What Makes us Human?

[Mallon]

The problem is you're looking at fossils that more than likely have no bearing whatsoever on this current creation.

The scriptures teach past creations as well as future creations. As long as that fact remains unrecognised, science will continue to look at the earth as one long history and continue to make the same old mistakes (of interpretation).

What past creations are you referring to? And how to you know the fossil record reflects those past creations?

And I didn't imply "kinds" were static except within the particular "kind" because that is what the scriptures teach. How much variation within a kind is possible? I have no idea. I didn't design the specifications.

If you can't recognize what constitutes a "kind", then how do you know they even exist?
What do you make of the fact that the Bible says "kinds" can interbreed and cross-fertilize? (Lev 19:19) The Bible wouldn't have to warn us against interbreeding "kinds" if it couldn't be done in the first place.

You say you didn't miss the point and yet you continue to place your "observations" over and above what the word of God teaches. Learn what the word teaches first, then what we observe in the natural order will have a very different understanding.

If, as Christians, we believe God is also the author of creation, then what harm can there be in studying it on its own merits? After all, if we didn't let our observations about the world influence our interpretation of the Bible, we'd still think the Bible teaches that earth revolves about the sun as Luther did.

 

[juvenissun]

Keep shifting those goalposts, juvie. You're doing a fine job.

I did not. You are running away from discussion.

 

[Mallon]

I did not. You are running away from discussion.

Telling me I'm brainwashed and then changing your standard for evidence of man's evolution mid-debate doesn't make for good discussion, juvie.

 

[juvenissun]

Telling me I'm brainwashed and then changing your standard for evidence of man's evolution mid-debate doesn't make for good discussion, juvie.

Fine. But if we switch side, I will definitely make a better response than you do. (don't ask me how. I do not answer that).

 

[sawdust]

What past creations are you referring to? And how to you know the fossil record reflects those past creations?

If you can't recognize what constitutes a "kind", then how do you know they even exist?
What do you make of the fact that the Bible says "kinds" can interbreed and cross-fertilize? (Lev 19:19) The Bible wouldn't have to warn us against interbreeding "kinds" if it couldn't be done in the first place.

If, as Christians, we believe God is also the author of creation, then what harm can there be in studying it on its own merits? After all, if we didn't let our observations about the world influence our interpretation of the Bible, we'd still think the Bible teaches that earth revolves about the sun as Luther did.

Genesis 1:1 speaks of the original creation where God made the (two) heavens and the earth.

Then something happened and the earth becomes wasted. Genesis 1:3-31 is the restoration and creation of this present age.

It is understood the reason the earth became a desolation was due to the angelic rebellion. How many times this may have happened? We have no idea but we know there was at least two, the original and the restoration.

How do you know the fossil record doesn't reflect past creations? It is logical to think they do just as in the next age (Millenial rule) fossils of this age will most likely be found.

I know they exist because it is written!

Lev.19:19 doesn't say they can interbreed, it's a command to men not to try. More than likely because, even if they have the potential to interbreed? The result would be, not some glorious, dynamic and new population filled with all sorts of variety, but rather lead to the destruction of the kinds God made to the point nothing could breed.

There is no harm in studying it. Indeed, we are encouraged to do so. (Prov.6:6) The problem comes when what is interpreted is in contradiction to what is written.

When our observations of the world don't seem to match what the scripture says we are meant to dig deeper for the meaning of scripture not change it to suit our observations.

peace

 

[Mallon]

When our observations of the world don't seem to match what the scripture says we are meant to dig deeper for the meaning of scripture not change it to suit our observations.

It's funny to hear that from a Gap creationist.

 

[sawdust]

It's funny to hear that from a Gap creationist.

Why is it funny?

 

[Assyrian]

In one way it should not seem strange at all. Gap Theory became popular in the 19th century as a response to the the discoveries of geology, that did not fit a young earth interpretation. Day Age and Analogical Day interpretation followed soon after and by the time modern Fundamentalism started up, all of the authors of The Fundaments were either Gap Theorist or some sort of Day age. As you say: When our observations of the world don't seem to match what the scripture says we are meant to dig deeper for the meaning of scripture not change it to suit our observations. The problem is, as science developed it no could no longer fit the Gap Theory. So Gap Theorists could either follow its founding principle and keep digging for the meaning of scripture, in which case they would no longer be Gap, or ignore the contradictions between Gap and science and insist dogmatically on Gap.

I don't know how dogmatic you are on the topic, but I have come across a lot of Gap Theorists who are highly dogmatic. I suppose modern Gap can only survive by being dogmatic and insisting that the Gap interpretation of different passages are the only true interpretation. But this dogamatism is very much at odds with the willingness to search out and explore the meaning of scripture that we see in many earlier proponents, and you seem to advocate in your statement.

 

[praisejahupeople]

"Common creator" doesn't explain the nested hierarchical pattern into which life is organized. Only common ancestry accounts for that pattern.

Actually theres no linking of fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal apart from an evolutionist's imagination.This hierarchial pattern is useful only to an extent.

You are in a Christian area, denying that a Common Creator could be an explanation?

Hmmm.

 

[praisejahupeople]

I'm not so sure I did miss the point.
As I said, if "kinds" are real, discrete groupings within nature, then distinguishing them from one another should be a trivial matter. And if they are static through time, as you imply, then telling them apart as we progress through the fossil record should likewise be simple.
But it's not.

Not as blurred as you are making out.I think you can see that the neanderthal skulls you are attempting to present as evidence of ape?to man are in fact nothing of the sort.The habilis fragments have been filled with plaster of paris.They are some extinct ape.You can see when you take your indoctrinated goggles off thats theres no connection between the chimp skull and the human ones apart from some atheist telling you their is one.Some of those skulls are animal,some are human, thats basically it.

What you call discrete "kinds" today look less and less discrete as we look further back into the fossil record.

They look different because they are different.Once again you are attempting to connect them is a result of your preconcieved ideas,instead of just looking at what they just are.

Humans and chimps may look very different today, but the line gets blurrier and blurrier as we trace our lineages back in the fossil record:

Theres no connection,its you reading far too much into it.Theres variation in the human skulls and variation in the animal skulls, thats it.This is why i view common descent as a religion.The proponents of it, make leaps of faith without even noticing that they are doing it.

Thus,
Difficulty comes with trying to match up the biblical kinds with the manmade phylogeny.I prefer to stick with the very basic kinds as reptile,fish mammal,amphibian etc.You cant look at the natural world and point to anything to back your theory up.Its all imaginative readings of fossils.Genesis rings true when you look at things how they actually are instead of how you want them to be.

 

[Mallon]

Actually theres no linking of fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal apart from an evolutionist's imagination.This hierarchial pattern is useful only to an extent.

Actually, there are all kinds of fossil evidence in favour of tetrapods having arisen from fish. You can read about that evidence here:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v16470436056263j/fulltext.pdf
If you'd like to make a specific argument concerning any of these fossils, please feel free to do so here. I got to hold a fossil of Eusthenopteron this year and was totally blown away by the fact that it has an honest-to-goodness humerus, radius and ulna! You don't see that in fish otherwise. Only in tetrapods.

You are in a Christian area, denying that a Common Creator could be an explanation?

The "common creator" argument is unsatisfactory for three reasons:
1) It doesn't explain the nested hierarchical distribution of traits among lifeforms. For example, why do placentas only occur in animals with fur? Why do feathers only occur in animals with an antorbital fenestra? Why do only animals with hooves have a rumen? An appeal to a common creator doesn't answer any of these questions. Evolution does because it predicts that such a nested hierarchical pattern should occur.
2) It is really meaningless to argue that similarities between organisms mean they have a common creator because a creator is free to create things as similar or as different as he likes. Leonardo da Vinca could draw, paint, and sculpt an array of different subjects, one having little to do with the other. There is no rule which holds that a creator must be constrained to create in similar ways.
3) If you insist that similarities point to a common creator, then what do the differences point to? A different creator? Does the fact that a dog is more similar to a cat than either is to a fish imply that the fish has a different creator?

Again, the common creator argument is bankrupt and really doesn't explain anything to someone who understands biology. This doesn't mean that I don't think there is a common creator. No doubt there is! But this cannot be inferred from organismal similarity.

 

[Mallon]

Not as blurred as you are making out.I think you can see that the neanderthal skulls you are attempting to present as evidence of ape?to man are in fact nothing of the sort.The habilis fragments have been filled with plaster of paris.They are some extinct ape.You can see when you take your indoctrinated goggles off thats theres no connection between the chimp skull and the human ones apart from some atheist telling you their is one.Some of those skulls are animal,some are human, thats basically it.

Well, it's easy to just say I'm wrong, but you haven't actually shown it. Exactly which skulls are human and which are chimp? And how can you tell? You say that Homo habilis is "some extinct ape", but did you know that neocreationists can't actually agree over whether it's human or a non-human ape? They've flip-flopped over the issue several times:
Comparison of all skulls
One would think that if the differences were so obvious, it should be a simple matter of drawing a single dividing line between apes and humans. But evidently it's not.
(By the way, there are only three Neanderthal skulls in the mix.)

They look different because they are different.Once again you are attempting to connect them is a result of your preconcieved ideas,instead of just looking at what they just are.

So again I ask: what are they? How would you classify the skulls I posted and what criteria do you use to distinguish one from another? Please be explicit.

Difficulty comes with trying to match up the biblical kinds with the manmade phylogeny.I prefer to stick with the very basic kinds as reptile,fish mammal,amphibian etc.

Interesting that you would define a "kind" so broadly. I don't think I've ever seen a neocreationist do this before. So when Noah brought one of each "kind" onto the ark, did he only bring four or five animals onto the ark?
Also, what about fossils that transition these "kinds" you're referring to? What about Tiktaalik, the fish with legs? What about Hylonomus, the reptile with a skull like that of an amphibian? What about Probainognathus, the proto-mammal with both a reptilian and mammalian jaw joint?
You keep telling me that I've got all these preconvictions that influence my position on this matter, but it strikes me that maybe you haven't even given thought to some of these things. I could be wrong, and if I am, I hope you'll provide a framework that does a better job explaining the patterns we see in God's creation.

 

[juvenissun]

In one way it should not seem strange at all. Gap Theory became popular in the 19th century as a response to the the discoveries of geology, that did not fit a young earth interpretation. Day Age and Analogical Day interpretation followed soon after and by the time modern Fundamentalism started up, all of the authors of The Fundaments were either Gap Theorist or some sort of Day age. As you say: When our observations of the world don't seem to match what the scripture says we are meant to dig deeper for the meaning of scripture not change it to suit our observations. The problem is, as science developed it no could no longer fit the Gap Theory. So Gap Theorists could either follow its founding principle and keep digging for the meaning of scripture, in which case they would no longer be Gap, or ignore the contradictions between Gap and science and insist dogmatically on Gap.

I don't know how dogmatic you are on the topic, but I have come across a lot of Gap Theorists who are highly dogmatic. I suppose modern Gap can only survive by being dogmatic and insisting that the Gap interpretation of different passages are the only true interpretation. But this dogamatism is very much at odds with the willingness to search out and explore the meaning of scripture that we see in many earlier proponents, and you seem to advocate in your statement.

This is what I heard.

Do you know the Big Bang theory also has a "gap" process called Inflation? It was not there, but added to it in order to let the theory make sense. It is a pretty magic description with no explanation.

 

[Assyrian]

Can you compare a lacuna in a text with a change in rate of expansion in spacetime?

 

[sawdust]

In one way it should not seem strange at all. Gap Theory became popular in the 19th century as a response to the the discoveries of geology, that did not fit a young earth interpretation. Day Age and Analogical Day interpretation followed soon after and by the time modern Fundamentalism started up, all of the authors of The Fundaments were either Gap Theorist or some sort of Day age. As you say: When our observations of the world don't seem to match what the scripture says we are meant to dig deeper for the meaning of scripture not change it to suit our observations. The problem is, as science developed it no could no longer fit the Gap Theory. So Gap Theorists could either follow its founding principle and keep digging for the meaning of scripture, in which case they would no longer be Gap, or ignore the contradictions between Gap and science and insist dogmatically on Gap.

I don't know how dogmatic you are on the topic, but I have come across a lot of Gap Theorists who are highly dogmatic. I suppose modern Gap can only survive by being dogmatic and insisting that the Gap interpretation of different passages are the only true interpretation. But this dogamatism is very much at odds with the willingness to search out and explore the meaning of scripture that we see in many earlier proponents, and you seem to advocate in your statement.

It became "popular" in the 19th century because it was needed then but the understanding that there is a gap between between Gen1:1 and Gen.1:2 is very old.

If you want me to ignore syntax, grammar and the semantics of Gen.1:1&2 and say there is no gap? Then I guess I'm going to fall into your "highly dogmatic" type because it is there. Why it's there, what it means, when and how did it happen? Those questions I'm open to for discussion.

peace

 

[juvenissun]

Can you compare a lacuna in a text with a change in rate of expansion in spacetime?

They are both made up to satisfy a theory.

 

[Assyrian]

It became "popular" in the 19th century because it was needed then but the understanding that there is a gap between between Gen1:1 and Gen.1:2 is very old.

That is why I said became popular. But the fact is you had theologians scientists and scripture scholars who left behind their young earth interpretation and looked for other ways to interpret Genesis when it became clear the young earth interpretation was wrong. The idea of the days being figurative is probably even older than gap. But the the important thing is not how old the alternative interpretation is but the fact you look for a better understanding when the facts don't fit your interpretation.

If you want me to ignore syntax, grammar and the semantics of Gen.1:1&2 and say there is no gap? Then I guess I'm going to fall into your "highly dogmatic" type because it is there. Why it's there, what it means, when and how did it happen? Those questions I'm open to for discussion.
peace

You see the difference here is that Christians in the nineteenth century were will to question the grammar and syntax that went with their young earth interpretation. Believing in the Gap Theory normally means buying into the syntax, grammar and the semantic arguments used to support it. Doesn't mean these arguments are right though. Being willing to dig deeper has got to involves questioning the arguments that support your old position.

 

[Assyrian]

They are both made up to satisfy a theory.

Wasn't Gap theory brought up not to satisfy another interpretation of Genesis but to replace Ussher's young earth creationism? And it is an interpretation of a text, not a scientific model of the natural world.

Of course, any scientific theory will adapt and develop as we get more information, or the old theory is abandoned because it simply does not fit. We used to think atoms were solid and the planets travelled in circles. If you really want to stretch the word 'gap' I am sure you could fit it to any scientific theory, that we had a 'gap' in our earlier information, that there is a 'gap' between the nucleus and where the electrons are usually found, a 'gap' between the expected circle and the elliptical orbit. If you want to use the word gap that flexibly I am sure you can, but it means any parallel you want to draw with the gap method of interpreting of Genesis is meaningless.

 

[juvenissun]

Wasn't Gap theory brought up not to satisfy another interpretation of Genesis but to replace Ussher's young earth creationism? And it is an interpretation of a text, not a scientific model of the natural world.

Of course, any scientific theory will adapt and develop as we get more information, or the old theory is abandoned because it simply does not fit. We used to think atoms were solid and the planets travelled in circles. If you really want to stretch the word 'gap' I am sure you could fit it to any scientific theory, that we had a 'gap' in our earlier information, that there is a 'gap' between the nucleus and where the electrons are usually found, a 'gap' between the expected circle and the elliptical orbit. If you want to use the word gap that flexibly I am sure you can, but it means any parallel you want to draw with the gap method of interpreting of Genesis is meaningless.

Good. No comment from me.
I am not a Gap Theory fan after all.

 

[praisejahupeople]

Well, it's easy to just say I'm wrong, but you haven't actually shown it. Exactly which skulls are human and which are chimp? And how can you tell? You say that Homo habilis is "some extinct ape", but did you know that neocreationists can't actually agree over whether it's human or a non-human ape? They've flip-flopped over the issue several times:
Comparison of all skulls
One would think that if the differences were so obvious, it should be a simple matter of drawing a single dividing line between apes and humans. But evidently it's not.
(By the way, there are only three Neanderthal skulls in the mix.)

You have a chimpanzee skull,australopithicus skulls which arent regarded as our ancestors by even evolutionary scientists and a selection of fragmentary habilus skulls.You would be stretching the truth to claim any of these as our ancestors.Its obvious to me,because ive actually checked up on the photos you presented, well before you posted them here..Your information is out of date.

So again I ask: what are they? How would you classify the skulls I posted and what criteria do you use to distinguish one from another? Please be explicit.

How about instead of grabbing whatever you can from talkorigins,going further indepth and finding out about australopithicus for a start.Even richard leakey says it was unlikely that australopithicus was our ancestors.Also find out more about neanderthals as well,current knowledge is tending towards them being human not ape.That throws your photos into disarray.

Interesting that you would define a "kind" so broadly. I don't think I've ever seen a neocreationist do this before. So when Noah brought one of each "kind" onto the ark, did he only bring four or five animals onto the ark?

No,ive defined it broadly because thats my biggest issue with the religion of common descent.You prove that these main kinds can transform into another kind.Without going back and trying to read fossils and attribute characteristics.What you believe in, defies genetics.

Also, what about fossils that transition these "kinds" you're referring to? What about Tiktaalik, the fish with legs?

Its probably an ancient form of large salamander or axolotl.Why not just view it for what it is,instead of trying to make it a link between two kinds?.There you are trying to make it into something it isnt.

What about Hylonomus, the reptile with a skull like that of an amphibian?

So you are claiming theres no biological issues with amphibian to reptile?Are you sure you arent just grabbing any animal that might have a few morphological similarities with another kind and ignoring the vast gulfs in physiology?Seems that way.

What about Probainognathus, the proto-mammal with both a reptilian and mammalian jaw joint?

See above,a few morphological similarities does not gloss over the fact that theres enormous physiological differences.Was this proto mammal cold or warm blooded?Did it have fur or scales.How did scales turn into fur.How did it give birth and suckle?? its young?

You keep telling me that I've got all these preconvictions that influence my position on this matter

Correct.You choose this belief system not based on research or knowledge but because it suits you the best.

but it strikes me that maybe you haven't even given thought to some of these things.

Well thats incorrect.I am that confident in what the bible says in Genesis,is true.

I could be wrong,

Yeah you are,but only on the subject of whether all animals come from a common ancestor(a single celled organism).What evolutionists dont seem to realise is that somebody like me believes adaptation,natural selection and variation are indeed true,however when you start trying to link every animal to each other which contradicts not only the account in genesis but basic biology,thats my issue.

and if I am, I hope you'll provide a framework that does a better job explaining the patterns we see in God's creation.

Common descent is true only to a point.I have been broad with my description of "kind" only because if you can prove a reptile can transform into a mammal,then whether a rodent can turn into a dog becomes rather moot.The patterns you see dont contradict what the bible states.