The Origin of Man

[OldGreyEagle]

I thought Darwin left God in his theory, didnt he?

[firstpusk]

The theory of evolution is not an explanation that can claim to have been subjected to empirical testing or critical observation.

 

This is simply false. It is one of the most well supported theories in science. It has been tested for nearly a century and a half and is stronger than ever. You need to read something other than creationism.

 

The evidence is seen through the eyes of those faithful to Darwin and the absense of God in the creation of the world and all within it. In the zeal to continue the idiocy of macroevolution, evidence for previous forms of man include a pig tooth...

 

I pointed out to you that this was never in the scientific literature. The Nebraska man was based on over-zelous press reports. Have you responded? No you simply repeat the refuted claim. To persist without correcting your mistake is not honest. The fact is there are a lot of finds that do document human evolution. This is a good place to start.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

 

 

...a dig that held parts of chimps and man...

 

No source or link sited (typical). I must assume you are referring to some of the creationist articles with respect to Donald Johansons Lucy find of Australiopithocene afarensis. These have been thoroughly addressed and refuted by Jim Lippert. Heres a link. I know you wont read it. It doesnt appear you have read anything else I have given you.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html

 

From the text of this article a nice summary of what this is all about. You see that it is dangerous to simply take what these folks claim at face value.

 

To summarize: At least seventeen creationists have made this bogus claim. Three have never responded in any way to questions about it (Girouard, Menton, Willis). Another two have not responded to further inquiries (Brown, McAllister). Only five have shown a willingness to discuss the matter (Chittick, the Nuttings, Sharp, Taylor), but one (Chittick) cut off correspondence. Four have agreed that the claim was in error and agreed to stop making it (Hovind, McAllister, Sharp, Taylor), and two agreed to stop making it if further investigation showed that the claim was bogus (the Nuttings) but have continued to repeat it. One (Arndts) has indicated a willingness to believe that the claim is in error but no interest in researching further or offering a correction because the article in which he made the claim just used it as an example of a type of error in reasoning. One (LaHaye) has insisted that the claim is not in error, but agreed to stop making it at the request of the Institute for Creation Research. Three (Baugh, Huse, Mehlert) have not yet been contacted for comment. One (Brown) now denies having made the claim at all. Only three (Menton, Morris, Sharp) have issued public corrections or clarifications.

Lucy's Knee Joint

A Case Study in Creationists' Willingness to Admit their Errors

Copyright 1995-1997 by Jim Lippard

 

 

living aboriginals killed and displayed, etc.

 

Again, I called you on this and asked for a reference for this slanderous claim. I found a number of examples of aboriginal beheadings, especially in the earliest years of the colonization of Australia. None after Darwins book. None carried out by scientists in order to display and certainly nothing like your claim. In case you forgot, here is the outlandish, unsupported claim you made earlier.

 

In the name of preserving the myth of evolution, people have committed huge atrocities against each other such as the 10,000+ australian aboriginals that were beheaded so they could be displayed as "living fossils" in museums in this country and throughtout the world

 

You simply repeat the unsupport assertion. Again, such behavior is not proper. At least in today's post you drop the outlandish 10,000+ figure. Still slandering unnamed, unknown murderous scientists, tsk, tsk.

 

For one to compare it to other fields of science is absurd; evolution is much closer to a religion because the only basis one can accept it on is faith. There is not now nor has there been any empirical data available because it does not happen.

 

The only reason you can make such a claim is that you refuse to expose yourself to the data, which I have provided to you repeatedly. At least have the honesty to look into it and acknoledge when you are mistaken.

 

Because the evolutionists tell you that man evolved from one celled organisms does not make it data, does not show critical evaluation.

 

I know that it is pointless to ask, but, where did you pull this claim from. No scientist claims that. Mans ancestor is one that is common with the great apes. No one but a creationist would make such an absurd claim.

 

Ask yourself where are the intermediary fossils, the laboratory simulations, the experimentation that proves these statements of their faith in evolution.

