Post the papers that you think falsify descent with modification. The card analogy is an unsupported assertion. Time to place your money on the table.
Upvote
0
What is Creationism?
- Thread starter Arikay
- Start date
Post the papers that you think falsify descent with modification. The card analogy is an unsupported assertion. Time to place your money on the table.
Getting a bit testy, aren't we? You only needed the first sentence.
Darwin accomplished two main tasks:
1. Gathered enough data from biogeograhy, morphology, embryology, and physiology to demonstrate that contemporary creatures could only have arisen from descent with modification -- evolution -- happened.
2. Found the mechanism -- natural selection -- to get the designs seen in biological organisms.
Darwin was very influenced by reading Paley while at Cambridge. He recognized that biological organisms have designs: wings are for flying, teeth are for chewing, etc. Paley said that all those designs were manufactured artifacts by an intelligence and there was no other way to get them.
Darwin realized that design could result from a process that did not require intelligence. Such a process is called an algorithm. Follow the steps and the results are assured. Long division is an algorithm. No intelligence required. Follow the steps like a good little servile dunce and you will get the answer.
Natural selection is such a series of steps:
1. Have variation among the individuals of a population.
2. Have more individuals born than will survive and reproduce.
3. Have a competition for scarce resources somewhere in the lifespan. This competition will pick those variations that do best in the competition.
4. Preserve the winning variations by inheritance so that the next generation of individuals will have more individuals with the winning variation than the first generation.
Follow these steps and design is inevitable. No intelligent entity manufacturing individuals with the designs. Humans now use natural selection to get designs that are too tough for them.
Is this plain enough English for you?
Upvote
0
Why does science have an obligation to see that their theories line up with the Bible? Much less with one particular intepretation of the Bible.
What you want is totally against what science is and does. Not to mention against what Chrstians have decided is the relation between science and religion.
As to what science is:
"...what we learned in school about the scientific method can be reduced to two basic principles.
"1. All our theory, ideas, preconceptions, instincts, and prejudices about how things logically ought to be, how they in all fairness ought to be, or how we would prefer them to be, must be tested against external reality --what they *really* are. How do we determine what they really are? Through direct experience of the universe itself." Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations, pg. 38.
What you have in your religion is "how we would prefer them to be". Science can't pay attention to your preferences. They could be wrong.
As to Christians, you are at least 400 years behind the times.
"This vanity some of the moderns have with extreme levity indulged so far as to attempt to found a system of natural philosophy [science] on the first chapters of Genesis, on the book of Job, and other parts of the sacred writings ... because from this unwholesome mixture of things human and divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy [science] but also an heretical religion." Francis Bacon, Novum Organum, 1xiv
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437; quoted by Stephen Neill in Anglicanism, Penguin Books, 1960, pg. 240.
Upvote
0
Well, since all 3 are evolutionary cousins, not ancestors, there is a problem already.
Pilbean is talking about specific lineages of hominids, not about whether we evolved from gibbons, chimps or gorillas. Such a basic error leads me to suspect some misquotes. Can you give us the entire paragraph, Micaiah. Or didn't the creationist website you are quoting give it to you?
Hmm. a lot of the ones I have are earlier than Pilbean. Appears he wasn't aware of the data that was available even in 1985.
F. Clark Howell, Early Man Time Life Library, 1980
Afarensis to habilis: OH 24 is in between A. afarensis and habilis
Habilis to erectus:
Oldovai: Bed I has Habilis at bottom, then fossils with perfect mixture of characteristics of habilis and erectus, and erectus at top. At bottom of Bed II (top of Bed I) have fossils resemble H. erectus but brain case smaller than later H. erectus that lies immediately above them. pg 81
OH 13, 14 was classified by some anthropologists as H. habilis but others as early H. erectus. 650 cc
Koobi Fora: Another succession with several habilis up to 2 Mya, then transitionals, and then erectus at 1.5 Mya.
Erectus to sapiens: Omo valley. Omo-2 "remarkable mixture of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens characteristics" pg. 70.
Omo-1: another mix of erectus and sapiens
Skhul and Jebel Qafza caves: "robust" H. sapiens at 120 Kya that have brow ridges like erectus but brain case like sapiens.
Tautavel, 200Kya: large brow ridges and small cranium but rest of face looks like H. sapiens.
"We shall see the problem of drawing up a dividing line between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens is not easy." pg 65.
Ngaloba Beds of Laetoli, 120 Kya: ~1200 cc and suite of archaic (erectus) features.
Guamde in Turkana Basin, 180 Kya: more modern features than Ngaloba but in-between erectus and sapiens.
Skhul, Israel "posed a puzzle to paleoanthropologists, appearing to be almost but not quite modern humans"
Erectus to neandertalis:
Stenheim and Swanscombe, 250 Kya: called H. heidelbergensis but have characteristics of both erectus and neandertalis. Large brows and small cranium ( ~1200cc) but otherwise looks like neandertalis
Petroloma skull (complete): brow ridges and low forehead like erectus but not quite as primitive but not as derived as sapiens or neandertalis. Back of head resembles sapiens. 250 Kya
Vertesszollos, 400 Kya. Teeth like H. erectus but occipital bone like H. sapiens. brain ~ 1300 cc
Francis M Clapham, Our Human Ancestors, 1976
Omo Valley, Ethiopia: ~ 500,000 ya. mixture erectus and sapiens features
Sale in Morrocco: skull discovered in 1971, ~300,000 ya. also shows erectus and sapiens features.
Broken Hill skull: another skull with mixtures of erectus and sapiens features
Ehrendorf in Germany and Saccopestore in Italy: mixture erectus and early neandertals, classed as archaic H. sapiens or H. heidelbergensis.
Upvote
0
Originally posted by Micaiah The problem is that the wrong kind of bones keep popping up in the wrong places. We get human bones (modern homosapien) for example that are several million years old.
Document this claim, please. From the scientific literature, since that is what you are claiming your conclusions come from.
For now I'll be content to say the evolutionist doesn't have adequate evidence to prove for example that man comes from apes. Do you agree, or are you asserting the evidence we have is adequate, and evolution (macro if you wish) is no longer theory, it is scientific fact. I'd like to hear a clear bold statement if that is the case.
The evidence is adequate to the point that it is perverse not to accept evolution, including humans from a common ancestor with modern apes, as (provisionally) fact.
Even in Darwin's day, Huxley was able to present evidence from comparative morphology and physiology that was adequate. Read it for yourself: http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE7/index.html
Do you know of any catalogues of such evidence. I'd be interested to see references. (Ones I can view on the net).
Not necessarily on the net, although there are some of those, too. But the fossils are just one line of evidence, although you are trying to make it the only one you will accept.
If scientists do not have this evidence and cannot show all the required steps for evolution, it is still theory. It has not been proved. I don't feel compelled to falsify such ideas, but simply to state the truth given in Scripture regarding creation.
Before I post the sites, let me comment on the shell game here. Yes, you are compelled to falsify a theory. You are always compelled to falsify a theory. Darwin did so with special creation. Theories are never, strictly speaking, "proved".
Finally, you are not stating the "truth given in Scripture" but rather the truth according to you. You are not God, and none of your confusion about being God helps.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/primate.html
6. The African Emergence and Early Asian Dispersals of the Genus Homo, http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/homointr.html Places H. ergastor, H. rudolfensis, and H. heidelbergensis.
7. American Museum of Natural History Human Evolution exhibit. http://www.amnh.org/enews/anthro.html Look at the fossils yourself.
8. Anthropology Human Origins Website. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5579/TA.html
9. An introductory overview of human evolution. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Galaxy/1508/ Covers the whole time period from Ardipithecus ramidus to Cro-Magnon And relationships between them.
10. Homo heidelbergensis explanation. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Galaxy/1508/H_heidelbergensis.html
11. Homo rudolfensis explanation. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Galaxy/1508/H_rudolfensis.html
23. Time article on Ardipethicus http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010723/cover.html
Document this claim, please. From the scientific literature, since that is what you are claiming your conclusions come from.
For now I'll be content to say the evolutionist doesn't have adequate evidence to prove for example that man comes from apes. Do you agree, or are you asserting the evidence we have is adequate, and evolution (macro if you wish) is no longer theory, it is scientific fact. I'd like to hear a clear bold statement if that is the case.
The evidence is adequate to the point that it is perverse not to accept evolution, including humans from a common ancestor with modern apes, as (provisionally) fact.
Even in Darwin's day, Huxley was able to present evidence from comparative morphology and physiology that was adequate. Read it for yourself: http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE7/index.html
Do you know of any catalogues of such evidence. I'd be interested to see references. (Ones I can view on the net).
Not necessarily on the net, although there are some of those, too. But the fossils are just one line of evidence, although you are trying to make it the only one you will accept.
If scientists do not have this evidence and cannot show all the required steps for evolution, it is still theory. It has not been proved. I don't feel compelled to falsify such ideas, but simply to state the truth given in Scripture regarding creation.
Before I post the sites, let me comment on the shell game here. Yes, you are compelled to falsify a theory. You are always compelled to falsify a theory. Darwin did so with special creation. Theories are never, strictly speaking, "proved".
Finally, you are not stating the "truth given in Scripture" but rather the truth according to you. You are not God, and none of your confusion about being God helps.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/primate.html
6. The African Emergence and Early Asian Dispersals of the Genus Homo, http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/homointr.html Places H. ergastor, H. rudolfensis, and H. heidelbergensis.
7. American Museum of Natural History Human Evolution exhibit. http://www.amnh.org/enews/anthro.html Look at the fossils yourself.
8. Anthropology Human Origins Website. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5579/TA.html
9. An introductory overview of human evolution. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Galaxy/1508/ Covers the whole time period from Ardipithecus ramidus to Cro-Magnon And relationships between them.
10. Homo heidelbergensis explanation. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Galaxy/1508/H_heidelbergensis.html
11. Homo rudolfensis explanation. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Galaxy/1508/H_rudolfensis.html
23. Time article on Ardipethicus http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010723/cover.html
Upvote
0
Arikay, I submit that you are confusing the theory with the people who argue against it.
The evidence is irrefutable. It's just that there is a subset of the population who, for emotional reasons, refuse to accept it. That says nothing about the evidence but a lot about the psychology of the people against evolution.
Upvote
0
And those would be the few creationists with Ph.Ds. Because the only thing creationists are worse at than science is theology.
See below for an example, John. I hope the English is plain enough for you. Vawter does use some big words. Perhaps with a dictionary you can puzzle it out.
"In the final issue I would like to address the question of out-and-out heresy, potentially the destruction of the whole Christian enterprise through the ham-handed activities of well-intentioned but historically and theologically illiterate Christians. In the "Findings of Fact" filed by the Defendants in the Arkansas Case prior to adjudication, a truly deplorable statement was asserted in paragraph 35: 'Creation-science does presuppose the existence of a creator, to the same degree that evolutin-science presupposes the existence of no creator. As used in the context of creation-science, as defined by 54(a) [sic]of Act 590, the terms or concepts of "creation" and "creator" are not inherently religious terms or concepts. In this sense, the term "creator" means only some entity with power, intelligence, and a sense of design. Creation-science does not require a creator who has a personality, who has the attributes of love, compassion, justice, etc., which are ordinarily attributed to a deity. Indeed, the creation-science model does not require that the creator still be in existence."
It would be hard to set emotional priorities, from bitter sorrow to deep anger, which this wretched formulation and its obvious and cynical compromise with mammon should evoke in any sensitive theological soul. Let us say nothing about the hypocrisy of good people who have obviously convinced themselves that a good cause can be supported by any mendacious and specious means whatsoever. The passage is perverse, however, not only because it says things that are untrue, namely that creationism presupposes a creator whereas evolutionism necessarily does not, and not only because 'creation' and 'creator' are proffered speciously secular, nonreligious definitions.
The worst thing about these unthinking and unhistorical formulations is what Langdon Gilkey pointed out at the Arkansas trial in December of 1981. The concept of a creator God distinct from the God of love and mercy is a reopening of the way to the Marcionist and Gnostic heresies, among the deadliest ever to afflict Christianity. That those who make such formulations do not seriously intend them save as a debating ploy does not mitigate their essential malevolence." Bruce Vawter, "Creationism: creative misuse of the Bible" in Is God a Creationist? Ed. by Roland Frye, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1983 pp 81-82.
Upvote
0
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
Because the Bible is truth. If their theory does not line up with the Bible, then their theory must be a lie. We know that all liars will be thrown into the lake of fire. Esp. those who give false testimony.
Rev. 21:8
But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."
Upvote
0
Ah, the old, "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality. Dangerous stuff, that line of dogmatic reasoning.
Upvote
0
David Gould
Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.
- May 28, 2002
- 16,931
- 514
- 53
- Faith
- Atheist
- Politics
- AU-Labor
The Bible may be true, but which interpretation of it is true? Which interpretation of the Bible must science line its theories up with or be considered as lying?
It makes more sense (imo) to allow the findings of science to inform us as to which interpretations of the Bible are false.
Thus, it is obligatory on the interpeters of the Bible to line their interpretation up with the theory of science.
Else they will be thrown into the pit of fire as liars ...
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Sort of. I was more thinking about painting the world in strictly black and white, which ties into fundamentalist ideologies. Personally, having lived in the world for 24 years now, I don't know how anyone could do that. There are shades of gray all over the place. Who knows, maybe it just makes things easier for some people.
Upvote
0
Micaiah
Well-Known Member
From what I can see, the evolutionist camp has its own breed of 'fundamentalists'. These are the fanatics who refuse to accept reasonable evidence that we are not the result of chance.
Interestingly there are a number of folks who from within that camp who recognise it is improbable enough to be impossible, and are looking for other expalnations.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Micaiah
Well-Known Member
I reject the theory of evolution. I propose another explanation for origins - the expalnation provided in Scripture. I am not under the slightest compulsion to disprove evolution. I seek to assist those who have been fooled into thinking we came spontaneously from nothing as a result of random chance. If you wish to demonstrate that the theory of evolution has been proven scientifically as fact, then I await a catalogue of fossils that shows the evidence of say the evolution from ape top man.
(BTW, save yourself the trouble with arguments on evolution not being the result of chance, and evolutionists not believing man coming from nothing. We know these responses and have dealt with them many times in the past.)
Upvote
0
You say: "These are the fanatics who refuse to accept reasonable evidence that we are not the result of chance."
I am wondering if you can show me this evidence.
I am wondering if you can show me this evidence.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I agree. Some people do get a little too wrapped up in scientific explanations for things. Personally, I think we'll never know everything, but it's at least worth a shot (who knows what funky stuff in the universe we have left to discover).
What evidence? Arguments from incredulity? Probability calculations? I haven't seen any reasonable arguments that show we are "not the result of chance" (although, I can assure you that neither abiogenesis nor the evolution of life is completely random).
Upvote
0
Similar threads
