A recent commenter proposed a long list of human fossil remains that are supposed to support the evolution of humans. But providing a long list proves only that some data exists. The question is, does it support the evolution of humans? My reading of the evidence says "no." They are either entirely homo sapiens or entirely simian, and any contention that they are otherwise is due to the need to fit them into an evolutionary schema, not based on the fossils themselves.
The links I provide below show that there is considerable disagreement on these fossils among evolutionists, or that creationists have reason to doubt their evolutionary interpretations. The fossils are, in and of themselves, not conclusive at all that these creatures were evolutionary ancestors of humans.
There may be interesting evolutionary responses to each bit I have exerpted, and I’m sure they have been discussed in much more detail at sites dedicated to this debate. However, the point is, throwing a lot of data at people doesn’t mean you have a case. In fact, when looked at individually, and then collectively, the human fossils hardly supports evolution at all. To say that the evidence is obviously conclusive is to be deluded and trying to cow others into agreement.
- Sahelanthropus tchadensis – "Now a row over this Toumai skull has hit the pages of the prestigious journal Nature that reinforces this skepticism. Senut is joined by fellow evolutionary paleoanthropologists Martin Pickford, Milford Wolpoff and others in arguing strongly that the skull is not on the human line at all (see Wolpoff et al., Sahelanthropus or ‘Sahelpithecus’?, Nature 419(6907):581–582, 10 October 2002). They say it is from an early gorilla or chimp, or a similar now-extinct species. Its short face and small canine teeth, rather than being evidence of ‘humanness’, are likely to be because it is female, a phenomenon called ‘sexual dimorphism’. Amazingly, considering the strong claims made at the time of the initial ‘hype’, Wolpoff says, ‘I don’t see how you can tell what it is, but it is not human’. He points out that the muscle attachment ‘scarring’ on the skull shows ‘quite clearly’ that the creature did not walk upright as humans do—‘it is not human’ he says."
- Ardipithecus ramidus – "As we reported, a later Nature article admitted it was ‘possible that Australopithecus ramidus is neither an ancestor of humanity, nor of chimpanzees …"
- Australopithecus anamensis – "The australopithecine fossil assemblage is equally messy. Tattersall and Schwartz suggest that the taxons Australopithecus africanus (including the Taung skull), Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) and Australopithecus anamensis (fossils recently found by Richard Leakey’s wife, Meave) may each consist of several species."
Australopithecus afarensi (a.k.a "lucy") – "An evolutionist from the University of Chicago, Richard Tuttle, has said: ‘In discernible features, the Laetoli G prints are indistinguishable from those of habitually barefoot Homo sapiens.’5 However, to conclude that humans made them would be ‘ruled out of order’ by the dating! Dr Tuttle compared them to the footbones of the ‘Hadar hominid’, classed as A. afarensis, and claimed that this would rule out afarensis as the makers of the tracks (he postulated some other ‘derived hominid’).6 Evolutionists generally like to think that Lucy did walk upright, to lend support to the markedly weak case for ‘ape-men’…There has for some time been good evidence that Lucy did not walk upright." - Kenyanthropus platyops – "Daniel Lieberman (George Washington University, Washington, DC) in the same issue of Nature.4 writes: ‘The evolutionary history of humans is complex and unresolved’. He goes on to say: ‘I suspect the chief role of K. platyops in the next few years will be to act as a sort of party spoiler, highlighting the confusion that confronts research into evolutionary relationships among hominins.’"
- Australopithecus africanus (the Taung Skull) – "Surveying 100 years of paleoanthropology, Matt Cartmill (Duke University), David Pilbeam (Harvard University) and the late Glynn Isaac (Harvard University) observed: ‘The australopithecines are rapidly sinking back to the status of peculiarly specialized apes’. Today, many authorities dismiss the Taung Skull as simply that of a young ape, which shares interesting, but irrelevant, features with man."
More to come. Needless to say, this list of fossils is interesting, but hardly conclusive regarding evolution. I’d hate to have my world view resting on this kind of evidence.
Yes, it's better to base your 'worldview' on something much more grounded, like faith.
I posted a long list of fossils supporting the evolution of mankind to show there is a "mountain" of fossil evidence and that creationists must deny every single one on behalf of religion. These are just fossils of mankinds ancestors. Creationists must also deny fossil evidence supporting evolution in the animal kingdom. Creationists must also deny support for evolution in geology, genetics, paleontology, astronomy and many other scientific fields of study.
