Fossil Hominids

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

.

 

[Mallon]

I'm a Biblical inerrantist, so I'm really not willing to accept that Paul was just "discussing the knowledge of his time period" as an answer to that question.

Why not? You already do in other aspects of the Bible. I don't see how accommodationism contradicts biblical inerrancy. If the Bible wasn't written to address scientific concerns, but religious ones, how can it err on subjects it was never meant to address?

Congrats on challenging your faith, btw. It's a tough thing to question what you've been brought up to believe. May God be with you all along your journey.

 

[Research1]

I've never really thought too much about human evolution before, because I've always just sort of accepted that evolution was a sure concession to a totally non-Christian worldview. Now, though, I'm starting to struggle with this position, mostly because of the existence of fossil hominids in Africa, Asia, and Europe. There's no one I can even really talk to about it, because I'm in college right now, and very few people share my conservative religious beliefs

I'm going to hold to my faith in Christ even if I don't get an answer to this until I meet Him face to face, because I have other reasons for believing in God, and I will continue to believe in Him no matter what happens and no matter what the answer to this question ends up being. I would encourage anyone else to do the same. It's just been bothering me lately, though, and I was wondering how some of you felt about the topic. For Theistic Evolutionists, how do you explain passages like 1 Corinthians 11:8 ("For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man")? I'm a Biblical inerrantist, so I'm really not willing to accept that Paul was just "discussing the knowledge of his time period" as an answer to that question. For Creationists (particular Old Earth Creationists, but Young Earth Creationists are welcome to answer if you want to), how do you explain fossil hominids?

Hominids are pre-adamite creations, note that we also find them in scripture. They can be included under ''beast of the field'' in Genesis 2: 19, but specifically note that Genesis 9: 5 and Exodus 19: 13 describes some of these beasts as having hands - they are hominids. What other animals have hands? They are also found in Jonah 3: 8 described as ''covered in sackcloth'' (i.e primitive garment) and Isaiah 43: 20 notes that these beasts of the field (who have hands) ''honor'' God. They are just earlier creations God made, but were not Adamic and were primitive. Most of them died out long ago, however some Hominids survived into Neolithic times and beyond (an area of cryptzoology still believes some of these Hominid type beings could still exist today in remote regions). Hugh Ross dates the emergance of Adam (man) from around 58, 000 years ago. However i prefer a date of around 15, 000 years.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

.

 

[Mallon]

I disagree with you, because although I don't feel that the Bible was written primarily to address science, I feel that there would be no reason for God to allow Paul to have stated something that was incorrect, since all Scripture is God breathed, and God would have understood that having incorrect information would have made people in the future doubt the reliability of the rest of the Holy Scripture.

Although I'm not inclined to hold to YEC, I find it interesting that there are apparently Young Earth Creationists who feel that other fossil Hominids might have been human in the Biblical sense. This is the direction I lean in, that a person, Biblically, would have included more than just what we think of as human beings.

Basically, I'm just trying to understand all of this in a way that does no violence to the Biblical Text, while still accepting the obvious scientific record. I think this is probably the closest I've seen to that.

Interesting take, GlobalWolf. To be honest, I don't see how it's possible to accept even basic modern science without applying some form of accommodationist hermeneutic to the Bible, but let us know what you conclusions you reach.

 

[mark kennedy]

I've never really thought too much about human evolution before, because I've always just sort of accepted that evolution was a sure concession to a totally non-Christian worldview. Now, though, I'm starting to struggle with this position, mostly because of the existence of fossil hominids in Africa, Asia, and Europe. There's no one I can even really talk to about it, because I'm in college right now, and very few people share my conservative religious beliefs

I'm going to hold to my faith in Christ even if I don't get an answer to this until I meet Him face to face, because I have other reasons for believing in God, and I will continue to believe in Him no matter what happens and no matter what the answer to this question ends up being. I would encourage anyone else to do the same. It's just been bothering me lately, though, and I was wondering how some of you felt about the topic. For Theistic Evolutionists, how do you explain passages like 1 Corinthians 11:8 ("For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man")? I'm a Biblical inerrantist, so I'm really not willing to accept that Paul was just "discussing the knowledge of his time period" as an answer to that question. For Creationists (particular Old Earth Creationists, but Young Earth Creationists are welcome to answer if you want to), how do you explain fossil hominids?

Fossil hominids, that just happens to be a subject I've taken a great interest in. My biggest thing is simply this, 'where are the chimpanzee ancestors'? What I think they have done is to take the chimpanzee ancestors that were larger then modern chimpanzees and better developed and called them hominids, I think its really as simple as that. The reason that it's important is that the human brain is nearly three times the size of the chimpanzees and if we had a common ancestor it was little more then a bipedal chimpanzee.

I have put some of my thoughts on the subject into a blog. Check it out sometime, I think I have some pretty compelling arguments on there.

lifescience4creationists.net

I've also had a number of debates on the subject of origins I think are pretty interesting. I've studied a broad array of issues on the subject of origins, if there are any fossils in particular you would like to discuss with a young earth creationist you have only to ask.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

.

 

[Assyrian]

I've never really thought too much about human evolution before, because I've always just sort of accepted that evolution was a sure concession to a totally non-Christian worldview. Now, though, I'm starting to struggle with this position, mostly because of the existence of fossil hominids in Africa, Asia, and Europe. There's no one I can even really talk to about it, because I'm in college right now, and very few people share my conservative religious beliefs

I'm going to hold to my faith in Christ even if I don't get an answer to this until I meet Him face to face, because I have other reasons for believing in God, and I will continue to believe in Him no matter what happens and no matter what the answer to this question ends up being. I would encourage anyone else to do the same. It's just been bothering me lately, though, and I was wondering how some of you felt about the topic. For Theistic Evolutionists, how do you explain passages like 1 Corinthians 11:8 ("For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man")? I'm a Biblical inerrantist, so I'm really not willing to accept that Paul was just "discussing the knowledge of his time period" as an answer to that question. For Creationists (particular Old Earth Creationists, but Young Earth Creationists are welcome to answer if you want to), how do you explain fossil hominids?

I think you have to look at how Paul was using this reference to Adam and Eve. He is not teaching about prehistory here, but about marriage and the relationship between husband and wife. This is the same way Jesus used the creation account, to teach about marriage and divorce. Both Jesus and Paul treat the account as inspired and authoritative, but an inspired and authoritative lesson of what marriage should be. Whether Paul or Jesus saw the creation account as literal history we do not know, because that is not how they used the passage. They may have of course, but if they did, they did not teach us to interpret the passage that way. And of course we have Mallon's point too, if you are looking to the bible to understand science, are we missing the point God as making?

 

[Mallon]

FWIW, the common understanding of why chimp fossils are so rare (though not inexistent) is that chimps live in hot, wet jungles where decomposition occurs rapidly -- this is not conducive to fossilization.

Also, if australopithecines are more closely related to chimps than to humans, we should expect them to share more anatomical features in common with chimps than with humans. However, this is not the case. Australopithecines are more like humans than chimps.

 

[gluadys]

I've never really thought too much about human evolution before, because I've always just sort of accepted that evolution was a sure concession to a totally non-Christian worldview. Now, though, I'm starting to struggle with this position, mostly because of the existence of fossil hominids in Africa, Asia, and Europe. There's no one I can even really talk to about it, because I'm in college right now, and very few people share my conservative religious beliefs

I'm going to hold to my faith in Christ even if I don't get an answer to this until I meet Him face to face, because I have other reasons for believing in God, and I will continue to believe in Him no matter what happens and no matter what the answer to this question ends up being. I would encourage anyone else to do the same. It's just been bothering me lately, though, and I was wondering how some of you felt about the topic. For Theistic Evolutionists, how do you explain passages like 1 Corinthians 11:8 ("For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man")? I'm a Biblical inerrantist, so I'm really not willing to accept that Paul was just "discussing the knowledge of his time period" as an answer to that question. For Creationists (particular Old Earth Creationists, but Young Earth Creationists are welcome to answer if you want to), how do you explain fossil hominids?

I think the most important point is that one does not need to view evolutionary theory as anti-Christian or anti-biblical. One doesn't even need to give up a quite conservative Christian theology. One of the chief promoters of biblical inerrancy in the early 20th century--and a contributor to the series The Fundamentals, from which fundamentalists take their name--was B.B. Warfield, who was open to evolution. Another conservative Christian in the late 19th century was Aubrey Moore, a disciple of John Newman (who later became a cardinal in the Catholic church). Moore was also an enthusiastic supporter of evolutionary theory and saw it as restoring a sense of the intimate relation of God and creation--an understanding that was being smothered by Deism (the notion that nature runs on its own steam since God created it.) The Eastern Orthodox theologians--with only a few exceptions--have also supported evolution as compatible with Christian faith, and their theology tends to be pretty conservative too.

For more exploration on historic Protestant conservatism and evolution you might like to read Darwin's Forgotten Defenders by David Livingstone. For a more contemporary look at Protestant conservative views sympathetic to evolution there is a collection of essays called Perspectives on an Evolving Creation edited by Keith Miller. I have also found the little book Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design and Evolution by Deborah and Loren Haarsma quite even-handed and helpful.

As for your specific question, I agree with Assyrian's response. We should not interpret scientifically statements which are not intended to teach science. Whether in Paul or in Genesis or in Jesus' commentary on divorce, the point is God's will concerning the relationship of men and women in marriage.

