Historical Creationism: Literal Genesis, Old Earth

[Humble_Disciple]

And on that note, creationists can't decide on which are which.

Which is exactly what you'd expect from fossils which show evolutionary transitions.

No, that doesn't quite logically follow. How are you able to prove that homo erectus was an evolutionary transition, rather than an ancient race of our own species?

It's perfectly reasonable to believe that if a homo erectus were alive today, put on a suit and walked down Fifth Avenue, he could blend in with the other people in the street.

The apelike features in depictions of homo erectus are from the imagination of the artist:

The artist has to assume, without any evidence, that homo erectus was covered in hair and had a stooped posture.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Humans are apes.

That's assuming that there's nothing about humans that makes us qualitatively distinct from apes.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Instead of thinking aboutva "lengthy debate", ( at the end of
which everything is the same) why not consider, for just a
moment, that the are people here much better informed than
you, and, instead of trying to argue with mistaken ideas, you
take advantage of an opportunity to learn new and interesting things?

I took anthropology in college and wrote papers on the evidence for human evolution, so I likely know more than the average person on this subject.

What I would hope for is unequivocal evidence for human evolution, that can only be explained by humans sharing a common ancestor with modern apes.

 

[Gene2memE]

What I would hope for is unequivocal evidence for human evolution, that can only be explained by humans sharing a common ancestor with modern apes.

When one side posits an all powerful deity capable of literally anything, then there can be no such thing.

When looking at the actual evidence, the fossil record with its evidence of mophological changes and biogeography, along with the DNA record with its evidence of share genetic heritage with other hominids and various homo genus ancestors, is about as comprehensive as it gets in biology.

 

[pitabread]

I took anthropology in college and wrote papers on the evidence for human evolution, so I likely know more than the average person on this subject.

What is your opinion on Australopithecus sediba?

Human or non-human?

 

[Astrid]

I took anthropology in college and wrote papers on the evidence for human evolution, so I likely know more than the average person on this subject.

What I would hope for is unequivocal evidence for human evolution, that can only be explained by humans sharing a common ancestor with modern apes.

Didn't you study include demonstration that "Lucy" etc were bipods?
That would be under paleoanthropology.

Unequivocal- is that a standard or even a concept from
any science class?
I've seen that demand used as a way to fend
of any and all data.
Do you have some set standard that you personally
demand, in order to satisfy you?

Also- if humans are not an ape, then what evidence
equivocal or otherwise is there to indicate separate origin?

 

[pitabread]

No, that doesn't quite logically follow.

If human and non-human ape fossils had enough physical distinction as to be classified as either human or non-human, then why is it that creationists can't agree on which are which?

The answer is that the physical characteristics of said fossils are not that distinct. Rather than stark physical distinctions, the characteristics show a gradation from more primitive "ape-like" features to modern humans.

For further reading on the subject:

Comparison of all skulls
Creationist vs. creationist on Homo habilis
Australopithecus sediba and the creationist response

 

[AV1611VET]

Also- if humans are not an ape, then what evidence
equivocal or otherwise is there to indicate separate origin?

Finding an ape footprint over a human footprint?

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Something that needs to be said is that insisting on a young earth is unhelpful and counterproductive.

Because it's so obvious, when looking at the creation itself, that the universe and everything within it wasn't created less than 10,000 years ago, young earth creationists have made a laughing stock of anyone who doubts the evidence for evolution.

If someone were to doubt that the genetic differences and differences in intelligence between chimps and humans were the result of purely natural mechanisms, that doubt can be dismissed out-of-hand because of the damage that young earth creationism has caused to the reputation of anyone who doubts Darwin's theory.

 

[pitabread]

Because it's so obvious, when looking at the creation itself, that the universe and everything within it wasn't created less than 10,000 years ago

And the same can be said for concluding that life shares common ancestry.

If someone were to doubt that the genetic differences and differences in intelligence between chimps and humans were the result of purely natural mechanisms, that doubt can be dismissed out-of-hand because of the damage that young earth creationism has caused to the reputation of anyone who doubts Darwin's theory.

It's dismissed out of hand because of the overwhelming evidence that supports the common ancestry of humans and other species. And the only people doubting this are by-and-large doing so because of pre-existing religious convictions that require humans to be distinct creations.

 

[Astrid]

Didn't you study include demonstration that "Lucy" etc were bipods?

Unequivocal, with you setting the goal posts?
What would it take besides the sequence of fossil
forms we already have?

Also- if humans are not an ape, then what evidence
equivocal or otherwise is there to indicate separate origin?

Something that needs to be said is that insisting on a young earth is unhelpful and counterproductive.

Because it's so obvious, when looking at the creation itself, that the universe and everything within it wasn't created less than 10,000 years ago, young earth creationists have made a laughing stock of anyone who doubts the evidence for evolution.

If someone were to doubt that the genetic differences and differences in intelligence between chimps and humans were the result of purely natural mechanisms, that doubt can be dismissed out-of-hand because of the damage that young earth creationism has caused to the reputation of anyone who doubts Darwin's theory.

You don't realize that the anti evolution argument are
pretty much the same and are equally laughing stock?

The ignorance and intellectual bankruptcy
is identical. Talking ignorant nonsense is what
ruins a reputation if there even was one to begin with.

