Answering atheists responses to laws of logic

[jlay]

For example, how would non-TE theists answer the fused chromosome argument (referenced in the youtube link)? I've really never seen a satisfactory answer to that.

The argument from darwinists is that if evolution is true then we should expect to see the chromosome fusion. I admit, it is a decent argument and does tie some knots for us
But it is always more difficult to untie a knot than to tie it. An expected prediction may certainly point to a truth, but isn't a truth itself. Anyone can show how this can fail. Darwinist's have tied knots with junk DNA (If Darwinism is true, then we would expect to see left over DNA/ junk) amongst other things, which eventually turned out to be not so convincing or false. But, so what. Untying the Knot never has the effect of tying it in the first place. People are still referring back to Haeckels embryos for Pete sake.

To be more specific, the fusion-evidence implies that some of our ancestors likely had 48 chromosomes. But Miller has not provided any evidence that the individual with 48 chromosomes was historically related to modern apes. (I grant that our chromosome #2 has banding patterns similar to two ape chromosomes, but given that our chromosome structure is generally similar to that of apes anyways, it is not a stretch to assume that any 48 chromosome ancestor of modern humans might have also had a chromosomal scheme similar to that of apes, regardless of whether or not that individual was related to apes. Claiming that banding pattern similarities is evidence of common ancestry with apes simply invokes the “similarity = common ancestry” argument, and thus begs the question.) It is entirely possible that our genus Homo underwent a chromosomal fusion event within its own separate history. Under Neo-Darwinism, the common ancestor of humans and apes is thought to have lived about six million years ago. But under Miller's account, it is entirely possible that this chromosomal fusion event happened in a human population only 10,000 years ago,

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... hp/id/1392

So, yes there are answers for this argument. As always, depending on where you start determines how convincing the so called 'proof' to be.

[StMonicaGuideMe]

The theory of evolution has a long and well documented tainted history of fraud and deceit, Pigs teeth turned into a human being, bone fragments once thought humanoid but later test – another unrelated animal of antiquity. Scholars and professors falsifying records and documentation and lastly redefining the definition of words like science and evolution.

Not that I disbelieve you, but I would love to get a link with this evidence. I've heard of"smudging the numbers" but if there's somewhere I can get this information, I think I could use it in my current intellectual battles Thanks!

[Reactionary]

spartanII, It sounds like you're struggling with something more than what you're saying here. It almost sounds like some kind of oppression. Maybe demonic in nature. You seem so brought down by something that I can't see as that big of an issue, normally. Have you really prayed earnestly for God's guidance on this?

Yes, and I don't think it's demonic... I just think it's over-thinking things. I didn't come on the forum or deal with apologetics for like 3 weeks to cool off...I became obsessed and it was all i could think about , sitting on my bed at night for about 4 hours straight, trying to go to bed but can't. These are big big questions..and yes I've tried but it seems like white noise...I used to feel a connection with God but nowadays it's very very hard... I know part of my connection is my fault, I deal with lust and it's been on a high for like a year straight now so while i'm in the stage I feel unworthy of even going to God and asking Him for guidance, but while i'm not in that stage I feel concerned about my faith, and want answers. A lot of them are very good but then a few times an atheist will ask a legit question (they have a few) and it'll bug me. But it's okay, if you could pray for me I'd appreciate it.

SpartanII, I wouldn't invoke demonic influence as a cause of your struggle, but I believe it's a problem nevertheless. I recognize it as I was through a very similar situation not long ago - I was concerned about everything, paranoid, worried... especially about the afterlife. Those dark thoughts had been pursuing me throughout the day. Turns out I had a vitamin deficiency, and after months of taking supplements and changing my diet, it all started to fade away, so nowadays I've been functioning normally and feeling like my old self.

Now, I'm not saying that you have the same problem, but think about some things - How long have you been feeling this obsession, did it start suddenly or gradually? Were you/Have you been taking any medication (this is important as they may deplete vitamin reserves)? Are your concerns rational? Do they have on and off phases? I know we're discussing big questions, but they shouldn't bother a person as much as you've been bothered. Think about it, send me a PM if you want to talk more about it.

[B. W.]

