just curious, so you reject the millions of hominid bones found in Africa that show a clear progression from knuckle-walkers to modern man as what? a hoax?
I don’t mean to pick on you moe but this is a perfect example of the impact of evolutionist fundamentalism. First, scientists are threatened by many things and have all kinds of biases, never mind the issue of ID. I say this a someone with a BSs who has done hard science research work as a research assistant in the area of materials science (on high performance concrete and carbon fibre pre-stressing tendons if you’re interested), and who has his name on several papers. I take it that you’re not a scientist and I highly recommend reading Thomas Kuhn to dispel some of the myths you may have learned about the infallibility of science. Scientists are not all corrupt or seriously biased any means, but to suggest that they are perfect or infallible is very wrong and very dangerous too. Second, why are you talking about creationism?! You are giving a formulaic response that is completely devoid of critical thought. You’re not referring to anything argument that’s been made here. You’re dragging out old, tired rhetoric in a place where it doesn’t even superficially fit. In fact in this very thread just a few posts before yours there is an article by someone who is most certainly not a creationist who is criticising Darwinian Fundamentalism in the science community! Obviously you have a major problem with alternatives because you won’t even take the time to read and respond to what’s being said. You clearly show a complete and utter disregard for evidence resorting simply to old stale rhetoric that doesn’t even fit the discussion. You can get much more un-scientific or be any less of a critical thinker than that. This is what makes your post a hardcore “fundamentalist” post, and yet it pretends to be science!? Such is the state of the politics and twisted and corrupt principles that surround this issue. *Sigh*
Millions of bones huh? Yet we don't have a complete progression of ape to man do we? Are there even more then a couple full "borderline" skeletons found?
typical Grizzled response - I dunno why anyone even tries engaging you anymore 1. I never said scienctist are unbiased - reread my post (I suspect this will be a reoccuring theme) 2. I never said scienctist are infallible - reread my post 3. How you can come away from my post saying that I have a major problem with alternatives since I expressly said I didn't as long as they are based in reality and are based on evidence - a very scientific standard 4. I'm still waiting to see the testable, falisifable theory of creationism, untill then, go away with your dark-age nonsense
I'm certainly not a paleoanthropologist, but I do a lot of reading on the subject. I'm not sure what you mean by "boarderline" skeletons, but 100% complete skeletons? no, of course not - that is asking for a standard that is not realistic but what has been found shows a clear trend in time from early australopithecines to recent humans of increasing brain size, increasing body size, increasing use of and sophistication in tools, decreasing tooth size, decreasing skeletal robustness for starters are we 100% sure of the details? not even close, but to just ignore the huge body of evidence is pretty silly to me what more info? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
Hi pot, this is the kettle calling. I love how you say "How you can come away from my post saying that I have a major problem with alternatives since I expressly said I didn't as long as they are based in reality and are based on evidence" and then come right back with "I'm still waiting to see the testable, falisifable theory of creationism, untill then, go away with your dark-age nonsense". First off, you stated it yourself you aren't open to alternatives unless there is "fact" or "proof"... well the entire basis of religion is on faith, so you aren't going to get anything from people who believe in a higher being. Over 3/4's of the entire population believe in a "higher calling" and the proof you call for can't be figured out in a scientific equation. You ask for proof and if someone gave you some you'd still deny it. There is proof all day long with miracles across the world, where the "unexplainable" occurs, but scientists will have nothing of it. The bottom line is there is no scientific "fact" or "proof" on how the world was created to begin with. There are many scientific theories out there, but no one knows for a fact exactly how it occured scientifically... heck the scientific community can't even agree on ONE of them... so don't tell me the scientfic theories for the universe have anymore facts then the "greater being" theories either. The bottom line is no one has hard lined facts one way or the other... you choose to put your faith in a scientific theory while others choose to put theirs in a higher being.
To tell you where I’m coming from, as someone with a science degree who worked in hard science for a time, I don’t see any solid evidence for vertical evolution. I think that that field of science is very political right now and that we’re coming into a time where there will be a paradigm shift, as Kuhn describes them, in this field. With respect to the Bible, I agree that it’s inspired and error free, but not literal in that every parable actually happened to the people being described in the story or that every word is literally true out of context. It can’t be (and nor can anything else, btw). Not every parable is identified as a parable. We simply assume that they are because that’s how they read in context. There are also contradictions in the Bible, like those describing the death of Judas in different ways. I don’t believe that this is an error, however. I think this tells us something very important about what is important in the Bible and the kinds of details we shouldn’t place too much importance on. It’s kind of a warning against legalism in a way. Were the disciples sinning when he broke off the heads of wheat and ate them on a Sunday? If you’re caught up in legalism and a certain kind of “literal interpretation” you might say yes, as the Pharisees did. If you’re interpreting what the Bible means properly you would say no. The Old Testament tells us that if you sin you will be condemned to death, but the New Testament tell us a way to be justified by faith, not works. Does this mean that the OT is not literally true? Yes and no. There is a deeper level of understanding that reconciles the two. So I’m just saying that I think we need to be very careful when we talk about literal interpretations. It’s not just as simple as reading the word on the page apart from the greater context of the Bible as a whole.