 

I know you wont read it, but others might be paying attention and they need to know that you are completely wrong. So for those other than you that will look at the evidence here is a link about transitional fossils.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

 

...Evolutionists claim that those that follow God and Jesus can believe in evolution without conflict. That statement alone should alert a Christian to stand up and take note. If the bells don't go off with that one look at the fruits of evolutionary theory: legalized abortion, infantcide, genocide, gene enhancement, cloning, etc. Check out the ideas of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood,eugenicist, and evolutionist or Peter Singer, bioethicist and evolutionist. The list is long and results have been devastating to entire groups of people thought by some to have inferior genes.

 

And there was no human evil before Darwin. I know that abortion, infanticide and genocide all existed long before Darwin. How do you hold evolution responsible? Will denying the theory of evolution make evil disappear from the world? No, you are confusing this for an argument that denies the scientific basis of evolution.

 

FirstPusk debates by claiming a lack of understanding of the ideas for people that disagree with the theories he espouses but when challenged to a biology test to set that idea to rest, he runs.

 

I really dont have to claim that you lack understanding of evolution. Your arguments prove that point for me. When you couple that with the refusal to admit you are wrong, the case is closed. On your vane little tests, as I recall, you have been the one running from a challenge and a simple one at that. Nearly a month ago you said, And of course there are always other viable scientific theories--some we may not be aware of yet but are we so vain as to think we have all the answers.

 

In response, I asked for only one viable scientific theory as an alternative to evolution. Instead, you make your grand challenge. An effort to ignore that you have been unable to substantiate a single point.

 

No, I debate by calling you on your consistently false claims, asking you to support your contentions. I provide an argument in response (often with supporting books and links). I am not interested in your personal vanity. As I recall, you also wanted me to take a theology test and an intelligence test. You may claim your titile if you like. It will not change the fact that you can not support a single claim, that I have refuted your arguments and that you are still running away from the truth.

 

Evolution is not science and to disbelieve evolution does not put any valid advances in jeopardy. It is simply using the big brains God gave you to see the false religion that is being perpetrated on the world at large.

 

In response to your silly statement I can only say read this article, Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution

Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975)

Transcribed from The American Biology Teacher, March 1973 (35:125-129)

here is the link.

http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml

 

Before you come back do some real reading and a lot of thinking.

[evmori]

Think I said this before.

 

Living things don't evolve, they adapt. Ideas evolve.

 

The theory of evolution is just that - theory.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[littlebillie]

"The theory of evolution is not an explanation that can claim to have been subjected to empirical testing or critical observation. The evidence is seen through the eyes of those faithful to Darwin and the absense of God in the creation of the world and all within it."

 

Now, with all due respect, let's do a little rewording...

 

"The work of God is not an explanation that can claim to have been subjected to EMPRIRICAL TESTING or CRITICAL MODERN OBSERVATION. The evidence is seen through the eyes of those faithful to holy texts and the absense of science in the creation of the world and all within it."

 

The religious proclaim faith, the evolutionist fact. Then the religious say, well - I don't accept your fact, why can't you take it all on faith.

 

There is nothing about Evolution that precludes God... save Biblical literalism. And of course, many faithful accept the story of Creation on an allegorical level. But rather than asking why couldn't God have created everything - snap! - all at once, answer this - why could not He have used evolution just as He used gravity and nuclear decay and all the rest of it?

 

Why do any of us feel the need to limit God, especially when He has set forth so many signposts leading to Science?

 

HE WOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN US A WORLD THAT LIES! He has given us fossils and an ancient earth more to glory in His Handiwork, than to say, no, He CAN'T do that...

.

[firstpusk]

Ed,

 

I understand and appreciate your position. As you said, you have stated it before. I have also stated mine. Evolution is not "just a theory" in the every day sense of the word your statement implies. It is an extremely well-established and suppoted scientific theory.

