Evolution Facts

[FenderElctrc]

I posted this in the Creationist Sub-Forum first. Now, I want to see what happens. Here are facts about Evolution:

Evolution Facts:

Fossil Gap - No transition animal Bones

"Lucy" - Most scientists agree it's a 3 foot ape

"Nebraska Man" - Bones are actually from tooth of an extinct pig

"Piltdown Man" - Jawbone belongs to modern ape

"Neanderthal Man" - Skeleton belongs to an old man with arthritis

 

[Mallon]

- Even AiG admits there are 'potentially' transitional fossils.
- Most scientists clearly understand "Lucy" (and her entire species) to be transitional in its morphology, and not simply a "3-foot ape." (What does that mean, anyway? Midgets and children are 3-foot apes, too.)
- Piltdown man and Nebraska man are frauds and have no bearing on the veracity of evolution.
- There is more than one "Neanderthal Man" skeleton. Are you willing to contend that they all had arthritis?
- Once again, an evolutionist is first to correct the mistakes of anti-evolutionists (though kudos to keyarch in the Anti-evolution subforum for raising some good points in response to this list, too).

 

[random_guy]

I posted this in the Creationist Sub-Forum first. Now, I want to see what happens. Here are facts about Evolution:

Evolution Facts:

Fossil Gap - No transition animal Bones

"Lucy" - Most scientists agree it's a 3 foot ape

"Nebraska Man" - Bones are actually from tooth of an extinct pig

"Piltdown Man" - Jawbone belongs to modern ape

"Neanderthal Man" - Skeleton belongs to an old man with arthritis

Here are some facts about Christianity:

"Noah's Ark" - Found multiple times
"Shroud of Turin" - Evidence poitns to fraud
"Hundreds of Pieces of the Cross" - Didn't know the cross was made of hundreds of different trees
etc...

Frauds (such as Piltdown Man) which are no longer used as evidence for evolution have no bearing on the validity of evolution just as frauds used as support of Chrisitianity, but later dropped, have effect on the validity of Christianity. Even more important, Piltdown Man isn't even crucial to evolutionary theory. Why don't you debate actual facts of evolution.

 

[FenderElctrc]

Here are some facts about Christianity:

"Noah's Ark" - Found multiple times
"Shroud of Turin" - Evidence poitns to fraud
"Hundreds of Pieces of the Cross" - Didn't know the cross was made of hundreds of different trees
etc...

Frauds (such as Piltdown Man) which are no longer used as evidence for evolution have no bearing on the validity of evolution just as frauds used as support of Chrisitianity, but later dropped, have effect on the validity of Christianity. Even more important, Piltdown Man isn't even crucial to evolutionary theory. Why don't you debate actual facts of evolution.

So you're saying that the stories of the Bible are false?

 

[Mallon]

One pet peeve I have is this perpetual YEC misconception that "Lucy" is the only specimen of Australopithecus afarensis that we have. We have numerous specimens belonging to this species -- some more complete than "Lucy," some less complete. And their morphology is much closer to that of a human than any other ape living today. The australopithecines are clearly a transitional grade, though YECs like to focus on the primitive characters rather than the derived ones.

 

[Dannager]

So you're saying that the stories of the Bible are false?

I think what he might have been trying to say is that a handful of mistakes or frauds doesn't make something untrue. You see, if the reason you reject evolution is because of the cases you listed, then in order to remain intellectually honest you must reject the Bible because of the cases listed by random_guy. Fortunately, you don't reject evolution because of the cases you've listed. In fact, the cases you've listed do not (and should not!) have any bearing on one's acceptance or rejection of the theory of evolution. You reject evolution for wholly different reasons (perhaps the most prominent of which is that it makes you feel uncomfortable to have to revise your belief system in such a way).

 

[FenderElctrc]

I think what he might have been trying to say is that a handful of mistakes or frauds doesn't make something untrue. You see, if the reason you reject evolution is because of the cases you listed, then in order to remain intellectually honest you must reject the Bible because of the cases listed by random_guy. Fortunately, you don't reject evolution because of the cases you've listed. In fact, the cases you've listed do not (and should not!) have any bearing on one's acceptance or rejection of the theory of evolution. You reject evolution for wholly different reasons (perhaps the most prominent of which is that it makes you feel uncomfortable to have to revise your belief system in such a way).

I don't believe it because it says differently in Genesis.

 

[Mallon]

I don't believe it because it says differently in Genesis.

So then why are you trying to defend YECism (or attack evolutionary theory) from a scientific perspective? Science has no bearing on your interpretation of the Bible. You just said so yourself!

 

[Dannager]

I don't believe it because it says differently in Genesis.

And you believe this is a conflict because of your belief system (literalistic interpretations). The root of the issue is the way in which you interpret scripture.

But it's good that you've acknowledged that you don't reject evolution because of some imagined evidence against it. As long as we're clear on the fact that your problem with evolution is based in scripture, not in evidence, we can have a very productive discussion.

 

[FenderElctrc]

Are you following me? It seems we keep meeting up on these forums.

 

[Dannager]

Are you following me? It seems we keep meeting up on these forums.

No. If you'll recall, the thread that's now in Eschatology that you posted (and that I'm participating in) was originally posted here, in the Origins Theology forum. This is where I hang.

 

[FenderElctrc]

No. If you'll recall, the thread that's now in Eschatology that you posted (and that I'm participating in) was originally posted here, in the Origins Theology forum. This is where I hang.

Oh. alright.

 

[shernren]

Then, of course, there's this:

Turkana Boy is so far off the chart there's no question that he's not human, and he's no monkey either. No creationist I've seen here has been able to adequately describe him as anything other than a transitional hominid.