The reason the arguments from either are
dismissed is simple: zero data. No content.
A fat nothingburger.

You need data to win a place at the table.
"Doubts" or other feelings get you nowhere,
and they shouldn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because it's so obvious, when looking at the creation itself, that the universe and everything within it wasn't created less than 10,000 years ago, young earth creationists have made a laughing stock of anyone who doubts the evidence for evolution.

Luke 8:53 And they laughed him to scorn, knowing that she was dead.

 

[Gene2memE]

Something that needs to be said is that insisting on a young earth is unhelpful and counterproductive.

Because it's so obvious, when looking at the creation itself, that the universe and everything within it wasn't created less than 10,000 years ago, young earth creationists have made a laughing stock of anyone who doubts the evidence for evolution.

Explain the Venus of Hohle Fels with an earth that's only 10,000 years old.

 

[AV1611VET]

The reason the arguments from either are
dismissed is simple: zero data. No content. A fat nothingburger.

People believed in evolution LONG before any modern evidence showed up.

In short, they believed it sans evidence.

So evidence doesn't really mean anything.

Wipe out all evidence, all records, everything, and they would still believe it.

I've even seen people on this site say that, if you wiped the earth clean of any knowledge of evolution and creation ... and started all over ... belief in evolution would make a comeback.

 

[Bradskii]

I took anthropology in college and wrote papers on the evidence for human evolution, so I likely know more than the average person on this subject.

Then you'll know that the theory of evolution is the best explantion that we have, based on the available evidence, for how we are where we are today. If you have a better one, then I'll be fascinated to know about it. Otherwise, what would you suggest?

 

[VirOptimus]

That's assuming that there's nothing about humans that makes us qualitatively distinct from apes.

Humans are apes by definition. Its a fact.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Humans are apes by definition. Its a fact.

It seems that you are trying to have an argument over semantics.

Biologists have traditionally used the term "ape" to mean a member of the superfamily Hominoidea other than humans,[1] but more recently to mean all members of Hominoidea. So "ape"—not to be confused with "great ape"—now becomes another word for hominoid including humans.[3][d]...

The primates called "apes" today became known to Europeans after the 18th century. As zoological knowledge developed, it became clear that taillessness occurred in a number of different and otherwise distantly related species. Sir Wilfrid Le Gros Clark was one of those primatologists who developed the idea that there were trends in primate evolution and that the extant members of the order could be arranged in an ".. ascending series", leading from "monkeys" to "apes" to humans. Within this tradition "ape" came to refer to all members of the superfamily Hominoidea except humans.[1] As such, this use of "apes" represented a paraphyletic grouping, meaning that, even though all species of apes were descended from a common ancestor, this grouping did not include all the descendant species, because humans were excluded from being among the apes.[e]
Ape - Wikipedia

Scientists today might classify humans as apes, but this is likely intended to downplay the vast difference in intelligence between humans and other primates.

 

[dlamberth]

I've even seen people on this site say that, if you wiped the earth clean of any knowledge of evolution and creation ... and started all over ... belief in evolution would make a comeback.

Well, it's tough for the Earth to hide truth.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Then you'll know that the theory of evolution is the best explantion that we have, based on the available evidence, for how we are where we are today. If you have a better one, then I'll be fascinated to know about it. Otherwise, what would you suggest?

I don't think that an alternative scientific explanation needs to be provided. A person can evaluate the evidence presented for evolution for oneself, and then decide if common design is a more reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

I have no intention to present Biblical creation as science. You can only accept the authority of the Bible if God opens your heart to believe it, and if poking holes in the evidence for evolution helps to open up your heart, so be it.

Only if the evidence for evolution was unequivocal would I insist that other people believe it. No one has actually observed that natural selection acting on random mutation has the capability of such large-scale transitions as fish to amphibian or ape to man. Oscillations in the size of finch beaks or the shadings of peppered moths aren't evidence of large-scale, upward evolution.

We can talk about things you probably already know about anyway, like the lack of transitional fossils compared to what Darwin predicted would be discovered, but I'm not trying to win a scientific debate with non-theists.

The evidence presented for naturalistic mechanisms being responsible for the complexity and diversity of life is not unequivocal, and is capable of alternative interpretations and explanations.

 

[Gene2memE]

I don't think that an alternative scientific explanation needs to be provided. A person can evaluate the evidence presented for evolution for oneself, and then decide if common design is a more reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

I have no intention to present Biblical creation as science.

That's good. 'cause it ain't.

You can only accept the authority of the Bible if God opens your heart to believe it, and if poking holes in the evidence for evolution helps to open up your heart, so be it.

The Catholic priests and laypeople that taught me evolutionary biology though Biblical Creationism was, quite literally, laughable.

Only if the evidence for evolution was unequivocal would I insist that other people believe it. No one has actually observed that natural selection acting on random mutation has the capability of such large-scale transitions as fish to amphibian or ape to man. Oscillations in the size of finch beaks or the shadings of peppered moths aren't evidence of large-scale, upward evolution.

Evolution doesn't have a direction.
What would you consider "unequivocal" evidence for evolution?

We can talk about things you probably already know about anyway, like the lack of transitional fossils compared to what Darwin predicted would be discovered, but I'm not trying to win a scientific debate with non-theists.

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia