Scientists have discovered four-million-year-old fossils that they believe are the remains of the earliest human forebear to have walked on two legs.
The bones were discovered by the team of US and Ethiopian scientists in February at a new site called Mille, in the northeastern Afar region of Ethiopia (Africa).
They say the fossils form a link between older creatures with more ape-like characteristics and the upright-walking species Australopithecus afarensis, which was identified when a 3.2-million-year-old fossil, later named Lucy, was uncovered in 1974 at a site just 37 miles away from Mille.
The remains include a complete lower leg tibia, parts of a thigh, ankle bone, ribs, vertebrae, a collarbone, pelvis and a complete shoulder blade.
Bah, who still believes in Darwin's fairy tale entitled evolution today? The quest for the "missing link" will go on forever, because a good narrative like Darwin's does not rely on facts. Creation is more miraculous than we think, it defies explanations offered by defenders of evolution theory.
Yeah, you are so right! If we just make up the facts, then they will explain everything we've been spending so many years trying to discover. Brilliant!
Yes, of course, creationism is based on facts... what were we thinking. Facts like the devil and Adam and Eve... I feel so much better now, we can stop searching.
Prior comments by the person calling themself "b.e." are indicative of
someone who relies on faith instead of data. Unlike science, these kind
of views are not open to revision -- they are views of the "true believer".
We must do better in our schools so that at least the kids today do not
grow up to be ignorant of science in general and natural history in particular.
b.e. -- wake up and smell the coffee!
someone who relies on faith instead of data. Unlike science, these kind
of views are not open to revision -- they are views of the "true believer".
We must do better in our schools so that at least the kids today do not
grow up to be ignorant of science in general and natural history in particular.
b.e. -- wake up and smell the coffee!
I agree with b.e. After all, how can Darwin explain crop circles? Don't you rubes realize the coast guard and Starbucks are in control of the world bank, and are using ELF communications to control our very thoughts? You scientists are so close-minded, and yet you find meaning in digging up old bones.
Most people don't agree with Darwin's theory because they look at it wrong. Darwin's theory of evolution does not mean that we came from apes. It means that apes and humans have a similiar ancestor. That is all that it is saying that some species along time ago broke off and some became apes, while others became humans so that common link is there. We did not come from apes, but our ancestors our similiar. Also, Darwin's theory is just a theory, but it is supported by alot of evidence. We will never be able to prove it, but the same applies for creation. We will never be able to prove creation, but we can support it with many facts. Take the theory of Spontaneous Generation. It was disproved by a simple jar of meat. So, both ideas will have to life together forever because nobody will ever accept one or the other and nobody will ever be able to prove one more right than the other. We must learn to accept both ideas on a scientific level.
"someone who relies on faith instead of data"
There is plenty of scientific data to support the faith based creationism.
See this webpage that is supported by many scientists around the world
http://answersingenesis.org/
There is plenty of scientific data to support the faith based creationism.
See this webpage that is supported by many scientists around the world
http://answersingenesis.org/
Please let's not reduce the discussion to shouting at each other.
There are now so many independent facts which Darwin's theory continues to explain in the most elegant fashion that it really is an accepted "theory" by 90% of the scientific world, not an hypothesis. Evolutionary Theory is the most economical way to explain the fact that the enormous diversity of life (unknown millions of species) on the earth all uses the same mechanisim of DNA to pass on the blueprints to succeeding generations.
What could be more miraculous than that all life on the Earth or in the Universe may be connected? That still leaves the wondrous, awesome, question of whether there is a Creator of it all up for grabs. Darwin is not in conflict with most theologies.
For an excellent review of all the threads of evidence please read "What Evolution Is" by the late (Died in Feb 2005) Ernst Mayr, who wrote it at age 97 specifically to educate those of us who are not scientists. It is beautifully written and clear as a bell.
There are now so many independent facts which Darwin's theory continues to explain in the most elegant fashion that it really is an accepted "theory" by 90% of the scientific world, not an hypothesis. Evolutionary Theory is the most economical way to explain the fact that the enormous diversity of life (unknown millions of species) on the earth all uses the same mechanisim of DNA to pass on the blueprints to succeeding generations.
What could be more miraculous than that all life on the Earth or in the Universe may be connected? That still leaves the wondrous, awesome, question of whether there is a Creator of it all up for grabs. Darwin is not in conflict with most theologies.
For an excellent review of all the threads of evidence please read "What Evolution Is" by the late (Died in Feb 2005) Ernst Mayr, who wrote it at age 97 specifically to educate those of us who are not scientists. It is beautifully written and clear as a bell.
You bet Darwin is a good story, because these kinds of discoveries are the origins of the human story. The Creation Story, on the other the other hand, is just a children's story. In the children's story you will find a lesson to guide a child's mind. In Darwin's story you'll find our roots.
Linda Lewis-Weissenger is 100% incorrect. The religious-based refutations posted on AIG have been soundly falsified and have no scientific credibility.
Only a tiny percentage of fringe scientists reject evolution and usually they have a political and religious agenda for doing so. This they are certainly free to do but it cannot be called science.
The "Theory of Evolution" is so solid and so well established that it is better understood and less controversial than the "Theory of Gravity".
Only a tiny percentage of fringe scientists reject evolution and usually they have a political and religious agenda for doing so. This they are certainly free to do but it cannot be called science.
The "Theory of Evolution" is so solid and so well established that it is better understood and less controversial than the "Theory of Gravity".
The propagation of energy through space is based on scientific beliefs called the "Theory of Light". I guess, since "light" is just a so-called theory, I must be imagining the photons that are striking my eyes at this very moment.
Uh-oh. Hold on to your seats. Our understanding of Gravity is just based on theories, too.
Uh-oh. Hold on to your seats. Our understanding of Gravity is just based on theories, too.
You forget that a theory is a hypothesis that has been accepted by a majority of the world based on evidence. You can never make a theory a "fact", but you can come pretty damn close. I agree with evolution and I don't agree with creationism, I just didn't want to start something, but since something has already been said...might as well state where I stand.
There is not one shred of legitimate scientific evidence to support "creationism". This is why they promulgate the lie that criticism of Darwin constitutes "proof" of creationism.
Evolution, per se is not a theory. It is an inescapable inference derived from an overwhelming amount of observational data. The Theory of Evolution is a structured, organized attempt to explain how and why evolution occurs. The theory still has plenty of controversy in it as new developments and ideas occur on a regular basis as more ecological, genetic, paleontological evidence accumuilates. Evolution itself is not in the least controversial in the scientific community of the Life Sciences, the primary group in a position to judge the matter. Evolution is accepted as incontrovertible fact, no more controversial than the Atomic Theory of Matter or the idea that all the planets rotate around the sun. The controversy lies in the explanation of its mechanisms.
Evolution is simply a formal scientific statement about living things that derives from the non-controversial idea that all things change. The genetic code of all living things contains the capacity for unlimited change. Take dogs for example; there are no jungles containing wild poodles, nor are there packs of wild chihuahuas in the deserts of Mexico. All dogs are derived from wild Eurasian wolves and were domesticated about 15,000 years ago. Human selection in that time has created an incredibly diverse variety of critters from that same basic stock, all capable of genetic stability in their new forms and breeding true to their kind. Dogs have undergone irreversible changes from their former wolf state and remain dogs even when they go wild. If we continue the forces of human selection another 100,000 years, we won't have different breeds of dogs but different species of dogs. What has happened to dogs shows the powerful plasticity of the genes of living beings. What so clearly and evidently happens under human selection also must happen under natural selection, though usually much more slowly. This is the crux of Darwin's Theory as to why evolution happens and the logic behind it is as inescapable as the logic behind the idea that it is the Earth that turns round and not the Heavens. The devil, however, lies in the details and this is where the controversies originate.
A belief in "creationism" is a damning indictment of a person's fundamental and culpable ignorance about the world they live in. You might as well be a charter member of the Flat Earth Society. At the beginning of the Dark Ages, several Christian scholarly works were published to refute the "heresy" that the Earth was spherical. Creationism is just as abysmally superstitious and profoundly ignorant.
Sternly in Defence of the Truth,
JerryBear
Evolution, per se is not a theory. It is an inescapable inference derived from an overwhelming amount of observational data. The Theory of Evolution is a structured, organized attempt to explain how and why evolution occurs. The theory still has plenty of controversy in it as new developments and ideas occur on a regular basis as more ecological, genetic, paleontological evidence accumuilates. Evolution itself is not in the least controversial in the scientific community of the Life Sciences, the primary group in a position to judge the matter. Evolution is accepted as incontrovertible fact, no more controversial than the Atomic Theory of Matter or the idea that all the planets rotate around the sun. The controversy lies in the explanation of its mechanisms.
Evolution is simply a formal scientific statement about living things that derives from the non-controversial idea that all things change. The genetic code of all living things contains the capacity for unlimited change. Take dogs for example; there are no jungles containing wild poodles, nor are there packs of wild chihuahuas in the deserts of Mexico. All dogs are derived from wild Eurasian wolves and were domesticated about 15,000 years ago. Human selection in that time has created an incredibly diverse variety of critters from that same basic stock, all capable of genetic stability in their new forms and breeding true to their kind. Dogs have undergone irreversible changes from their former wolf state and remain dogs even when they go wild. If we continue the forces of human selection another 100,000 years, we won't have different breeds of dogs but different species of dogs. What has happened to dogs shows the powerful plasticity of the genes of living beings. What so clearly and evidently happens under human selection also must happen under natural selection, though usually much more slowly. This is the crux of Darwin's Theory as to why evolution happens and the logic behind it is as inescapable as the logic behind the idea that it is the Earth that turns round and not the Heavens. The devil, however, lies in the details and this is where the controversies originate.
