Evolution as conspiracy

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Hi, does anyone out there agree with me, that evolution is a conspiracy? My investigation into the conspiracy has led me to form this opinion. I am now reading 'Evolution Deceit' by Harun Yahya, a muslim, also revealing evolution to be at odds with God, the whole lot of it. It's a very good book, and provokes further investigation into, for instance the australopithecines, not being bi-peds, but actually being extinct african apes, which is what I was suspecting years ago. I was looking at a list of these primates, zinjanthropus, etc. and seeing that they all looked similar in skull shape, and no progression in evolution. Then Hurun Yahya (who is more convincing that some christian creation writers) illustrates that the skull fragments of others have been mis-reconstructed to make them appear more human-like. I've read stuff from the other side as well, and you come away thinking that human evolution is true, but without realising that you cannot trust what these people report. The agenda is unholy. It's a philosophy.
Who was adam? a book by Fazale Rana, goes along with the hominid theory of human evolution, it's a good book also, and investigates human origins in an open minded and honest manner.
I am now an 'old-earther'.. a day age, old earth creationist. I no longer beleive there has ever been any evolutionl. Except for the possibility of 'morphic resonance' written about by Rupert Sheldrake. This is that life has memory, which somehow alters the blueprint of the species, in some cosmic information field. And I also believe in limited evolution, where information is already there, or information is lost. There is no gain in information, no mutation of the genes.

 

[Mallon]

As a Christian who works on evolution, let me assure you that there is no conspiracy.

Out of curiosity, what the credentials of the people you are citing? A quick peruse reveals that Fazale Rana has a PhD in chemistry. Do you really think his word is worth any more than the people who actually study hominid palaeontology for a living?

 

[juvenissun]

As a Christian who works on evolution, let me assure you that there is no conspiracy.

Out of curiosity, what the credentials of the people you are citing? A quick peruse reveals that Fazale Rana has a PhD in chemistry. Do you really think his word is worth any more than the people who actually study hominid palaeontology for a living?

Probably more worthy.

Paleontology is a study with a dead end.

 

[Mallon]

Probably more worthy.

Paleontology is a study with a dead end.

What you are saying makes no sense. Regardless of how you feel about palaeontology as a science, a chemist and a trained palaeontologist are still doing palaeontology when they try to reconstruct an animal based on fragments of bone. What I'm saying is that I would sooner trust the reconstruction of someone with a fair bit of comparative anatomy under their belt (as palaeontologists do) than someone with no training in comparative anatomy.
That said, we have so many complete or near-complete hominid fossils now that reconstruction is no longer an issue. To say that palaeontologists have simply fabricated an upright ape using little more than their imaginations and a few pieces of bone is to ignore the hundreds of fossil hominid skeletons that have come to light over the last 30 years or so.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

As a Christian who works on evolution, let me assure you that there is no conspiracy.

Out of curiosity, what the credentials of the people you are citing? A quick peruse reveals that Fazale Rana has a PhD in chemistry. Do you really think his word is worth any more than the people who actually study hominid palaeontology for a living?

yeah but, no but, yeah but, Fazale Rana was agreeing with the hominid fossil findings, it was Harun Yahya that doesn't go along with it. I've heard this argument before, that because one is not a Paleontologist for a job, one is non qualified to investigate, and to be dismissed as such. (we don't have a brain) We must trust the word of people who do evolution for a job.
There is not any career status, promotion, career advancement involved, and they all have an open mind about everything.
I have thought that if it was just an extinct ape that they were digging up, there'd be a lot less fuss, and no one would be interested.
Anyway I don't agree with you, and the 'near-complete hominid fossils now that reconstruction is no longer an issue'.
'Lord Zuckermam and Prof. Charles Oxnard appear to differ with you, at least according to Harun Yahya.
KNM-WT 15000 Turkana Child, I'm looking at the skeleton now. I have seen a drawing of this skeleton before, and it looked to have a non-human rib cage, similar to an ape, but looking now at this photo, it appears to be human, how does this skeleton differ from a human. And please dont start calling me ignorant, which is the first thing you lot start doing, in that condescending manner.

