Does anyone even listen to creationists these days?

[Pannonian]

Eh, that video reminded me of creationist textbooks where they focus on one isolated anatomical feature to try to prove/disprove entire theories of life that cover multiple disciplines.

Such details are, by themselves, useless in disproving much broader theories for the obvious reasons that:

a. They only address a tiny part of the wider theory
b. These fine points are themselves not fully understood, at least not with certainty

Humans are so different from our supposed ocean-based ancestors that there may well be some secondary function which the recurrent laryngeal nerve provides that we do not know of.

Although my argument above would not be sufficient against a comprehensive case which made a systematic attack on creationism; I would say it is enough to dismiss a lone point given in isolation.

The creation and evolution debate by nature covers a tonne of different disciplines - to claim victory on the grounds of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is clearly ridiculous. Worthwhile arguments must look at the bigger picture if they are to make a serious challenge to the foundations of creationist or evolutionist theory.

As I said in a thread not long ago, how do evolutionists reconcile a model which grants hundreds of thousands of years to human development from our more ape-like ancestors to our present selves; with the fact that agriculture, settlement and civilization appears uniformly across the world (in hugely different and isolated environments) within - according to their dating - around a 10,000 year timeframe?

Why did completely cut-off peoples living in totally different environments all become so smart in what would be - in evolutionary terms - not even a blink of the eye?

Agriculture, leading to an ever greater proportion of the population not engaged in producing food but instead producing services or inventing stuff. With writing becoming more complex to keep track of the food surpluses, it's meant that intellectual development can span generations. And just about everything else has collected momentum from these two developments. Food and knowledge.

[Gilrandir]

IF we are intelligently designed, how come the design is so god awful stupid? The video shows how we have inherited physiological traits that today do ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD, but were well functioning when we were back in the ocean...

How can you bemoan the stupidity of the design when you haven't fathomed the purposes a guy above might have in mind for us? What if he has prepared us for marine life after the Second Deluge?

Not because it's intelligently designed, but because it works.

Windows Vista?

So, any christian fanboy want to step up and have a fight about creation?

And now seriously: if you are really inclined to have such a discussion, you wouldn't get any because of the ultimately faulty approach.
Creation (for those who believe in it), as anything written in the Bible, is a matter of faith. Faith doesn't require (indeed doesn't brook) discussions and proof-giving. It is a take it or leave it - either you believe it (without any logical arguments and justifications) or you don't (without ..., er, read above). So those who do won't have any discussions with you, because if they do, well, they aren't faithful and aren't believers.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Agriculture, leading to an ever greater proportion of the population not engaged in producing food but instead producing services or inventing stuff. With writing becoming more complex to keep track of the food surpluses, it's meant that intellectual development can span generations. And just about everything else has collected momentum from these two developments. Food and knowledge.

I meant to present "agriculture, settlement and civilization" as a package, not to suggest that they are not directly related.

This package appears uniformly across the world within a Young Earth Creationist timeframe, indeed it fits very neatly with it. It makes a lot less sense with evolutionary theory, which posits that intelligent humans and proto-humans were roaming the earth for hundreds of thousands of years, during which time they became isolated from each other and were living in totally different environments with different wildlife, foodstuffs, potential crops, climates and demographic pressures - only to inexplicably develop the "package" of agriculture, settlement and civilization at almost once without any common evolutionary pressures.

[Pannonian]

I meant to present "agriculture, settlement and civilization" as a package, not to suggest that they are not directly related.

This package appears uniformly across the world within a Young Earth Creationist timeframe, indeed it fits very neatly with it. It makes a lot less sense with evolutionary theory, which posits that intelligent humans and proto-humans were roaming the earth for hundreds of thousands of years, during which time they became isolated from each other and were living in totally different environments with different wildlife, foodstuffs, potential crops, climates and demographic pressures - only to inexplicably develop the "package" of agriculture, settlement and civilization at almost once without any common evolutionary pressures.

There is a time border in the form of the last Ice Age. If you go by the Diamond idea of how civilisation evolved, you'd need an ice age-free expanse across Eurasia, which AFAIK limits civilisation to the last 10,000 years or so. Give some time for agriculture to be discovered and developed, and the time frame fits the so called young earth numbers fairly reasonably.

[Rhyfelwyr]

There is a time border in the form of the last Ice Age. If you go by the Diamond idea of how civilisation evolved, you'd need an ice age-free expanse across Eurasia, which AFAIK limits civilisation to the last 10,000 years or so. Give some time for agriculture to be discovered and developed, and the time frame fits the so called young earth numbers fairly reasonably.

There was no shortage of temperate, desert and tropical regions during the last Ice Age, all with their own ecosystems and evolutionary pressures, and all of which had been present in inhabited areas for hundreds of thousands of years (according to secular timeframes). Why then the sudden advent of civilization?

[CBR]

There was no shortage of temperate, desert and tropical regions during the last Ice Age, all with their own ecosystems and evolutionary pressures, and all of which had been present in inhabited areas for hundreds of thousands of years (according to secular timeframes). Why then the sudden advent of civilization?

Was Agriculture Impossible During the Pleistocene but Mandatory during the Holocene? (pdf)

Nonetheless, we propose that much about the origin of agriculture can be understood in terms of two propositions: Agriculture Was Impossible During The Last Glacial. During the last glacial, climates were variable and very dry over large areas. Atmospheric levels of CO2 were low. Probably most important, last-glacial climates were characterized by high-amplitude fluctuations on time scales of a decade or less to a millennium. Because agricultural subsistence systems are vulnerable to weather extremes, and because the cultural evolution of subsistence systems making heavy, specialized, use of plant resources occurs relatively slowly, agriculture could not evolve.

Constraints on the Development of Agriculture (pdf)

The development of agriculture was limited by external constraints, mainly climate, before the Holocene and mainly by social institutions after that. Population size and growth was important but ultimately did not determine where and why agriculture evolved.

[Rhyfelwyr]

CBR, good argument. But aren't a lot of crops grown globally in very different climates?

[Pannonian]

CBR, good argument. But aren't a lot of crops grown globally in very different climates?

The various crop + stock combos need to get from place to place, hence Eurasia being the powerhouse of civilisation. If Eurasia isn't hospitable enough, there is no spread of agriculture.

[CBR]

CBR, good argument. But aren't a lot of crops grown globally in very different climates?

Today, yes, but it does not look like agriculture popped up in all types of climate at the same time. There seem to have been numerous preagricultural permanent settlements, yet not all grew into the bigger types of civilizations e.g. the big river cultures.