A belief in "creationism" is a damning indictment of a person's fundamental and culpable ignorance about the world they live in. You might as well be a charter member of the Flat Earth Society. At the beginning of the Dark Ages, several Christian scholarly works were published to refute the "heresy" that the Earth was spherical. Creationism is just as abysmally superstitious and profoundly ignorant.
Sternly in Defence of the Truth,
JerryBear
Linda Lewis-Weissinger is 100% incorrect. The religious-based refutations posted on AIG have been soundly falsified and have no scientific credibility.
Only a tiny percentage of fringe scientists reject evolution and usually they have a political and religious agenda for doing so. This they are certainly free to do but it cannot be called science.
The "Theory of Evolution" is so solid and so well established that it is better understood and less controversial than the "Theory of Gravity".
Only a tiny percentage of fringe scientists reject evolution and usually they have a political and religious agenda for doing so. This they are certainly free to do but it cannot be called science.
The "Theory of Evolution" is so solid and so well established that it is better understood and less controversial than the "Theory of Gravity".
Darwin's Theory has a lot of very difficult observations to counter which make it an appealing explanation.
For example, human populations who live at extremely high altitudes have larger lungs. We know this because we commit the sin of examing our dead with atopsies and stuff, but we know that in about 20 generations of living thousands of feet above sea level humans adapt by growing larger lungs to get more oxygen from an altitude with less oxygen than most human populations enjoy.
Fact two, during the industrial revolution in Britain, Darwin's theory of natural selection was supported by what was happening to moths in Britain. There were two kinds of moths, light winged moths died out because they couldn't conceal themselves with all the new surface pollution on trees, while dark-winged moths could blend in with the soot covered trees and were therefor less likely to be eaten by predators.
You can argue that carbon dating is inaccurate. And with really ancient fossils it is getting unreliable. But I'll ask the creationist this: why doesn't Adam and Eve talk about dinasaurs? Or the wooly mammoth? And how come Noah didn't have buffalo on his ark?
If the Bible was completely the work of God why does it say that those who have damaged testes won't go to heaven? Or that rebellious children should be put to death?
The fact is, The Old Testments stories of the flood and Adam and Eve come from the older Mesopotamian/Sumerian civilzations. They're not even unique to Christianity. So don't go acting like we're the first religion to explain ourselves with those stories, because we borrowed it from the very first civilizations.
All you who disagree may think we're fools to believe this, but
maybe it's a fool who judges so.
-Antigone, Sophocles
For example, human populations who live at extremely high altitudes have larger lungs. We know this because we commit the sin of examing our dead with atopsies and stuff, but we know that in about 20 generations of living thousands of feet above sea level humans adapt by growing larger lungs to get more oxygen from an altitude with less oxygen than most human populations enjoy.
Fact two, during the industrial revolution in Britain, Darwin's theory of natural selection was supported by what was happening to moths in Britain. There were two kinds of moths, light winged moths died out because they couldn't conceal themselves with all the new surface pollution on trees, while dark-winged moths could blend in with the soot covered trees and were therefor less likely to be eaten by predators.
You can argue that carbon dating is inaccurate. And with really ancient fossils it is getting unreliable. But I'll ask the creationist this: why doesn't Adam and Eve talk about dinasaurs? Or the wooly mammoth? And how come Noah didn't have buffalo on his ark?
If the Bible was completely the work of God why does it say that those who have damaged testes won't go to heaven? Or that rebellious children should be put to death?
The fact is, The Old Testments stories of the flood and Adam and Eve come from the older Mesopotamian/Sumerian civilzations. They're not even unique to Christianity. So don't go acting like we're the first religion to explain ourselves with those stories, because we borrowed it from the very first civilizations.
All you who disagree may think we're fools to believe this, but
maybe it's a fool who judges so.
-Antigone, Sophocles
Agghhhhhh, maby they are both right. Evolution is a fact that cant be ignored, however if that were all there is to it then we should be able to answer the question of origine already. Damn - the article wasnt even about either but rather about the discovery of some fossilized bones. What info is derived is up to those who actually have a chance to examine them. dumbasses
Why can't we read of an exciting paleontological without reading the idiotic ramblings of creationists? When I was growing up we refered to these nimrods as Jesus Freaks; taking every single parable, period and apostrophe out of context when drugs became illegal and they couldn't waste their minds on something else. For those who like real science, go to the American Scientist web site and expand your mind.
All human experience is created by our perception.. if we understood the self and how it functions, to a greater degree than present knowledge, then the views we hold might be very different.
What If ?
Both Are Right, Evolution in its simple ways explains the observed world an its variences. Though not ever thing can be explained to its fullest , there is still the unexplainable! Is it not that we can still project a belief to what maybe fact.
On the other hand,
In all past cultures there is a spirit world to help the unexplainable.I beleive Science & Religon are the same coin which depends what side we want to few.
Why do so many only focus on one side with out looking to the what if?
Is not the creator the best in science,& thought
What would a plane be without two wings?
this find in the rift valley is still a mystery can we come to a conclusion so fast ,
What if !
Both Are Right, Evolution in its simple ways explains the observed world an its variences. Though not ever thing can be explained to its fullest , there is still the unexplainable! Is it not that we can still project a belief to what maybe fact.
On the other hand,
In all past cultures there is a spirit world to help the unexplainable.I beleive Science & Religon are the same coin which depends what side we want to few.
Why do so many only focus on one side with out looking to the what if?
Is not the creator the best in science,& thought
What would a plane be without two wings?
this find in the rift valley is still a mystery can we come to a conclusion so fast ,
What if !
P.S. The scientific community doesn't help matters when they proclaim that "Evolution doesn't say that humans are decended from apes." This is a transparent lie. Humans most certainly DID descend from apes, and modern evidence shows that our ancestors were bipedal upright walking apes long before the first glimmerings of human consciousness became manifest. What they really mean is that humans are not descended from any contemporary living species of ape. The common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees though, was not only an ape but unquestionably a kind of chimp, probably most like the modern bonobo.
Anybody who has ever seriously worked with higher primates cannot avoid the awareness of our close relationship to them. They are somehow more than "just animals". They are aware of it too. One man studying the Sun Bear in the jungles of Borneo had a wild orangutan come down out of a tree and walk with him a quarter of a mile, holding his hand and gazing at him with great wondering eyes. Why do you think all the great primatologists studying apes in the wild have been women? A male human would be easily recognised as a male primate and would be perceived as a threat.
It applies even to advanced monkeys. One young professor was part of a study of primate behavior in a large troop of macaques (large very intelligent monkeys related to baboons and very human-like in many of their social behaviors) being kept in a pen with artificial rainforest conditions. The alpha male of the troop was getting old and decrepit. The beta males were unwilling to engage in the fierce struggle among each other that would be required to determine the new alpha, so they were protecting him and preventing the young males from challenging him. The senior professor in charge of this study brought a pitcher of vodka martinis to work each day and was smashed well before noon. The senior fellows were all covering up for him and doing the actual work he was unable to do and preventing the junior professors from making trouble over it. What was happening inside the cage with the monkeys was so similar to what was happening outside among the hominids that the young professor found it eerie, I mean, have we really advanced that far beyond our anthropoid cousins? We are inescapably still very much primates, however cleverly we rationalise away our still very real instincts.
I believe in God, but I believe in the God of the Universe as revealed by the Hubble Space Telescope, not the child-like primitive "universe" contained in ancient Mesopotamian mythologies. Far be it for me to criticize the Allmighty, but I often think history might have been a happier subject had He deemed fit to raise some other class of mammal to sentience, something cool like bears. I mean, primates are really kind of disgusting! Captive criminally insane humans are just as willing to throw there own shit at you through the bars of their cells as captive chimpanzees. Oh well, I guess it just had to be apes! It least it wasn't rats....
Anybody who has ever seriously worked with higher primates cannot avoid the awareness of our close relationship to them. They are somehow more than "just animals". They are aware of it too. One man studying the Sun Bear in the jungles of Borneo had a wild orangutan come down out of a tree and walk with him a quarter of a mile, holding his hand and gazing at him with great wondering eyes. Why do you think all the great primatologists studying apes in the wild have been women? A male human would be easily recognised as a male primate and would be perceived as a threat.
It applies even to advanced monkeys. One young professor was part of a study of primate behavior in a large troop of macaques (large very intelligent monkeys related to baboons and very human-like in many of their social behaviors) being kept in a pen with artificial rainforest conditions. The alpha male of the troop was getting old and decrepit. The beta males were unwilling to engage in the fierce struggle among each other that would be required to determine the new alpha, so they were protecting him and preventing the young males from challenging him. The senior professor in charge of this study brought a pitcher of vodka martinis to work each day and was smashed well before noon. The senior fellows were all covering up for him and doing the actual work he was unable to do and preventing the junior professors from making trouble over it. What was happening inside the cage with the monkeys was so similar to what was happening outside among the hominids that the young professor found it eerie, I mean, have we really advanced that far beyond our anthropoid cousins? We are inescapably still very much primates, however cleverly we rationalise away our still very real instincts.
I believe in God, but I believe in the God of the Universe as revealed by the Hubble Space Telescope, not the child-like primitive "universe" contained in ancient Mesopotamian mythologies. Far be it for me to criticize the Allmighty, but I often think history might have been a happier subject had He deemed fit to raise some other class of mammal to sentience, something cool like bears. I mean, primates are really kind of disgusting! Captive criminally insane humans are just as willing to throw there own shit at you through the bars of their cells as captive chimpanzees. Oh well, I guess it just had to be apes! It least it wasn't rats....
Citizen Activist's comments are laudable, can't we reconcile both creationism and evolution? Sadly, creationists are not open to compromise. Faith does not admit revision.
It is simply not true that you can re-write what "God" should mean, consigning Him to whatever it is that scientific method has not yet described. You're naive to belive that creationists believe God is the same thing as the great unknown, least of all evangelical christians who toy with the idea of a personal god who is aware of individual experience. If you don't have patience for religion, you should at least take time to read Karen Armstrong's very enjoyable, very readable "History of God" to understand that religion is not science, neither is it philosophy. It is human psychology, and does shed light onto human tendencies to seek singular solutions such as science believers investigate by breaking into smaller and smaller parts or prefer their descriptions of the world to be subjectless and insular. Each sensibility has its limits.
Anyway, kinda cool they found these fossils eh? Takes some serious conviction to head every day from your bed to the dig site with a trowel and a paint brush!
It is simply not true that you can re-write what "God" should mean, consigning Him to whatever it is that scientific method has not yet described. You're naive to belive that creationists believe God is the same thing as the great unknown, least of all evangelical christians who toy with the idea of a personal god who is aware of individual experience. If you don't have patience for religion, you should at least take time to read Karen Armstrong's very enjoyable, very readable "History of God" to understand that religion is not science, neither is it philosophy. It is human psychology, and does shed light onto human tendencies to seek singular solutions such as science believers investigate by breaking into smaller and smaller parts or prefer their descriptions of the world to be subjectless and insular. Each sensibility has its limits.
Anyway, kinda cool they found these fossils eh? Takes some serious conviction to head every day from your bed to the dig site with a trowel and a paint brush!
It is common knowlege among the illuminati that on the seventh day the other thing God created was evolution.
What is all this rambling? We (the human race) has discovered a great find, which is a little piece of our worlds history. There is no religeous significance to this, and to try to inflame peoples feelings through religeon is the cause of much of our worlds historical destruction. Even today almost ALL of the Mid-east problems are caused by insighting people through religeon (iran, iraq, israel, afghanistan....). Religeon and science has their place, but to use it as a tool for personal intolerance agendas against ideas you don't like is wrong.
Keep religeion out of it, open your minds and be happy that we as a people are trying to understand the world we live in.
Keep religeion out of it, open your minds and be happy that we as a people are trying to understand the world we live in.
I read on the AIG site that presuppositions should first be addressed by each side to understand what the otherside is trying to say.
A major problem with this is that a christian can understand, and put themselves into the shoes of a evolutionists, but there is no way for an evolutionist to understand creation without excepting Christ.
A major problem with this is that a christian can understand, and put themselves into the shoes of a evolutionists, but there is no way for an evolutionist to understand creation without excepting Christ.
In every forum on the Internet, whenever a news item about paleontology is discussed, the story is the same. Someone, purportedly a Christian believer, brings up some non-sensical creationist theory. There is very little likelihood the original poster believes in any of it. This is simply disguised anti-Christian spam attempting to make fun of people's religious beliefs and make them look stupid.
Facts are that overwhelming majority of Christian believers and their denominations have no conflict whatsoever with modern biological or physical sciences. They outgrew creationist theories along with everyone else, including scientists, in the 19th century.
From Flat Earth societies to SHC researchers, there are plenty crazy theories out there that don't merit any attention. Why bother with this one?
Facts are that overwhelming majority of Christian believers and their denominations have no conflict whatsoever with modern biological or physical sciences. They outgrew creationist theories along with everyone else, including scientists, in the 19th century.
From Flat Earth societies to SHC researchers, there are plenty crazy theories out there that don't merit any attention. Why bother with this one?
I read on the AIG site that presuppositions should first be addressed by each side to understand what the otherside is trying to say.
A major problem with this is that a christian can understand, and put themselves into the shoes of a evolutionists, but there is no way for an evolutionist to understand creation without accepting Christ.
A major problem with this is that a christian can understand, and put themselves into the shoes of a evolutionists, but there is no way for an evolutionist to understand creation without accepting Christ.
Facts vs. Faith
The trouble with relying upon science to impartially provide all of the answers is that the scientific community is not without its own political, economic and egotistical self-serving practices, in fact it is no different from ANY institution where there are LARGE amounts of money at stake. Egos can be huge, data or statistics faked or misinterpreted, or even worse, ignored. Read Forbidden Archaeology if this kind of thinking is new to you. At the beginning of the book there's a great discussion dealing with this.
Mike
The trouble with relying upon science to impartially provide all of the answers is that the scientific community is not without its own political, economic and egotistical self-serving practices, in fact it is no different from ANY institution where there are LARGE amounts of money at stake. Egos can be huge, data or statistics faked or misinterpreted, or even worse, ignored. Read Forbidden Archaeology if this kind of thinking is new to you. At the beginning of the book there's a great discussion dealing with this.
Mike
I agree with b.s., or was it b.e? I mean mammoths aren't related to elephants and sabertooth tigers aren't related to tigers and we're not related to apes because of the biblical fairytale. Besides, Christianity was invented in Europe, and there aren't any monkeys in Europe.
Rob, age 12
Rob, age 12
Only one fact is truly clear by this discussion and the drama from both camps that has ensued:
Earth people are stupid.
Entava
from The Ezephyr13 Galaxy
Earth people are stupid.
Entava
from The Ezephyr13 Galaxy
Evolution is real.
Damn you darwanistic pigs! Can't you see that you're all wrong?.. I have nothing to prove that Darwin's theories were bullshit, but I believe they were with all of my heart.
If the scientists keep searching hard enough into the distant past, they may come up with one of these ancient creatures with an American Express card in his pocket...
This is never ending debate!! An interesting book on this subject is
"What is the Origin of Man? by Dr. Maurice Bucaille". Online version of the book is available at
http://www.ymofmd.com/books/mb_om/default.htm
"What is the Origin of Man? by Dr. Maurice Bucaille". Online version of the book is available at
http://www.ymofmd.com/books/mb_om/default.htm
In reply to CitizenActivist,
Your quote, "Darwin is not in conflict with most theologies" is interesting. Actually, Darwinism is in conflict with any sort of Christianity based on that pesky document commonly called the Bible. Jesus referred to Genesis, the writings of Moses, and many other parts of the Old Testament as if they were facts. For a Christian to also believe in Darwinistic macroevolution is either the height of inconsistent thinking or an expression of utter ignorance regarding the Bible.
Darwinists generally start from a position of unbelief in a Creator God, and creationists generally begin with a belief in a God capable of creating life. Certainly, if God didn't or couldn't create life in the first place, how could He have raised a dead man to life again?
Anyway, here's to another round of quick conjecture regarding our supposed ancestors, based on a few fossilized bones found in Africa. Remember Piltdown Man? 500 doctoral dissertations were written about that skull before it was discovered to be a hoax. I wonder how many research papers will be written about this latest find before someone postulates that the strata in which it was discovered is only, say, 50,000 years old.
Cheers,
Ken Boyer
software engineer / theology student / earth science teacher
kwboyer@yahoo.com
Your quote, "Darwin is not in conflict with most theologies" is interesting. Actually, Darwinism is in conflict with any sort of Christianity based on that pesky document commonly called the Bible. Jesus referred to Genesis, the writings of Moses, and many other parts of the Old Testament as if they were facts. For a Christian to also believe in Darwinistic macroevolution is either the height of inconsistent thinking or an expression of utter ignorance regarding the Bible.
Darwinists generally start from a position of unbelief in a Creator God, and creationists generally begin with a belief in a God capable of creating life. Certainly, if God didn't or couldn't create life in the first place, how could He have raised a dead man to life again?
Anyway, here's to another round of quick conjecture regarding our supposed ancestors, based on a few fossilized bones found in Africa. Remember Piltdown Man? 500 doctoral dissertations were written about that skull before it was discovered to be a hoax. I wonder how many research papers will be written about this latest find before someone postulates that the strata in which it was discovered is only, say, 50,000 years old.
Cheers,
Ken Boyer
software engineer / theology student / earth science teacher
kwboyer@yahoo.com
If it is the truth that you seek, regarding a scientific analysis of creationism, then the Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) is one of the best references around. They provide a wealth of scientific backing for creation and flat out disprove the theory of evolution, which as a laymen I've always felt did not quite add up.
It also highlights the pure "politics" inherent in a scientific community that clings to a personal desire to live in a world where we cannot be held accountable to any creator, thereby providing an explanation for the broad based acceptance of such a fatally flawed theory. Remember that biased science is not really scientific.