Basically, all creationists can do is cast doubt on evolution to confuse people while providing no empirical evidence to support their own beliefs. If you have questions regarding creationist attacks upon evolution please visit the excellent Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism
Here is a little info about the wonderful site by Mark I. Vuletic.
The modern controversy over creationism is a war over science education rather than a war over science. Having no science to offer, creationists have directed their efforts at subverting science education through the courts and the media, understanding that once science education fails, science itself cannot long stand. Recent headlines attest that their legal machinations continue to result in high-profile failures, but that their propaganda campaign has enjoyed moderate success. The only strategy that can ultimately prevail against this campaign is to match propaganda with information: to sink as much time and money into educating the public as the creationists do into misleading it.
The Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism is a small contribution to this war of information: it tries to help counter the media threat by providing to the general public a free source of comparatively brief and comprehensible analyses of creationist assertions that either attack or exploit aspects of modern science. The Defender's Guide covers all aspects of the creationist rejection of science, which extends beyond evolutionary biology and paleontology to other sciences like physics and geology, and to chapters of the scientific history of the universe that precede evolution. The Defender's Guide covers not only nominally "scientific" claims, but moral, theological, and philosophical ones as well.
I am sure part II of this post will simply be more denials and attacks upon evolution while providing no scientific evidence for creationism. Again, Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism is an excellent source of information and clarity.
Look, there are not mountains of evidence. But I guess we should define "mountains." And at least, in this post, I am showing that the evidence is sketchy, and does not support evolution.
Evidence exists, yes, but it doesn't say what you think it says. I am negating evolution to show that just because you throw out a bunch of fossils doesn't mean they support your case. In fact, ALL of the fossils you mentioned are, by the admission of sources like Nature magazine, highly suspect.
If you want a pro-creationist spin on the fossils, as well as all the other disciplines of science, rather than an anti-evolution one, I can certainly provide them, and they do exist. Just venture over to http://www.answersingenesis.com or one of the other creationist sites and browse by discipline.
The contention that creationists are attacking modern science is really a half truth – while supporting and employing the scientific method, they are attacking modern *scientists*, who are blinded by their evolutionary assumptions, and can't see that their conclusions are often bogus.
But we won't answer this debate definitively here. Suffice it to say, that attacking creation science as religion while ignoring the valid scientific critiques of modern evolutionary thinking leveled by creationists is, in my mind and the minds of many (50% of Americans), disingenuous, needlessly anti-religious, and ignoring the true lack of validity in many evlutionist interpretations of the natural world.
The way evolutionist throw their hands up in a fury when they are challenged by creationists may seem necessary to them as they "protect science from religion," however, to the rest of us, it looks like they are protecting their own religion while ignoring the huge gaps in their evidence and reasoning. And so it will continue for a while, I suspect.
Yes, it's better to base your 'worldview' on something much more grounded, like faith.
It may be. You sound like you have a low view of faith. Perhaps that's because you think of faith as "blind faith." The truth is, we all have faith in someone or something. The question is, is the object of our faith really trustworthy?
If the object of your faith is a literal, "plain sense" reading of Genesis, then I would say no.
Many of these quotes seem to come from the debate raging over where various fossils fit in the divergence of species rather than outright questioning of evolution. This type of argument is like saying since there is great debate over gravity in quantum theory, the entire thing must be wrong. How many of the persons quoted by AiG would consider the evidence for common ancestry to be anything less than overwhelming?
AiG does not seem to use the scientific method, since they upfront state that all evidence must be understood in light of their specific understanding of the Bible. That is not a common part of the scientific method.
I would also note that evolutionists are usually joined by astronomers, cosmologists, geologists, paleontologists, and physicists when they throw up their hands in fury over the bad science propagated by AiG, et al.
Not only MUST this site refute all the fossil discoveries supporting evolution but it must also refute the science in other fields that support evolution.
I agree with you that they have a vested interest in trying to disprove all evolutionary thought, but while that may be suspect, that does not in and of itself invalidate their arguments. Arguments have to be dealt with on their own merit.
And in fact, they often quote secular sources like Nature to show that these fossils are disputed, and well regarded secular scientists doubt the validity of the findings. How to you respond to those scientists? Will you accuse AIG of cherry picking responses, or actually deal with the comments leveled by the scientists in nature that you think are objective?
The disagreements they mention are more than just picking a minority opinions, and IMHO, can not be explained by "normal academic discussion of data." The fact that there is significant and worthy secular opposition to almost every supposed human ancestor fossil shows me one thing – that the evolutionary assumption behind them can only be sustained by faith, and may in fact be entirely false. It certainly doesn't show any signs of stability, unles you glue it all together with faith that it really happened (circular logic, of course).
That's a heck of a lot of science that must be denied, denied, denied all in the name of Christianity.
I think that's your spin. That's like me saying that evolutionists are denying the faith with every publication. And again, creationists are NOT contradicting science or the scientific method, they are contradicting the conclusions of those with evolutionary world views and how they misinterpret the data. Creationists are merely pointing out that secular, probably pro-evolutionary scientists often, if not in all cases, have strong disagreements with the interpretation of these fossils (often fossil fragments).
But evolutionists overlook this, choosing to believe only those who intepret fossils in a pro-evolutionary framework, rather than looking at the fragmentary nature of the record, and the significant disagreement in their own journals, the huge wiggle room, and the constant flip-flopping of conclusions on fossils, that, IMO, falls outside of the normal scientific fine tuning, but rather, shows the elastic nature of evolution, and amounts to just rewriting everyting to fit what is observed rather than addmitting that the whole model should be discarded.
I mean, how many times have phylogenetic trees been cut back to the root and redrawn? For the human fossil record, the whole thing is filled with dotted lines, total redraws, and dead-ends. So now you are caught in a dilemma – does this reflect the paucity of data (which you say there is plenty of) or the crappiness of the evolutionary model? I'd say both ;).
Maybe you think I am misrepresenting the human tree, but I don't think so. I can't find a good link to the history of the tree and how it's changed over time, but I bet, rather than looking like the gradual advance to a more sophisticated and complete model that shows the quality of good prediction, it looks like a comedy or errors, a chinese fire drill with lots of empty seats.
Like I said, no evidence, no matter what it is, can change the creationist view. This tells me creationists do not follow the scientific method, despite your claim otherwise. Regarding your own "doubts" as to the validity of the fossils I listed, IrrationalEntity made a good point…
Many of these quotes seem to come from the debate raging over where various fossils fit in the divergence of species rather than outright questioning of evolution. This type of argument is like saying since there is great debate over gravity in quantum theory, the entire thing must be wrong. How many of the persons quoted by AiG would consider the evidence for common ancestry to be anything less than overwhelming?
AiG does not seem to use the scientific method, since they upfront state that all evidence must be understood in light of their specific understanding of the Bible. That is not a common part of the scientific method.
I would also note that evolutionists are usually joined by astronomers, cosmologists, geologists, paleontologists, and physicists when they throw up their hands in fury over the bad science propagated by AiG, et al.
Now, I keep making this point over and over and I'll keep doing it until I receive a valid response…
Assume evolution is wrong. What scientific theory would you replace it with? Creationism is not science, its faith. Creationists have nothing to offer the world as an alternative to evolution except Genesis, that's a fact. That's the problem.
Hmm…I think Cineaste's question is good but unfair.
Creationists seek legitimacy for belief by making certain arguments.
The point here, of course, is that the arguments are not designed for skeptics like Cineaste and me. The arguments need to contain enough logic and jargon to convince *other* believers that they are right. This is about protecting one's faith in a world where reality is hostile to it; mutual reinforement of worldview by setting up a "parallel universe" is a necessary prerequisite for that to occur.
Social psychology also predicts that ultimately no evidence is enough because a successful challenge to even a single element of faith threatens the whole edifice. Because of faith's emotional basis grounded in the limbic brain, no appeal to neo-frontal reason will ever be a strong enough challenge. I highly recommend "A General Theory of Love" which has a great section on neurochemistry and why it's not possible to reason with people in love, people who have strong religious faith or people in the grip of fear.
But that's the point of my question isn't it Sean, to show that faith is unreasonable whereas empirical science is rational? I agree with your point about the creationist argument, and it fits perfectly in a religious context but they are trying to shoehorn an inherently religious view into the scientific world. They know this; its part of what Seeker told me was a Christian cultural mandate.
I think I know what you are saying though, that I'll never convince Seeker. I know, but it's just frustrating that I can't reason with someone who, on other subjects, is someone I do find reasonable. I keep thinking people think like me. Your right, I see his dilemma and why my question is unfair to him. It is a valid question nonetheless.