 

[Mallon]

hiscosmicgoldfish, if you're that intent on insisting that evolutionary theory is one big haox perpetuated by such evil minds as Ken Miller or Francis Collins, then go right ahead. If you won't even take a fellow Christian's word for it that evolution is no hoax, then there's little that I could ever say that would change your mind. So I won't even try.
Just let it be known, however, that if you ever want to be taken seriously and don't want to be labelled as ignorant, you're going to have to start dealing with the evidence like this:

... rather than simply shouting "conspiracy theory!" every time someone espouses a position you disagree with.
(Also note that there is more than just fossil evidence for man's evolutionary relationship with other apes. The ontogenetic and DNA evidence is equally strong.)

 

[lemmings]

There are over 200,000 scientists who accept evolution in America alone. Most of these people will never be known by the public or make more than a 100K a year. There are only a few hundred professional Creationists in the world who make millions by selling books to the general public claiming a conspiracy exists.

Creationists often compare evolution to materialism. Shouldn’t the conspirators be given a lot more money to keep their mouths shut?

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

I've read stuff from the other side as well, and you come away thinking that human evolution is true, but without realising that you cannot trust what these people report. The agenda is unholy.

Isn't coming at this issue with this a priori assumption a little telling of your own bias?

Out of curiosity, what the credentials of the people you are citing? A quick peruse reveals that Fazale Rana has a PhD in chemistry. Do you really think his word is worth any more than the people who actually study hominid palaeontology for a living?

Credentials are over-rated. Why shouldn't I be able to interpret the fossil, DNA, etc. evidence the way I like. After all, I am qualified to refine Einstein's theory of relativity aren't I? Maybe the government will ask me to help them develop a better Atomic Bomb, after all, I am sure that you don't need training in physics to understand how to split the atom.

It is good to try to understand things for yourself and I am not saying that you should blindly follow what the scientific community almost unanimously supports, but when you are trying to work through it yourself, it is important to make sure that the people you are reading know what they are talking about and the best way of doing that is to check out their credentials.

'Lord Zuckermam and Prof. Charles Oxnard appear to differ with you, at least according to Harun Yahya.

Zuckerman, at least, was doing his major work in the mid 20th century, I believe Mallon's point was that we have discovered new skeletons since then.

Also note that there is more than just fossil evidence for man's evolutionary relationship with other apes. The ontogenetic and DNA evidence is equally strong.

Yes, it is important that we take all of the evidence into consideration.

There are over 200,000 scientists who accept evolution in America alone. Most of these people will never be known by the public or make more than a 100K a year. There are only a few hundred professional Creationists in the world who make millions by selling books to the general public claiming a conspiracy exists.

hear, hear (or is it here, here?)

 

[random_guy]

cosmicgoldfish you are right on the money. I also belive evilution is a scam, along with this crazy law of gravity I keep hearing about, everyone knows it's god's love that keeps us from floating into space. just like the devil is trying to trick us with those old bones mallon mentioned. who cares if every decent scientist belives it is so. When my friends bring up things like comparative morphology, vestigial organs, dna eviednce, geographic distribution of species, the fosil record and the like I just tell them to shut up before i tell jesus to hurt you

Isn't it depressing that until I got to the law of gravity part, I thought you were serious?

 

[shernren]

Isn't it depressing that until I got to the law of gravity part, I thought you were serious?

Indeed Poe's Law is getting some serious confirmation here. I was just about to ask BeforeTheFoundation to mathematically derive the critical fissioning mass of a 1% enriched sphere of uranium, before I figured out that s/he was being satirical ...

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Indeed Poe's Law is getting some serious confirmation here. I was just about to ask BeforeTheFoundation to mathematically derive the critical fissioning mass of a 1% enriched sphere of uranium, before I figured out that s/he was being satirical ...

HA HA

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

I'm having a problem replying, some technical fault. Some of you are displaying stupidity on this forum.
I'm going to track down 'bones of contention' by Marvin Lubenow, to continue investigations.
cosmic
</IMG>

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Oh I get it, I can't quote. Mallon.. looking at your pics. here. I see the lower group to be human. What I am focussing on now it to get to the truth about the biped or no matter. ref. species such as you illustrate. Not that a biped primate is proof that it evolved into a human. I agree that the recent findings in DNA of Neardithals shows that they were non-human, but I have to doubt the findings, because I have a conspiratorial mind. And so what anyway? Two or more species of human like hominids running about the planet at the same time or near same time, still doesn't suggest human evolution. I think the weakness of the evolution conspiracy is at the start point, and everyone knows it, matter into life, by itself, and the universe coming into being, by itself. If you can de-brainwash, and start new, look at things with an open mind. Evolution is not at it's core Christian. Christianity starts with creation, and follows on to human creation. If I was a total athiest (and I was) I still wouldn't accept evolution, because it is against common sence. I know there are Christians who think that evolution is Gods method of creation, that isn't shown to be true, ref. the fossil record. What the fossil record shows is a series of life, and extinction, life and extinction. Genesis 1 is true. That is how it happened.
this is interesting about Oxnard..
he considers the functional anatomy of the Sterkfontein pelvis (referred to as Australopithecus africanus), concludes that it belonged to a creature that was most likely bipedal but not in the modern human fashion, and puts forward four possible explanatory models:

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]mosaic evolution (australopithecines were evolving towards human bipedalism, at different rates in different anatomical features);[/FONT]​

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]parallel evolution (australopithecines shared a basic bipedalism with human ancestors, but subsequently diverged and evolved along their own lines);[/FONT]​

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]convergent evolution (both humans and australopithecines became bipedal, but independently from a non-bipedal ancestor);[/FONT]​

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]and a fourth model, in which they have been misinterpreted, and were not bipedal at all. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]

The last model he rejects; the other three he considers in turn, concluding that "Maybe the most probable possibility is a combination of mosaicism and parallelism" (p.31).​

[/FONT]

ps. the book 'bones of contention' gets some bad press, so perhaps I won't bother reading that one. I need an unbiased and real-honest investigation by experts who arn't involved in the conspiracy. At the moment I can't find anything written that is not from a young earth creationist, or some sort of 'bent' . It seems people are polarised, either australopithecines are referred to as 'people' (I'm not going to read anything where the assumption is 'people').. or creationism, where's the middle path?
any ideas? books worth a read? anyone? anyone?
​

 

[Mallon]

Mallon.. looking at your pics. here. I see the lower group to be human.

What makes you say that? What details are you referring to, specifically? I'll post the image again so you can refer to it more easily.

What features are you using to distinguish between, say, G and H? Let's be specific.

Not that a biped primate is proof that it evolved into a human.

Maybe not. But it is something evolution predicts. No other theory besides evolution predicts bipedalism in fossil primates.

And so what anyway? Two or more species of human like hominids running about the planet at the same time or near same time, still doesn't suggest human evolution.

Interesting that you would call these hominids "human-like". I agree that they are human-like. And again, this is a prediction made by evolutionary theory. No other scientific theory can account for human-like hominids.
So if you're willing to admit that there are human-like hominid fossils in the rock record, don't you think maybe scientists have a valid reason for accepting evolution, rather than a conspiratory one?

I think the weakness of the evolution conspiracy is at the start point, and everyone knows it, matter into life, by itself, and the universe coming into being, by itself.

Evolutionary theory makes no reference to how life or the universe began. You are referring to the theories of abiogenesis and cosmogenesis. These are unrelated to the theory of evolution. Evolution happens regardless of whether God created these things via natural means, or whether God poofed them into existence with magic.

If you can de-brainwash, and start new, look at things with an open mind.

Let's stop with the slander, please. No need to imply that I've been brainwashed just because I have a post-secondary education in evolutionary biology.

Evolution is not at it's core Christian. Christianity starts with creation, and follows on to human creation.

Let's be clear: Christianity hinges on one thing alone -- the salvation afforded us by Christ's death on the cross. Christianity starts with Christ. One can still be Christian and subscribe to evolution if they accept Christ as their saviour from sin. To imply otherwise is to doubt the saving grace of God.

If I was a total athiest (and I was) I still wouldn't accept evolution, because it is against common sence.

If you're going to appeal to common sense, you should learn how to spell it first.

I know there are Christians who think that evolution is Gods method of creation, that isn't shown to be true, ref. the fossil record. What the fossil record shows is a series of life, and extinction, life and extinction.

You just admitted yourself in this very post that the fossil record contains human-like hominids, occurring in the fossil record even before humans do. That sounds like it lines up pretty well with evolution to me.
Also, from a biblical perspective how do you account for the repeated cycles of life and extinction that you mention in the fossil record? I thought there was only one great extinction in the Bible.

Genesis 1 is true. That is how it happened.
this is interesting about Oxnard..

Before you continue citing this Oxnard fellow, I thought I should point out that he is one man who holds a minority view among hominid palaeontologists. He is widely cited out-of-context, even misrepresented, by creationists.
Here's the truth of the matter (from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html):

Charles Oxnard (1975), in a paper that is widely cited by creationists, claimed, based on his multivariate analyses, that australopithecines are no more closely related, or more similar, to humans than modern apes are. Howell et al.(1978) criticized this conclusion on a number of grounds. Oxnard's results were based on measurements of a few skeletal bones which were usually fragmentary and often poorly preserved. The measurements did not describe the complex shape of some bones, and did not distinguish between aspects which are important for understanding locomotion from those which were not. Finally, there is "an overwhelming body of evidence", based on the work of nearly 30 scientists, which contradicts Oxnard's work. These studies used a variety of techniques, including those used by Oxnard, and were based on many different body parts and joint complexes. They overwhelmingly indicate that australopithecines resemble humans more closely than the living apes.
Creationists often cite Oxnard's qualifications, and use of computers to perform his calculations, with approval. This is special pleading; many other scientists are equally qualified, and also use computers. Gish (1993) states that "[a] computer doesn't lie, [a] computer doesn't have a bias". True enough, but the results that come out of a computer are only as good as the data and assumptions that go in. In this case, the primary assumption would seem to be that Oxnard's methods are the best method of determining relationships. This seems doubtful, given some of the other unusual results of Oxnard's study (1987). For example, he places Ramapithecus as the ape closest to humans, and Sivapithecus as closely related to orang-utans, even though the two are so similar that they are now considered to be the same species of Sivapithecus. Less controversially, Oxnard also claims that, while probably bipedal, australopithecines did not walk identically to modern humans. Creationists sometimes quote this conclusion in a highly misleading manner, saying Oxnard proved that australopithecines did not walk upright, and then adding, as an afterthought (or in Willis' (1987) case, not at all) "at least, not in the human manner"...

... Oxnard (1975; 1987) has some unorthodox opinions about the australopithecines, but the Oxnard quote supplied by Willis discusses neither bipedality nor A. afarensis. Elsewhere in the same paper that Willis refers to, Oxnard (1975) repeatedly mentions that australopithecines may have been bipedal, and he has since stated (1987) that the australopithecines, including Lucy, were bipedal.

I should also point out that you took the following quote from http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/cgcriticismfossil1.htm (always cite your sources. Otherwise, it's plagiarism):

he considers the functional anatomy of the Sterkfontein pelvis (referred to as Australopithecus africanus)


, concludes that it belonged to a creature that was most likely bipedal but not in the modern human fashion, and puts forward four possible explanatory models:

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]mosaic evolution (australopithecines were evolving towards human bipedalism, at different rates in different anatomical features);[/FONT]​

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]parallel evolution (australopithecines shared a basic bipedalism with human ancestors, but subsequently diverged and evolved along their own lines);[/FONT]​

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]convergent evolution (both humans and australopithecines became bipedal, but independently from a non-bipedal ancestor);[/FONT]​

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]*and a fourth model, in which they have been misinterpreted, and were not bipedal at all. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]

The last model he rejects; the other three he considers in turn, concluding that "Maybe the most probable possibility is a combination of mosaicism and parallelism" (p.31).​

[/FONT]

It seems people are polarised, either australopithecines are referred to as 'people' (I'm not going to read anything where the assumption is 'people').. or creationism, where's the middle path?

​

For what it's worth, no one has ever referred to australopithecines as "people". Where in the world did you get this from?​

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

I know I can't spell, and I don't think it's possible to learn how to spell if you weren't taught how to at school.