The theory of evolution has a long and well documented tainted history of fraud and deceit, Pigs teeth turned into a human being, bone fragments once thought humanoid but later test – another unrelated animal of antiquity. Scholars and professors falsifying records and documentation and lastly redefining the definition of words like science and evolution.

Not that I disbelieve you, but I would love to get a link with this evidence. I've heard of"smudging the numbers" but if there's somewhere I can get this information, I think I could use it in my current intellectual battles Thanks!

I suggest for ease of reading to get the book entitled, "I do not have Faith enough to be an Athesist' for starters. There are many and maybe others here can provide links such as these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man

http://digilander.libero.it/avifauna/cl ... uence6.htm

Hope this helps - there are more out there...
-
-
-

[jlay]

STmon, just google frauds in evolution. Haekel's embryos. Nebraska man, Piltdown man. The whole "Lucy" thing is full of fraud.
Taking artist's interpretations and using them as 'evidence.'

Example:

That is a 'reconstruction.' Do you see the fraud? There is no evidence that Lucy would have a gait like a human.Yet the reconstruction was intentionally done to create a case. One that has been proven wrong.


see any problems. We KNOW that Australopithecus afarensis did NOT have hands and feet like this 'reconstruction.' Did they find breast? Did they find the human like features on the face? NO!!! It is a fraud, done with the attempt to paint the picture for Darwinian evolution.

Reality:


The areas of the Lucy finds in Africa are close to a modern creature called the Bonobo. It is unlikely that anyone would recognize much if any difference between Lucy and a modern day Bonobo.

To be brutally honest, I am sick of these lies. And sick of how good God fearing people can be so easily deceived into buying the myth of Darwinism. Not only to buy into it, but to then become proponents and defenders of it.

[StMonicaGuideMe]

Thanks to both of you. I was interested in getting that book next, and I'm truly fascinated

Prayers for you, Spartan. It may not have initially been demonic influence, but as humans who wish to be close to God, the devil will NEVER stop and will use even the smallest physical temptation to pull you away from God. It's what he does for a "living" and it's the pride of humans to think we can resist him (hmm, same pride that caused them to fall, perhaps? )

[zoegirl]

It is not supposition to say that Lucy walked upright. We do ourselves a disservice to not examine why they say this. They examine the pelvic bones and the femurs and see how they align. The pelvic bones of Lucy and others of her kind show a pelvic girdle more similar to humans than that of chimpanzee. A bipedal organism that places the weight on the pelvic bones would have a diffeerent shape than that of a quadruped.

Just because Lucy placed more weight on her hind legs does not suddenly cement the evolutionary theory.

[jlay]

I'm sorry Zoe, where did I say walk upright? Where did I ever try to claim that this creature didn't have an ability to stand or walk upright? Hint. I didn't. There is a major difference in an animals ability to walk upright, and having a human gait. You know it Zoe.

Bonobos have the ability to walk upright, but they do NOT have a human gait. It is absolutely supposition. How about the feet in the skeletal model Zoe? Are they consistent with the "others of her kind" that we have found? No, they are a fabrication.

The "why" Zoe, is that Darwinist bias pervades the reconstruction.

The evidence does not support what this model shows Zoe.

Examinations (CAT scans) of the earl canal support the Lucy and her kind did NOT walk this way.
F. Spoor, B. Wood and F. Zonneveld, Implications of early hominid morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion, Nature 369(6482):645–648, 1994. Return to text.

When you remove the Darwin presuppositions, and simply go with the raw evidence, the whole thing falls apart. One would have to knowingly suppress the obvious to embrace the absurd. The other models pictured are clear cut evidence of this bias. They might as well have hired imagineers from Disney studios.

[Murray]

Are homo habulus, homo rudofnus, homo eructus, (ect..) also all monkeys mistaken for early humans jlay?

Perhaps I do not understand, are you saying Australopithecus was a highly adapted bonobo, or are you saying the bones are mistaken of being a different creature and are actually just a bonobo.

bonobo.jpg (25.6 KiB) Viewed 2855 times

does that really look that similar to the bones you pasted above? Look at the small things in each one , like hips , arm bones, and compare the 2

220px-Homo_floresiensis.jpg (17.76 KiB) Viewed 2855 times

What monkey does this skull resemble? I'd say it most closely resembles us really

[Murray]

human skull

human.jpg (6.85 KiB) Viewed 2855 times

homo floresiensis skull

220px-Homo_floresiensis.jpg (17.76 KiB) Viewed 2855 times

[jlay]

Murray,

I am saying exactly what I am saying. I think the evidence is clear regarding what Lucy isn't. An evolutionary precedent or relative to modern man. Based on height and features, there isn't much to distinguish a Bonobo from Lucy. That doesn't mean they are the same. Just as Chimps and Bonobos are very similar. But Bonobos DO stand upright. They DO have other similar traits to Lucy. How many extinct species are there? Yet, how is it that Lucy can be compared to humans, yet you see no comparison to Bonobos? It really is an interesting question, and I think exposes just how much corruption and deception we are really dealing with. Why would we perceive Lucy to be an ancestor to man, when there is a modern creature that still exist in the same general region and has overwhelmingly similar features? Is anyone postulating a case for evolution based on Lucy to Bonobo? No. Why? Because it would be devastating to Darwinism. A million years to get from Lucy to Bonobo equals nothing. Ignore the obvious to embrace the ridiculous. But, if you put on a lab coat and propose the ridiculous, then somehow it earns merit.

Are homo habulus, homo rudofnus, homo eructus, (ect..) also all monkeys mistaken for early humans jlay?

I believe in each of these situations, the same things we've seen with Lucy are at play. I am not saying they are not apes (not monkeys) or early humans.

What is sad Murray is you, like so many others, just take at face value that evolution is fact. Many assume what they read about homo habulus is the inerrant, infallible truth. As a lay person, I spent a few minutes and was able to document how Lucy is a fraud. And, continues to be presented as 'evidence' for Darwinism. Even a monkey could figure it out.
But we are not really dealing with an intellectual issue here. This is a volitional issue, and a spiritual one at the core. I am amazed and saddened that we will have Christians buy into this mess. And then attempt to undermine and discredit efforts like mine. I have not manipulated anything. I have exposed what should be obvious to anyone who cares enough to examine things for themselves. Yet, believers themselves will overlook the obvious failures to pick the nits of noting. All to defend a theory that at its core was founded with the intent to undermine and discredit theism and the Christian worldview.

I can assure you that in the case of Lucy, Habulus, rudy and erectus, etc., that funding was directed to FIND links. Not to find ancestors of Bonobos, but a biased search backed by big $$$ to prove what they believed in the first place. Keep buying the lie.

[Murray]

Jlay, evolution was not founded to discredit Christianity..... Darwin considered actually going to school to become a preist before his daughter died. His wife was always a devout christian, and he himself was a deist.

And you stated Australopithecus resembles a bonobo very closely, well homo habulus resembles us very closely, does that make us the same?


Do you see no correlation in the two skulls I posted? if I were to paste skulls following the evolution table next to each other you would most definitely see a small change every time (change over time). The intermediates between us and say homo eructus are there, evolution does have missing links but does that disprove it? The THEORY of gravity may have a small hole, but does that make it untrue? The THEORY of relativity have some holes but does that make it untrue?

Many Christians look at evolution from a neutral perspective and find the facts convincing; even pope john paul II was convinced of it.

[jlay]

I can post skull pictures too.

[Murray]

good to know :)

[RickD]

The intermediates between us and say homo eructus are there, evolution does have missing links but does that disprove it?

Murray, you call them intermediates. I thought we went over this already. Because there are skulls that appear to be intermediates between something, and us, doesn't mean they're proof of macroevolution. The "intermediates" could also be separate, distinct, species that God created specially. God created each species when He decided to create them. For His purpose. Logically, this doesn't prove naturalistic evolution. You can choose to believe that if you want, but you aren't being honest with yourself, and us, by ignoring logic. We have given you a logical explanation of why distinct hominid species could have been created specially by God. This certainly fits the evidence that is found. Ultimately, you have to decide whether you believe that the God of Christianity and the bible created this universe, and everything in it, for His divine purpose, or everything came into existence through naturalistic means. If naturalism is true, your arguments are pointless. There is ultimately no meaning in anything.