I see a lot of potential misunderstandings here:
Many of these quotes seem to come from the debate raging over where various fossils fit in the divergence of species rather than outright questioning of evolution.
The issue here is whether a fossil is simian or totally human, not where it branches. This foundational debate exists for most of these fossils, and really begs the question – are any of these really human evolutionary ancestors, or merely ancestors identical to modern simians and humans that exist today? Creationists say that these fossils don’t support evolution in the least, for that reason – they are merely simian or human, and nothing inbetween. I think that’s a valid argument. You say that the disagreements are merely over where the tree branches, but from the quotes I gave, I’d say that really, they’re just trying to figure out what kind of simian or modern human bone you’ve got, and any connections between them are mythical, but not real.
Assume evolution is wrong. What scientific theory would you replace it with? Creationism is not science, its faith.
I already told you. I *do* assume evolution is wrong, and that creationism is a valid alternative, though neither is absolutely provable, due to the nature of the evidence, which is purely historical, not empirical. I already told you, I disagree with the statement that creationism is not science, but faith. I have repeatedly said that a theistic primary mover is as good a primary assumption as any other, since by definition, assumptions aren’t proved, their a given. From that assumption, we can attempt much good science, as was done BEFORE the savior evolution came along. The fact that you can’t separate your faith assumptions from your science when evaluating creationism only reflects the evolutionist’s total inablity to do so with his own or any other world view, which is one reason why creationists are emboldened to attack it.
This is about protecting one’s faith in a world where reality is hostile to it;
I’d say that is is about practicing one’s faith in a culture where the world view is hostile to it – but reality is fine with it because we hold that religious, historical, and scientific truth, like all truth, are integrated and not somehow disconnected. We hold that in reality, things probably did not evolve. One of the many reasons I have given for this is that it disagrees with scripture, but also because it disagrees with the fossil record and other branches of science while pretending to be in accord with it, and meaningful (when it is only meaningful as a world view for those who are trying to explain origins, an essentially religious question), and because it integrates well with other faulty idea systems like atheism, social darwinism, and eugenics.
Because of faith’s emotional basis grounded in the limbic brain, no appeal to neo-frontal reason will ever be a strong enough challenge.
This explains very well people’s attachment to evolution despite it’s fanstastic claims and poor accomodation with what we observe in nature. It is so strongly held, not because the evidence supports it, but because it answers ultimate questions without invoking a deity – rather, it invokes the miracle of life from non-life, of impersonal nature’s miracle working power rather than a personal God.
to show that faith is unreasonable whereas empirical science is rational?
Again, your low view of faith is dreadfully obvious. Have you not read or liked my treatise on the relationship between faith and reason? The blind faith that is contrary or resistant to reason is not biblical faith, it is a straw man set up by those who do not understand faith or seek to misrepresent it for an easy win in an argument. Faith goes beyond reason’s limitations by using reason to identify trustworthy sources of information, and then taking their word for it until such time that our limited reason and intellect can catch up.
I see his dilemma and why my question is unfair to him.
OMG, could you be just a little more patronizing? No question is unfair. I find your question repetitive, since I have answered it in many ways. The fact is, we disagree on some foundational assumptions and definitions. You clearly think of science as limited to naturalistic materialism, and have no room for theistic first assumptions. And so you believe creationism, which has the latter, to be “not science.” I get that. Further, you represent faith in a seemingly simplistic manner which disconnects it from reality in the minds of those who practice it, which makes you appear to be unable to comprehend of a faith that is integrated with reason and science.
Also, whenever faith and science disagree, you err towards science. That isn’t a bad stance in general, but in this case, I think you are sadly mistaken and thoroughly brainwashed by those who chant about the gobs of supporting data – the more you examine each bit of supposed evidence carefully, the more you see how weak each piece really is. And putting a bunch of weak links into a chain doesn’t make for a stronger chain, though evolutionists seem to think that their “mountain” of sketchy evidences, when put together, are somehow additive in their strength, when in truth, they are more like a chain full of weak or missing links ;)
IMHO.
Christians such as Seeker seem to have a big problem dealing with Evolution . I do find this hard to comprehend myself. There seems to be an inpenetrable schema at work here. Referring to ID sites to support his arguments seems to me to be a hopeless waste of time . The "Christian cultural mandate" is nothing more than Christian Dominionism. "An American Taliban", as Richard Dawkins puts it in his documentary "Root of all Evil?"