Interesting that you would call these hominids "human-like". I agree that they are human-like. And again, this is a prediction made by evolutionary theory. No other scientific theory can account for human-like hominids.
So if you're willing to admit that there are human-like hominid fossils in the rock record, don't you think maybe scientists have a valid reason for accepting evolution, rather than a conspiratory one?

Yes, up to a point.
I am thinking of A to F as being similar, G and H, I admit looks like a good transition.

Evolutionary theory makes no reference to how life or the universe began. You are referring to the theories of abiogenesis and cosmogenesis. These are unrelated to the theory of evolution. Evolution happens regardless of whether God created these things via natural means, or whether God poofed them into existence with magic.

I can't agree on this statement. Evolution is taught as from the beginning of life, through the transitions. It was when I were a lad. As a Christian you should know better than to refer to creation like as magic. I won't name any names or i'll be accused of slander, but there is an anti-religious agender with the evolutionists, some anyway. The fact that they have to drag religion into it proves it so. 'As scientists, we no longer need to rely on superstitions'.
(that's not an exact quote, but the general idea)

Let's stop with the slander, please. No need to imply that I've been brainwashed just because I have a post-secondary education in evolutionary biology.
Ok I apologize for inferring that you were brainwashed.

You just admitted yourself in this very post that the fossil record contains human-like hominids, occurring in the fossil record even before humans do. That sounds like it lines up pretty well with evolution to me.
Also, from a biblical perspective how do you account for the repeated cycles of life and extinction that you mention in the fossil record? I thought there was only one great extinction in the Bible.

One great extinction after humans. I don't go with the young-earth creation. And I think it is unfortunate the way things have gone. There was no conspiracy involved in the 19th centuary geology.
But I don't go with transition from one species to another either. Just because there might have been various biped hominids, doesn't mean that they are human ancestors. What I'm trying to get at, is that they have shown up in the fossil record, but because of evolutionary grounding or pre-conception, people assume the evolutionary. How many species of ape are there? They are not biped, so biped hominid/primates, living throughout the eras?
You might not be interested, but there were reports of little hominids still alive on the island in Indonesia (Flores I think), some time before the time that the 'hobbit' was found.

I don't think christianity is only about Jesus and Salvation, we are spiritually Israelites. The Bible can be thought of as unreliable, as you think, or you can view it as the inspired word of God, and research the prophets also, as being reliable, and learning about truth can be gained from the whole Bible, including Genesis.
I read another post you replied to about Genesis and evolution. I don't think it is that the Israelites were not able to be given evolution in Genesis, because it wasn't discovered then. Genesis could have worded it so that the changing of one species into another could be understood by those people. Genesis doesn't say that, it says creation.
I won't quote Oxnard any more, Harun Yahya misrepresented him by saying that he was thinking that australopithecines were not biped.




Would you go as far as in agreeing that evolution does not work on mutation?

For what it's worth, no one has ever referred to australopithecines as "people". Where in the world did you get this from?​

There was ref. as such, I was searching for books on the subject, I can't remember off hand which one it was.
How can I be traced for plagiarism? No one knows who I am, I am but a humble goldfish. better do a spell check now...







</IMG>

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Some of you are displaying stupidity on this forum.

This might be a bit harsh.

I think the weakness of the evolution conspiracy is at the start point, and everyone knows it, matter into life, by itself, and the universe coming into being, by itself.

As I said in my initial post. Evolution does not deal with the point in which matter becomes life abiogenesis does. Furthermore, evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the universe. Nothing. I hate to use the gravity example again but that really would be like saying that gravity cannot be true because it doesn't make sense that the universe could come into being by itself.

If you can de-brainwash, and start new, look at things with an open mind. Evolution is not at it's core Christian.

I actually did this and not only did I realize that evolution makes sense scientifically, it is also completely compatible with the Creator God of Christianity.

that isn't shown to be true, ref. the fossil record. What the fossil record shows is a series of life, and extinction, life and extinction.

You're right, so doesn't it follow that...

evolution is Gods method of creation

One can still be Christian and subscribe to evolution if they accept Christ as their saviour from sin. To imply otherwise is to doubt the saving grace of God.

Indeed.

I can't agree on this statement. Evolution is taught as from the beginning of life, through the transitions. It was when I were a lad.