Luckily, as a Christian, I've never had a problem with evaluating the merits of the theory of evolution, and at one time felt, like many other Christians, that God may simply have used evolution as His method of creation. But, I can tell you with all honesty that I've since come to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is flat out false and cannot be supported scientifically or theologically. ICR really helped me to straighten this out in my own mind, and I highly recommend them to anyone who is honestly searching for the truth.
It also highlights the pure "politics" inherent in a scientific community that clings to a personal desire to live in a world where we cannot be held accountable to any creator, thereby providing an explanation for the broad based acceptance of such a fatally flawed theory. Remember that biased science is not really scientific.
Luckily, as a Christian, I've never had a problem with evaluating the merits of the theory of evolution, and at one time felt, like many other Christians, that God may simply have used evolution as His method of creation. But, I can tell you with all honesty that I've since come to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is flat out false and cannot be supported scientifically or theologically. ICR really helped me to straighten this out in my own mind, and I highly recommend them to anyone who is honestly searching for the truth.
Man evolve from animals? Unfortunately, not yet. But I keep hoping . . . .
Funny how most people who want to view science only through "fact" lenses forget that most "fathers" of modern science were devout Christians. This means they almost certainly believed the creation story. Very narrow minded indeed to call it a child's story.
As far as I know, Darwin himself never purported an idea of were this all came from. He only commented on supposed change of the already created.
As far as I know, Darwin himself never purported an idea of were this all came from. He only commented on supposed change of the already created.
Before God created the Universe, he had to create the laws of physics. Simple fact. Since we were designed as well as any swiss watch (thanks Richard), then there must have been some plan and I vote for the laws of physics. Since we as humans can't really be so egotistical as to know how God created us, can we really not say that Creation is or isn't Evolution? My opinion, God used evolution to create us. There. I've melded creationism and evolution into a comfortable coexistance and we can all stop arguing.
If God exists (I guess that shows which side I'm on....), and he/she/it is capable of creating anything from whatever with a thought, I think it's the height of purest folly to assume we, any of us, have even the slightest idea what he/she/it was thinking or how they did it. And we are so much further along that evolutionary scale of education, information and knowledge. When the Bible was written, it was written for the people of that time to keep them in line and much of it is in code to protect the names of the players (thanks Barbara). Of course, they didn't have dicatator states with nukes and projectile weapons in one of five persons hands to keep order. Progress...
Science, in it's wonderous if sometimes less than perfect practice, is merely trying to figure out how we came to be. I, for one, am curious and applaud the efforts of those out there trying to figure it out. The pat answers given in the Bible just don't do it for me.
And, to AntiDarwanist, it's spelled DARW"I"N. Careful, you may yet get a Darwin Award. I'm rooting for you.
If God exists (I guess that shows which side I'm on....), and he/she/it is capable of creating anything from whatever with a thought, I think it's the height of purest folly to assume we, any of us, have even the slightest idea what he/she/it was thinking or how they did it. And we are so much further along that evolutionary scale of education, information and knowledge. When the Bible was written, it was written for the people of that time to keep them in line and much of it is in code to protect the names of the players (thanks Barbara). Of course, they didn't have dicatator states with nukes and projectile weapons in one of five persons hands to keep order. Progress...
Science, in it's wonderous if sometimes less than perfect practice, is merely trying to figure out how we came to be. I, for one, am curious and applaud the efforts of those out there trying to figure it out. The pat answers given in the Bible just don't do it for me.
And, to AntiDarwanist, it's spelled DARW"I"N. Careful, you may yet get a Darwin Award. I'm rooting for you.
There's no point getting tied-down in debate with these intellectual/political cretins. It's like debating Nazis. Quite a lot like it, I'd say...
They've made it VERY clear they intend to take over the U.S. government -- and the world. By stealth if need-be. And they clearly intend to make full use of the misplaced fair-play and "niceness" of liberals in the process.
These people are DANGEROUS. They have a hidden AGENDA. And they DO intend to create a "Gilead" religious police-state -- and/or bring Armageddon on in the process. So we shouldn't be worrying about "debating" them: we should be instead *mobilizing the forces of progress and science politically* and facing these dangerous fools down in all the spheres they intend to conquer for their "god" (i.e. for themselves). Even if that involves _physical_ confrontation (don't think it will come to that? It has already -- you're just not paying attention).
So this means *not pandering to their belief system* or giving them the "benefit of the doubt" anymore. And it means, often enough, TELLING THEM WHERE TO GET OFF -- something liberals, apparently, have great difficulty doing.
Leftists and atheists like me have no problems in that regard, however.
They want war?? Let's give them war. Any kind they want. Let THEM call upon their arch-angels. WE will call upon Reason -- which, BTW, doesn't mean fighting "fair" when the other side fights dirty...
**Who stands for Reason -- and Science and atheism today??!**
They've made it VERY clear they intend to take over the U.S. government -- and the world. By stealth if need-be. And they clearly intend to make full use of the misplaced fair-play and "niceness" of liberals in the process.
These people are DANGEROUS. They have a hidden AGENDA. And they DO intend to create a "Gilead" religious police-state -- and/or bring Armageddon on in the process. So we shouldn't be worrying about "debating" them: we should be instead *mobilizing the forces of progress and science politically* and facing these dangerous fools down in all the spheres they intend to conquer for their "god" (i.e. for themselves). Even if that involves _physical_ confrontation (don't think it will come to that? It has already -- you're just not paying attention).
So this means *not pandering to their belief system* or giving them the "benefit of the doubt" anymore. And it means, often enough, TELLING THEM WHERE TO GET OFF -- something liberals, apparently, have great difficulty doing.
Leftists and atheists like me have no problems in that regard, however.
They want war?? Let's give them war. Any kind they want. Let THEM call upon their arch-angels. WE will call upon Reason -- which, BTW, doesn't mean fighting "fair" when the other side fights dirty...
**Who stands for Reason -- and Science and atheism today??!**
Does Darwin show us our roots? Darwins theory has been in question for many years while the Bible has never been proven wrong. Darwin himself had doubts about his theory which today is taught as fact in many schools. Accept God as creator and recieve life, reject God and live for death only.
Dave H
Dave H
See evolution of humanity in 20 secs
http://www.trollart.com/evo.html
Proof of evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
http://www.trollart.com/evo.html
Proof of evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
I still can't believe that in the world that we live in people are still desperately clinging to ridiculous ideas such as "creationism." Most people with any sort of rational mind are able to accept the fact that there is an overwhelming body of evidence in support of evolution through natural selection, and there is not a single piece of evidence that supports the idea of creation. Wake up, get a clue? Ignorance like that is the reason that this world that we live on is going to be inhospitable to us soon.
religion is for mindless bigots, may your seed be whiped from the face of the earth for all time.
So what about the bones then b.e? Dissapeared in a puff of faith did they? Certainly you did not refer to them in your rebuttal. Perhaps they are the bones of some other creature? Some other creature that, very interestingly, no longer exists.
Ask yourself WHY it no longer exists. Ask yourself why so many other species no longer exist. And then ask yourself where all these other present day species come from.
Creation by installments perhaps?
citizenx@postmaster.co.uk
Ask yourself WHY it no longer exists. Ask yourself why so many other species no longer exist. And then ask yourself where all these other present day species come from.
Creation by installments perhaps?
citizenx@postmaster.co.uk
A research of evolution shows that all of the ICONS of evolution have been a total hoax perpetuated upon the world community. An offer was sent forth many years ago offering a large sum of money to anyone that could produce anything of factual data concerning evolution. The money was never collected. Evolution falls right in there with tooth ferry.
I thought it ironic that it was Darwin who was laughed at when his theory of evolution was first published - a time when Science was in its infancy and fervent bible-bashing and investment in the church was at it's height. Now the boot is so firmly on the other foot its those who still fail to recognise the bible as a guide (rather than some indisputable book of facts whose only value lies in every single word in it being true) who seem the more laughable.
As someone was kind enough to provide a link to the creationists website, I'll provide the link for its opposite number
http://www.csicop.org/
Religion is not for mindless bigots, it offers comfort and hope for millions, but I think its about time that humanism was given rather more publicity as a sensible modern alternative.
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/conten...asp?chapter=309
As someone was kind enough to provide a link to the creationists website, I'll provide the link for its opposite number
http://www.csicop.org/
Religion is not for mindless bigots, it offers comfort and hope for millions, but I think its about time that humanism was given rather more publicity as a sensible modern alternative.
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/conten...asp?chapter=309
Here is a dim question: I would like to know what people think is the most important and tangible evidence that supports Darwinian evolution. Are any museums displaying actual “transitional” fossils?
Why is there so much ignorance, rudeness and defensiveness from every side when we deal with subjects like evolution and creation? We bring in to much of our own scientific self righteousness and religious mockery into these discussions for the sake of demeaning the other side that most of the intelligent communication of ideas is rare. Unfortunately there may not ever be true imperial evidence for evolution or creation.
There is “truth” and “faith” in every belief system; religion, philosophy, and yes even our current form of “modern science”. All of these belief systems have ideals, dogma, and unfortunately they all have some type of corruption of their own principles.
I happen to be a follower of the principles of a man known as Jesus of Nazareth, but please do not hold that against me.
