Skip to content

March 2, 2009

26

What the fossil record reveals about human origins

Thanks to Ray Comfort for another nice graphic…
Fossils

Read more from Blog
,
26 Comments Post a comment
  1. Anonymous
    Mar 3 2009

    Ah, I see you've adopted the Muslim position. Of course, there's a fringe minority of Christianist sects that follow it too. But they're the ones who are <a href"http://campaigndirector.moodia.com/Client/Theos/Files/FaithandDarwin.pdf&quot; rel="nofollow">more likely to go in for ghosts, fortune-tellers and horoscopes too (sorry, PDF!) and we shouldn't really mock their gullibility.
    Seriously though, do you expect anyone outside the church basement to think more highly of your arguments by ascribing scientific authority to Banana Man?
    Come to think of it, is it too much to ask creationists to try to come up with some evidence for their assertions?

    Sorry. Dumb question.

  2. danielg
    Mar 4 2009

    >> AM: Ah, I see you've adopted the Muslim position.
    Ah, I see you've adopted the Guilt By Association position. Muslims also believe adultery is wrong. Do you?
    Also, though you are being merely pejorative rather than logical, let me further address your illogic. Since Christianity predates Islam, by necessity, if Islam held any similar positions, it would be adopting our position. See how illogical you atheists are? Try again.
    Or in the words of one of the football players in the opening sequence of The Rundown, "STAY down, b*tch!" I mean that in love – or, at least, in light humor.
    Your PDF link did not work, please provide again.
    >> AM: Seriously though, do you expect anyone outside the church basement to think more highly of your arguments by ascribing scientific authority to Banana Man?
    As BM himself says, his original video was chopped up into bits and misrepresented by atheists to dupe others (and not surprisingly, it was swallowed whole by their fellow atheists).
    But you are making two mistakes here. First, you are engaging in the logical fallacy of Poisoning the Well – it is easier to dismiss your opponent than to address his arguments.
    Second, due to the popularity of the doctored BM video, he is now infamous, and his book is the #1 Seller in the atheism category on amazon – so I guess someone is listening. Go figure.
    >> AM: Come to think of it, is it too much to ask creationists to try to come up with some evidence for their assertions?
    We have, but you entirely ignore them. The plain fact that such hominid ancestors such as Lucy have been downgraded to entirely simian is direct evidence supporting what this cartoon illustrates.
    But why bring up our evidences again? You aren't REALLY interested in questioning evolution.
    And AGAIN, you are making YET ANOTHER logical mistake. When we criticize evolution, it is no defense to say "but we don't believe creationism" – the fact is, I don't care WHAT you DON'T believe, it's what you DO believe that is being critically evaluated.
    Just in case you don't know, this logical fallacy is essentially a Burden of Proof error (when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B).
    I applaud you for making at least three logical fallacies in one short comment. Illustrative of the atheist approach.

  3. Anonymous
    Mar 4 2009

    But when did I say I was an atheist? Are you saying that anyone who finds pseudoscience ridiculous is an atheist? The phrase 'guilt by association' springs to mind.
    And no, you have not produced evidence that supports creationism. The sites you link to in support of your assertions only criticise science (usually wrongly, and on the basis of craven misrepresentation), and suggest that any flaw or gap they find or fabricate proves their unsupported and inconsistent claims.
    I have yet to see any evidence that supports the creationist credo of special creation (whether of humans or anything else) less than 10,000 years ago, a global flood, talking donkeys and snakes (with legs, no less!), or the extinction of iron-age civilisation and its regeneration from fewer than 20 individuals.
    Go on, Daniel, show us the evidence for divinely-bent bananas.

  4. Anonymous
    Mar 4 2009

    PS: PDF link was to http://campaigndirector.moodia.com/Client/Theos/F…
    Apologies for bad link.

  5. danielg
    Mar 4 2009

    >> AM: But when did I say I was an atheist?
    My bad, I should have written 'evolutionist' – I use the two interchangably ;), since both attack creationism and eat poo.
    >> AM: The phrase 'guilt by association' springs to mind.
    Why, do you think comparisons to atheists are disparaging? ;)
    >> AM: And no, you have not produced evidence that supports creationism.
    This post is not about supporting creationism per se, it's merely a polemic and humorous cartoon. I have in many places provided evidences, and you can just to go AIG and read, I like much of their stuff. Things like the big bang, the Cambrian explosion, specified complexity in nature, and information theory of DNA all argue for a designer, as well as the arguments for a global flood from geology.
    Ironclad case? No, but I believe the data fits better than the 'as sure as gravity' nonsense espoused by evolutionary believers.
    And with regard to this cartoon, as I've said and can document, the fragility and fluidity and gaps in the human tree show how tentative common descent is with humans, and the fact that famous fossils like Lucy are routinely downgraded to fully simian status, or upgraded to fully homo sapien status (the fact that 'neanderthals' may have mated with modern humans is hilarious, since it supports what creationists have long said, that neanderthals were probably just modern humans, not proto-humans). I could go on all day, but you are not listening anyway.
    The evidence, however incomplete, is there. And I make fun of evolutionists because they believe a materialist fairy tale and are sure it is true.

  6. Anonymous
    Mar 5 2009

    Why, do you think comparisons to atheists are disparaging? ;)

    No, but you obviously do! That's why I pointed out your hypocrisy.
    And your best evidence is on AIG? Where the facts aren't facts unless they fit the Bible? Did you know the word 'gullible' doesn't appear in the dictionary, Daniel?
    It's entertaining, in a morbid way, to watch creationists flounder with science. Those who don't know any science don't want to learn any that might upset their beliefs [which must be quite insecure]. And those who do know science steadfastly refuse to produce evidence to supports their claims, because the whole show is just about keeping the faithful happy. Thankfully, creationists are a marginal bunch who are losing the political influence they used to have. Increased living standards and education usually reduce its acceptance.
    And Banana Man is still an idiot. The editing did nothing material to what he was saying.
    And gullible still isn't in the dictionary, Daniel

  7. danielg
    Mar 5 2009

    >> AM: AIG, where the facts aren't facts unless they fit the Bible?
    You may have issues with their approach and assumptions, but I challenge you to deal with their scientific arguments, not their bias. I understand if you reject their related scriptural arguments, but those are included for those who also want to discuss such things.
    >> AM: It's entertaining, in a morbid way, to watch creationists flounder with science.
    I'm sure it's self-reinforcing to take this approach rather than deal with any real challenges to evolution. But that won't convince anyone. I challenge evolution on factual and logical grounds, not biblical. I feel confident that evolution is implausible, and certainly not fact. The fact that evolutionists are so cock-sure belies their inability to be objective on such matters, and their deep emotional and psychological investment in it.
    >> AM: Those who don't know any science don't want to learn any that might upset their beliefs [which must be quite insecure].
    Some are like that, on both sides. I have a science degree and am not like that.
    >> AM: And those who do know science steadfastly refuse to produce evidence to supports their claims,
    They have been produced. You just don't find them compelling. Maybe they aren't – or maybe you aren't really open to considering them.
    >> AM: Thankfully, creationists are a marginal bunch who are losing the political influence they used to have.
    While you would like to think so, that is not the case at all. Not only do the majority of Americans believe in creationism, a growing number of scientists (only those who have tenure and aren't afraid of being Expelled) are voicing their doubts. I don't see the trends you wish were happening, but if that perspective comforts you…
    >> AM: And Banana Man is still an idiot. The editing did nothing material to what he was saying.
    Perhaps he was in that case. But poisoning the well does nothing to dispel good arguments against unbelief, cynicism, and bogus claims about the truths of evolution.
    And I still say that the fossil evidence supports this cartoon.

  8. Cineaste
    Mar 5 2009

    "I have a science degree and am not like that."
    You have a science degree and roll around on the floor like a fool when you speak in tongues. It's like an atheist with a degree from the seminary.

  9. danielg
    Mar 5 2009

    >> CIN: You have a science degree and roll around on the floor like a fool when you speak in tongues. It's like an atheist with a degree from the seminary.
    I see you know little about speaking in tongues, less about me, and even less about presenting a winning personality. And there are plenty of atheists that have seminary degrees. I mean, even St. Darwin's only degree was from a seminary. What an idiot he must've been, by your definition.

  10. Cineaste
    Mar 5 2009

    "I see you know little about speaking in tongues…"
    Then educate me about the nuances of speaking in tongues.

  11. danielg
    Mar 5 2009

    I assume you're all grown up. Educate yourself. Here, I'll help you:
    Glossolalia
    Baptism with the Holy Spirit

  12. Cineaste
    Mar 5 2009

    Looks to me like groveling on the floor and speaking gibberish is something only fools do.

  13. danielg
    Mar 5 2009

    if that's all it was, you would be right.

  14. Cineaste
    Mar 5 2009

    Okay, let me try it out then…
    Argle Bargle zoorf Thundercat Snarf Snarf!

  15. danielg
    Mar 6 2009

    1 Corinthians 2:14
    The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

  16. Cineaste
    Mar 6 2009

    Speak in tongues, Seeker. Let's see what it sounds like. You have a science degree! :)

  17. Cineaste
    Mar 17 2009

    I thought this excellent and FUNNY talk would shed some light on the subject…
    Talks Dan Dennett: Cute, sexy, sweet and funny — an evolutionary riddle

  18. Trevor
    Mar 17 2009

    This would be that by this time if the planet had an orbital spin and a spherical form then that would mean that gravity might be in place (I would hope or how we are on a spherical planet I can’t even imagine) and that if we had gravity then we should have had an ozone by now so as to differentiate atmospheric space and pressure for gravity from that of the spacial atmosphere of weightless void, which would be very hard to have this model in, and if by this time oxygen was needed, where did it come from, how was it sustained, b/c right now we have trees to replenish our oxygen and a plain source for where that ozone layer could have come from also with this the Ozone is based of the radiation from the sun, but how would the changing in the radiation from the sun have affected the gravity within this system.
    Another thing this process forgets to figure into this is that when rock and matter burns it lets off gasses (hence my lack of surprise that the ozone layer isn’t mentioned at all) This being that nothing that I am aware of when burnt creates oxygen, so I ask myself how long could this Pre Ozone layer be sustained while this process was underway
    I assume but have not heard a report on the evolution of the tree, but if were 100000 of years before the first tree I think things would be pretty dry anyways. Which brings me on to the next topic.
    From here there is a bit of a Gap, I started talking about single cell evolution and these thoughts are what have arose from that research:
    Furthermore the nature of the body relies on many different components in the sustaining of tissue, oxygen and blood are needed, yet Oxygen interacts with the Mitochondria (as seen in this quote from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_respiration
    “Aerobic respiration requires oxygen in order to generate energy (ATP). It is the preferred method of pyruvate breakdown from glycolysis and requires that pyruvate enter the mitochondrion in order to be fully oxidized by the Krebs cycle. The product of this process is energy in the form of ATP (Adenosine Triphosphate), by substrate-level phosphorylation, NADH and FADH2″.)

  19. Trevor
    Mar 17 2009

    And this about the Mitochondria in the bone marrow of man is needed to make Red blood cells which give life to our bodies and our organs like our lungs and tissue such as our flesh:
    http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/con…
    So therefore if there is a closed system of Energy needing to come from Mitochondria and Mitochondria needing oxygen to make blood, and the organs such as the lungs needing blood to live as well as oxygen then how could one exist without the other.

  20. Trevor
    Mar 17 2009
  21. Trevor
    Mar 17 2009

    I have heard someone post somewhere once that the human body is so complex and closed circuited and so many tracts that carry blood throughout our body that should one get clogged then we would die, not only that but the body needs the majority of it blood as with even a small amount of blood loss can have huge affects on a persons life and takes time to regenerate… so should we assume that blood somehow introduced itself into the single cell so that it could slosh around in these dormant factories that would one day be a living creature out of the blue without the influence of oxygen or life first coming into play…

  22. Trevor
    Mar 17 2009

    because it had to be present or when the flesh of the bodies organs gradually came into being then they would have starved to death with no life blood flowing through them, and the right amount would need to be there or the finished creature produced would likely die before being able to breath in the oxygen for his body to make the blood necessary to sustain life.

  23. Trevor
    Mar 17 2009

    Evolutionists believe that everything happened by chance through mutation and reproduction over billions of years, but the issue I have with this is that the breeding relationship and the reliance of a species on two identical but different gendered members of that species really speaks of design rather than chance, ok think about it this way from the single cell to the living creature their would have to be a window where at the same span of a 100 or so years (or relatively short lifespan) the same thing would have to been created in both female and male, so they could mate, but not only this but in possibly greater numbers then just two, so if you don't have this detailed timeline of events evolution would fail to create a living society of life.

  24. Trevor
    Mar 17 2009

    but not only that but how can it be explained that random mutation and chance could for a working reproduction system to interact with a species the mutating creature did not know was going to exist in its lifetime, as in reproduction both the male and female aspects hold DNA sequences involved in making the offspring. This argument should make you feel ashamed about thinking 20 fully formed creatures couldn’t survive long enough to reproduce and create a civilization, and I have heard there is an argument concerning that reproduction which is completely viable as people can have numerous children especially in an environment where the only concerns are harvesting food, which I am sure some of the creatures would have been domestic in nature producing some kind of food, or also breed and we are told that they had food left over when they got off the Ark, if you can find fault with any of this, I will post the full document that this came from which is 6 or 7 pages long.

  25. Trevor
    Mar 17 2009
  26. Trevor
    Mar 17 2009

    and full of sourcing, the truth is we were made for God and that is why people who don’t know Him fill their lives with booze and all sorts of other things such as tearing people who are happy with God down, and harsh humor, if all men knew the joys of God’s love for them which shows them the purpose they were called for and steals the power of the grave through Christ this world would have no need for police and no need for senseless death. If you read all this I will be impressed haha

Share your thoughts, post a comment.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Switch to our mobile site

Page optimized by WP Minify WordPress Plugin

Compression Plugin made by Web Hosting