I hate to sound rude but it really doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, evolution does not speak to those topics so to criticize it on those grounds is ridiculous.

'As scientists, we no longer need to rely on superstitions'.
(that's not an exact quote, but the general idea)

Actually, that is no where near the general idea of what he said.

. The Bible can be thought of as unreliable, as you think, or you can view it as the inspired word of God, and research the prophets also, as being reliable, and learning about truth can be gained from the whole Bible, including Genesis.

Correct me if I am wrong, Mallon, but you weren't saying the Bible is unreliable were you? I assume you just mean that it should be interpreted differently than hiscosmicgoldfish.

And why did you bring the prophets into this. As a student in Old Testament prophets I am really interested in why you think this is relevant.

How can I be traced for plagiarism? No one knows who I am, I am a goldfish.

Wow, that still doesn't make it right.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

This might be a bit harsh.


Quote: I think the weakness of the evolution conspiracy is at the start point, and everyone knows it, matter into life, by itself, and the universe coming into being, by itself. As I said in my initial post. Evolution does not deal with the point in which matter becomes life abiogenesis does. Furthermore, evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the universe. Nothing. I hate to use the gravity example again but that really would be like saying that gravity cannot be true because it doesn't make sense that the universe could come into being by itself.

I don't understand what gravity's got to do with anything.


Quote: If you can de-brainwash, and start new, look at things with an open mind. Evolution is not at it's core Christian. I actually did this and not only did I realize that evolution makes sense scientifically, it is also completely compatible with the Creator God of Christianity.


Quote: that isn't shown to be true, ref. the fossil record. What the fossil record shows is a series of life, and extinction, life and extinction. You're right, so doesn't it follow that...


Quote: evolution is Gods method of creation Quote: Originally Posted by Mallon One can still be Christian and subscribe to evolution if they accept Christ as their saviour from sin. To imply otherwise is to doubt the saving grace of God. Indeed.


Quote: Originally Posted by hiscosmicgoldfish I can't agree on this statement. Evolution is taught as from the beginning of life, through the transitions. It was when I were a lad. I hate to sound rude but it really doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, evolution does not speak to those topics so to criticize it on those grounds is ridiculous.

No it doesn't matter if I agree with it or not. And so I am now mistaken to think that evolution has anything to do with the origin of the universe and the beginning of life.


Quote: 'As scientists, we no longer need to rely on superstitions'.
(that's not an exact quote, but the general idea) Actually, that is no where near the general idea of what he said.

So what did he say then.. not that I'm interested in his opinion, he's demonstrated to me his anti-religious agenda.

Quote: . The Bible can be thought of as unreliable, as you think, or you can view it as the inspired word of God, and research the prophets also, as being reliable, and learning about truth can be gained from the whole Bible, including Genesis. Correct me if I am wrong, Mallon, but you weren't saying the Bible is unreliable were you? I assume you just mean that it should be interpreted differently than hiscosmicgoldfish.

And why did you bring the prophets into this. As a student in Old Testament prophets I am really interested in why you think this is relevant.

I brought the prophets into it, to show that the Bible is reliable, so as to give an idea to people that more of it might be reliable, such as Genesis. How do you know what my interpretation is?


Quote: How can I be traced for plagiarism? No one knows who I am, I am a goldfish. Wow, that still doesn't make it right.

I didn't say it was right. I don't like the sound of you as a person. I will not be talking to you in future. Talk to Mallon, as you seem to be in whole-hearted agreement with him.

 

[Vance]

As a general rule, it is a very dangerous idea to get all of your information about evolution from creationist sources. That is like getting all of your information about Christianity from atheist sources. What you do get will almost assuredly be wrong, and you will be no wiser on the subject.

Here is a general truism:

those who are creationists have tended to get their information primarily (or even exclusively) from creationist sources.

those who are theistic evolutionists have tended to get their information from both creationist and non-creationist sources.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

quote..As a general rule, it is a very dangerous idea to get all of your information about evolution from creationist sources. That is like getting all of your information about Christianity from atheist sources. What you do get will almost assuredly be wrong, and you will be no wiser on the subject.

Here is a general truism:

those who are creationists have tended to get their information primarily (or even exclusively) from creationist sources.

those who are theistic evolutionists have tended to get their information from both creationist and non-creationist sources.