“The existence of a supreme being simply is not a scientific question. A supreme being stands outside of nature. Science is a naturalistic process and can only answer questions about what is inside nature. Beyond that it’s a matter of personal belief.” Kenneth R. Miller
Why is there so much ignorance, rudeness and defensiveness from every side when we deal with subjects like evolution and creation? We bring in to much of our own scientific self righteousness and religious mockery into these discussions for the sake of demeaning the other side that most of the intelligent communication of ideas is rare. Unfortunately there may not ever be true imperial evidence for evolution or creation.
There is “truth” and “faith” in every belief system; religion, philosophy, and yes even our current form of “modern science”. All of these belief systems have ideals, dogma, and unfortunately they all have some type of corruption of their own principles.
I happen to be a follower of the principles of a man known as Jesus of Nazareth, but please do not hold that against me.
“The existence of a supreme being simply is not a scientific question. A supreme being stands outside of nature. Science is a naturalistic process and can only answer questions about what is inside nature. Beyond that it’s a matter of personal belief.” Kenneth R. Miller
Sigh, a bunch of people dig up some bones, and everyone thinks that that is a reason to debate. Did this suddenly mean that they have a bone to pick with you? If everyone put as much effort into solving real problems in life as they do bickering over petty issues like whats been started in this thread, the world would have no problems.
They are trying to fill the evolutionary "chain" gaps in their theory, whats wrong with that? People are also trying to solve the ingredient combinations in their homemade meals, but I don't see anyone relating things to or bickering about that. If someone has a question, I would rather give them an answer than give them hell for asking it.
If there is going to be energy for debate, try spending it on things like global warming, nuclear threats, things that will possibly end all of our petty theories, not to mention our very existence on this planet. I don't think faith or Darwinism is gonna save us from that. Get a grip.
And by the way, congratulations to these guys for their find. The more that they do find, the more answers will be given. And maybe a final answer to put an end to all of this nonsense. At least these guys are looking for facts instead of running on blind faith.
They are trying to fill the evolutionary "chain" gaps in their theory, whats wrong with that? People are also trying to solve the ingredient combinations in their homemade meals, but I don't see anyone relating things to or bickering about that. If someone has a question, I would rather give them an answer than give them hell for asking it.
If there is going to be energy for debate, try spending it on things like global warming, nuclear threats, things that will possibly end all of our petty theories, not to mention our very existence on this planet. I don't think faith or Darwinism is gonna save us from that. Get a grip.
And by the way, congratulations to these guys for their find. The more that they do find, the more answers will be given. And maybe a final answer to put an end to all of this nonsense. At least these guys are looking for facts instead of running on blind faith.
I came up with a theory. What I did was that I decided that I was going to read the Bible, just because it is an important book, and so that I would have read it. I've completed the first five books of the Old Testament so far. Feel free to correct me if I get this wrong. It's not a perfect theory yet.
If you read in Genesis, in the first chapter, carefully, God creates a "firmament". This "firmament" is heaven.
The "firmament" seperates "the waters above the firmamement" from "the waters below the firmament".
Later, God creates land and oceans and so on, but this creation takes place within the "waters BELOW the firmament".
Basically, modern science has no knowledge of "the waters ABOVE the firmamement". The universe, our planet, 15 billion years of time, everything we know as our surroundings, is contained within the "waters BELOW the firmament".
Heaven, or "the firmament", is moving away from us at the speed of light. Or very near the speed of light. What to God seems like 4000 years, to us seems like 15 billion. We would never be able to "see" or understand the "waters ABOVE the firmament" because we can't travel that fast. The "waters BELOW the firmament" are our universe, or multiple universes, or so on... everything our theoretical physics studies (that's one concept) -- unless, the "waters ABOVE the firmament" are anti-matter, dark matter, etc... but ultimately the question that would be good to answer is this: What are "the waters ABOVE the firmament"? And if heaven is traveling so fast away from us that 15 billion years seems like 4000, how are we supposed to ever get a glimpse of them to find out?
Time is based on your point of view, your perspective. God percieves time differently, at a different speed, than the rest of the universe does. If we "get over" time, the problem goes away.
Physics has confirmed that time is relative, and yet here we have two sides arguing about the fact that their "times" are not the same. Human beings may have been created in the "image of God", but that doesn't mean that God and man are both percieving time at the same rate.
If you read in Genesis, in the first chapter, carefully, God creates a "firmament". This "firmament" is heaven.
The "firmament" seperates "the waters above the firmamement" from "the waters below the firmament".
Later, God creates land and oceans and so on, but this creation takes place within the "waters BELOW the firmament".
Basically, modern science has no knowledge of "the waters ABOVE the firmamement". The universe, our planet, 15 billion years of time, everything we know as our surroundings, is contained within the "waters BELOW the firmament".
Heaven, or "the firmament", is moving away from us at the speed of light. Or very near the speed of light. What to God seems like 4000 years, to us seems like 15 billion. We would never be able to "see" or understand the "waters ABOVE the firmament" because we can't travel that fast. The "waters BELOW the firmament" are our universe, or multiple universes, or so on... everything our theoretical physics studies (that's one concept) -- unless, the "waters ABOVE the firmament" are anti-matter, dark matter, etc... but ultimately the question that would be good to answer is this: What are "the waters ABOVE the firmament"? And if heaven is traveling so fast away from us that 15 billion years seems like 4000, how are we supposed to ever get a glimpse of them to find out?
Time is based on your point of view, your perspective. God percieves time differently, at a different speed, than the rest of the universe does. If we "get over" time, the problem goes away.
Physics has confirmed that time is relative, and yet here we have two sides arguing about the fact that their "times" are not the same. Human beings may have been created in the "image of God", but that doesn't mean that God and man are both percieving time at the same rate.
I believe we continue to discover and be amazed at how God did it all. I am entirely willing to accept this knowledge about how He developed life and the universe.
But, I turn to Scripture to find out how He developed our souls and spiritual essence.
But, I turn to Scripture to find out how He developed our souls and spiritual essence.
Why can't the Evolutionists see that the word is flat??
QUOTE (AntiDarwanist+Mar 6 2005, 08:01 PM)
Damn you darwanistic pigs! Can't you see that you're all wrong?.. I have nothing to prove that Darwin's theories were bullshit, but I believe they were with all of my heart.
eerrr... your heart evolved from a monkey's
Today in our world, how big of a priority should we place on what class of creature we descended from? And what is the big push to “force feed” kids these pieces of evolutionary “truth” to save them from being tricked by any outdated, plagiarized, false, “fairy tale”.
Science not only has made the world a wonderful place to live in, but science also has made possible the best killing technology that our world has ever seen. Sure just because some naive scientist develops mass-weapons based on science that was supposed to help people live better…it does not mean that we should discard science and go back to living in holes in the ground or caves. But, let’s not forgot that just in the past 100 years, it has been “religious” zealots like Stalin, his followers, and Hitler and his disciples that killed 18 to 30 million of their own countrymen. And they killed people with the latest efficient killing technology, not with silly outdated devices and moral belief systems like what was used in the crusades or in the inquisitions. It does not take a da Vinci or an Einstein to be able to predict that some jerk is going to misuse powerful ideas. Now how do we convey to these big-headed people that murder is always wrong?
Disguised in many upstanding forms, it is really just greed, pride, and self-righteousness that cause violence and suffering.
Science not only has made the world a wonderful place to live in, but science also has made possible the best killing technology that our world has ever seen. Sure just because some naive scientist develops mass-weapons based on science that was supposed to help people live better…it does not mean that we should discard science and go back to living in holes in the ground or caves. But, let’s not forgot that just in the past 100 years, it has been “religious” zealots like Stalin, his followers, and Hitler and his disciples that killed 18 to 30 million of their own countrymen. And they killed people with the latest efficient killing technology, not with silly outdated devices and moral belief systems like what was used in the crusades or in the inquisitions. It does not take a da Vinci or an Einstein to be able to predict that some jerk is going to misuse powerful ideas. Now how do we convey to these big-headed people that murder is always wrong?
Disguised in many upstanding forms, it is really just greed, pride, and self-righteousness that cause violence and suffering.
QUOTE (green man+Mar 6 2005, 08:04 PM)
If the scientists keep searching hard enough into the distant past, they may come up with one of these ancient creatures with an American Express card in his pocket...
geezz American Express Card..see the Republican Party has been around a long time. 
well I guess it all boils down to that old adage of "it's not what ya know,but who ya know!"
QUOTE (JerryBear+Mar 6 2005, 06:51 PM)
[...] Take dogs for example; there are no jungles containing wild poodles, nor are there packs of wild chihuahuas in the deserts of Mexico. All dogs are derived from wild Eurasian wolves and were domesticated about 15,000 years ago. Human selection in that time has created an incredibly diverse variety of critters from that same basic stock, all capable of genetic stability in their new forms and breeding true to their kind. Dogs have undergone irreversible changes from their former wolf state and remain dogs even when they go wild. [...]
We know that humans from different cultures practiced artificial selection on dogs at different times. But what originally happened for the wolf to morph into the dog. There is a rival hypothesis to the adoption hypothesis (that man tamed wolves and eventually got dogs). The rival hypothesis might be called the garbage hypothesis, and I came across it when viewing PBS show NOVA.