Why is it so out of question to find complete skeletons of proof? We've found complete skeletons of ice-aged men and other animals all the time, even dinosaurs who were around long, long before man was... why would it be so hard to find complete skeletons of this primate's progression? Once again, no one has said humans haven't evolved, every creature will evolve and turn into more refined species through the centuries and humans are no different... but there is no proof of the evolutionary chain of ape to man, it is all theory with tidbits of actual data here and there.
He's about 6' tall, long whitish hair with a long flowing beard. He is of Euro-descent and wears a long, white, full body robe with brown sandals. He talks with a deep, booming voice. I believe he also has brown eyes and sits on a throne on top of some clouds. Oh yea, he's a guy, not a girl.
Oh, yea. He also has a son who like to wear all black and play poker. I believe his name is Chris Ferguson.
Wow, your lack of knowledge has knocked me back 2' into my chair. Let me try to rephrase your question: Why is it so hard for bones to remain undisturbed for millions of years in the midst of animals trampling over it, bacteria digesting it, wind and water degrading it, and natural disasters occuring. Why is it so hard for fossils to be completely free from all defects and packaged in protective amber or ice for use by future generations to prove evolution exists? Why? I saw it in Jurassic Park and other hollywood movies so it must be easy. Man, You'd be hard pressed to find a house last over 100 years, a car over 30 years, and you expect bones, which are meant to degrade, to last over 100000 years?
Much of the Old Testement was "thrown out the window" when the Messiah came. All of the rituals and acts needed to enter the kingdom of Heaven weren't needed anymore. Those parts of the Old Testament were left in for history of the religion... does that make them wrong or change their meaning, it just changes their use. As far as the Bible contradicting itself, please go on about this... because I can find no proof of it. There are "more detailed" versions of the same stories but nothing that flat out contradicts other passages.
Uhh, have you been to the museum of Natural Science? You know those big lizard bones, they are MILLIONS of years old...
You must be a child moe, that or Trader_jorge’s brother. I don’t think any other adult could be as shamelessly dishonest and unprincipled in a discussion as you are. Welcome to my ignore list.
you are both correct and wrong at the same time IMO yes, you are correct that, to me, an alternative is only viable if it is based on empirical evidence, I'm just funny that way I guess - I am a skeptic - In Chrstian vernacular, you could say I am a 'good deeds' Christian and not a 'been saved' Christian - in so far as that the proof is in the pudding - does that make sense? you are wrong when you say there are no evidences linked to the creation of the universe - just the other day I saw an article where a telescope picked up what is believed the be light(energy) created near the beginning of the universe - just because something is unknown now, does not mean it is unknowable I would suggest that it has to do with the environment in which early hominids developed and how it has changed in the previous 4-8 million years. Obviously remains frozen in permafrost will perserve better than those left in arid conditions no proof of the evotionary chain of ape to man? dunno what to say to that if your unwilling to look at the evidence when presented to you Like I said to you in the other thread, at least your honest about your views and self-imposed limitations you place on knowledge, that is fine, I can respect you for your honesty even if I disagree and think that attitude hampers human progress
That is true. In fact, they are even older than millions of year old. But they are extremely rare. EXTREMELY rare. It takes special circumstances for bones to be preserved. You act like there should be a timeline of bones from Adam and Eve directly to you buried beneath the earth. I'm amazed we have as many fossils as we do now. Yet, you seem to think that it's normal for fossils to last millions of years. How many dinosaurs existed back then? 100000? 1000000? How long did the exist for? 1000000 years? 100000000 years? more? over the entire age of dinosaurs possibly hundreds of trillions of dinosaurs have existed. How many fossils do we have? 10? 100? 1000? whoop-de-doo.
too funny, the fact that you compared me to t_j had me rofl I'm still waiting for that testable, falisifable theory of creationism btw I don't expect one, especially not from such a 'principled' adult as you
Matthew 27 says Judas hanged himself. Acts 1:18 says he bought a field and fell headlong and spilled all his guts out. This is clearly different, but does it change the meaning of the Gospel? I don’t think so. Why would we have 4 of them anyway? I think there are a number of reasons, but this little difference I think carries a big lesson, and I don’t think it’s an accidental lesson. Much of the NT warns against legalism and I think this is a subtle but clear reminder as well. We are to look at the meaning behind the words and not get hung up on the words themselves. What is the meaning behind the different deaths? Next to none, I’d say, and hence an inconsistent detail to warn us not to turn our minds off when reading and simply take things at face value. Passages in the Bible need to be read within the greater context of the Bible as a whole.