I don't. I read both from creationist and 'evolutionist' sources. I have put down stuff written by Ken Ham and his ilk. (I think there is perhaps a lack of humility, or fearfulness, in admitting that they might be wrong, and then to doubt the truth of the Bible, whereas it might be that they need to reexamine their interpretation of the Bible).There is some merit in the theology of young-earth creationism, but it is not correct (in my opinion). The young-earth theory can be disproved by a host of experts. And the evidence for it, such as dinosaurs and modern mammals appearing in different fossil layers, disproves young-earthism also. Although at the same time there is evidence to suggest that dinosaurs did survive into the middle ages. Some of the post'ers before-hand have mentioned that universe and life origins is not part of evolutionary theory. I was thinking that it's probably not evolutionary theory now, because they've given up on it, they know they have lost the argument, so have moved on to other areas where evolutionary theory is stronger, such as human evolution.
I've had a look at Turkana Boy. From both sides. ..slightly longer arms, narrow pelvis, no chin, extra vertebrae. If all this is true, then it is another non-human species. And would suggest to me that modern humans did evolve from this creature.
The scull shape might be explained by racial difference, the non-chin and extra vertebrae though?. The creationists don't mention the chin or vertabrae.

 

[Mallon]

I know I can't spell, and I don't think it's possible to learn how to spell if you weren't taught how to at school.

Interesting.

Yes, up to a point.

Up to what point do you think evolutionists are validated in subscribing to evolution, and at what point do you think they have to resort to a globalized conspiracy in order to keep things under their collective hat?

I am thinking of A to F as being similar, G and H, I admit looks like a good transition.

Specifically, what makes you group the skulls this way? What features are you referring to? Again, let's talk details. What features does your group "A-F" share in common, exclusive to the other groups?

I can't agree on this statement. Evolution is taught as from the beginning of life, through the transitions. It was when I were a lad.

So you were taught evolution as a child, but not how to spell. Interesting. Where did you go to school?
I will point out that, if this is indeed what you were taught, it was wrong. Read Darwin's Origin of Species. He doesn't talk at all about the creation of life from non-life. In fact, he assumes the first life forms were placed on earth by God.

As a Christian you should know better than to refer to creation like as magic.

What would you call it? And how does it differ from magic?

I won't name any names or i'll be accused of slander, but there is an anti-religious agender with the evolutionists, some anyway. The fact that they have to drag religion into it proves it so. 'As scientists, we no longer need to rely on superstitions'.
(that's not an exact quote, but the general idea)

How is not relying on metaphysical explanations "religion"?

But I don't go with transition from one species to another either.

Do you think speciation does not occur?

Just because there might have been various biped hominids, doesn't mean that they are human ancestors. What I'm trying to get at, is that they have shown up in the fossil record, but because of evolutionary grounding or pre-conception, people assume the evolutionary.

Well, this is an arrangement that evolution predicts, so when that prediction is confirmed, what else are we to think? Can you name another model that predicts the sort of arrangement seen in the fossil record?

You might not be interested, but there were reports of little hominids still alive on the island in Indonesia (Flores I think), some time before the time that the 'hobbit' was found.

Source?

The Bible can be thought of as unreliable, as you think, or you can view it as the inspired word of God, and research the prophets also, as being reliable, and learning about truth can be gained from the whole Bible, including Genesis.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said the Bible was unreliable. Like you, I belive that it is inspired. Unlike you, I don't think we need to read Genesis literally in order to see it as such.

Genesis could have worded it so that the changing of one species into another could be understood by those people. Genesis doesn't say that, it says creation.

The Bible doesn't describe heliocentrism either. It uses geocentric language. Or, as Luther put it (referring to Copernicus):

"There was mention of a certain astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving. [Luther remarked] "So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth [Jos. 10:12]."

Sounds kinda like you, doesn't he?

Would you go as far as in agreeing that evolution does not work on mutation?

Mutation is the raw material of evolution. Without mutation, there would be no evolution.

There was ref. as such, I was searching for books on the subject, I can't remember off hand which one it was.

Convenient.

How can I be traced for plagiarism? No one knows who I am, I am but a humble goldfish.