NOVA had a show called _Dogs and More Dogs_ (PBS Airdate: February 3, 2004) where Ray Coppinger of Hampshire College was interviewed (he is Professor of Biology at Hampshire's School of Cognitive Science). Coppinger disagrees that the genesis of dogs was active artificial selection (adoption) by humans -- he thinks wolves tamed themselves, and I am inclined to agree. A description of the NOVA episode (narrated by John Lithgow) and the garbage hypothesis layed out in a nutshell is here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/dogs/about.html
The actual transcript is here [but the show is much more interesting than the transcript, so ask your local PBS affiliate to rebroadcast it for you]: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3103_dogs.html
Here are some excerpts from Coppinger's NOVA appearance:
"Imagine 14,000 years ago when people first get the idea of living in a village. They settle down, they build permanent houses, and around that permanent...those permanent houses, all the waste products of their economies build up. You've got waste food; you've got waste materials of all kinds. Now there's a whole set of animals that move in on that. We know them now: we've got house mice, we've got cockroaches, we've got pigeons, we've got all kinds of animals that are living off the human waste. One of them is the wolf. The wolf moves into that kind of a, of a setting, that new niche, that new foraging area, and it's great. You don't have to chase anything, you don't have to kill anything. You just wait; people dump it in front of you."
"The ones that run away the first time anybody shows up, those are the ones that are going to be selected against, they're going to go out, have to make an honest living out in the wild. They're not going to be able to get enough out of that dump. So here's natural selection in action. Any one wolf that's a little tamer than the other, who can stay there longer, get more food, he's the one that's going to win that evolutionary battle."
"You look at a wolf's mouth, and he's big and he's got these robust teeth, and you can see him out there killing things. The dog has little teeth. The wolf has a big brain; the dog's got a little tiny brain. Well, who in the world has little tiny brains? Animals that don't need brains. And the dog, you know, a scavenger, doesn't need much of a brain. I mean it doesn't take a lot of cunning to figure out where a rotten tomato is. You basically have to be there when somebody throws the tomato away. So you're kind of a sit and wait animal."
Ray Coppinger has two books:
Dogs: A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior & Evolution
(co-authored with Lorna Coppinger, published by Scribner, ISBN 0684855305)
and
Fishing Dogs: A Guide to the History, Talents, and Training of the Baildale,
the Flounderhounder, the Angler Dog, and Sundry Other Breeds of Aquatic Dogs
(published by Ten Speed Press, ISBN 0898158427)
"When the full implications of Science are realised, Mankind will flee from the deadly light of reason into the comforting ignorance of a new Age of Darkness" H. P. Lovecraft
"To make a little flower is the labor of great ages." William Blake
The Biblical creation account is derived from common Mesopotamian mythological traditions. In these, a god or gods created the first man from earth moistened with their own blood. In Hebrew, "Adam" means "red earth" and refers back to this tradition. The Hebrews had no revelation from God of any kind concerning the origin of mankind or the Earth, so they drew it from their own cultural tradition. They did, however, retell the old stories in such a way as to illuminate their understanding of the Divine. The Bible is NOT the "word" of any deity whatsoever, it is clearly and evidently a human witness to the interaction of an ancient people with the Divine. The Bible is a man-made thing, and those who worship it as a proxy for God are guilty of idolatry. It was written by many hands for many purposes, and those who proclaim it as "literally" true end up falsiifying it. It was never meant to be taken so literally, and those who do so turn the Holy Bible into a pack of lies from the first page to the last.
The literalist Fundamentalists are practicing a form of atheism. The truth Science has revealed about the nature of the Universe appals them. They cannot deal with the concept of the Real God, a Being to Whom a billion years is as a single moment and the entire width of the Solar System is but the extent of a single atom. They want a tiny little "god" to fit their limited conceptions, and a tiny little universe for their toy "god" to rule ove, a universe small enough that they can safely feel they are the center of it. Their "god" is but an idol they have created out of their own vain imaginings.
They are fleeing in terror from reality and trying to live in a comforting fantasy. Their beliefs are a gigantic and senseless lie and a grievious and blasphemous insult to the
genuine Creator.
Their real target is not really modern geology or biology. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the central concept of modern biology. Indeed, before Darwin, biology was little more than bug collecting and not a real science. To remove evolution from biology would be equivalent to removing the concept of atoms of chemistry, you would simply no longer have a science anymore. But like I said, to undermine modern sciene is just an initial goal. The next target is the Copernican Theory of the Solar System, highly incompatable with any literal interpretation of the Old Testament! Then on to the Big One, the concept that more than any other is completely inconsistent with Genesis, the Spherical Theory of the Earth!
Yours in Stern Warning,
JerryBear
P.S. To all Fundamentalists, do NOT mock God by trying to cut him down to size to fit your pathetically petty preconceptions.! Do NOT worship the work of man (the Holy Bible) as your God. Nature is God's direct creation and the natural sciences are the basis for understanding that creation, including evolution. if you want to have some dim understanding of what God intends for us and why we were created (through God's natural laws over vast eons of time from pre-existing living things) you need to have some understanding of evolution, for it is the tool that He clearly and manifestly used to create us.
"To make a little flower is the labor of great ages." William Blake
The Biblical creation account is derived from common Mesopotamian mythological traditions. In these, a god or gods created the first man from earth moistened with their own blood. In Hebrew, "Adam" means "red earth" and refers back to this tradition. The Hebrews had no revelation from God of any kind concerning the origin of mankind or the Earth, so they drew it from their own cultural tradition. They did, however, retell the old stories in such a way as to illuminate their understanding of the Divine. The Bible is NOT the "word" of any deity whatsoever, it is clearly and evidently a human witness to the interaction of an ancient people with the Divine. The Bible is a man-made thing, and those who worship it as a proxy for God are guilty of idolatry. It was written by many hands for many purposes, and those who proclaim it as "literally" true end up falsiifying it. It was never meant to be taken so literally, and those who do so turn the Holy Bible into a pack of lies from the first page to the last.
The literalist Fundamentalists are practicing a form of atheism. The truth Science has revealed about the nature of the Universe appals them. They cannot deal with the concept of the Real God, a Being to Whom a billion years is as a single moment and the entire width of the Solar System is but the extent of a single atom. They want a tiny little "god" to fit their limited conceptions, and a tiny little universe for their toy "god" to rule ove, a universe small enough that they can safely feel they are the center of it. Their "god" is but an idol they have created out of their own vain imaginings.
They are fleeing in terror from reality and trying to live in a comforting fantasy. Their beliefs are a gigantic and senseless lie and a grievious and blasphemous insult to the
genuine Creator.
Their real target is not really modern geology or biology. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the central concept of modern biology. Indeed, before Darwin, biology was little more than bug collecting and not a real science. To remove evolution from biology would be equivalent to removing the concept of atoms of chemistry, you would simply no longer have a science anymore. But like I said, to undermine modern sciene is just an initial goal. The next target is the Copernican Theory of the Solar System, highly incompatable with any literal interpretation of the Old Testament! Then on to the Big One, the concept that more than any other is completely inconsistent with Genesis, the Spherical Theory of the Earth!
Yours in Stern Warning,
JerryBear
P.S. To all Fundamentalists, do NOT mock God by trying to cut him down to size to fit your pathetically petty preconceptions.! Do NOT worship the work of man (the Holy Bible) as your God. Nature is God's direct creation and the natural sciences are the basis for understanding that creation, including evolution. if you want to have some dim understanding of what God intends for us and why we were created (through God's natural laws over vast eons of time from pre-existing living things) you need to have some understanding of evolution, for it is the tool that He clearly and manifestly used to create us.
Many middle-class science types seem compelled to try and "square the circle", by creating some sort of artificial synthesis of Science and religion. No doubt the main "motive force" behind this bizarre trend is an attempt to try and make their personal lives somewhat easier in these reactionary times -- `cause it sure ain't scientific thinking. But no matter how these not-100%-scientists avoid dealing with this fundamental dilemma of existence, the question still clearly remains: what makes the Universe run, if not itself? And the answer is pretty simple actually AFAIC -- when "gods" are left out of the equation: that the Universe does in fact *actually assemble itself*; and without plan either. It just _does_ this -- in whichever ways the pieces fortuitously "fit" each other.
Now, someone above tried to get around dealing squarely with this interpretation by concentrating on just the "laws of nature" themselves -- as if these are something aside and special, and above mere materiality. They asked (more or less): how the Universe of rules which govern this "clockwork" could just "be"? Indeed, mustn't such sublime craftwork-preparation be the Grand Design of a superior Artificer, however the Universe has actually unfolded -- i.e. thru Darwinian evolution?
This line of thinking, however, really only avoids discussing just what such "laws" actually are... and basically, from the materialist POV, these "laws of nature" are simply rather the multivarious ways in which the actual "building blocks" of the Universe *can come together and assemble themselves*. And that's it. That's all she wrote: that matter-energy wave-particles come together easily and automatically -- or they don't -- like blocks in some super-duper LEGO kit. With about as many unique possibilites (and impossibilities) too... Nothing miraculous about it -- *and thus no need for any gods to "oversee" operations. "Gods", in fact, are simply not required to explain anything*.
QED.
(??!)
