ps418

With that helpful criterion in mind, let's consider some examples:

Are Australopithecus africanus and Homo ergaster members of different kinds? What about A. africanus and Homo habilis? Why or why not?

Are Archaeopteryx lithographica and Deinonychus antirrhopus members of different kinds? What about Archaeopteryx lithographica and Sinornithosaurus millenii? Why or why not?

Are Acanthostega and Pandericthys members of different kinds? Or Ichthyostega and Eusthenerpeton? Why or why not?

Are Probainogranthus and Morganucodont members of different kinds? Why or why not?

Are Hyracotherium and Equus members of different kinds? Why or why not?

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>

Ed

If they were originally more genetically diverse then there would be no bottleneck.

Quote:

lp: And Noah's Ark has never been found, despite it being a potentially prominent artifact.

It is extremely unlikely that an exposed wooden object could last possibly as long as 2 million years.

Quote:

lp: It would seem that the Bible is the only source that really counts for Ed -- the only way that something is meaningful for Ed is if it can be shown to follow from an interpretation of the Bible, it would seem. Ed: No, there are two main revelations from God, special revelation (the scriptures) and natural revelation (creation or nature) therefore they are complementary, we just have to use our reasoning skills that God has given us to learn how they are complementary. And in some cases it is not always clear. lp: Where does the Bible officially state its incompleteness? Not to mention this theory in explicit terms. Yes, explicit.

The bible doesnt say it is incomplete but it does teach that nature is a supplement and complementary to it. Read the Psalms and Romans 1 among others.

Quote:

lp: And I'm annoyed at the thought of a supposedly perfect being who wants to tease us by presenting us with lots of misleading features.

He created us with a large brain and he wants us to use it, he doesnt want automatons. Improving our learning and reasoning skills are part of his plan. He teaches thru Paul that we should test every doctrine to see if it lines up with who he is and his Word and our experiences.

Quote:

(Big-sediment Flood Geology being universally rejected) Ed: Just being part of the majority does not mean you are correct, there are many examples in the history of science where the majority was shown to be wrong eventually. I am not qualified to give you the specifics not being a geologist. lp: And is Ed willing to come to similar conclusions about the Bible, that it contains serious errors?

But I am not in the majority. Most biblical scholars reject the scriptures as anything special. I have yet to find any serious errors in it.

Quote:

lp: And if Ed disclaims expertise in geology, then he ought not to comment on it.

When I first started posting on this board I never planned to that is why I started out on the EOG thread, but eventually I got lured into it. But given that this board is for talking about one's beliefs then I thought why should I not comment on something I believe.

Quote:

(fossil graveyards, the Missoula and Altai Pleistocene superfloods...) Ed: But these sites could also be remnants of a global flood. lp: Except that they clearly are not. Most of the Earth was unaffected by these big floods, which would happen repeatedly.

How do you know they are not? Remnants of a global flood could very well look like the main effects of a local flood.

[b] How?

Doubting Didymus

This thread is too large, too unweildy, and too off topic to live.

scigirl

And yet, strangely enough, Ed still hasn't figured out how to use UBB code!

scigirl

lpetrich

DD, should this thread be moved to Rants, Raves, Preachings, etc.?

Which would require some bizarre genetics like Noah, his three sons, and all their wives having several copies of a "normal" human genome in their cells.

Too vague. All the Psalms say is "How marvelous! Goddidit!"

Thus forfeiting his right to complain about "sin". Allowing people to behave in ways he dislikes and then complaining about it later is EXTREMELY stupid conduct. I am a creator of computer programs and I don't create in that fashion.

Including having an open mind to the possibility of Biblical errancy?

But you were the one who insisted on making an issue out of Flood Geology, O Ed.

Floral and faunal continuity, as is evident in the fossil record.

Doubting Didymus

Actually, I'm sorry I commented. I haven't really been following this thread, And I don't really have the right to make pronouncements on it. I actually don't like it when people that aren't involved chime in just to say that the thread is unproductive.

So, carry on please, and pretend I never said anything.

ps418

I should probably resist the temptation. But what the hell. . .

That's true. And irrelevant. Noah's flood is firmly dated to 4500 +/_300 years ago by the biblical chronology. Any flood that happened 2 million years ago might have inconvenienced Homo erectus, but it wouldnt be the Noah/Gilgamesh flood. Didnt I already point this out to you?

Its very simple. The deposits you and LP are discussing (e.g. Altai and Missoula Pleistocene flood deposits) are not remnants of Noah's flood because 1) they are all much too old, and 2) the sedimentary record shows that these outburst floods occurred dozens of times during deglacial episodes over the past 1.5 million years or so(see refs below). Plus, these were local floods. You might not like this. But thats how it is. The sedimentary evidence itself proves the limited scope of those floods.

Bjornstad et al., 2001. Long History of Pre-Wisconsin, Ice Age Cataclysmic Floods: Evidence from Southeastern Washington State. Journal of Geology 109, pp. 695-713.

Zuffa et al., 2000. Turbidite Megabeds in an Oceanic Rift Valley Recording Jökulhlaups of Late Pleistocene Glacial Lakes of the Western United States. Journal of Geology 10, pp. 253-274


Patrick

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>

Ed

Actually I believe some birds do that as well.

Punishing a fellow member of your species for killing or injuring another member of your species or some similar scenario. No animal does this.

Ed

Sorry, in my job I don't deal with taxonomy, it has been awhile since I used the terms. Yes and molecular biology has also shown that the probability of Darwinian mechanisms being able to generate macroevolution as miniscule.


[quote]
Ed:
There is no evidence that these features make a person or race more apelike than a person or race without these features. (...)

lp:I wonder what Ed considers hairiness.[quote]

Evidence that a man being hairy means he is more apelike: {}
Just as a dog that is more hairy around its neck than another dog doesn't make it more lion-like. So a human that is more hairy than another human doesnt make him more apelike. You seem to be dangerously close to some of the 19th century Darwinists that believed that the flat noses and kinky hair of blacks and aborigines made them more apelike. Would you agree with them? And does that therefore make you feel superior?


Yes, supposedly, but even if true they are irrelevant to man's relationship to God.


No, my statement "but they don't" is referring to the existence of transition forms. I think you misunderstood my comment.


It shows that Australian aborigines inerbred with and are direct descendents of these "homo erectus" people.


Maybe they painted on a different medium that is more fragile such as on trees.


Like the Homo habilis skull Oolon posted above, where half of it is the anthropologists re-creation.

lpetrich

Like which ones? I'm not willing to go on an Internet wild goose chase until you give me some hint as to where to look.

Chimps have been known to stop other chimps from quarreling with each other, as described by Franz de Waal's work.

Which makes one wonder what kind of "wildlife biologist" Ed is.

HOW??? I'd like to be pointed to some big article in some peer-reviewed journal that shows that. Because I've yet to see any such thing in the molecular-evolution literature.

Again, I wonder what kind of "wildlife biologist" Ed is.

Interbreeding != same species, as shown by

Horses and donkeys
Lions and tigers
Dolphins and false killer whales

And NEVER on the walls of any cave. How convenient.

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>