The real sticking point is not the inerrancy of scripture, but the alleged historicity of scripture at points where its historicity is not supported by actual history. After all, inerrancy applies to passages of scripture which are parables or otherwise figurative as well as to those that describe historical events, so seeing the Genesis events as non-historical depictions of creation in no way reflects against the inerrancy of the teaching of creation.

 

[fdavis]

The real problem with evolution is not even being addressed. The Naturalistic assumptions that are required for Darwinistic evolution to be true are totally out of the realm of science. For it to be true:
1) life had to have emerged out of non-life, (There is no science that demonstrates that this is even possible, much less that it actually happenend.)
2) lower life forms had to evolve into higher life forms, (In spite of the fact that evolutionists try to give evidence for this, there is no known biological mechanism which provides a means for this to happen. The "theory of evolution" has no true scientific basis. It is purely philosophical speculation.)
3. consciousness had to have emerged from non-consciousness. (Again, there is no scientific basis for even entertaining the possibility of this happening.

The Naturalistic theory that Darwinism is built upon is pure, 100% based on the above faith presuppositions. There certainly is a lot we don't know and there is plenty of room for speculation about the types of fossils which exist and the timing of the process of creation, but it seems rather useless to assert the operation of natural processes based on assumptions that have no basis in science. If you are going to accept that everything happened by natural processes, you better at least have some empirical evidence to back it up.

 

[sfs]

The real problem with evolution is not even being addressed. The Naturalistic assumptions that are required for Darwinistic evolution to be true are totally out of the realm of science.

Scientists disagree with you. Whom should we believe about science, you or the scientists?

For it to be true:
1) life had to have emerged out of non-life, (There is no science that demonstrates that this is even possible, much less that it actually happenend.)

False. Darwinian evolution says nothing at all about where life came from. Evolution can still be true even if the first life didn't emerge naturally.

2) lower life forms had to evolve into higher life forms, (In spite of the fact that evolutionists try to give evidence for this, there is no known biological mechanism which provides a means for this to happen. The "theory of evolution" has no true scientific basis. It is purely philosophical speculation.)

Well, yes, for evolution to be true, evolution does indeed need to be true. What's not true is that there is no known mechanism by which this could happen. Darwin was the one who came up with the mechanism: natural selection operating on naturally occurring variation.

3. consciousness had to have emerged from non-consciousness. (Again, there is no scientific basis for even entertaining the possibility of this happening.

How is this necessary for evolution to be true?

The Naturalistic theory that Darwinism is built upon is pure, 100% based on the above faith presuppositions. There certainly is a lot we don't know and there is plenty of room for speculation about the types of fossils which exist and the timing of the process of creation, but it seems rather useless to assert the operation of natural processes based on assumptions that have no basis in science. If you are going to accept that everything happened by natural processes, you better at least have some empirical evidence to back it up.

Here's a question for you: how many scientific papers have you read about evolution? Many thousands of pages, probably hundreds of thousands, have been written by scientists exploring evolution, studying evidence for it, analyzing details of it. You've never read a single one of them, have you? Don't you think it's a trifle arrogant of you to be lecturing scientists about their own field, when you don't know anything about it?

 

[Research1]

Research1,

I know what Hugh Ross' opinion is. I disagree with it because some fossil hominids showed a clear ability to speak, generate art, and do other things of that sort. Homo habilis [sic?] for example, had a large enough Brocha's Area to be able to process language. Homo erectus lived in regions which would have required clothing (the mountains of Georgia, for instance). I have a hard time believing that soulless animals did those things.

Paleolithic technology and art was incredibly crude and primitive. More advanced art with religious themes only appeared during the Neolithic or extreme last phase of Upper Paleolithic (i.e Magdalenian). However most of the more advanced Magdalenian artforms fall within the Neolithic, or Neolithic Revolution.

The first buildings, cities, domestication of animals, agriculture, pottery, sedentism all falls in within the Neolithic.

Prior the the Neolithic, there is no evidence of any advanced technology. I did create a thread on this.

Only suddenly around 15,000 - 12, 000 years ago man began to build, craft, domesticate animals and so on. The answer is why?

My answer is this was the period man was created, and that man does not descend from the earlier primitive peoples or Hominids.

If you read Genesis 2, it is clear Adam was created intelligent and well cultured, not primitive.

The archeology really does favor a special creation, since there is no evidence of a transition of primitive man to advanced. The change just happened suddenly - all within a very short space of time.

 

[laconicstudent]

Paleolithic technology and art was incredibly crude and primitive. More advanced art with religious themes only appeared during the Neolithic or extreme last phase of Upper Paleolithic (i.e Magdalenian). However most of the more advanced Magdalenian artforms fall within the Neolithic, or Neolithic Revolution.

