GAP Creationism VS YEC & OEC Creationism

[Wymann]

Nice sharing

 

[mooeypoo]

Regardless of this man's opinion, he needs to cite some evidence to support his conjecture. The rest of the academic community have noted that Lucy's pelvis is virtually identical to humans in all but size, further supporting the case her bipedal locomotion. Her pelvis most certainly did allow for bipedal motion - perhaps he is mistaking the original, misshapen pelvis?

I hope I am not disobeying any forum rules by writing this. My intention is a good one (also, I avoided adding the URL for my site, to prevent being a spammer, but will add the direct link by request).

I am the writer of the post about Lucy from "SmarterThanThat" website. It was very important for me to come and clarify something I feel is very important regarding my article:

First, my article was taken out of context by the original person who quoted it in this forum. I did add quite a lot of evidence and references to my claims and took effort to cite and cross reference. However, the point of the article was to write a "critical thinking" paper about a film we saw in class. It was not meant to destroy or dispute the Lucy discovery on its own. It was meant to serve as a critical thinking exercise.

Quite conveniently the original poster neglected to note the big big note I posted at the VERY top of the paper:

The purpose of this essay is to examine the methodology used during the discovery and publishing of the Lucy bones, as an exercise in critical thinking. Nothing more, nothing less.

This was an exercise in critical thinking. The idea was not to say that the discovery of Lucy was false, not by a long shot. The idea is not to "dispute" evolution; no single discovery can do that. The idea was not to show that scientists are idiots or untrustworthy.

ON THE CONTRARY. The idea was to show how science-minded people should consider evidence when these are presented to them. The idea was to show that by analyzing potential problems with methodology, you can understand potential routes for further research. And, indeed, many of the points I raised in the article were solved later in subsequent publications to the LUCY discovery. I just didn't relate to them because it wasn't the purpose of the exercise.

This paper was meant for a history class and was supposed to relate to methodologies of interpretation of data.

This is why the examination of the evidence was LIMITED to a very specific set of articles from the time of discovery (barely any from recent time, which would have been included if this was a paper for a science class).

We watched a movie, and we were supposed to write an article analyzing said movie analytically. That's what I intended to do.

It was not my intention for someone to use this article to disprove evolution, because it *doesn't* disprove evolution. It wasn't the intention to claim the discovery is immaterial or was done incorrectly -- it wasn't. Many years passed since then, and a lot of the doubts and questions I've raised were already answered. There are a lot of other sets of evidence that support the discovery of Australopithicus Afarensis other than Lucy. The fact those are beyond the scope of this particular paper does not mean they don't exist.

I was afraid something like this would happen when I published this "potentially controversial" research paper, which is why I added the bold note on top. Half a context is never good reference.

I'm sorry to barge into the argument like this, but I saw the way the article was mis-quoted, and I felt I had to comment on that.

Great forum otherwise, and thank you for keeping things balanced.

~mooeypoo
SmarterThanThat
(by the way, I'm a woman, not a man. Minor point )

 

[dad]

So you have discarded creationism?
Good for you!

God is bigger than that. So much bigger.

He is as big as His word.

 

[SkyWriting]

So you have discarded creationism?
Good for you!
God is bigger than that. So much bigger.

Those who think God created the system of death-to-the-millions of mutants just on the off-chance that one (God-be-with-us....two) will be able to handle local weather patterns and survive.....

My God is bigger than that.

 

[Jazer]

Those who think God created the system of death-to-the-millions of mutants just on the off-chance that one (God-be-with-us....two) will be able to handle local weather patterns and survive.....

My God is bigger than that.

Did you ever see the movie "West Side Story" or hear about "Romeo and Juliet"? In the movie you had Anita pleeding with Maria to: "stick to your own kind". It all came down to a battle between the Sharks and the Jets. In the Bible you have the Sons of God and the daughters of man. God was not happy when the Sons of God "took wives" from the daughters of men. Only Noah found grace in the Eyes of the Lord. All the rest of this unGodly union ended up in a state of extinction from the flood. Mass extinction is not unheard of in evolutionary circles. It looks like God was able to contain the problem because He did not want this to spread out to the whole world or the whole Earth.

In verse 6:7 "earth" in the Hebrew is "Adamah". This is a referance to Eden.
The whole earth in the Hebrew is "Erets".

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh *: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. [/FONT]

 

[lucaspa]

He is as big as His word.

That was the OT view, with "word" referring to God's promises to Israel. Israel "knew" God was real because God kept His word (promise) to form and nurture Israel.

God got bigger than this after the Babylonian Conquest. God was no longer dependent on the fortunes of Israel; God existed no matter how Israel fared politically.

If you are using "word" to refer to scripture, then that makes God very small, doesn't it? Scripture is tiny. It is only about a small part of what God is and what God does.

 

[lucaspa]

Those who think God created the system of death-to-the-millions of mutants just on the off-chance that one (God-be-with-us....two) will be able to handle local weather patterns and survive.....

My God is bigger than that.

Whether God created Darwinian selection or whether He just discovered it is unknown. It does appear that Darwinian selection is the only way to get design. The only question is whether Darwinian selection happens within a mind (such as God's) or operates on its own -- natural selection.

Now, natural selection does not necessarily mean "death to the millions of mutants". Natural selection doesn't work that way. What happens is that most individuals produce fewer offspring than others. That is, those individuals have good enough designs to live, but not as good as the designs in a few individuals. Thus, over the course of generations, the alleles (forms of genes) for the really good designs will replace all the other alleles. But you don't have "millions of mutants" just dropping dead! How silly.

You seem to think, however, that death is a very bad thing. Why? For Christians, physical death is no big thing, is it? After all, aren't we going to live with God? Forever? So why do you have such a fear and dread of death that you think it is so bad? Don't you really believe you will be with God after you physically die? Are you afraid you will just die and that will be the THE END?

But even if God directly poofed all the species into existence in their present form, you still have that fear, don't you? After all, your salvation depends utterly on God. What if God decides not to save you? What if your fear of death means that you don't really believe in God and Jesus, and therefore you are not saved? You still have the same problem with creationism, SkyWriting.

So, I think instead you should listen to God in His Creation and realize that evolution is how God created the diversity of life on the planet. That He did it that way was not "cruel", because death isn't the absolute bad thing you apparently think it is.

 

[lucaspa]

In verse 6:7 "earth" in the Hebrew is "Adamah". This is a referance to Eden.

Actually, "adamah" is "dirt", not "earth" as in the planet. So verse 6.7 says that God is going to destroy man from the face of the land (dirt). It's not a reference to Eden.

God's other book (Creation) is very clear that there never has been a world-wide flood. So you need to understand the historical, social, and theological context to get the real meaning of the story, because the story isn't literal history.

 

[Jazer]

If you are using "word" to refer to scripture, then that makes God very small, doesn't it? Scripture is tiny. It is only about a small part of what God is and what God does.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,It does appear that Darwinian selection is the only way to get design.

If scripture is "tiny" then all the more Darwin is tiny and to say selection is the ONLY ways is making God to be very small.

What happens is that most individuals produce fewer offspring than others.

In the case of Ishmeal God seems to be a part of the equation.

Gen 22:17 "indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore"

Hebrews 6:14 saying, "I will surely bless you and give you many descendants."

Gen 16 “Hagar, Sarai’s maid............ “I will multiply your descendants exceedingly, so that they shall not be counted for multitude.”

for the really good designs will replace all the other alleles.

If you study the DNA today Abraham had many descendants with Sarah and with Hagar. So other then God's blessings what really good design did Abraham have that would cause his alleles to have so much prosperity?

Even if you prescribe to the next door theory, that it was not Abraham but his next door neighbor that all those people decend from. Still the Bible says this is a blessing of God.

 

[Jazer]

God's other book (Creation) is very clear that there never has been a world-wide flood.

I think that the theory of evoluton can help us to understand Eden. We have a biodiversity hotspot in Eden that Noah was able to save. From there the biodiversity spread out to the rest of the middle east and to the rest of the world. Clearly there was more then one Eden or what they call Biodiversity Hot Spots. But the Middle East was very significant when it came to farming and the domestication of animals. Eden can shed light on Biodiversity and how Evolution works.

 

[createdtoworship]

hi