 

In terms of adaption/evolution, individual living things do not adapt or evolve. However, the populations they belong to do. The evidence is there in the laboratory, in the fossils and in the genes the creatures carry.

[packsaddle]

Freud argued that ignorance is a poor basis for belief. ScoutParent's statements could be used to support an argument that ignorance is the ONLY basis. Nevertheless, I find quaint sympathy with some of ScoutParent's shrill prose. There are individuals in all walks of life, science included, that have such strong interest in certain ideas that they take on what might seem to be a religious belief. If this applies to persons who are interested in evolution, for example, ScoutParent is correct in identifying such as a source of weakness. This weakness cuts both ways, though, and it also applies to those who thoughtlessly cling to religious dogma with little or no understanding of that dogma. The desire to uncritically fill a knowledge void with anything that seems to work is an option exercised with prejudice towards many views. It merely requires a tolerance of personal ignorance or an inability to recognize such.

 

Darwin recognized this profoundly because he was a practiced experimental scientist. For example, he was the first to experimentally support the idea that plant growth is directed by the meristematic tissues. He did not originate the idea of gradual change through antiquity. Rather, such ideas had emerged much earlier from several sources, notably Jean-Babtiste de Lamarck (1744-1829)[acquired characteristics fame]. Evolutionary theory did not end with Darwin either, for even he didn't have it right. His idea of blended inheritance was clearly wrong and he was soundly criticized. The theory was much strengthened with the rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's laws of inheritance (thus beginning modern Genetics) because Mendel's discovery provided the very mechanism that Darwin could not fully explain. Scientific theory rarely if ever relies on a single person or study but rather continues to be tested until it is discarded or improved, incorporating new discoveries as they may provide better explanations. The idea does indeed evolve, thank you very much. Aristotle's explanation of fossils as being remants of animals that died in the flood, for example, has not survived this scrutiny (although some in this forum may still ascribe to that notion).

 

Because Darwin was a divinity student from 1827 until he took the naturalist position on the Beagle (the voyage started in 1831), he was quite aware of the importance of these ideas to the theological world. He was aware of Galileo's fate (the Church finally recognized their mistake a few hundred years later, just a few years ago...the earth is NOT the center of the solar system, I suppose this is still open for dispute as well) and it was only the push provided by A.R. Wallace's independent, almost identical paper that caused the release of his theory. The theory built on numerous ideas such as uniformitarianism (not a religion, by the way), and the law of superposition. The foundation of the theory is rooted in classical geology, much of which was developed by clergymen who, in my view, were among the only persons with sufficient spare time to pursue such studies. (It has often amused me to think how the clergy and the church was largely responsible for the development of the idea that some persons of faith so vocally object to today - another delicious irony for my collection.)

 

But ScoutParent, unintentionally I think, was aiming squarely for its saggital crest, and then missed the barn. Evolutionary theory has, in fact, provided precious little practical benefit through development of technology, etc. Its primary contribution, as stated by Dobzhansky, is as an organizing theory without which the field of biology would merely be a collection of arcane specialties. Rather, numerous fields of biology and other disciplines have contributed to the ills listed by ScoutParent and these abilities were developed independently from pursuit of evolutionary theory. If ScoutParent wanted to indict the theory for its worst application, such could be found in what is poorly termed, "social Darwinism". Here, persons with little understanding of evolutionary theory use their simpleminded notions to apply "it" to social systems...in fact they use it to try to justify their hateful prejudices, for example, the notion that certain races are inferior. The notion of 'survival of the fittest' has been applied by monsters in WWII Germany, Cambodia, and elsewhere (I have heard it said, for that matter, in our funding policies for education and welfare). The evil is in us, not in an idea. The technologies give us new abilities, we decide to apply them in evil ways or not. At the root of most of these, I believe, is ignorance...and the clinging belief that ours is the absolute truth - without tolerance for an alternative. This is hardly my view of God's intent, ignorance IS a poor basis for belief. And so I see a great good in learning, questioning, and building on ideas, good science included...because it does ultimately illuminate all creation. If anyone wants to see evil, start with a look inward and once satisfied, expand elsewhere. Have a nice day.

[DeMann]

Now for some observations:

This is simply false. It is one of the most well supported theories in science. It has been tested for nearly a century and a half and is stronger than ever. You need to read something other than creationism

 

You, sir, are full of some stinky stuff. There is not proof anywhere. Just theories based upon theories. Punctuated Equalibrium? That one came along when the proof was trashed by observation.

 

I pointed out to you that this was never in the scientific literature. The Nebraska man was based on over-zelous press reports. Have you responded? No you simply repeat the refuted claim. To persist without correcting your mistake is not honest.

 

Sir, it was in my school textbooks! I was forced to take tests on that trash many long years ago!

 

 

In terms of adaption/evolution, individual living things do not adapt or evolve. However, the populations they belong to do. The evidence is there in the laboratory, in the fossils and in the genes the creatures carry.

 

so, if it does not happen in an individual, how does it happen in the whole population at one time? Remember, we are trying to get birds from fish in this one. Does a meteor hit south america and then all the catfish in afghanistan grow feathers?

 

 

Ok, little billie:

 

But rather than asking why couldn't God have created everything - snap! - all at once, answer this - why could not He have used evolution just as He used gravity and nuclear decay and all the rest of it?

 

 

He could have. But he did not. Read the Bible. A day is a day, silly. If you cannot take part of it as truth, then tell me how you determine the parts that are truth and the ones that are not??? Is it up to you to determine what you like and what you do not believe is true? If any of it is false, it all must be considered so.

 

 

 

[DeMann]

ok. I admit it. I am just a dumb country boy who used to run barefooted in the grassburs and chunked cowpies at his friends when he got bored. I surely am not as brilliant or learn-ed as you guys. so, here goes. answer me these questions:

 

1) if life came from the ooze, how long did the first one live, and how did it ever come to reproduce? by what method did it, mitosis or meosis?

 

2) did the first organism have dna, and if so, was it in chromosomal form. if not, why is there no other forms of life like that today?

 

3) if God had nothing to do with it, why did any early organisms reproduce? did they live for 'eons' before they slowly and subtly changed into a reproducing form? did the first organism happen to come to life and also happen to have DNA so that it could reproduce?

 

4) if man came from an ape or apelike creature, did he have a soul? did God care for him like man today? at what time did God view him as man and not animal? at what time should we consider him man and not animal?

 

5) again, and this one really bothers me, i need to know how to understand the Bible. you clearly can tell the verses/chapters/books which are to be taken as real, and the ones that are false. How can you tell? do we each get to make up the ones we like and ignore the ones we don't? How do YOU tell the right ones from the wrong ones?

 

[evmori]

"extremely well-established and suppoted scientific theory"

 

regardless of how well established & supported, it is still a theory therefore, not proven fact.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Zorn Packte]

Read the Bible. A day is a day, silly. If you cannot take part of it as truth, then tell me how you determine the parts that are truth and the ones that are not?

 

In Genesis 1, God created all of the animals then he created man and woman. In Genesis 2, God created man, then because man was lonely he started making animals. Finally he made woman.

 

Which part is true? Did the animals come first or second? Is woman just an improvement on the Irish Setter? Maybe, maybe not? Setters don't nag. :-)

[packsaddle]

DeMann,

The answers to most of your questions inevitably will be conjecture based on the best evidence or knowledge in hand at the time the conjecture is made. There is a book, "Vital Dust" by Christian DeDuve that provides, in my mind, the best single effort to bring all the elements into a common framework. The author is a Nobel Prize winner so I have to admit he probably did a better job than I could. If I suggested a specific answer, say, that the first organism had the same base pairing as all life on earth (and this isn't very controversial), it could form the basis for a long discussion (argument) that could be fun and illuminating, or boring. Predicting the past is fun to think about but I see no way to achieve absolute certainty.

1. No one knows for sure, nor likely ever will.

2. Maybe not, might have been RNA, but still don't know for sure. There might be life forms like them today but not likely in an aerobic environment.

3. Not clear the connection between God and reproduction.

4. Don't know. Are you aware that persons have tried to measure the mass of a soul? (if you think this is absurd, I agree) You may want to carefully and meticulously define "soul" first. We are experimenting with xenobiotic transplants because we are so very close, genetically and physiologically, to some other animals (know anyone with a pig's valve in his heart?). The differences are beginning to blur for some persons and I find this fascinating to observe.

5. The Bible question. To answer this completely you would need to know how the original selections were made, which books to include, which to exclude...originally. And why the inclusion or exclusion? That would help some and the story is spellbinding. I am still learning. Beyond that, the question is yours to answer.

 

The problem with needing to have such absolute answers is that anyone can get those answers. They just aren't likely to agree with anyone else who thinks they have the answers. My inability to answer such questions does not, however, lend support to anything else. There is an old logical trick called "reductio ad absurdum". In this, a logical argument is carried to its extreme and if it is absurd at that point, it is considered to have less validity. In the original application, such would be considered evidence in favor of the alternative argument. In some sense, creationists try to use this type of argument...failure of one idea in some area supports the alternative. The problem here is that there is absolutely no comparable scientific or experimental support for the alternative and "reductio ad absurdum" is today mostly used to reject arguments, not to support otherwise unsupportable arguments. The strategy is employed by students to reject dress codes, for example, and other examples are numerous, my children have ruthlessly exploited my sense of fairness using this method.

 

In the case for creationism, I think there is only one basis, faith. And that is OK. The trouble arises when we realize that the Judeo-Christian creation does not agree with other religious beliefs for which there are far more numerous followers. Who is right? Does this imply that someone is wrong? Are they also inferior? Bad? Evil? The perceived conflict with evolution is (or should be) one-sided. Scientists are not (should not be) trying to refute religious ideas. They don't have the tools or the evidence and religious persons can ignore them anyway (but they'll probably gratefully accept those pig valves, if needed). I too, have heard scientists make statements as if they have the last word in truth. You must realize that in the peer-review world, ideas duel in ruthless battle and sometimes scientists get cocky. They are human, believe it or not. Each time is an invitation to knock that chip off and in science the invitation is open. Just be prepared for the arena because all of them will be itching to knock yours off as well. Not friendly? Maybe not but it beats inquisitions and crusades. And any idea that survives must have something going for it...until I can find that hidden flaw. Ed, yes, it IS just a theory. Feel better now?

[Rooster7]

Zorn,

 

In Genesis 2, God created man, then because man was lonely he started making animals. Finally he made woman.

 

Are you making this up as you go along? Please provide the verse numbers. I think you've got something wrong.

[Zorn Packte]

Genesis 2:18 - 22

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

 

Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

 

The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.

 

So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.

 

The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

[Rooster7]

Okay...you got me...I must admit it has been a while since I've read Genesis. However, despite the appearance of an inconsistency, I am not swayed. There are possible explanations.

 

Like, God may not have created all of the creatures of the land at the same time. After creating man, he may have decided that there was a need to create these other animals.

 

Or, as the verse is printed in my Bible, "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field..." (NIV), one might assume that the animals were created prior to man then brought to him at a later time for naming. Likewise, their suitability as helpers could have been examined prior to man's creation.

 

If either of these theories were true, then the verses from chapters 1 and 2 would still be consistent. I lean towards the latter explanation.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[firstpusk]

"Sir, it was in my school textbooks! I was forced to take tests on that trash many long years ago!"

 

 

So DeMann,

Just how old are you and where did you go to school. The claim of Nebraska man, although always dubious, was withdrawn in 1927. You must be in your 90's!