ;-)

RaceBannon: "Tell me how your cousin, the 3-toed sloth is doing these days."

That would be your cousin, Pal, since you've so obviously inherited the sloth's brilliant mind. ;-)

RaceBannon: "And your evolutionary predecessor, the paramecium, has he bothered to write?"

That would be your evolutionary predecessor, since you've obviously inherited its great good looks. ;-)

RaceBannon: "The fairy tale of evolution is an evil construct.
It denies the God who created men on day 5 of creation."

Evolution theory does no such thing.

RaceBannon: "It denies that sin came into the world through Adam.
It denies that God promised a savior be cause of that sin.
It denies that Jesus Christ is that savior for the sin of the world that came through Adam."

Evolution theory says no such things.
Of course, you may fervently wish to deny such things, but that would be your choice, having nothing to do with science, FRiend.

RaceBannon: "Evolution is a fools faith, one that there is zero evidence for and that must be accepted by faith and faith alone, at the expense of calling the Bible a lie."

Evolution theory is no faith at all -- zero, zip, nada.
The basic evolution idea is a scientific hypothesis which has been confirmed frequently and strongly enough to be classified as a theory.

It will continued to be classified as "theory" until some test validly falsifies it.
Then new hypotheses will be proposed and tested until a better theory is found.

That's how science works.

[RaceBannon]

see?
you dont even know what evolution teaches

RaceBannon: “It denies that sin came into the world through Adam.
It denies that God promised a savior be cause of that sin.
It denies that Jesus Christ is that savior for the sin of the world that came through Adam.”

Evolution theory says no such things.
Of course, you may fervently wish to deny such things, but that would be your choice, having nothing to do with science, FRiend.

See? You dont even understand. Evolution is an attempt by Satan to destroy the Gospel.

You need to repent of your sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

[tacticalogic]

I’m confused. Is this News, or it is Activism? It seems a little old to be news, and a dubious application of political activism.

[BroJoeK]

RaceBannon: "you dont even know what evolution teaches"

Sorry, FRiend, but it's you who are utterly confused about the difference between science and religion.

In fact, science teaches nothing you claim, because by definition of the word "science", it deals only in natural explanations for natural processes.
Science itself is not allowed to say anything religious, one way or the other.
Science neither confirms nor denies any religious assertions, it simply can't deal with them.

Nor can science, by definition, respond to claims of "Intelligent Design", since such claims strongly imply a supernatural Intelligent Designer, and once you insert the supernatural, then you are no longer in the realm of science.

Of course, every scientist is entitled to his or her opinions about religion, and those opinions doubtless cover the whole gamut from atheists to deeply religious.
But those are all opinions or faith, not scientific data, hypotheses or theories.

RaceBannon: "You dont even understand.
Evolution is an attempt by Satan to destroy the Gospel."

If that were true, then it would apply to every scientific hypothesis and theory, since they all share in common the First Rule of Science: natural explanations for natural processes.

Now, if you wish to condemn all of science as the Devil's handiwork, I say, that's fine, go for it.
But then, what are you doing playing around with all the latest scientific gizmos and gadgets?
Wouldn't you expect those to condemn your own soul to the hottest of nether-regions?

;-)

[RaceBannon]

Smiley faces only prove you are deceitful about your directions

You have embraced a false religion, the false religion of evolution, one that requires a full faith in it’s tenets, and lies to its adherents about there being a logical basis for it’s false foundation.

And, by the way, the science that proved bacteria, and germs, and anti-biotics never doubted a savior...but evolution does

[BroJoeK]

RaceBannon: "Smiley faces only prove you are deceitful about your directions"

Your personal standards for "proof" seem astonishingly low, and perhaps help explain why you are so clearly confused about the basics of science and religion.
In fact, my "smiley faces" only "prove" that I'm doing my best to remain FRiendly, despite your often ridiculous assertions. ;-)

RaceBannon: "You have embraced a false religion, the false religion of evolution, one that requires a full faith in it’s tenets, and lies to its adherents about there being a logical basis for it’s false foundation."

Of course, you are entitled to proclaim whatever you wish to be "a false religion".
You can say Einstein's theory of relativity is "a false religion", or that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is "a false religion", or that various theories about the life-spans of stars are "a false religion", or string-theory is "a false religion", or any other scientific hypothesis which seems to contradict your personal interpretations of scripture you can declare "a false religion".

Declare it all day long, shout it from the mountain tops, it's still not true, never was, never will be.

Science works opposite from your religion.
Your religion begins with religious texts and interprets the world from them, almost regardless of physical evidence.
Science begins with physical evidence and interprets the world from it, almost regardless of religious texts.

Where there is no scientific evidence to support a report of religious miracle, science simply says nothing about it.
Miracles are supposed to be beyond science anyway -- it's why they're called miracles.

RaceBannon: "And, by the way, the science that proved bacteria, and germs, and anti-biotics never doubted a savior...but evolution does"

In all of your examples -- and any others you might imagine -- science itself says nothing whatever about a savior.