YEC's Unite Continued

[Underdog77]

In the original thread (which is now closed) I was getting confused. I believe it was Chi_Chigni (if I spelled that right) who claimed men are apes whereas evolution claims we are not apes but rather the descendents of the ancestors of apes.

First of all, I don't believe I ever heard of any solid evidence for that idea. Most things turn out to be as crazy as Nebraska man or Lucy.

But my main point here is that I've been accused of not knowing the evolutionary theory, what happened, blah blah blah... But nearly every chart I've seen lists man as the descendents of the ancestors of apes, not apes themselves.

If someone would like to clear up this inconsistency please go ahead. And Chi, maybe you should read about the evolutionary theory before posting here.

 

[notto]

Actually, his claim was that men are apes and if by that he intended 'primate', then he is correct. We are primates and loosely defined, 'apes'.

primate - any placental mammal of the order Primates; has good eyesight and flexible hands and feet

Noun1.ape - any of various primates with short tails or no tail at all

 

[Chi_Cygni]

In the original thread (which is now closed) I was getting confused. I believe it was Chi_Chigni (if I spelled that right) who claimed men are apes whereas evolution claims we are not apes but rather the descendents of the ancestors of apes.

First of all, I don't believe I ever heard of any solid evidence for that idea. Most things turn out to be as crazy as Nebraska man or Lucy.

But my main point here is that I've been accused of not knowing the evolutionary theory, what happened, blah blah blah... But nearly every chart I've seen lists man as the descendents of the ancestors of apes, not apes themselves.

If someone would like to clear up this inconsistency please go ahead. And Chi, maybe you should read about the evolutionary theory before posting here.

notto has referred to what I was meaning correctly.

You are the one who needs to learn what evolution says.

I was saying by zoological definition we are apes. That is according to biology a fact.

Evolution states that humans and the other apes descended from a common ancestor.

Chi_Cygni is the name. It is a long period variable star (Mira type) in the constellation Cygnus.

 

[Underdog77]

notto has referred to what I was meaning correctly.

You are the one who needs to learn what evolution says.

I was saying by zoological definition we are apes. That is according to biology a fact.

Evolution states that humans and the other apes descended from a common ancestor.

Chi_Cygni is the name. It is a long period variable star (Mira type) in the constellation Cygnus.

Understandable.

But back to what I believe is the ultimate need for evolution (theistic or atheistic): time.

Is there any proof of an old earth? Geological- no. Chemially- no. I have not proof that isn't based on assumptions. If you can, please present some.

 

[notto]

Understandable.

But back to what I believe is the ultimate need for evolution (theistic or atheistic): time.

Is there any proof of an old earth? Geological- no. Chemially- no. I have seen no proof that is based on assumptions. If you can, please present some.

Well, 99% of scientists would disagree with you on the age of the earth. 100% if you remove those who hold to a young earth for religious reasons. You might need to read a few more books on the subject.

What assumptions do you believe the accepted age of the earth is based on?

 

[Chi_Cygni]

It is ironic you say 'time' because many Creationists need explosive amounts of evolution to have occurred post Flood to explain current levels of biodiversity versus their concept of kinds and fitting things on the Ark.

Old Earth proofs - I don't have time to list them all - Google or go to talk Origins for list after list of these. Go to many University Geology or Astronomy department pages.

By stating 'assumptions' you are somewhat misunderstanding the use of the word in science. The computer you are typing on is based upon theory requiring assumptions. Every physics/chemical/biological/engineering model in existence is predicated upon assumptions of one form or another. There is no equation of everything that can be solved. Without making some assumptions at some level we would not have anything beyond the wheel and fire.

Of course a good model of anything is able to verify the assumptions made at some level.

Your statement at the end of your post though nicely encapsulates science in the sense that nothing is ever proven 100%.

An analogy you often see is that we observe gravity effects but is it the standard scientific theory or is it invisible pixies pulling on everything. Obviously we accept the former but we cannot 'prove it completely' - after all maybe it really is the pixies.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

The problem here is that you are trying to use the word ape as though it were a scientific term. Ape is a common word, not a scientific term. It is kind of like "whats the difference between a vegetable and a fruit". Tomatoes are considered "vegetables" along with potatoes and celery. However, they really are fruit, like apples or oranges. See what I mean. If I said "hey look at all the fruit I bought" and showed you a basket of cucumbers, pumpkins and tomatoes, you could say "those are not fruit they are vegetables". The thing is we would both be right.


I would say that, yes humans are a type of ape. Whereas someone else would say, no apes are only gorillas chimps and orangutangs . Since chimps and gorillas are more closely related to humans then to orangutangs, a natural group would include all four species.

In order to be technically correct in this case we should dispense with the generic term of "ape" and use the scientific terms like hominid, pongid, anthropidae... etc.

 

[GodSaves]

Ok, so am I correct then to believe that theistic evolutionists believe men evolved from apes? A few more questions:

Do theistic evolutionists believe there really is a God, or is God just an idea or philosophy?
Do theistic evolutionists believe that Jesus lived and was the Son of God?

I know I can go look this up on google to see what theistic evolutionists believe, but I am afraid I will learn and state what I read, then someone who is a theistic evolutionists will say I have it all wrong.

God Bless

 

[L'Anatra]

Understandable.

But back to what I believe is the ultimate need for evolution (theistic or atheistic): time.

Is there any proof of an old earth? Geological- no. Chemially- no. I have seen no proof that is based on assumptions. If you can, please present some.

Underdog, my personality can be rather sarcastic and caustic at times, and I certainly didn't mean to frustrate or anger you in the other thread. It was hopefully only a case of misunderstanding...

In any case, it's important to realize that you can't go into science with preconceived notions about the universe... you can't just decide the Earth is some age and try to fit the data to it. If the data says otherwise, you must change your ideas. Otherwise, you are no longer discussing science.

I think Chi_Cygni pointed you in a better direction than I could if you're interested in the science.

 

[L'Anatra]

Ok, so am I correct then to believe that theistic evolutionists believe men evolved from apes? A few more questions:

Do theistic evolutionists believe there really is a God, or is God just an idea or philosophy?
Do theistic evolutionists believe that Jesus lived and was the Son of God?

I know I can go look this up on google to see what theistic evolutionists believe, but I am afraid I will learn and state what I read, then someone who is a theistic evolutionists will say I have it all wrong.

God Bless

Theistic evolutionists believe men evolved from an ancestor we have in common with modern apes.

We believe there really is a God. That's why we're theists.
And we believe Jesus lived and was the Son of God. That's why we're Christian.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Ok, so am I correct then to believe that theistic evolutionists believe men evolved from apes? A few more questions:

Do theistic evolutionists believe there really is a God, or is God just an idea or philosophy?
Do theistic evolutionists believe that Jesus lived and was the Son of God?

I know I can go look this up on google to see what theistic evolutionists believe, but I am afraid I will learn and state what I read, then someone who is a theistic evolutionists will say I have it all wrong.

God Bless

I believe in a personal God who is very real. God became incarnate in Jesus Christ, who died and was ressurected.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Ok, so am I correct then to believe that theistic evolutionists believe men evolved from apes? A few more questions:

Do theistic evolutionists believe there really is a God, or is God just an idea or philosophy?
Do theistic evolutionists believe that Jesus lived and was the Son of God?

I know I can go look this up on google to see what theistic evolutionists believe, but I am afraid I will learn and state what I read, then someone who is a theistic evolutionists will say I have it all wrong.

God Bless

Note since theistic evolution includes all theists, not all theistic evolutionists are Christians. Jews, Muslims, and those who believe in a different god and believe that God uses evolution in creation all are theistic evolutionists.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Understandable.

But back to what I believe is the ultimate need for evolution (theistic or atheistic): time.

Is there any proof of an old earth? Geological- no. Chemially- no. I have seen no proof that is based on assumptions. If you can, please present some.

Just looking up at the stars at night reveals to me the ancient nature of God's Creation.

 

[L'Anatra]

Note since theistic evolution includes all theists, not all theistic evolutionists are Christians. Jews, Muslims, and those who believe in a different god and believe that God uses evolution in creation all are theistic evolutionists.

Good call, thanks for bringing that up.

 

[PaladinValer]

Ok, so am I correct then to believe that theistic evolutionists believe men evolved from apes?

NO! That is probably one of the oldest accusations against evolution in the book. Evolution does not state humanity evolved from apes but that humanity and apes share a common ancestor. There is a huge difference:

CA ----Humanity
|
|
-------Apes

A few more questions:

Do theistic evolutionists believe there really is a God, or is God just an idea or philosophy?

"Theistic" implies a belief in a actual Divine Being or Force, no?

Do theistic evolutionists believe that Jesus lived and was the Son of God?

I find this very insulting. This is the Christian-only section of CF and you dare to ask whether we really believe in Jesus? As if we weren't "Christian enough?"

[rant]Forgive me folks, but I've just about had enough of literalists and YECs treating TEs and many OECs as if we are second- or even third-class Christians. The very notion that they must ask us whether we believe in the Blessed Trinity like "they do" because we aren't as literal as they are is something utterly detestable and revolting.[/rant]

 

[nyj]

Ok, so am I correct then to believe that theistic evolutionists believe men evolved from apes?

NO!

You are not correct to believe that. Men and non-human primates shared a common ancestor, but that does not translate into men evolving from apes.

 

[pressingon]

I find this very insulting. This is the Christian-only section of CF and you dare to ask whether we really believe in Jesus? As if we weren't "Christian enough?"

[rant]Forgive me folks, but I've just about had enough of literalists and YECs treating TEs and many OECs as if we are second- or even third-class Christians. The very notion that they must ask us whether we believe in the Blessed Trinity like "they do" because we aren't as literal as they are is something utterly detestable and revolting.[/rant]

Chill out, friend. It seemed to me that GodSaves was honestly seeking a definition of a Theistic Evolutionist.

Your second comment accurately describes the tension between both sides -- I'm sure some TE's feel that way about their treatment by Creationists, and I KNOW that some of us Creationists feel that way about our treatment by TE's. As I posted in another thread here, we ALL need to remember that we're brothers and sisters in Christ. IMHO, we need to preview our posts, and try to read them as if they were directed at us first... if it seems overly critical or insensitive, rewording or even simple refraining from posting might be best for the cause of Christ. I'm no doubt guilty of this myself.

Sorry all, I know this was off-topic. Back to your regularly scheduled program....

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Do any of these post have anything to do with the title of the thread?
I agree that it is a good discussion, but it does not match the title.

 

[Underdog77]

Well, 99% of scientists would disagree with you on the age of the earth. 100% if you remove those who hold to a young earth for religious reasons. You might need to read a few more books on the subject.

What assumptions do you believe the accepted age of the earth is based on?

a) I doubt you can make such a statement leading us to believe you know the percentage of what scientists believe.
b) If you remove religion you can get all kinds of kooky ideas, I find it best to follow the Word of God rather than the fallible practices of fallible men.
c) The assumptions I refer to concern any radiometric dating method. Dating Methods go through the following to determine the age of a substance:
1) they observe the present state of the object
2) they observe the rate of change in the system
3) they make assumptions about the past
4) They calculate how long it for that process to produce the present state

The assumptions I mentioned in #3 are the following:
1) the decay rate has been steady and constant
2) no outside influences have tampered with the process
3) it was a certain state in the begining

Now if we look at these assumptions, we find they are so unreliable that the dating methods that use them are also ubnreliable:
1) Can we assume that the rate has been steady/constant? We can. Is it a good or safe assumption? Maybe, maybe not. This may be a safer assumtion than most so I will leave it alone.
2) Can we assume that no outside influences have tampered with the process? Not logically. How do we know nothing has extracted or added some of the parent or daughter sucstances? We don't, making this a hard one to swallow. Still, there are some areas where geologists are able to extract samples with assurity believing the sample was not tampered with.
3) Even if #'s 1-2 could be believable, we still must assume that we know the original concentration of the substances as they existed in the begining. This one requires a leap of faith. We are forced to assume (in this case, I would say guess) that we know how much of each substance there was in the beggining. We don't. Any figure given would be only a personal guess.

With these assumptions understood, we ought to be able to see the unreliablity of radiometric dating methods. :o

 

[Underdog77]

OOPS! I was going to add this about the dating methods.

When we take the example of Uranium-Lead dating, we must also mention that Helium is released through the process.

Now some calculations were done, but not without some assumptions of course. But these assumptions made favored evoltion.

Assuming that there was no Helium in the atmosphere to begin with, assuming that the release of Helium was constant, and assuming that there haven't been any non-radiometric releases nor extractions of Helium; the calculated amount of Helium in the air along with the rate of release tells us the earth is 2.2 million years old.

Wow!

Even with good, evolution-minded assumptions we get a relatively young earth! Only 2.2 Million years. Not enough, really, for evolution. While I don't believe that is the real age of the earth it does hinder the evolutionists view. There is room for adjustments to lessen even more the age of the earth but that would, again, be made on assumptions.