The first buildings, cities, domestication of animals, agriculture, pottery, sedentism all falls in within the Neolithic.

Prior the the Neolithic, there is no evidence of any advanced technology. I did create a thread on this.

Only suddenly around 15,000 - 12, 000 years ago man began to build, craft, domesticate animals and so on. The answer is why?

My answer is this was the period man was created, and that man does not descend from the earlier primitive peoples or Hominids.

If you read Genesis 2, it is clear Adam was created intelligent and well cultured, not primitive.

The archeology really does favor a special creation, since there is no evidence of a transition of primitive man to advanced. The change just happened suddenly - all within a very short space of time.

http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393317552

 

[Research1]

Scientists disagree with you. Whom should we believe about science, you or the scientists?

Strickly speaking, no view on our origins is scientific - as we cannot observe or test how we were created and when.

Vast section of the theory of evolution are therefore pure mythology, falling well outside the scientific method.

I'm not saying creationism is any different either. We cannot test creationism, so the question and study of origins - is purely religious or assumption/faith based. Sadly though the evolutionists never admit their theory is.

 

[Mallon]

The real problem with evolution is not even being addressed. The Naturalistic assumptions that are required for Darwinistic evolution to be true are totally out of the realm of science. For it to be true:
1) life had to have emerged out of non-life, (There is no science that demonstrates that this is even possible, much less that it actually happenend.)
2) lower life forms had to evolve into higher life forms, (In spite of the fact that evolutionists try to give evidence for this, there is no known biological mechanism which provides a means for this to happen. The "theory of evolution" has no true scientific basis. It is purely philosophical speculation.)
3. consciousness had to have emerged from non-consciousness. (Again, there is no scientific basis for even entertaining the possibility of this happening.

As sfs said, the only issue above that could possibly pose a problem for the theory of evolution is #2. And that was addressed by Darwin 150 years ago -- natural selection is the (primary) mechanism of evolution. And natural selection isn't an assumption. It can be and has been empirically verified.

 

[fdavis]

Perhaps some scientists do disagree with me. But show me the science. I have had numerous discussions with scientists (even research scientists who were doing actual experimentation in this area) and not one has yet to show me empirical evidence that Darwinism could possibly be true. Your assumptions about my knowledge in this field seem a little presumptuous. Perhaps it is someone else who is a bit arrogant.

The statement you called false is not false. Darwinism does not allow for any kind of special creation. If you want to make an assertion that God created life which then began to evolve, you have to do so based on some other set of ideas (your own concept perhaps). But I don't know where you would get those ideas. The Bible doesn't propose it. Science doesn't propose it. Where do you get that from? Pure speculation.

Your assertion concerning natural selection is a non-starter. In saying what you did, you make no distinction between macro and micro evolution. If you are talking purely about observable natural selection, I agree with you completely. But there is no known biological mechanism to provide for macro evolution. In fact, the scientific evidence actually goes the other way in this arena. Natural selection simply has never been observed to operate outside of a single kind of biological organism. And scientists who actually work in this field are baffled as to how it could possibly work.

As far as consciousness, it should be rather obvious why this is pertinent. If Naturalistic evolution is true, somehow the jump had to be made from non-conscious biological organisms to those which are conscious - then you have the further problem related to self-conscious in mankind. Without addressing this problem the case for Darwinism is still mere speculation. Those who assert differently are doing so based purely on faith.

 

[Mallon]

Strickly speaking, no view on our origins is scientific - as we cannot observe or test how we were created and when.

Actually, we can test hypotheses about how we were created. Evolution predicts fossil intermediates in the sedimentary record. Special creation predicts the sudden appearance of man with no fossil intermediates. The fossil record contains an excellent series of fossil intermediates between humans and other apes. Therefore, the predictions of evolution are supported and special creation is falsified.

You don't seem to understand how the scientific method works. It isn't evolutionary history itself that must be repeatable, but the tests used to infer that history. Tests include things like cladistic, developmental, biostratigraphic, and biogeographic analyses. These must be observable and repeatable.

 

[fdavis]

As sfs said, the only issue above that could possibly pose a problem for the theory of evolution is #2. And that was addressed by Darwin 150 years ago -- natural selection is the (primary) mechanism of evolution. And natural selection isn't an assumption. It can be and has been empirically verified.

You, too, do not distinguish between macro and micro evolution. Your assumptions are simply wrong because you are not making the necessary distinctions.

 

[Mallon]

You, too, do not distinguish between macro and micro evolution. Your assumptions are simply wrong because you are not making the necessary distinctions.

The only distinction is one of time. Macroevolution is simply microevolution over a long period of time. Here's a good analogy I found recently: