The Heresy of Darwin

[Athrond]

That is totally true concerning things that we are able to observe. That which occurred about 10,000 years ago (from a creation perspective), or that which occurred 10 billion years ago (from a natural science perspective) is beyond human observation.

Ok. Then you can know nothing about religion either. Or for that matter of what happened last tuesday.

But the problem is we CAN know things about the past, even without written "testemony". Just imagine reconstruction of crimes often very old. Remains of actions often tell a fuller story than written or oral records. People lie or exagerate alot, "nature" doesn't.

I'm an archaeologist, and I use the same principles to try to reconstruct past events. I study stone age sites up to 10.000 years old by the way, by means of analysing lithic debitage. You'd be amazed what analysing waste can tell you about the "wastee"

Your not nihilistic view on sience is "shooting yourself in the foot" so to speak, as it also disqualifies you from having any *other* opinion. You can't limit the view to only "things you dissagree with" at will. Why should I listen to anything you say? knowledge is impossible don't-you-know? How do I even know you exist to say anything at all?

Nihilism is unpractical.

Athrond

 

[Baggins]

Since the scientific method is limited to what we are able to observe in the present,

And what it tells us about the past?

 

[Baggins]

My friend, I don't need to debate with you. I have great respect for science, except when its conclusions contradict that which Christ has already revealed.
.

Then you don't respect science at all

 

[GoSeminoles!]

As the holy fathers have taught us, we should appreciate science when it benefits mankind, but whenever science reaches conclusions which contradict what the Church has already revealed, we are not to follow it.

Then you, the "holy" fathers, and all who take that approach are idiots.

ETA: Moderator, I will take two warnings and that statue of Justice in the corner.

 

[consol]

As the holy fathers have taught us, we should appreciate science when it benefits mankind, but whenever science reaches conclusions which contradict what the Church has already revealed, we are not to follow it.

By writing this, you are telling everyone you are a fool, and can be led by the nose like a camel.

People wrote the bible not a God, bronze age people, people afraid of their own shadows,
and if you take seriously the things they wrote, you are no better than they, you have not moved forward by one minute.

I am sure every God would dislike a self made fool, you have a choice, and you continue to live in the dark,
it might not have been your idea in the first place, but you are old enough to think for yourself now,
so stop dreaming and pull yourself together.

 

[atomweaver]

you dont see the territory god covers, you try to figure out "how" something works not "why" it works,

Right. Just like the theory of evolution only explains HOW life on this planet diversified from simple origins, and never postulates on why.

if you can give a non supernatural explanation of how matter is created,

Why on Earth would I? Its 99.44% irrelevant to whether or not my understanding of chemistry if accurate (the question is also ~100% irrelevant to whether or not the theory of evolution is accurate.)

then please do, science will never answer the question of where all the matter in the universe came from, so people can logically conclude,if they want to that god did it,without science saying no it didnt,

Sceince never postulates on the supernatural in either the positive of negative sense, so you are wrong when you say "science says 'No God!!'".

You are also wrong to think that the theory of evolution postulates on the origins of the universe, it doesn't.

The only thing the ToE does is attempt to explain the current diversity of species we observe, in a manner that reconciles with observations from other disciplines, such as geology, physics, chemistry, etc.
​

Last, you are wrong to assume that such knolwedge of universal origins is necessary for study in scientific fields to which the specifics of the origins of the universe hold no relevance.

 

[Loudmouth]

you said "H. erectus is a perfect example of a transitional fossil between our ape like anscestors and anatomically modern humans"

how is this?

H. erectus has a thicker lower jaw and a smaller cranium, both well outside of normal human ranges. That, among other features, makes H. erectus transitional.

Personally, I think the australopithecines are a better example of being transitional. They demonstrate that bipedalism evolved before a larger brain. Here is a diagram that compares the chimp, human, and australopithecine pelvis.

a) chimp, b) australopithecus, c) human female, d) human male.

As you can see the australopithecus hip is almost identical to ours and adapted for bipedalism. However, the australopithecine upper body is very much like a chimps. These intermediates are a perfect mix of human and chimp features. Here is another picture which also includes a comparison of the feet, once again evidencing that australopithecines are more human like than any chimp (hence, intermediate).

If australopithecines are not intermediate then please explain to us what a real intermediate would look like.

evolutionary scientists conjure up and imagine evidence like this to give their itching ears what they want to hear, homo erectus IS NOT evidence of a transitional fossil, humans come in many shapes and sizes and diseases like rickets affect their shape, you shouldnt believe everything you read, are you aware that most of these half human claims have been disproven as fraud or hybrids?

Turkana Boy is not a fraud, nor are the hundreds of other known hominid transitionals. Sure, a couple frauds have been put forth, but we are talking hundreds here. Here is Turkana Boy.

homo erectus has been found throughout the world. He is smaller than the average human of today, with a proportionately smaller head and brain cavity. However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that he was just like current Homo sapiens.

Homo erectus cranium size is more than 3 standard deviations outside of the human range. It is not "within the human range", not unless you count microcephalics.

Remains are found throughout the world in the same proximity to remains of ordinary humans, suggesting coexistence,

so please get the facts straight,

H. erectus did coexist with H. sapien. Why is this a problem? You coexist with your parents and possibly grandparents don't you?

 

[huggybear]

Right. Just like the theory of evolution only explains HOW life on this planet diversified from simple origins, and never postulates on why.



Why on Earth would I? Its 99.44% irrelevant to whether or not my understanding of chemistry if accurate (the question is also ~100% irrelevant to whether or not the theory of evolution is accurate.)



Sceince never postulates on the supernatural in either the positive of negative sense, so you are wrong when you say "science says 'No God!!'".

You are also wrong to think that the theory of evolution postulates on the origins of the universe, it doesn't.

The only thing the ToE does is attempt to explain the current diversity of species we observe, in a manner that reconciles with observations from other disciplines, such as geology, physics, chemistry, etc.
​

Last, you are wrong to assume that such knolwedge of universal origins is necessary for study in scientific fields to which the specifics of the origins of the universe hold no relevance.

i think your wrong most people here on this forum have some sort of deluded opinion that science disproves the existance of god,so yes i know science does not say"no god" but it seems others do

 

[huggybear]

IN REPLY TO LOUDMOUTH


this evidence does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that it is transitional, the interpretation is forced on to the subject,as i said humans and apes come in many different shapes and sizes, what you show does not prove it is transitional,

here is some info pasted from the net:

The extinct australopithecine apes are believed to have evolved form the ramapithecines. Now that the ramapithecines appear in the fossil orang-utans, no evolutionary ancestor for australopithecines has been found. Some scientists believe that Australopithecus, which means "southern ape," consists of a single species. They figure that the range of fossil skeletal types found can be due to normal individual differences and to differences in the sexes - a larger skeleton for the male and a smaller one for the female.4
The opposite view is that there were many australopithecine species. Where fossil skeletons of different sizes are found together it is suggested that the different species lived together in the same habitat. The generally accepted names following the many-species hypothesis are Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus robustus (also known as boisei) and Australopithecus africanus.5
What happened to the australopithecines? Suddenly they appear as fossils in the sediments of Africa and just as suddenly they disappear. Did they simply become extinct like the dinosaur? Did they evolve and change into humans? Or were the australopithecines ancient apes whose surviving descendants can be found among the modern apes?

Australopithecines were not gorillas or chimps. They were apes, but not the same as any modern apes. The well known fossil hunter Richard Leakey has observed that the size of the australopithecine brain was not very different from that of a chimpanzee or gorilla.6
The wear pattern on the teeth enamel of Australopithecines is that of a fruit-eater like modern chimpanzees.7 The foot bones of Australopithecus afarensis are slightly curved, i.e., a bone structure expected in a tree dwelling ape.8 Another famous fossil ape hunter, Donald Johanson, has recently observed that the skull of Australopithecus afarensis looks like a small female gorilla.
Homo Habilis
In 1946, a fossil australopithecine was discovered which appeared to be different from other australopithecines. It was excavated from a prehistoric butchering site. The site was littered with stone tools and animal fossils such as pig, horse, catfish and tortoise. The australopithecine fossil was scattered: foot bones were among bones of a fossil horse and hand bones were among bones of a fossil pig.
Again the evolution model insists that this butchering site must have been occupied before man evolved. Since evolutionists could not accept that the stone tools were made by the horse or the pig, the fossil ape was elected as the tool maker. This ape was named Homo habilis which means "handy man." However, more recent re-examination of the finger bones of this fossil ape has led scientists to conclude that the Homo habilis hand was "similar in overall configuration to chimpanzee and female gorillas."9
Man Tracks
Some scientists believe that the australopithecines walked upright like humans, rather than like chimpanzees, for example. Richard Leakey recently admitted that evolutionists do not know whether or not Australopithecus walked upright because no one has yet discovered a complete skeleton associated with an Australopithecus skull. It is necessary to know exactly how the spine is attached at the base of the skull for an accurate interpretation of upright walking. That evidence is inconclusive.10
The most convincing evidence of upright walking comes not from fossil skeletons, but from footprints. While the Great Rift Valley was opening along the eastern length of Africa, volcanic activity was increasing. A layer of ash covered the surrounding landscape with each episode of volcanic explosions. When an animal walked across the ash, it left its track. Rain cemented the ash and new ashfalls protected the tracks from further erosion. Human-like tracks occurred along with the numerous animal tracks. The footprints were of an adult and child. The site is Laetoli in northern Tanzania.11
According to the evolution model these tracks were made before man had evolved. Therefore, the tracks must have been made by an ape walking upright like humans. Human fossils are found in this region, but evolutionists believe these humans must have lived much later.
A creation model would not reject the hypothesis that the Laetoli tracks could have been made by humans. Man existed during the time of the australopithecine apes. Fossil human bones and stone tools have been discovered along the Great Rift Valley and it is possible that these "human-like" tracks were actually made by humans

 

[Loudmouth]

IN REPLY TO LOUDMOUTH


this evidence does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that it is transitional, the interpretation is forced on to the subject,as i said humans and apes come in many different shapes and sizes, what you show does not prove it is transitional,

Then what features should a true transitional have? Please give me a description of a fossil that would convince you that it is indeed transitional. A description in your own words would be appreciated.

 

[atomweaver]

i think your wrong most people here on this forum have some sort of deluded opinion that science disproves the existance of god,so yes i know science does not say"no god" but it seems others do

Well, sure, others do, I mean look at how many atheists post to this section. But, to presume that their scientific training or tendencies had anything but a minor and indirect contribution to that conclusion is not tenable, either. Atheists are atheists for theological/philosopical reasons, not because of any particular scientific conclusion that they drew.

On second read, that's an obvious difference of speculation on the atheist position, but then neither you nor I are atheists, so maybe it would be better to ask them instead who has the right of it? Comments welcome.
If you want, we could design a poll via discussion in this thread (all are welcome to contribute), and launch it once we were satisfied with its construction. Hopefully, that might circumvent some of the "this poll is poorly constructed/biased/blahblah" criticism which is so common. You game?

 

[NailsII]

IN REPLY TO LOUDMOUTH

But I am sure no-one will mind if I express my opinion.

this evidence does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that it is transitional, the interpretation is forced on to the subject,as i said humans and apes come in many different shapes and sizes, what you show does not prove it is transitional,

No, of course not.
What we have in the shape of evidence is basically a series of fossils which suggest that an ape-like creature became more human like over a period of around 4-6 million years.
When dated using radioisotopes, these fossils fall into the same alaignment as when sorted by ape or human-like features.
Anything else is pure guesswork, right?

Homo Habilis
In 1946, a fossil australopithecine was discovered which appeared to be different from other australopithecines. It was excavated from a prehistoric butchering site. The site was littered with stone tools and animal fossils such as pig, horse, catfish and tortoise. The australopithecine fossil was scattered: foot bones were among bones of a fossil horse and hand bones were among bones of a fossil pig.
Again the evolution model insists that this butchering site must have been occupied before man evolved. Since evolutionists could not accept that the stone tools were made by the horse or the pig, the fossil ape was elected as the tool maker. This ape was named Homo habilis which means "handy man." However, more recent re-examination of the finger bones of this fossil ape has led scientists to conclude that the Homo habilis hand was "similar in overall configuration to chimpanzee and female gorillas."9

I've seen a similar argument on this site:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/
Have you ever seen a gorilla or a chimpanzee use a tool in the wild? I have, so why is it so suprising that a similar animal could do the same?
Hell, I've seen a bonobo using a lighter and sign language.

A creation model would not reject the hypothesis that the Laetoli tracks could have been made by humans. Man existed during the time of the australopithecine apes. Fossil human bones and stone tools have been discovered along the Great Rift Valley and it is possible that these "human-like" tracks were actually made by humans

Despite all evidence to the contrary, a creationist model would accept that humans and australopithicus lived alongside each other.
* shakes his head *

 

[huggybear]

Logically conclude based on what? Not knowing how something happened does not validate a different conclusion that is equally unsupported. If you don't know how something happened, the valid conclusion to draw is that you don't know how something happened. Nothing more, nothing less.

then why dont you draw that conclusion? then why do you come up with your theorys?

 

[huggybear]

Then what features should a true transitional have? Please give me a description of a fossil that would convince you that it is indeed transitional. A description in your own words would be appreciated.

if you found a fossil that was half human half fish,or something similar that would perk my interest,

why are there no examples alive today of one species turning into another? or why are there no fossils even of this ?

 

[huggybear]

But I am sure no-one will mind if I express my opinion.

No, of course not.
What we have in the shape of evidence is basically a series of fossils which suggest that an ape-like creature became more human like over a period of around 4-6 million years.
When dated using radioisotopes, these fossils fall into the same alaignment as when sorted by ape or human-like features.
Anything else is pure guesswork, right?


I've seen a similar argument on this site:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/
Have you ever seen a gorilla or a chimpanzee use a tool in the wild? I have, so why is it so suprising that a similar animal could do the same?
Hell, I've seen a bonobo using a lighter and sign language.


Despite all evidence to the contrary, a creationist model would accept that humans and australopithicus lived alongside each other.
* shakes his head *

"Have you ever seen a gorilla or a chimpanzee use a tool in the wild? I have, so why is it so suprising that a similar animal could do the same?"

so you believe that an ape is capable of handcrafting stone tools? i dont think so, and an ape killing horses and pigs?
What we have in the shape of evidence is basically a series of fossils which suggest that an ape-like creature became more human like over a period of around 4-6 million years

no what we have is a presupposed theory which forces the interpretation on the evidence, these fossils are always compared to normal healthy humans,other factors like disease which have been so prevalent in history is ever considered, the turkana boys features differ so slightly from normal humans that to say it is a transitional is a forced interpretation,

Despite all evidence to the contrary, a creationist model would accept that humans and australopithicus lived alongside each other.
* shakes his head *

again the evidence you claim is forced interpretation

 

[sbvera13]

no what we have is a presupposed theory which forces the interpretation on the evidence,

because you say it doesn't make it so. Proof, please.

these fossils are always compared to normal healthy humans,other factors like disease which have been so prevalent in history is ever considered, the turkana boys features differ so slightly from normal humans that to say it is a transitional is forced interpretation,

You've obviously never held a cast of the skull in question in your hand, or taken a comparative anatomy course. I have, and I can personally assert that what you are saying about that skull is a lie. Turkana boy's feature differ substantially from a humans, specifically: it is more prognatheous, has pronounced brow ridges, has a receding chin, has an oblong occipital lobe, has a greater degree of post-temporal constriction, has a difference cranial size (about 50% smaller than an equivalently aged human), has no appreciable forehead, has a much more robust mandible, has a shorter xygomatic arch. Also, all bio-statistical measurements do not come anywhere near human (height of skull vs length, for an example of one such measurement).

The likelyhood that any diseas would affect all of those features at once is near zero. The likelyhood that said disease would at the same time distort all bio-statistical measurements at once is several factors less. That said disease would deform the skull without leaving other overt traces, such as bone callosities, misaligned sutures, variable bone thickness, and the like, its virtually impossible. Added to this, the similarities in both morphology and statistical measurements to apes (but that still do not match any modern apes, including humans) are not explained by the occurence of disease. Taken together you have an overwhelming amount evidence that this skull belonged to no species living today. In short, your statement that it is human like was pulled out of your flaming nether regions.

 

[flatworm]

if you found a fossil that was half human half fish,or something similar that would perk my interest,

A half-fish, half-human fossil would pretty much invalidate evolutionary biology. We do, on the other hand, have fossils partway between fish and tetrapods:

Panderichtys
Tiktaalik
Acanthostega

why are there no examples alive today of one species turning into another? or why are there no fossils even of this ?

Observed instances of speciation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

[flatworm]

so you believe that an ape is capable of handcrafting stone tools? i dont think so

Kanzi is a 12 year-old male bonobo who makes his own stone tools.

Abstract

 

[huggybear]

A half-fish, half-human fossil would pretty much invalidate evolutionary biology. We do, on the other hand, have fossils partway between fish and tetrapods:

Panderichtys
Tiktaalik
Acanthostega




Observed instances of speciation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

again all these fossils show are some extict species of fish, it is not proof ,the interpretation is forced upon it,

people so much want to prove common descent that they imagine the evidence,i am sure that without records of our history that in a thousand years if the dolphin became extict and its fossils were found that it would be claimed as a transitional fossil, every different type of extict species found is claimed as a transitional, but how can you claim that as fact?

this is the fraud evolution theory, claiming as "fact" when really it is only theory, then someone will say "science doesnt claim fact" well why do all these sources always say "it happened" ?

but i can understand why people do,its because that is all some people can believe,they cant accept any other interpretation because it involves the supernatural ,but that does not make it true ,that is all they were taught to believe,and thats what i believed up until recently,when i realised that all this "evidence" is really only "theory"

 

[huggybear]

Kanzi is a 12 year-old male bonobo who makes his own stone tools.

Abstract

though his tools still contrast to the ones found,and he is being taught to use them