Matter-energy is *by definition always in motion*; and so thusly there is absolutely no need to have any handy "deus ex machina" about, to give any required push here, or some needed tug there, like the old animist spirits of the rocks and trees... And matter-in-motion also explains _how_ these "laws" "evolve" in their own nature, as material existence plays out over time; and so how it is that matter-energy, on these different scales of space-time have their unique and changing immanent "laws" expressed *out of the same basic material*. No hocus-pocus needed. No smoke and mirrors either. Things just EVOLVE.
And blindly at that.
As for how the universe began: no one really knows. Yet. Maybe never.
"Science" claims no foolish infallibility -- but it is simply the best method of systematic discovery in the history of the planet (which is far from saying that this method is being practiced perfectly anywhere yet). And so -- let the mystics explain "Creation Science" whichever way they will. Materialist Science and bona fide scientists can take on *all* such comers (assuming good faith frankly...) But however the Universe began -- it's a sure bet that the facts of it make all the (uncommon) sense in the World...
Materialism is the most powerful theoretical method we have today -- and "forever" AFAIC. Mystical idealist religious types are simply not going to make materialism & Science disappear -- either by outlawing these or killing them off if they can; or shouting-it-down or misleading the gullible, if they can't...
And for that matter: perhaps all this rather hysterical creationist busybody-ness is in fact "motivated" by a mass subconscious realization/fear that this entire religious idealist edifice indeed rests upon the thinnest of ice; that we are indeed in the "End Times" -- for their medieval belief system.
So, while these people are incredibly annoying, obtuse, and manic-ly convinced that they are actually winning -- they are in fact the Last Hurrah of medieval ignorance in History, all dressed-up in scientistic camouflage. And so even if they were to win political power -- and move to outlaw Enlightenment Reason -- they are actually already finished as a historical force, and would all the sooner fall apart as a movement. and so the hysteria of it all, IMO & AFAIC...
And so: Don't be fazed by these people. FIGHT them. FIGHT for Reason and an enlightened world!
BTW: Earlier, someone mentioned planets in their orbits...
It's more precise to say that planets *revolve* about the Sun. "Rotate" may be synonynous in vernacular usage -- but that word is more accurately used to denote the spin of a body about its own axis.
Now, someone above tried to get around dealing squarely with this interpretation by concentrating on just the "laws of nature" themselves -- as if these are something aside and special, and above mere materiality. They asked (more or less): how the Universe of rules which govern this "clockwork" could just "be"? Indeed, mustn't such sublime craftwork-preparation be the Grand Design of a superior Artificer, however the Universe has actually unfolded -- i.e. thru Darwinian evolution?
This line of thinking, however, really only avoids discussing just what such "laws" actually are... and basically, from the materialist POV, these "laws of nature" are simply rather the multivarious ways in which the actual "building blocks" of the Universe *can come together and assemble themselves*. And that's it. That's all she wrote: that matter-energy wave-particles come together easily and automatically -- or they don't -- like blocks in some super-duper LEGO kit. With about as many unique possibilites (and impossibilities) too... Nothing miraculous about it -- *and thus no need for any gods to "oversee" operations. "Gods", in fact, are simply not required to explain anything*.
QED.
(??!)
Matter-energy is *by definition always in motion*; and so thusly there is absolutely no need to have any handy "deus ex machina" about, to give any required push here, or some needed tug there, like the old animist spirits of the rocks and trees... And matter-in-motion also explains _how_ these "laws" "evolve" in their own nature, as material existence plays out over time; and so how it is that matter-energy, on these different scales of space-time have their unique and changing immanent "laws" expressed *out of the same basic material*. No hocus-pocus needed. No smoke and mirrors either. Things just EVOLVE.
And blindly at that.
As for how the universe began: no one really knows. Yet. Maybe never.
"Science" claims no foolish infallibility -- but it is simply the best method of systematic discovery in the history of the planet (which is far from saying that this method is being practiced perfectly anywhere yet). And so -- let the mystics explain "Creation Science" whichever way they will. Materialist Science and bona fide scientists can take on *all* such comers (assuming good faith frankly...) But however the Universe began -- it's a sure bet that the facts of it make all the (uncommon) sense in the World...
Materialism is the most powerful theoretical method we have today -- and "forever" AFAIC. Mystical idealist religious types are simply not going to make materialism & Science disappear -- either by outlawing these or killing them off if they can; or shouting-it-down or misleading the gullible, if they can't...
And for that matter: perhaps all this rather hysterical creationist busybody-ness is in fact "motivated" by a mass subconscious realization/fear that this entire religious idealist edifice indeed rests upon the thinnest of ice; that we are indeed in the "End Times" -- for their medieval belief system.
So, while these people are incredibly annoying, obtuse, and manic-ly convinced that they are actually winning -- they are in fact the Last Hurrah of medieval ignorance in History, all dressed-up in scientistic camouflage. And so even if they were to win political power -- and move to outlaw Enlightenment Reason -- they are actually already finished as a historical force, and would all the sooner fall apart as a movement. and so the hysteria of it all, IMO & AFAIC...
And so: Don't be fazed by these people. FIGHT them. FIGHT for Reason and an enlightened world!
BTW: Earlier, someone mentioned planets in their orbits...
It's more precise to say that planets *revolve* about the Sun. "Rotate" may be synonynous in vernacular usage -- but that word is more accurately used to denote the spin of a body about its own axis.
In fact citizen, darwinism is in contrast with many religions, and most likely with those of the initial poster. Because to take darwinism seriously entails also taking seriously that the world is older than a few thousand years.
HA HA 
You Americans are so funny!
You Americans are so funny!
QUOTE
Evoltionist or Creationist, What's more likely?
<br>-- misspelled quips in this thread are Pro-Science or Anti-Science. What's more likely?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE | ||||||
| Evoltionist or Creationist, What's more likely? <br>-- misspelled quips in this thread are Pro-Science or Anti-Science. What's more likely? Damn you darwanistic pigs! Can't you spell Darwinist? <br>
— no, just take it in context. When Galileo was condemned by the Inquisition for daring to say "The earth moves", when Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for it, it was still possible to reconcile the Bible with known science, just not the Church's self-centered cosmology. It wasn't till Darwin that being in both camps became impossible. QUOTE "while the Bible has never been proven wrong" — huh? Every time it's proven wrong, the believers weasel out of it. What about David's "As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away:" Ps. 58:8 Snails don't melt, your Majesty, even though they appear to, leaving a trail of snot. Believers never fail to chicken out of a fact contest. They just say, "If God wanted to do it that way, He could. He's Omnipotent!""Daddy, why is the sky blue?" "'Cause the Good Lord wanted it that way, Son." "Gee, Daddy, you know everything!" "Yup, guess so." QUOTE (->
— huh? Every time it's proven wrong, the believers weasel out of it. What about David's "As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away:" Ps. 58:8 Snails don't melt, your Majesty, even though they appear to, leaving a trail of snot. Believers never fail to chicken out of a fact contest. They just say, "If God wanted to do it that way, He could. He's Omnipotent!" "Daddy, why is the sky blue?" "'Cause the Good Lord wanted it that way, Son." "Gee, Daddy, you know everything!" "Yup, guess so." I still can't believe that in the world that we live in people are still desperately clinging to ridiculous ideas such as "creationism." |
-- "ye have the poor with you always" Mark 14:7
QUOTE
"An offer was sent forth many years ago offering a large sum of money to anyone that could produce anything of factual data concerning evolution"
Please provide a link to this outrageous claim. Evolution is the Central Fact of Biology, without which the lab door cannot even be opened in the morning, as much as the GOP loves biotech dividends.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| "An offer was sent forth many years ago offering a large sum of money to anyone that could produce anything of factual data concerning evolution" Please provide a link to this outrageous claim. Evolution is the Central Fact of Biology, without which the lab door cannot even be opened in the morning, as much as the GOP loves biotech dividends. 'Are any museums displaying actual “transitional” fossils?' Yes, indeedy! My favorite example is Archaeopteryx. Do a Google on that word and see great plates of the Jura limestone fossils, on display in Berlin. Unlike all living birds, Archaeopteryx had a full set of teeth, a rather flat sternum ("breastbone"), a long, bony tail, gastralia ("belly ribs"), and three claws on the wing which could have still been used to grasp prey (or maybe trees). However, its feathers, wings, furcula ("wishbone") and reduced fingers are all characteristics of modern birds.  An ideal example — half dinosaur and half bird. Gorgeous, too. The Jura limestone is so fine-grained that you can use a microscope, and see the barbs of in the vanes of the feathers.
Archaeopteryx is an excellent and tangible example of evolution.
Unfortunate: prejudice, mockery, unsubstantiated claims, “blind faith”, misinterpretation, conspiracy theories, sensationalism, intolerance, and resentment – and sadly this occurs mostly on part of the “scientific” viewed comments on this blog. What other view point in the world is so openly hated… and is the world a better or worse place for these religious ideals? The history of humanities behavior towards oneself or others is a separate issue, just as the misuse of science is. “During his three years of theological studies at Christ's College, Cambridge, he was greatly impressed by Paley's Evidences of Christianity and his Natural Theology (which argues for the existence of God from design). He recalled, "I could have written out the whole of the 'Evidences' with perfect correctness, but not of course in the clear language of Paley," and, "I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley's 'Natural Theology.' I could almost formerly have said it by heart." - Charles Darwin” Charles Darwin was a self-acknowledged agnostic (not atheist) in his later years. “Sir Isaac Newton was one of the greatest scientific minds to ever live. His formulations and theories are the basis for much of our modern science. Over the course of Newton's eighty-four years he wrote many scientific papers, however, it is little known that the bulk of his writings dealt not with scientific subject matter, but with religious topics. When his writings were auctioned off at Sotheby's, the lots dealing with chronology comprised 200,000 words, while the ones dealing with religion contained over a million words (Yeates 4). “ Perhaps many conspiracy theorists will take an easy course of defense and say that Newton and Darwin were “forced” into his Christian beliefs by family, “the church”, government, and peers to avoid being bankrupted, ostracized, imprisoned, etc. Try to lighten up; mocking a non-exclusive viewpoint is distressing to me. "Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds" - J. Robert Oppenheimer quoting from a Hindu scripture "I like their Christ; I don't like their Christians" – Gandhi "Treat others only in ways that you're willing to be treated in the same exact situation." The Golden Rule Why Can’t We All Just Get Along? - Rodney King
If one were to consider the vast amount of atoms in the universe and the seemingly ordered randomness of these particles. What sort of random pattern is necessary to assemble you and everything you can perceive from these particles over time?
That's where you and everything else comes from, in these terms the idea of evolution is self evident. Darwin only attempted to impose an order to the randomness of life based on observation whereas religion attempts to do the same based on ancient literature and fear of the unknown (death). I find it one of god’s greatest miracles that we obtained enough awareness to see structure in the random.
PeacfulNCurious — two wonderful things to be!
Unfortunate: Bush is neither. QUOTE (PeacfulNCurious+Mar 7 2005, 08:34 PM) Unfortunate: prejudice, mockery, unsubstantiated claims, “blind faith”, misinterpretation, conspiracy theories, sensationalism, intolerance, and resentment – and sadly this occurs mostly on part of the “scientific” viewed comments on this blog. Oh really? Well, I'll concede to you the following:
But
Let me suggest to you that examples of each of these offenses would provide material for discussion. Some of us would beg to differ with you about these allegations, in the most civil way imaginable, but differ nevertheless. But if you neglect to give examples, discussion is impossible. Forgive my suspicious mind, but, could it be you'd prefer it that way?
Sorry — I forgot to put my moniker on that last post — it's me tho —
There’s a great article somewhere in my stack of Science magazines (I’ve gotten one a week since ’93) — I can probably find it by searching on the website if you need the reference. But basically, it was a study, in Brazil, I think, of a population of some rodent or other that was suddenly divided in two by a major highway being built.
Attentive researchers had the presence of mind to begin tests on them over several years, taking subjects from both of the (now) two communities (isolated from each other), and attempting to cross-breed them. No problem at first, but after several years, I don’t remember how long, but less than 10, I’m pretty sure (mice breed so fast that their genetic drift is also quick) they had drifted so far apart they could no longer interbreed successfully, or, maybe it was, their success rate had dropped from 100% to say 20%. They might be considered, at that level, two different “sub-species”. I heard a speech with Q&A by Pat Robertson to the Nat’l Press Club, and needless to say, there was a question about evolution. Robertson launched into what was obviously a well-worn story about how he was born on a farm, and how they bred mules for work animals. “A mule”, he drawled, “is a cross between a mare and a jackass”, making the emphasis very mocking and pejorative on the last word there, hoping with good reason to scare off some timid people, I suppose. “But the thing about a mule is, it’s sterile — it can’t reproduce with another mule.” With this story he purported to be refuting the fundamental principle of evolution, ie., that this proves beyond doubt that “evolution doesn’t work!” What he proved to anybody that knows the first thing about biology is that Robertson had completely misunderstood the whole basis of evolution. Or, more likely, he was pretending to be such a person, to fool those who knew nothing about it, and had not formed an opinion of any solidity, It’s not about combining two existing species to make a third, brand new one. It’s about the tendency of one existing species, upon suffering geographic separation into two or more relatively isolated groups, to drift apart genetically until they are no longer able to interbreed successfully, ie., to produce a line of offspring who will be fertile into future generations. I personally don’t think he’s that dumb. Rather, I think he’s that deceitful and corrupt, to further his agenda and his empire by feeding the ignorant masses what they earnestly desire to hear: that the studious people are wrong after all, and the lazy-minded and willingly ignorant are the greatest! Yaaaay!
There! Now I'm registered. Is there any way I can edit the posts I did prior to registration?
No big deal I guess, just untidy <sigh>
I think SouthPark had it right - Earth is simply a reality tv show for the rest of the Milky Way. They took 2 of every species and placed them on Earth to see how they would interact and how long it would take for them to kill each other! We are the joke of our Galaxy!
 I am glad you found Adam but I think you might have the year wrong it wasent a few million years ago it was only a couple thousand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
QUOTE (A Baptist+Mar 8 2005, 09:21 PM) I am glad you found Adam but I think you might have the year wrong it wasent a few million years ago it was only a couple thousand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! One time a deacon in our church stood up and said, "I thank God for Adam, 'cause he was the smartest man that ever lived. He named all the animals, and they're the same names we still use today." 
Why do people always moan about us coming from apes?
We dont have a problem saying "scorpions evolved from a type of crab" for example we dont really opinionate evolution apart from ape-human evolution Its because humans are so arrogant and ignorant thinking theyre so great that nothing before was a part of them-we are apparently unique and we never used to be a dumb ape!...apparently... Apparently if we evolved from apes, then they should all be evolving now!....apparently What people forget to realise is that we didnt evolve from the common chimpanzee but the neandothol...if THEY existed still-I'd be skeptical too. Religious people cant put scientific meaning behind anything-science goes against god. God and the bible etc say science is a form od the devil. Probably because it proves it as rubbish-so obviously the people who were making followers do there commands didnt want this, otherwise theyd have no slaves, and they still have slaves! millions of them! blimey...never knew religion could be so destructive and could spread so far...goes to show how much bullshit a human can take in in a few years and all of a sudden it spreads like wildfire Note the OLD testament is full of people being eaten by whales etc and was incredibly dumb-which is why they made the new testament which has the more believable stuff in it. Its pathetic, theyl change it til we have no arguments....but itl be so edited its all rubbish anyway but the little kids who are forced and brainwashed to go to church wont realise that as they wont be taught the bible was edited, otherwise theres a chance theyl catch on and realise. All religion has ever done is cause war hate and strong opinions which in the end make fights It has hindered scientific progress Loads of people have died because a type of medicine was "morally incorrect" and we now use many of them now ANYWAY, so all them protestors just held back science-not stopped it. meaning they indirectly killed millions of people for no good reason because of there personal ideas!, maybe they forget people get hurt from there apparent "just cause" Im fed up of religion If we want to get further people say we should sort our planet out I highly agree religion being the priority. Its time to go forwards.
One time a deacon in our church stood up and said, "I thank God for Adam, 'cause he was the smartest man that ever lived. He named all the animals, and they're the same names we still use today."
WTF?! obviously this dumb piece of shit hasnt heard of translation!
"I agree with b.s., or was it b.e? I mean mammoths aren't related to elephants and sabertooth tigers aren't related to tigers and we're not related to apes because of the biblical fairytale. Besides, Christianity was invented in Europe, and there aren't any monkeys in Europe.
Rob, age 12 " I dont doubt for a single second youre 12... ....sheesh....christiany wasnt made in europe, it came from asia. In fact christianity is a mix of LOADS of religions which is why its OBVIOUSLY rubbish-because it takes everything and mulches everything together on the writers personal preferance. OH NO THERES A MISSING LINK! the worlds a big place, and you expect us to find everything in 1 second every creationsist argument is usually about how science is missing something Well this is the thing christians-were not like your gods, fairytales can take minutes whereas facts take a little bit longer, youd do well remembering that The fact remains that one missing link against ALL the other evidence means nothing. I got an anomolistic result in my science practical, it doesnt mean the theory is incorrect, it means ive overlooked something did something wrong or it was MEANT to do that for whatever reason. Evolution isnt controversial it is BLATANT fact. The only reason people sometimes dont believe it is indeed as others have said-is the way its explained. we only class something as different specie when its largely different from its ancestor, so they think it suddenly changed...thats not how evolution works, unfortunately evolution is so slow when you see the change it looks sudden, but you get ADAPTION changes which migrate to evolution changes, for example larger lungs-its an adaption, but because of it it leads to a possibly major physical difference as the genetics get passed down-making it a different specie. as whoever said WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE
Also while we're on the subject of the missing link
Religion lacks many facts of physical events that can be found-but they havent so evolution-1 missing link(thats basically been proved weve found it if so many people wouldnt be so damn picky) religion-Many missing links. So religious people mock us for believing in something that has something missing...yet they do the same thing but on a GREATER scale... oh but wait i forgot THEYVE GOT THE LORD ON THERE SIDE SO THEYRE OBVIOUSLY CORRECT![/sarcasm] 
If anything, this discussion shows only how little we have evolved. Both sides say they are right, neither can prove it, so they just yell back and forth like children.
|
while just as many say that it is just one of many theories and has not been supported by the evidence. 
A third of Americans are biblical literalists who believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word. 
me i'm part of the third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence