Linking a Man to an animal, is a sin - how much a slave to "linking with an animal" are Evolutionists (if sinning makes you a slave)?

[The Barbarian]

No. Darwin himself suggested that God might have just created any number of original living things. It was in the last sentence of On the Origin of Species. It was a finding of genetics, not evolutionary theory. The existence of transitional fossils between major groups of animals has been cited by YE creationist Kurt Wise as a problem to be resolved in any young earth theory, but that evidence wasn't even known in Darwin's time.

So your saying that humans didn't evolve from a common ape ancestor?

Adam and Eve, yes. They were humans, although perhaps somewhat different in appearance than people today.

Because that's exclactly what the theory of evolution says. Google tells us

humans and modern apes share a common ancestor. This ancestor's lineage split into separate branches, evolving differently to become modern humans

There were a lot of species of humans at one time. Our particular species is one of the later ones. Humans (the genus) evolved from a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, which was neither a human nor a chimpanzee.

From my understanding Darwin himself didn't invent the theory of evolution.

That's right. Darwin's great discovery was how it worked. For a long time, people had realized there had to have been some kind of changes over time. Darwin just realized how.

From my understanding Darwin himself didn't invent the theory of evolution. I dont think he said that all living organisms evolved from one cell

That's also right. Darwin suggested that God might have created any number of original organisms. He did believe that humans evolved from other apes. He didn't write this in On the Origin of Species, but in his book The Descent of Man.

Your getting mixed up with someone else. I'm specifically arguing against the theory of evolution that says all life evolved from a common ancestor, a single cell,

That's not part of Darwin's theory. That's a finding of genetics, not evolutionary theory.

Again you haven't responded to the post where I refute piltdown man

Evolutionists refuted it over a hundred years ago. But pleased to have you agree with them.

and Lucy and expose them as a fraudulent hoax

I left you links, to sites showing the data and refuting the stories you were told. Post #15. Should I post them, again?

 

[Armour of God]

There were a lot of species of humans at one time. Our particular species is one of the later ones. Humans (the genus) evolved from a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, which was neither a human nor a chimpanzee

Well that's exactly what I mean when I say the theory tells us that humans evolved from apes, that we evolved from a common monkey ancestor

Darwin suggested that God might have created any number of original organisms. He did believe that humans evolved from other apes. He didn't write this in On the Origin of Species, but in his book The Descent of Man.

Im not arguing about what Darwin said. Im arguing about the "theory of evolution". There is a difference. Darwin suggests God created a number of species. The theory doesn't, it says that all of life evolved from one cell, a universal common ancestor.
Google tells us

the theory of evolution, specifically the concept of universal common descent, posits that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, which was a single-celled organism

So then is it fair to say that you dissagree on the theories claim that all life came from a single celled universal ancestor. And that you agree with Darwin that God put down several species?

I left you links, to sites showing the data and refuting the stories you were told

And I quoted sources and left a short video refuting your stories. It says that Lucy's fossils were not found together as one skeleton but spread over a hillside and only assumed to be from the one being.

The video shows that the hips were like a chimps hips and had to be modified with power tools to make it look like human hips. That's not called science, thats called a hoax

Id like you to put forward the evidence that humans evolved from a common monkey ancestor, in point form please

 

[The Barbarian]

Well that's exactly what I mean when I say the theory tells us that humans evolved from apes, that we evolved from a common monkey ancestor

Perhaps it would be good for you to do a little research to learn the difference between monkeys and apes.

Im not arguing about what Darwin said. Im arguing about the "theory of evolution". There is a difference. Darwin suggests God created a number of species. The theory doesn't,

Right. That brings up another important point. Darwin was expressing a religious belief. And science is unable to consider the supernatural. You might as well try to find God by plumbing. You see, science can neither confirm nor deny God.

But scientists and plumbers can.

The theory doesn't, it says that all of life evolved from one cell, a universal common ancestor.

Nope. That's genetics. Maybe you could start by showing us which of the four points of evolutionary theory says what you have been told that it does. Which one?

Google tells us

Ah, so "if Google says so, it must be right." We're getting closer to a resolution, here.

And I quoted sources and left a short video refuting your stories.

Religious articles and YouTube videos don't have much credibility about science. Sorry.

It says that Lucy's fossils were not found together as one skeleton but spread over a hillside and only assumed to be from the one being.

I see you read my source article. All found in the same place is a good clue. That's how bones scatter when bodies decay, get fossilized, and then erode out over time. But the fact that they all fit nicely is also important.

The video shows that the hips were like a chimps hips and had to be modified with power tools to make it look like human hips.

Nope. That's an old story, but it's false. There's no way at all to make a chimp pelvis look human. Here:


Fact is, Australopithecine hips look more like human hips than like chimpanzee hips.


White parts are those not found. But there's no way to cut a chimp hip to make them look like this. The story they gave you is a hoax.

 

[Armour of God]

The story they gave you is a hoax

No.

The story they gave you is a hoax.

The clip in the video is from the people who found Lucy. Ive watched that whole documentary before. There is vision of them using power tools to change the bones to make them fit. And they explain that it fit like a monkeys hips and that they modified it to fit like human hips. This is them saying this, the people that presented Lucy.

But you don't even understand what the theory of evolution is and what it claims. It certainly does claim that all life comes from a single cell common ancestor, i see this in every source I read. Denying that just shows how uneducated you are about the theory. Google provides its sources including national geographic and national institute of health

Ultimately you failed to provide any evidence for your beliefs. All you have are highly unlikely assumptions that are scientifically unfounded

 

[rvmb]

"Mitochondrial eve" is said to be the last common woman ancestor for all people living to day. She was not the Eve mentioned in Genesis. She lived about 200,000 years ago, from the genetic data. Here's an accurate, but not too technical discussion:

Who was Mitochondrial Eve? And No, She’s Not Lucy — HUMANIZING HISTORY

Who was Mitochondrial Eve? How is she a "common mother" to us all?

www.humanizinghistory.org

People were building structures in Jericho about 12,000 years ago.

The Ancient City of Jericho: History and Major Facts - World History Edu

Jericho, one of the world’s oldest inhabited cities, holds a significant place in the annals of human history. Its antiquity, coupled with its notable mentions in religious texts and its...

worldhistoryedu.com

There is also a "Y-chromosome Adam", who lived at a different time. He isn't the Adam of Genesis, either. He's just the last common male ancestor of all humans living today.

Barb said >> "Mitochondrial eve" is said to be the last common woman ancestor for all people living to day""
Correct and based on one mutation every 800 years, mitichondrial eve is approx 6000 years old as Eve in Genesis :)
**
4 min watch for anyone interested.

 

[The Barbarian]

arb said >> "Mitochondrial eve" is said to be the last common woman ancestor for all people living to day""
Correct and based on one mutation every 800 years, mitichondrial eve is approx 6000 years old as Eve in Genesis :)

Geneticists say otherwise. So we can believe people who actually know about the issue or we can believe someone who made a YouTube video. Your choice.

 

[The Barbarian]

No.

The story they gave you is a hoax.

I know you want to believe it. But as you see, the facts don't support the hoax they told you.

The clip in the video is from the people who found Lucy. Ive watched that whole documentary before. There is vision of them using power tools to change the bones to make them fit. And they explain that it fit like a monkeys hips and that they modified it to fit like human hips.

That's not what they said. And notice, there is no way to grind down a chimpanzee hip to make it loo human. At some point, the story has to fit reality.

But you don't even understand what the theory of evolution is and what it claims.

I suggested that you tell us which of the four points of Darwinian theory have been shown to be wrong. And you declined to answer. That pretty much shows us what you know about the theory. Would you like to show us now?

It certainly does claim that all life comes from a single cell common ancestor,

Genetics shows that to be the case in the sense that all life we know about comes from a common ancestor. Nothing in evolutionary theory requires that. Indeed, it's still possible that there might have been other forms of life that did not survive to be found. There is even a remote chance that such life might be somewhere yet to be found. None of that would refute anything about evolutionary theory.

Fact is, if God had just poofed living things into existence, evolution would still work exactly as it works today. You see, you (and apparently AI Google) have confused universal common descent with evolution. To get you started, here's what biological evolution is:

Evolution Definition​

Evolution is defined as a change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations.

Evolution Definition and Examples - Biology Online Dictionary

Learn Evolution definition, examples, and more. Answer - Evolution Biology Quiz!

www.biologyonline.com

Here's a simple summary of the theory:
The four key points of Darwin's Theory of Evolution are: individuals of a species are not identical; traits are passed from generation to generation; more offspring are born than can survive; and only the survivors of the competition for resources will reproduce. The variations of individuals give some members of the species advantages in the competition to survive and reproduce. Those advantageous traits will be passed to the next generation.
Read More: What Are Darwin's Four Main Ideas On Evolution? - Sciencing

Modern evolutionary theory has added genetics, neutral theories, punctuated equilibrium, and others. But the man points remain observably true as they did in Darwin's time. Ironically, you're granting more power to evolutionary theory than it actually has.

Comparison of the DNA genetic sequences of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of DNA sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. Genetic fragments such as pseudogenes, regions of DNA that are orthologous to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration from cumulative mutations support common descent alongside the universal biochemical organization and molecular variance patterns found in all organisms. Additional genetic information conclusively supports the relatedness of life and has allowed scientists (since the discovery of DNA) to develop phylogenetic trees: a construction of organisms' evolutionary relatedness.

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Darwin was comfortable with God creating a number of original living things, because such a thing would have no effect on his theory.

 

[Jericho]

Genesis 6:3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.”
Which is the limit we see today.

That verse is post-flood. All you have to do is look at the genealogies. After the flood, life span drops dramatically until it levels off to what it is today. Just a few examples:

Pre-flood:
Gen 5:5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.
Gen 5:27 So all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty-nine years; and he died.
Gen 9:29 So all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years; and he died.

Post flood:
Gen 5:3 This is the sum of the years of Abraham’s life which he lived: one hundred and seventy-five years.
Deu 34:7 "Moses was 120 years old when he died; his eyes were not weak, and his natural strength had not abated."
2Sa 5:4: "David was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned forty years." (So he died at 70.)

 

[The Barbarian]

That verse is post-flood.

Genesis 6:3 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

Pre-flood.

After the flood, life span drops dramatically until it levels off to what it is today.

And yet: Gen 9:29 So all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years; and he died.

About 8 times the limit God set before the flood. Exceptions God made for some people are not the same as His plan for most people.

 

[Armour of God]

I know you want to believe it. But as you see, the facts don't support the hoax they told you.

That's not what they said. And notice, there is no way to grind down a chimpanzee hip to make it loo human. At some point, the story has to fit reality.


I suggested that you tell us which of the four points of Darwinian theory have been shown to be wrong. And you declined to answer. That pretty much shows us what you know about the theory. Would you like to show us now?


Genetics shows that to be the case in the sense that all life we know about comes from a common ancestor. Nothing in evolutionary theory requires that. Indeed, it's still possible that there might have been other forms of life that did not survive to be found. There is even a remote chance that such life might be somewhere yet to be found. None of that would refute anything about evolutionary theory.

Fact is, if God had just poofed living things into existence, evolution would still work exactly as it works today. You see, you (and apparently AI Google) have confused universal common descent with evolution. To get you started, here's what biological evolution is:

Evolution Definition​

Evolution is defined as a change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations.

Evolution Definition and Examples - Biology Online Dictionary

Learn Evolution definition, examples, and more. Answer - Evolution Biology Quiz!

www.biologyonline.com

Here's a simple summary of the theory:
The four key points of Darwin's Theory of Evolution are: individuals of a species are not identical; traits are passed from generation to generation; more offspring are born than can survive; and only the survivors of the competition for resources will reproduce. The variations of individuals give some members of the species advantages in the competition to survive and reproduce. Those advantageous traits will be passed to the next generation.
Read More: What Are Darwin's Four Main Ideas On Evolution? - Sciencing

Modern evolutionary theory has added genetics, neutral theories, punctuated equilibrium, and others. But the man points remain observably true as they did in Darwin's time. Ironically, you're granting more power to evolutionary theory than it actually has.

Comparison of the DNA genetic sequences of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of DNA sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. Genetic fragments such as pseudogenes, regions of DNA that are orthologous to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration from cumulative mutations support common descent alongside the universal biochemical organization and molecular variance patterns found in all organisms. Additional genetic information conclusively supports the relatedness of life and has allowed scientists (since the discovery of DNA) to develop phylogenetic trees: a construction of organisms' evolutionary relatedness.

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Darwin was comfortable with God creating a number of original living things, because such a thing would have no effect on his theory.

Highlighting things in red or any other colour doesn't make it true.

You provided a link to Wikipedia. This is what the first paragraph says.

Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating that all life on Earth comes from a single ancestor. This forms an important part of the evidence on which evolutionary theory rests

So even your source says that all life comes from a single ancestor and that evolutionary theory rests on this evidence.

In regard to Charles Darwin he said this

Charles Darwin proposed that all life descended from a single common ancestor, a concept known as universal common ancestry. In On the Origin of Species (1859), he concluded that "probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form"
Quote from Google which lists its various sources, Brandeis university, national institute of health, Wikipedia. Here is the link
Google Search

Brandeis university says

More than 150 years ago, Charles Darwin proposed the theory of universal common ancestry (UCA), linking all forms of life by a shared genetic heritage from single-celled microorganisms to humans
Biochemist Douglas Theobald confirms Darwin’s theory of universal common ancestry | BrandeisNOW

So the universal common ancestor is indeed a claim made by modern theory of evolution and in fact by Charles Darwin himself

This video by BBC earth elaborates.
It starts off by confirming the fact that I have been asserting

So again we see that Darwin did say that all living things evolved from one single life form. A universal common ancestor

But despite all that you haven't given any evidence that supports any kind of ape-like common ancestor for humans of which you are claiming.
The only evidence is Lucy which is nothing more than a fabricated sculpture hoax. One needs more evidence that that to make a credible claim, even in the theoretical fields of science

 

[Armour of God]

@The Barbarian

Here is the video about Lucy again, this time without the preacher. It's from an old documentary that tries to support the claim that Lucy is a transitional fossil. I've watched the whole documentary before and noticed this part

They said it was like a chimps hip then they modified it using power tools to make it appear like a human hip

So if you say its not true then why would they show us this if there is no truth behind it?

 

[The Barbarian]

So even your source says that all life comes from a single ancestor and that evolutionary theory rests on this evidence.

Yes. Genetics shows a common ancestor. And this has supported evolutionary theory.

In regard to Charles Darwin he said this

Charles Darwin proposed that all life descended from a single common ancestor, a concept known as universal common ancestry. In On the Origin of Species (1859), he concluded that "probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form"

Heres what Darwin actually wrote: (Last sentence from On the Origin of Species)
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Brandeis university says

More than 150 years ago, Charles Darwin proposed the theory of universal common ancestry (UCA), linking all forms of life by a shared genetic heritage from single-celled microorganisms to humans
Biochemist Douglas Theobald confirms Darwin’s theory of universal common ancestry | BrandeisNOW

See above. It's the last sentence of On the Origin of Species. His theory did not depend on all life coming from a single living thing. Darwin is the final authority on what his theory says. Yes, even some scholars get it wrong. I've had to teach the theory, so I took a good deal of time to be sure what it says.

And there's no shame in you talking their word for it. Shame on them for not actually learning what his theory says.

 

[The Barbarian]

They said it was like a chimps hip then they modified it using power tools to make it appear like a human hip

Well, not quite. They said that it had been distorted by pressure over time. They tried to reconstruct the way it actually looked. But even in the distorted form, it looks more human than chimp. They never said that they tried to make it look more human. The video says that they tried to make it look as it originally did.



And the pelvis of a different species of Australopithecine is also human-like.


Hard to see how it could be different, because the bones of the feet and the knee joints are consistent only with bipedalism.
Moreover, at Latoli, there were 3.5 MYO footprints in volcanic ash, which look almost human:


Bipedalism has been confirmed from several sources of data.

 

[Armour of God]

See above. It's the last sentence of On the Origin of Species. His theory did not depend on all life coming from a single living thing. Darwin is the final authority on what his theory says. Yes, even some scholars get it wrong. I've had to teach the theory, so I took a good deal of time to be sure what it says.

Even what you quoted from Darwin says

"into a few forms or into one"

So his not sure himself if it was a few life forms or just one. And your ignoring what Darwin said here

"probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form"

Darwin himself is explicitly saying that all life on Earth evolved from a universal common ancestor. I can't see how you can deny it when Darwin himself wrote it in black and white.

You have your own evolutionary belief that differes from TOE. A universal common ancestor is clearly a part of TOE and was written by Darwin. You simply ignore that and don't believe it. You believe there was many forms to begin with. I accept your belief but it's not what TOE or Darwin says.

Well, not quite. They said that it had been distorted by pressure over time. They tried to reconstruct the way it actually looked. But even in the distorted form, it looks more human than chimp. They never said that they tried to make it look more human. The video says that they tried to make it look as it originally did.

I'm glad you noticed that. They said it basically had been distorted over time. That is an assumption. The whole TOE is based on assumptions and so is Lucy

1- Assumption. Lucy's fossils were not found as one skeleton but over a large area. It was assumed to come from one person.
2- Assumption. Without a skull the clay sculpture only assumes that it had a human skull.
3- Assumption. Without any feet bones the sculpture only assumes it had feet like humans.
4- Assumption. The sculpture depicts a human like face without any hair on it.
5- Assumption. The sculpture depicts human like eyes without really knowing.
6- Assumption. They assumed that the hip bone got distorted over time.
7- Assumption. With only 40% of a skeleton they made that clay sculpture from many assumptions.
8- Assumption. The fossils could be from a monkey/ape, it could be from another human-like species such as a Neanderthal, it could be from an extinct biped species or it could just be human. There are many possibilities. It's just an assumption to claim that it's from a transitional species

Their is a huge difference between practical or applied science vs theoretical science. Applied science involves fields like chemistry, medicine or engineering which is what I studied. It doesn't rely on assumptions. It has a much higher standard of evidence. We don't design bridges or vehicles or anything from assumption. People's lives are at stake. Everything is vigorously tested and proven from materials to design to manufacturing methods and procedure.

On the other hand theoretical science like TOE is considered garbage to us. We don't regard it as real science at all. It's just theories based on assumptions and is easily manipulated by conflicts of interest. Its closer to philosophy that real science. Theoretical science is fake science. They just use the real science label, which was created by our practical fields, to justify their assumptions.

Bipedalism has been confirmed from several sources of data

Ah the Laetoli footprints. Another assumption. Doesn't prove any kind of common ancestor at all. Could be an error in dating, could be a manipulation in dating. One needs faith to accept the dating. It could be from an extinct biped species. Its probably just made by a human. Humans could be older than what they think. There are many possibilities. To take these footprints and say its proof of common ancestry is just absurd, a huge over reach. Its nothing more than an assumption.

Also the confirmation of bipedalism from several data sources doesn't confirm a common ancestor either. That's just another assumption.

My friend, have you got any evidence that isn't based on assumption? Solid concrete evidence that would be accepted in my field of engineering, accepted in real applied science?

 

[The Barbarian]

Even what you quoted from Darwin says

"into a few forms or into one"

So his not sure himself if it was a few life forms or just one. And your ignoring what Darwin said here

Yep. It had nothing to do with his theory. He just didn't know, so he didn't put it in his theory. Much later, genetics showed that he would have been right. But it still isn't part of Darwinian theory.

Darwin himself is explicitly saying that all life on Earth evolved from a universal common ancestor.

No, he says that it is likely.
"probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form"

I can't see how you can deny it when Darwin himself wrote it in black and white. It turns out that his suspicion was correct. But it still wasn't part of his theory, because he could find no compelling evidence for it at the time.

You have your own evolutionary belief that differes from TOE. A universal common ancestor is clearly a part of TOE and was written by Darwin.

Darwin himself wrote that God might have created any number of original forms. That wasn't part of his theory, he had an opinion, but he just didn't know.

1- Assumption. Lucy's fossils were not found as one skeleton but over a large area. It was assumed to come from one person.

All on one hillside, where they eroded out of the rock.

2- Assumption. Without a skull the clay sculpture only assumes that it had a human skull.

We have numerous Australopithecine skulls now. So we know.

3- Assumption. Without any feet bones the sculpture only assumes it had feet like humans.

But there are such fossils of Australopithecine feet bones. Interestingly they are transitional between those of arboreal apes and humans.

A nearly complete foot from Dikika, Ethiopia and its implications for the ontogeny and function of Australopithecus afarensis​

A nearly complete foot from Dikika, Ethiopia and its implications for the ontogeny and function of Australopithecus afarensis - PMC

The ontogeny of locomotor traits in the Australopithecus foot is unique and suggests that juvenile early hominins relied on pedal grasping.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

4- Assumption. The sculpture depicts a human like face without any hair on it.

Could have been bearded. But given related apes, it's an open question. Chimps don't have it. But human males do.

5- Assumption. The sculpture depicts human like eyes without really knowing.

Actually, based on the eyes of living apes. Turns out, white sclera are not unique to humans or even to our genus:
The team analyzed over 1,000 photos of 230 individual Ngogo chimpanzees who live in the center of Kibale National Park, Uganda. Many of the images were taken by Lee, who was able to use zoom lenses and equipment to capture the chimpanzees' faces and eyes. Other images used were from archives at the park.

“We were able to show at Ngogo that up to 15% of our individuals, across all ages, have fully white sclera,” Lee said, “or what we would consider to be a majority of white sclera. With another 40% to 50% having some sort of depigmentation that is noticeable.”

New research indicates the 'whites' of human eyes are not uniquely human | ASU News

Our eyes allow us to communicate with other people without needing to talk. This is in part because of the color variation between our iris and sclera (the white part of the eye), explains Kevin Lee.

news.asu.edu

Assumption. They assumed that the hip bone got distorted over time.

Observably so. Paleontologists know how to interpret stress over time. And not surprisingly, later, more complete examples confirm the analysis.

7- Assumption. With only 40% of a skeleton they made that clay sculpture from many assumptions.

The key is that primate bodies are bilaterally symmetrical. So having a bone from one side, told them what the other half looked like. Subsequent discoveries confirmed their findings.

Assumption. The fossils could be from a monkey/ape, it could be from another human-like species such as a Neanderthal, it could be from an extinct biped species or it could just be human.

It was from an ape, of course. It couldn't have been a Neanderthal, lacking human hips and face, among other things. It is, of course, an extinct biped species. But not H. sapiens. For a lot of technical reasons, it could have been H. erectus, if not for the shoulder, face,and hips.

Their is a huge difference between practical or applied science vs theoretical science.

Yes. Technology depends on theoretical science.

Applied science involves fields like chemistry, medicine or engineering which is what I studied.

Chemistry depends entirely on theories. Medicine is also quite theoretical, even though it is applied science. Immunology, for example, has a lot of theoretical support. A lot of people think "theory" is something like an informed guess. That is actually what an hypothesis is. A theory becomes a theory only after its predictions are repeatedly confirmed by subsequent evidence.

We don't design bridges or vehicles or anything from assumption.

Years ago, I was an ergonomist for an insurance company. And one day my manager asked me for help on something quite different. We were insuring the construction of a stadium, and there was concern about earthquake exposure. Someone had written a book, predicting that there would be a major quake in the New Madrid fault. They asked me to investigate and determine the risk. (being sciencey and all, anything no one understood usually ended up on my desk). So I did a crash course in seismology, until I had a grasp on the theory. I concluded that the author was stuffed with prunes and told them that no one, absent some recent seismic activity, could make such a prediction. i did get to visit the campus, and have a good laugh with the project superintendant.

On the other hand theoretical science like TOE is considered garbage to us. We don't regard it as real science at all. It's just theories based on assumptions and is easily manipulated by conflicts of interest.

It's true that engineering programs don't do a good job of explaining science to undergraduates. "Just a theory" is kind of a meme for people in the sciences...

Never tell a scientist it’s “just a theory”​

...this is a fundamentally dishonest argument, as any scientist will be quick to realize. Here’s what everyone should know about what the word “theory” truly means: in science, mathematics, and beyond.

Never tell a scientist it's "just a theory"

When the average person has a "theory," they're just guessing. But for a scientist, a theory is the pinnacle of what we can achieve.

bigthink.com

50 Essential Theories Every Civil Engineer Should Know

Discover 50 key theories every civil engineer should know, from structural analysis to sustainable design, for a successful engineering career.

www.constructionplacements.com

Interestingly, engineers have learned to use Darwinian theory to solve problems too complex to be handled by design.

2003-01-1853: Genetic Algorithms Optimization of Diesel Engine Emissions and Fuel Efficiency with Air Swirl, EGR,Injection Timing and Multiple Injections - Technical Paper

<div class="htmlview paragraph">The present study extends the recently developed HIDECS-GA computer code to optimize diesel engine emissions and fuel economy with the existing techniques, such as exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) and multiple injections.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">A...

saemobilus.sae.org

God had it right, after all.

Ah the Laetoli footprints. Another assumption. Doesn't prove any kind of common ancestor at all.

It merely shows that Australopithecines had very human-like feet, and were bipedal.

One needs faith to accept the dating.

Just physics. And it's not controversial. It's been known for over 100 years. Solid concrete evidence that would be accepted in real applied science.

 

[Armour of God]

Yep. It had nothing to do with his theory. He just didn't know, so he didn't put it in his theory. Much later, genetics showed that he would have been right. But it still isn't part of Darwinian theory.


No, he says that it is likely.
"probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form"

I can't see how you can deny it when Darwin himself wrote it in black and white. It turns out that his suspicion was correct. But it still wasn't part of his theory, because he could find no compelling evidence for it at the time.


Darwin himself wrote that God might have created any number of original forms. That wasn't part of his theory, he had an opinion, but he just didn't know.


All on one hillside, where they eroded out of the rock.

We have numerous Australopithecine skulls now. So we know.

But there are such fossils of Australopithecine feet bones. Interestingly they are transitional between those of arboreal apes and humans.

A nearly complete foot from Dikika, Ethiopia and its implications for the ontogeny and function of Australopithecus afarensis​

View attachment 81847

A nearly complete foot from Dikika, Ethiopia and its implications for the ontogeny and function of Australopithecus afarensis - PMC

The ontogeny of locomotor traits in the Australopithecus foot is unique and suggests that juvenile early hominins relied on pedal grasping.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Could have been bearded. But given related apes, it's an open question. Chimps don't have it. But human males do.


Actually, based on the eyes of living apes. Turns out, white sclera are not unique to humans or even to our genus:
The team analyzed over 1,000 photos of 230 individual Ngogo chimpanzees who live in the center of Kibale National Park, Uganda. Many of the images were taken by Lee, who was able to use zoom lenses and equipment to capture the chimpanzees' faces and eyes. Other images used were from archives at the park.

“We were able to show at Ngogo that up to 15% of our individuals, across all ages, have fully white sclera,” Lee said, “or what we would consider to be a majority of white sclera. With another 40% to 50% having some sort of depigmentation that is noticeable.”

New research indicates the 'whites' of human eyes are not uniquely human | ASU News

Our eyes allow us to communicate with other people without needing to talk. This is in part because of the color variation between our iris and sclera (the white part of the eye), explains Kevin Lee.

news.asu.edu

Observably so. Paleontologists know how to interpret stress over time. And not surprisingly, later, more complete examples confirm the analysis.


The key is that primate bodies are bilaterally symmetrical. So having a bone from one side, told them what the other half looked like. Subsequent discoveries confirmed their findings.


It was from an ape, of course. It couldn't have been a Neanderthal, lacking human hips and face, among other things. It is, of course, an extinct biped species. But not H. sapiens. For a lot of technical reasons, it could have been H. erectus, if not for the shoulder, face,and hips.


Yes. Technology depends on theoretical science.

Chemistry depends entirely on theories. Medicine is also quite theoretical, even though it is applied science. Immunology, for example, has a lot of theoretical support. A lot of people think "theory" is something like an informed guess. That is actually what an hypothesis is. A theory becomes a theory only after its predictions are repeatedly confirmed by subsequent evidence.


Years ago, I was an ergonomist for an insurance company. And one day my manager asked me for help on something quite different. We were insuring the construction of a stadium, and there was concern about earthquake exposure. Someone had written a book, predicting that there would be a major quake in the New Madrid fault. They asked me to investigate and determine the risk. (being sciencey and all, anything no one understood usually ended up on my desk). So I did a crash course in seismology, until I had a grasp on the theory. I concluded that the author was stuffed with prunes and told them that no one, absent some recent seismic activity, could make such a prediction. i did get to visit the campus, and have a good laugh with the project superintendant.


It's true that engineering programs don't do a good job of explaining science to undergraduates. "Just a theory" is kind of a meme for people in the sciences...

Never tell a scientist it’s “just a theory”​

...this is a fundamentally dishonest argument, as any scientist will be quick to realize. Here’s what everyone should know about what the word “theory” truly means: in science, mathematics, and beyond.

Never tell a scientist it's "just a theory"

When the average person has a "theory," they're just guessing. But for a scientist, a theory is the pinnacle of what we can achieve.

bigthink.com

50 Essential Theories Every Civil Engineer Should Know

Discover 50 key theories every civil engineer should know, from structural analysis to sustainable design, for a successful engineering career.

www.constructionplacements.com

Interestingly, engineers have learned to use Darwinian theory to solve problems too complex to be handled by design.

2003-01-1853: Genetic Algorithms Optimization of Diesel Engine Emissions and Fuel Efficiency with Air Swirl, EGR,Injection Timing and Multiple Injections - Technical Paper

<div class="htmlview paragraph">The present study extends the recently developed HIDECS-GA computer code to optimize diesel engine emissions and fuel economy with the existing techniques, such as exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) and multiple injections.</div> <div class="htmlview paragraph">A...

saemobilus.sae.org

God had it right, after all.


It merely shows that Australopithecines had very human-like feet, and were bipedal.

Just physics. And it's not controversial. It's been known for over 100 years. Solid concrete evidence that would be accepted in real applied science.

TOE is all based on assumption my friend.
TOE lie pulled me away from God at one stage.
It has pulled many people away from God and continues to do so

 

[The Barbarian]

TOE is all based on assumption my friend.

Four point of Darwinian theory:
1. More are born than can live long enough to reproduce.
2. Every individual is somewhat different than its parents
3. Some of these differences affect the likelihood of survival long enough to reproduce.
4. The useful differences tend to accumulate in the population and the harmful ones tend to be lost and this often leads to new species.

All verified.

TOE lie pulled me away from God at one stage.

What about the above would pull one from God?
I have had many young scholars come to me with a crisis of faith after they found that things they were told were Christian belief, after they learned that those things were untrue.

This is the real damage that YEC does to God's Church.

 

[Armour of God]

Four point of Darwinian theory:
1. More are born than can live long enough to reproduce.
2. Every individual is somewhat different than its parents
3. Some of these differences affect the likelihood of survival long enough to reproduce.
4. The useful differences tend to accumulate in the population and the harmful ones tend to be lost and this often leads to new species.

All verified.

What about the above would pull one from God?
I have had many young scholars come to me with a crisis of faith after they found that things they were told were Christian belief, after they learned that those things were untrue.

This is the real damage that YEC does to God's Church.

Assumption and Delusion my friend
That's all it is

 

[The Barbarian]

Assumption and Delusion my friend
That's all it is

These are just facts. Here's the testimony of a former YEC, a graduate of the Institute for Creation Research graduate school:
But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.

Old Earth Creation Science Testimony - Why I Left Young Earth Creationism, by Glenn Morton

A Christian testimony from an old earth creationist. Why I Left Young Earth Creationism, by Glenn Morton

www.oldearth.org

 

[Jesussaves150]

Genesis teaches that man is a created being apart from nature beginning with Adam and Eve .Everything else can come from evolution but not Humanity according to the teaching.
God prepared the earth for humanity