Jan
31
2007

My Two Cents (01/31)

  • Pyramids were Poured – Scientists and historians have long marveled at the precision of the pyramids’ construction, and the size of the stones used.  New evidence supports the theory that the stones were poured like concrete, not hauled from local quarries.
  • Youngest Transexual – a 12 year-old boy who felt he was a girl was terrified by the onset of puberty – all that icky facial hair.  Anyway, British doctors agreed to treat him with hormones until he reaches the age for a sex change (18).  He is now a happy "girl." 
  • Myth of Adolescence – the guys at Rebelution have written an excellent article on how modern day teens waste their teenage years on trivialities rather than setting their sites high.  Real high.
  • Cultural Relevance – should churches aim to be culturally relevant?  Where does that stray into being worldly?  Is cultural irrelevance really a problem? 
  • Music: What say the scriptures?  Here’s a nice list of all the scriptures that have to do with music. (NOTE:  "Rock and roll is a sin" is not among them.)

58 Comments+ Add Comment

  • I know we’ve had this discussion, but was the 12-year-old boy just flippantly making this decision, as you imply, or was there a more serious medical issue here?

  • I didn’t mean to imply it was flippant, though I was probably flippant. You can follow the link and read the story, I suppose a lot of thought went into it.

  • “Pyramids were Poured” from Answers in Genesis. Non-Christians, why even bother?

  • Thanks for the list of scriptures on music. Call me a dork, but I looked them all up. (ok, not all…just the NT ones) Very cool. (is there such a thing as a Bible Geek? :-p)
    So I have a question and a comment.
    My question is: Rev 4:10? Is a crown some kind of musical instrument? I have heard of a musical group called casting crowns, so I assume they got their name from that verse.
    My comment (ok, several comments…):
    Our views on music differ, I think. But I believe it only differs as it applies to use/practice in church worship services. (as opposed to an individual’s daily life)
    My notion is that because of those verses in 1 Corinthians (13:1; 14:7,8,15,26) we are supposed to sing in worship. Not play…any thing.
    Because singing teaches with words, and instruments teach nothing. Also the verses in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3: 16 lend to that thought.
    What do you think?
    I think it says to sing together so that the worship is about everyone learning together (unity), because when everyone sings together (instead of each doing his or her own thing, read 1 Cor. 15:26) it edifies everyone, without leaving anyone out.
    Plus. I know people who will not go to a church that doesnt have a “wonderful music program”. And to me, that is putting so much emphisis on Entertainment, instead of Edification.
    Not to mention… what if a church is a poor group of people who cannot afford a bulding, not to mention a piano? I guess then they are second rate. Perhaps since they cannot afford to get up a band, they are not capable of spreading God’s word, or preaching the truth?
    You would prolly deny any of that, but simply by saying that ANY music is acceptable in worship; rather than just the singing for edification listed in 1 Cor… you are adding something to God’s word that makes people respect certain people above others.
    That is not to say that the songs you sing need to have a certain beat, or have to be from the 18th century. But they should have words of love (1 Cor. 13:1) and teaching (1 Cor. 14:7-9) so that everyone can understand and join in (15:26)…
    Anyway, what do you think?

  • According to the article Seeker, the boy went through intense psychological evaluation and testing before the sex change was offered. And as we’ve previously discussed, some people are born with the hormones opposite of their physical gender. Meaning a born boy has a body full of estrogen and progesterone. I acknowledge that you’re opposed to all things deviating from your ideas of sexuality, but this seems like much more a medical situation than anything else.

  • On the sex change child…Medical situation? The doctor treating the child said:
    “Kim is a mentally well-developed child who appears happy and balanced. There is no doubt of the determined wish, that was already detectable since early childhood. It would have been very wrong to let Kim grow up to be a man. It is rare to have such a clear-cut case.”
    Isn’t that totally contradictory? And how can it be wrong to let a child with male genetalia grow up a male? It seems to me it would be the opposite.
    Or is male genetalia now considered a defect?
    Sorry, I had to let out a giggle there.

  • **Ooops** I spelled genitalia wrong! My bad. hahaha

  • much ado about nothing.

  • A question for creationists. When you look at this picture, do you say to yourselves, “No relation?”
    It’s so obvious…

  • some people are born with the hormones opposite of their physical gender.
    Um, obviously that wasn’t his problem, since they had to GIVE him hormones to make him female.
    but this seems like much more a medical situation than anything else.
    I didn’t see any chemical analysis of the boy being mentioned, only his desire to be a girl, which could be entirely environmental and social.

  • I say to myself, “how cute!” :)
    But how come there are/were not half monkeys – half humans walking around…. ever.
    EVER.

  • But how come there are/were not half monkeys – half humans walking around…. ever.
    EVER.

    What do you mean Lawanda?

  • Lawanda,
    Regarding the use of music in worship, see Are Musical Instruments Only for Old Testament Worship?

  • “Pyramids were Poured” from Answers in Genesis. Non-Christians, why even bother?
    That’s right, why bother engaging the arguments when you can just make ad hominem attacks. I mean, who cares if they quote secular peer-reviewed journals like The Journal of the American Ceramic Society or secular magazines like Science Daily?
    In fact, this argument must be some kind of creationist plot. I mean, if the pyramids were poured, doesn’t that mean that we didn’t come from apes?!?
    Honestly, Cin, your approach to the article is shameful. It is interesting to consider, since this is one of antiquity’s unsolved mysteries.

  • That’s right, why bother engaging the arguments when you can just make ad hominem attacks.
    Seriously, why should non-Christians bother with “Answers in Genesis?”

  • Maybe this is something we can talk about? You know about that scare they had in Boston the other day from the light bright looking things? I think that the Democratic Mayor is really out of line. Do you agree with this Seeker or no?

    Menino is going on TV and insisting he’s going to send a 27-year old artist to jail for not breaking any law, because his police department overreacted and wasted a million dollars feeding a media frenzy and terrorizing the population of his own city. That’s a cowardly act of self-preservation, and were he not threatening the life of an innocent young man it would be laughable.
    Let’s get a few facts straight on the Aqua Teen Hunger Force sign fiasco:
    1. Attorney General Martha Coakley needs to shut up and stop using the word “hoax.” There was no hoax. Hoax implies Turner Networks and the ATHF people were trying to defraud or confuse people as to what they were doing. Hoax implies they were trying to make their signs look like bombs. They weren’t. They made Lite-Brite signs of a cartoon character giving the finger.
    2. It bears repeating again that Turner, and especially Berdovsky, did absolutely nothing illegal. The devices were not bombs. They did not look like bombs. They were all placed in public spaces and caused no obstruction to traffic or commerce. At most, Berdovsky is guilty of littering or illegal flyering.
    3. The “devices” were placed in ten cities, and have been there for over two weeks. No other city managed to freak out and commit an entire platoon of police officers to scaring their own city claiming they might be bombs. No other mayor agreed to talk to Fox News with any statement beyond “no comment” when spending the day asking if this was a “terrorist dry run.”
    4. There is nothing, not a single thing, remotely suggesting that Turner or the guerilla marketing firm they hired intended to cause a public disturbance. Many have claimed the signs were “like saying ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” Wrong. This was like taping a picture of a fire to the wall of a theater and someone freaked out and called the fire department.
    5. The FCC can’t pull a private cable network’s license, Mayor Hyperbole McFuckwit.
    They are being charged with disordery conduct and placement of a hoax device.
    Chapter 266: Section 102A1/2. Possession, transportation, use or placement of hoax devices; penalty; law enforcement or public safety officer exemption
    Section 102A1/2. (a) Whoever possesses, transports, uses or places or causes another to knowingly or unknowingly possess, transport, use or place any hoax device or hoax substance with the intent to cause anxiety, unrest, fear or personal discomfort to any person or group of persons shall be punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

  • Music:
    seeker, you ignored my question :-p
    You said I actually do NOT like worship in small groups – it can be awkward, and difficult to get people to lose their self-consciousness enough to actually sing and mean it, or lose themselves in communion w/ God.
    The name of your blog is two or three. Do you not think two or three people as a church can be just as powerful as 2 or 3 hundred people????
    The congregation of people I worship with has grown over the years. We are a full 70 people strong now on Sunday mornings. We started out at less than 15 people, and for much of my life, we averaged about 25-30. We worship in the old one room school house where my mom went to school.
    I never noticed ANY awkwardness. When you have sincere people, there is no awkwardness…. or if so initially, it is easily overcome.
    You also said The absence of musical worship in the NT does not mean it should not be part of our experience.
    So am I to assume that the absence of the sacrifice of the bull or goat in the NT does not mean it should not be part of our experience?
    Singing is portrayed in the NT as worship. Worship is for our edification.
    You say Having enjoyed a drum circle, I can attest to the power of certain rhythms creating certain atmospheres, and the power of a rhythm to call up feelings, maybe even spirits, is not that far-fetched.
    Well I say, “Having enjoyed singing Amazing Grace and Farther Along many times in my life with the beautiful sound of my brothers and sisters all around me; I can attest to the power of GOD’s WORD to create an atmosphere of worship and praise and love for God and man.”
    And I say that your priorities are wrong. You would have only the rich enjoying your “spiritual dimension” or rythms, etc.
    I say God’s way is simplistic enough for even the poorest people on earth to worship God and edify one another.
    Each and every person is given the only instrument they need to be filled with the spirit. Ephesians 5:19
    ————————————————–
    Cineaste: I mean – if we are related by more than just being creatures of the earth and having similarities, where is the proof? Where are the part man/part monkeys hiding? :)
    I just cannot believe in total evolution any more than I guess you can believe in creation.

  • Where are the part man/part monkeys hiding? :)
    Lawanda, I honestly don’t know what you are asking. What part man/part monkeys do you refer to?
    – Cin

  • Cineaste: The ones that would logically exist if men and monkeys were related.
    :)

  • Why would they logically exist? I’m not being purposefully dense. Can you explain the logic?

  • Oh dear, my apologies for messing up the html somehow.

  • So, why would “part man/part monkeys” have to exist logically? What did those links demonstrate? I read them.

  • If we are related we’d have common ancestors. If we have common ancestors they would logically have characteristics of both sets of supposed relatives. Is that NOT logical?
    Those links demonstrated (to me at least) the mess that evolutionary biology is in trying to trace all the supoosed relatives to each other. Let’s face it, the “family tree” is just a tangled mess.

  • If we are related we’d have common ancestors. If we have common ancestors they would logically have characteristics of both sets of supposed relatives. Is that NOT logical?
    Indeed! Very logical. When you look at the picture of the little girl and the ape with their hands pressed to the glass, didn’t you notice any similar characteristics?
    Look here Lawanda :)
    Can you honestly say to yourself, and honestly to God, that you see no similar characteristics?

  • 1. Because the majority of Americans believe in special creation
    2. Because AIG is the primary YEC site, and if you refute their arguments, you are pretty much refuting all YECs.
    3. Because they do make interesting, scientific arguments. Dismissal only fuels mistrust of evolutionists.
    4. Because intellectual discussion is fun

  • Is anyone having problems posting comments? More than half of the time, I get a Network Error timeout – I don’t even get the annoying spam confirmation number page. I think it’s either my work connection or our firewall/proxy here, not sure.

  • the Democratic Mayor is really out of line.
    No, I think he should lay the smack down on the irresponsible parties who think it is funny to fool our public servants. After playing such games like the boy who cried wolf, I wouldn’t blame the authorities for NOT responding when a real crisis occurs.
    If they let the deception go on, knowing it was wasting public resources, they should get smacked. A few months in the pokey is not out of the question, if you ask me. And you can start with Ted Turner if he was in on it ;)

  • It might be Typepad, Seeker.
    1. This means little. The majority of the world is non-Christian. On top of that, you must be a fundamentalist (Take the Bible literally). If one is not a Christian fundamentalist, AIG does not apply.
    2. Agreed, see #1.
    3. AIG arguments are only interesting to Christian fundamentalists. That’s your (2or3’s) intended readership. Non-Christians shouldn’t even bother with AIG. AIG is disreputable, biased, unscientific, deluded, irrational, silly, ad infinitum.
    4. Agreed, but AIG is anti-intellectual. Debating AIG is not fun, it’s pointless. It’s religion. Genesis is religion, specifically the Christian religion.

  • I think he should lay the smack down on the irresponsible parties who think it is funny to fool our public servants.
    These public servants were very foolish though. This gorilla advertising was done in 10 other cities without a problem. It looks like a scape goat job with the media making mountains out of mole hills. Oooooo the light bright milkshake could have killed us all!!! One can also see where a bunch of people took pictures of the milkshakes weeks before and posted them all over the internet. Seriously, the terrorists have won if people are this hysterical. I realize that right wingers love hysteria though. It makes people fear and when people fear they give up freedoms for a false sense of security.

  • what if a church is a poor group of people who cannot afford a building, not to mention a piano?
    Then they should pray for instruments. Harmonicas are cheap. Flutes can be made out of hollowed out reeds. Pots and pans can be banged to great effect. Every see poor kids on the street corners playing percussion on plastic buckets? It’s great.
    Arguments against the use of music are usually backwards, legalistic, and devoid of the freedom and joy that Christ provides. I wouldn’t give in to such legalists for a minute – in fact, I’d be tempted to kick them out before they putrefy the whole church with such doctrines. I said “I’d be tempted” – I’m sure that may not be the best decision, but legalists are poisonous.
    I mean, if they were able to praise God “with loud drums and cymbals” (Psalm 150) under the old covenant, how much more should we loudly rejoice under the New Covenant?

  • Seriously, the terrorists have won if people are this hysterical. I realize that right wingers love hysteria though.
    Um, whatEver. The terrorists have won if we live in fear, but if some marketing group leverages that fear to get media exposure, not realizing that our public servants are often on high alert, I think they are being childish and selfish. I don’t want to scape goat anyone, or overlook any breakdowns in communication or needless escalation of such false alarms, but to leverage our fear of real and present dangers for marketing is irresponsible at best, maybe even criminally negligent.
    Conservatives (good ones, that is) don’t want hysteria, but a realistic and circumspect evaluation of the threats of terrorism and Islamism, something which multi-cultural liberalists are basically asleep to.
    This is why Europe is having such a hard time with Islam, because they are pushovers. As Bernard Lewis said recently in The Jerusalem Post:

    [The Muslims] seem to be about to take over Europe. The outlook for the Jewish communities of Europe is dim. Europeans are losing their own loyalties and their own self-confidence. They have no respect for their own culture.

  • if they were able to praise God "with loud drums and cymbals" (Psalm 150) under the old covenant, how much more should we loudly rejoice under the New Covenant?
    They did many things differently in the old testament than the new. The fact that the Bible says "sing" and not "beat the drums" in the new testament OUGHT to mean something to you. When they worshipped in the OT, they brought meat, burnt, and sacrificial offerings to God too. Are you a Jew, or a Christian?
    Then they should pray for instruments.
    If instruments are necessary enough for worshipping God to need to pray for them, then I would think they'd be mentioned SOMEWHERE in the NT as used for worship. But no, nada, nil. Nothing except singing. I see NO WHERE in the NT that ANYONE prayed for instruments. Jesus certainly never used them or told anyone they NEEDED them.
    You may call that legalistic, but I call that trying to please God by listening to what he tells me, and not plugging in what I like or dislike about the matter.
    And also, really… by turning it into something you put on a stage, or even just in front of other people…. Think about it. Entertainment? or Edification?
    It is the same thing as preachers who become stand up comedians while in front of the church. Pretty useless to edifying, although prolly pretty entertaining. They may make you laugh and feel good, just like musical instruments do, but don't do much for your learning. Dont get me wrong, I love instrumental music, but I really do not see how you can use it in a "worship service" where you are supposed to be worshipping God. The same God who inspired the NT; in which there is absolutely no mention whatsoever of any type of musical worship except singing.

  • drat. sorry :-p

  • Gah! Can this be fixed?

  • The fact that the Bible says "sing" and not "beat the drums" in the new testament OUGHT to mean something to you
    Well, I guess that depends on whether you follow the Regulative Principle of scripture application (we are limited only to what they do in the bible) or the Normative (we are limited only by the Bible's prohibitions. I believe the latter is more in keeping with our liberty as Christians.
    When they worshipped in the OT, they brought meat, burnt, and sacrificial offerings to God too.
    Yes, well, as you know, the sacrifice of Jesus did away with the need for sacrifices. What new testament principle makes music no longer necessary?
    then I would think they'd be mentioned SOMEWHERE in the NT as used for worship.
    Again, you are following the very limiting Regulative hermeneutic. None of the missionaries in the New Testament used medicine or any kind of creative arts in outreach. By your logic, these should not be done either, it seems. That logic leads to the most dry and lifeless Christianity I can imagine.
    And also, really… by turning it into something you put on a stage, or even just in front of other people…. Think about it. Entertainment? or Edification?
    If your worship team is there to be entertaining, then I'd say you've got a problem. However, if they are up on stage so that they can LEAD others in true worship, then you've got no problem.
    I mean, you make it seem like God would say to us "rejoice, but DON'T use music! Don't dance like David did! Don't leap for joy! Only sing acapella!" Perhaps you are not saying this, but it sure appears so.
    You may call that legalistic, but I call that trying to please God by listening to what he tells me, and not plugging in what I like or dislike.
    This is the problem with a fundamental view of God and man. It says "it's not about you, God doesn't care about you or how he made you, he only cares that you do it His way."
    God cares about what we like and dislike. Like a father, he wants us to enjoy what he has given ("all things to enjoy"). Sure, when pleasure, and our likes and dislikes become idols, God would be displeased, but to say that God does not care about what we like or dislike is saying that God doesn't care about US.
    There is a balance to be had, and being anti-music is an extreme. Just like sex or food OR alcohol, for that matter, music is to be used within the bounds that God intends, and I find no precedent for NOT using music in worship, and plenty for it. You can't invalidate the use of music just because it is absent in the NT, you have to have a scriptural reason.
    If you meet anyone who tells you we should not use musical instruments in worship, run the other way, because for SURE they have a host of other Pharisaical doctrines they will want to foist on you.

  • You call the reaction to the light bright milkshake cartoon character "realistic and circumspect?"
    Well, I didn't read the item too closely. I mean, were the items in question questionable in appearance, or were they clearly NOT electronic devices that could have been bombs? We'll see how it plays out, but my first reaction is, if they intentionally played on people's fears to make a point, they should pay the consequences for their "success." Dumb *sses.

  • I've done it somehow with the italics. My apologies. I tried to fix it too, but to no avail.
    Cineaste: If you think it is logical, then you have to admit to some being that was/is part man, part monkey. Which has never been found to exist, except perhaps in theory.
    Dogs are very similar to cats and horses to cows as well. And we are like them in that we all are mammals. According to any theory of (total) evolution, we are related to all of them as well……

  • I mean, were the items in question questionable in appearance, or were they clearly NOT electronic devices that could have been bombs?
    A person could be a bomb, but I get your point Seeker. here is a video of them putting these things up. Judge for yourself.
    Aqua Teen Hunger Force Guerilla Marketing

  • …then you have to admit to some being that was/is part man, part monkey.
    Why Lawanda? I asked before, why does there have to be some sort of half man / half monkey creature?
    Dogs are very similar to cats and horses to cows as well. And we are like them in that we all are mammals. According to any theory of (total) evolution, we are related to all of them as well……
    Correct, though more distantly related.

  • What new testament principle makes music no longer necessary?
    I would say the principle of the NT absolutely avoiding the mention of it at all would apply!
    Just like sex or food OR alcohol, for that matter, music is to be used within the bounds that God intends, and I find no precedent for NOT using music in worship, and plenty for it. You can't invalidate the use of music just because it is absent in the NT, you have to have a scriptural reason.
    So if he doesnt even mention it except when he says "sing and make melody in your heart" you do not see that as a boundary?
    And food, in worship? The only food he mentions for use in worship is "fruit of the vine" to drink, and "bread" to eat; to remember his sacrifice. But by your application and reasoning that would not exclude other foods for the purpose.
    THAT is inequal treatment of scriptural reasoning.
    Please show me the precedent for using music in (group) worship. I would think that would prove difficult since it is NOT MENTIONED in the New Testament (that section of the Bible where we are told how to worship God as Christians.)
    ——————————————————–
    Cineaste: I said – If we have common ancestors they would logically have characteristics of both sets of supposed relatives. Is that NOT logical?
    you said – Indeed! Very logical.
    The ancestors had to change (evolve) at some point. So they would have characteristics of both man and monkey. But that is only theory so far. Unless they've found proof that such a part man, part monkey existed. And then there is the old question of why are there still monkeys….
    I have heard people and their dogs start to resemble each other after they live together for a while. Is that a form of evolution? ;) hehe

  • The ancestors had to change (evolve) at some point. So they would have characteristics of both man and monkey.
    Nope. They are separate species.
    And then there is the old question of why are there still monkeys….
    If Protestants came from Catholics, why are there still Catholics? Really, it's that simple.
    This might help Lawanda

    1. The claim is akin to asking "If my grandparents emigrated from Europe, why are Europeans still around?"
    2. Modern humans did not descend from modern apes. Modern humans and apes had a common ancestor species that has since gone extinct.
    3. However, speciation does not require that every member of a parent population be changed or go extinct. Speciation can occur in a subpopulation that becomes isolated from the main group. Therefore, both the parent species the descendant species can exist at the same time.
    4. This is probably based on a misunderstanding of the concept of natural selection. The claimant thinks that according to the theory of evolution, a species evolves from another because it has higher fitness than that species, so all individuals of the old species should have either evolved into the new one or died out. But fitness is always related to the environment. Non-human apes do well in their environment (tropical rainforests). Our ancestors moved onto the plains and adapted well for that environment. Both forms of life are successful for different reasons and in different environments.
    5. The claim also seems to assume that humans are not themselves apes. Homo sapiens are a subgroup of apes in the same way we are a subgroup of mammals and a subgroup of vertebrates.
    6. Creationist think-tank Answers in Genesis agrees that this claim is useless, and is on their list of arguments that should not be used.

    I hope this helped out a bit :)

  • You are being contradictory still. Here you say: Nope. They are separate species.
    Five lines down you quote: Modern humans and apes had a common ancestor species that has since gone extinct.
    Which was my entire point. Which you've been avoiding.
    I know this has been claimed over and over, but never proved. It is the proverbial thorn in the side. :-p
    Speciation can occur in a subpopulation that becomes isolated from the main group. Therefore, both the parent species the descendant species can exist at the same time.
    About this: since we have had actual history for about 10,000 years now, I would suppose that we might notice a certain group of humans or apes even or any animal even, slightly evolving by now. And yet…. no proof whatsoever.
    And did you read about the Tarsier? It has had the same dental pattern forevah. So it just had no need to evolve? Evolutionist seem a bit fuzzy on what evolves and why and when and how.
    I'm just sayin'. You cannot believe God create us, I cannot believe we evolved from apes. You think evolutionary theory is crystal clear. But it is not. It is a mess. And it hasnt got any clearer since the theory started.
    You think that there is no proof for intelligent design. But I think the "proof" evolutionists offer for their theory is #1 misunderstood, and #2 very muddy, and easily misunderstood.

  • Lawanda, you've got a black-and-white mind working on a color-coded problem. Let's not waste any more of our time on this.

  • Well, I think that is a sort of cop out because you know it is too muddy to prove, but it is ok. I get tired of repeating myself too. :)
    Since I have been told all my life that I am above average intelligence, I would say evolutionary theory would be nearly impossible for people of average or below average intelligence to figure out, not to mention prove.
    Evolution is not for everybody to understand, I guess. Only biologists who study it everyday, and people who went to college. (Although I would wager a very few of them understand either…)
    At any rate thanks for the conversation, it is always a pleasure. :)

  • I have been told all my life that I am above average intelligence
    I'm not saying you have low intelligence Lawanda, just that this is how you think.

  • hahaha That was cute.
    But I have to disagree with it being how I think. I would say I would be more of a "Hold the Bible next to it, and let us see what more there is to find!" ;)
    And I hoped you didn't think I was of lower intelligence than I really am, but that wasn't really my point… my point was how it is so difficult to wade through the theory of evolution, even if you have the capability of understanding it….And even once you do wade through it all, you are still left with just a scientific theory.

  • …my point was how it is so difficult to wade through the theory of evolution.
    Okay, one more try from where we left off before, please look over this again…

    The ancestors had to change (evolve) at some point. So they would have characteristics of both man and monkey.
    Nope. They are separate species. (see #4 below)
    And then there is the old question of why are there still monkeys….
    If Protestants came from Catholics, why are there still Catholics? Really, it's that simple. (see below)
    This might help Lawanda
    1. The claim is akin to asking "If my grandparents emigrated from Europe, why are Europeans still around?"
    2. Modern humans did not descend from modern apes. Modern humans and apes had a common ancestor species that has since gone extinct.
    3. However, speciation does not require that every member of a parent population be changed or go extinct. Speciation can occur in a subpopulation that becomes isolated from the main group. Therefore, both the parent species the descendant species can exist at the same time.
    4. This is probably based on a misunderstanding of the concept of natural selection. The claimant thinks that according to the theory of evolution, a species evolves from another because it has higher fitness than that species, so all individuals of the old species should have either evolved into the new one or died out. But fitness is always related to the environment. Non-human apes do well in their environment (tropical rainforests). Our ancestors moved onto the plains and adapted well for that environment. Both forms of life are successful for different reasons and in different environments.
    5. The claim also seems to assume that humans are not themselves apes. Homo sapiens are a subgroup of apes in the same way we are a subgroup of mammals and a subgroup of vertebrates.
    6. Creationist think-tank Answers in Genesis agrees that this claim is useless, and is on their list of arguments that should not be used.

    What don't you understand still? What point(s) do you need help with? Just give me the number(s) and tell me what you don't understand about it.

  • 2. Modern humans did not descend from modern apes. Modern humans and apes had a common ancestor species that has since gone extinct.
    You said there was no part ape/ part human. But yet Modern humans and apes had a common ancestor species that has since gone extinct. I would assume that species had some human and some ape characteristics, or how else would it's decendents have any of either characteristics?
    Is there proof such a species (which had characteristics of both human and ape) existed? Or was it just an ape?
    Because…
    … fitness is always related to the environment. Non-human apes do well in their environment (tropical rainforests). Our ancestors moved onto the plains and adapted well for that environment. Both forms of life are successful for different reasons and in different environments.
    Why did some of that one species move to the plains, if they were thriving in the rainforest? And why did other species or classes (or whatever the correct term is) of animal or even plant not do the same (as in split into two totally seperate/different species)?
    And also why are we (or any animal for that matter) not still evolving? As I pointed out, in the 10,000 years of history that we do have there seems to be no proof whatsoever that it is happening.

  • Hi Lawanda. I hope you had a nice weekend. Okay, to answer your questions properly you need to have a basic understanding of evolution. I am NOT here to change your mind at all. After a year arguing with Seeker and Aaron about evolution I know full well I won't change your mind. I understand you hold Genesis over evolution. Repeat: I am not trying to change your beliefs.
    You don't have to believe evolution but that should not prevent you from understanding it properly, I hope :) So, may I please ask you to keep an open mind about learning how evolution works and not automatically dismiss the time frames involved; millions of years and not in a person's lifetime.
    Please go through the following evolution primer. It's on the high school level so it should be fairly simple and elegant. If you don't understand the basics presented here I don't think you will understand my answers to your VERY GOOD questions above.
    Here you go!
    Evolution 101: An introduction to evolution
    Oh! And this primer will also answer your question about the Tarsier you provided me in your Wiki link. I didn't forget about the Tarsier :)

  • I understand you hold Genesis over evolution.
    (eyes rolling) No, we hold good science (and genesis) over evolution. And before you say it, good science is not defined as that which agrees with my interpretation of genesis, but good science is verifiable, logical, and based on the evidence.
    The assumptions and evidential support beneath (macro) evolution are sadly lacking, and as discussed repeatedly, no matter how much evolutionists opine that their pet theory is fact, that does not make it so. It's got enough big holes in it to be laughable, except I'm not laughing because I was once duped by it, and many people today are as well.
    But we all need our system of faith for origins, and evolution certainly fits that bill. But calling your faith fact? Well, that certainly isn't science ;)

  • No, we hold good science (and genesis) over evolution.
    Do you? What other scientific theory do you hold instead of evolution. Genesis? Sorry. Biblical stories are not science. Biblical stories are, surprise; religion (Christianity). Come back when you actually have a scientific alternative.
    But we all need our system of faith for origins, and evolution certainly fits that bill. But calling your faith fact? Well, that certainly isn't science ;)
    blah, blah, blah… I can't tell if this is the recorded message of Seeker repeating himself or if it's just you again with nothing new to say or add.
    Come on Seeker, don't deny Lawanda a chance to learn by jumping back into this conversation by attacking evolution before she even understands how evolution actually works. Let her make up her own mind. I'm sure she will still be a creationist but at least she will know what she is talking about when all of us debate. Just judging from her questions, she does not yet know enough about evolution to reject it. Don't cheat her out of knowing how other people understand the world. It's not forbidden knowledge.
    Please make a separate post for your response because right now Lawanda and I are talking about how evolution works. Reasons for rejecting evolution is a different conversation because it's wrong for her to dismiss something just because she does not have a clear understanding of it.

  • I saw the ;) too late so I didn't realize you were joking. My bad Seek. You were joking right?

  • Genesis? Sorry. Biblical stories are not science.
    Rapid appearance through intelligent design. And just as you can not observe or prove your first cause or theory of origins, neither can I. However, I can do perfectly good science to back up my theories of what has happened since then, including genetic degradation – in fact, degradation of our entire system, as witnessed in the simple law of entropy, the possibilities of slowing molecular speeds and changes in various "constants", as well as many evidences for a young universe.
    But I already know that, unlike most of the brilliant scientists of the last 1000 years, you do not hold to a biblical world view, and dismiss science based on it because you have your own unsubstantiated mythology that you claim as fact because it is naturalistic. By definition, you omit God as a first cause, thinking that is a god in the gaps argument.
    Again, we disagree on what science is – you conflate your assumptions with your interpretation of historical data with empirical data, treating them all as equally factual. You deny science built on assumptions other than your evolutionary myth, and treat those who doubt it as idiots and heretics. That's how bad faith works.

  • Doh! You were not joking then.

  • Nope. I was chiding.

  • Ah! Well, I certainly feel I didn't deserve to be chided/scolded/rebuked/reproached just for answering Lawanda's questions. You raise many points and I will respond to all of them, but first I want to help Lawanda out with this. I don't care if she rejects evolution but if she at least understands it properly, she can come to her own conclusions. She is sincere I think, in wanting to know more and I really appreciate that. Heck, if she can learn how evolution works maybe she can teach me some scripture :)

Leave a comment

You must be logged into post a comment.