Science only advances with harsh criticism and peer review. The fact that Evolution by Natural Selection still stands in the scientific community after 150 years is quite impressive. Every scientific advance in all spheres of science has confirmed the basic concept so far . Scientists still disagree over various mechanisms of "how it works" , this is the strength of science ,not the weakness!
The best thing about science is ,you don`t have to take anyones word for it! Anyone can go to the library or research the web, it`s all there. Have a long hard look at the big picture. http://talkorigins.org/ http://newton.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.h… http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkin… http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoContents.html
Ah, I see you are also a night owl :)
Creationists say that these fossils don’t support evolution in the least.
My point is that there are countless pieces of evidence for evolution spanning multiple scientific fields and yet in the eyes of a creationist, NONE are valid. To the rest of the world’s scientific community, they are valid. That is an indication of bias which ruins the scientific method and makes creationist arguments against evolution suspect. Visit Defender’s Guide to Science and Creationism for rebuttal’s to creationist arguments.
I disagree with the statement that creationism is not science, but faith.
Seeker, supernatural assumptions are not science. Maybe Mark I. Vuletic can explain it better than I.
The standard position among scientists appears to be that supernaturalism is incompatible with the methodology of science, but also that science is unable to comment on ultimate metaphysical issues such as the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural. That is to say, the working scientist must in the laboratory presume for methodological purposes that there is a naturalistic explanation for whatever phenomenon she is investigating, but may place her findings in whatever wider metaphysical context she wishes once she steps out of the laboratory.
I believe, to the contrary, that it is in principle possible for certain kinds of supernatural explanations to be consistent even with scientific methodology, although perhaps this can be the case only if the boundary between natural and supernatural is fluid. For instance, the positing of an agent who operates in the universe by mechanisms that contravene the natural laws we are familiar with, although a supernaturalistic hypothesis, can become naturalistic by expanding our set of familiar natural laws to take the new mechanisms into account. The history of science would seem to bear this out, since, for instance, scientists in the time of Darwin came to reject creationism not because it was supernaturalistic, but rather because they thought evolution did a much better job of explaining the data.
In any case, whatever the general compatibility or lack thereof between supernaturalism and science, it is clear enough that most of the use creationists make of supernaturalism is in fact incompatible with science. For instance, the ad hoc appeals many creationists make to the inscrutable will of a divine agent in order to square their hypotheses with any conceivable data renders their hypotheses unfalsifiable and thus unscientific (e.g “The existence of vestigial structures doesn’t support evolution because God might have wanted to create such things for some unknown reason.”). Likewise, it is certainly unscientific for creationists to simply posit supernatural action as an explanation for a phenomenon without even hinting at what mechanism might make such agency possible (e.g. “Naturalists cannot explain how the universe came into existence, but we can: God did it somehow.”).
I’d say that it is about practicing one’s faith in a culture where the world view is hostile to it
No, it’s protecting your faith in a world where reality is hostile to it. Even the “Da Vinci Code” is perceived as a threat.
Faith goes beyond reason’s limitations by using reason to identify trustworthy sources of information, and then taking their word for it until such time that our limited reason and intellect can catch up.
Assume first then work your way backwards? Listen Seeker, Faith is unreasonable because one can’t reason with it. The faithful will believe what they believe no matter how reasonable an argument against it is. Love is unreasonable for the same reason. You know the saying “Love is blind?” Well, so is faith. So is religious faith.
You represent faith in a seemingly simplistic manner which disconnects it from reality in the minds of those who practice it, which makes you appear to be unable to comprehend of a faith that is integrated with reason and science.
When I say faith, I am speaking of religious faith. You are correct; I can’t comprehend religious faith that is integrated with reason and science. Why? Because I looked up reason and science in the dictionary and “faith” is a virtual antonym. Every time you reply that creationism is science I discount it because it’s simply false. Genesis is biblical. Therefore, creationism is religion and we all agree religion is not science. You posit creationism as an alternative to evolution, this coming from people who believe in witchcraft?!?
I think you are sadly mistaken and thoroughly brainwashed by those who chant about the gobs of supporting data – the more you examine each bit of supposed evidence carefully, the more you see how weak each piece really is. And putting a bunch of weak links into a chain doesn’t make for a stronger chain, though evolutionists seem to think that their “mountain” of sketchy evidences, when put together, are somehow additive in their strength, when in truth, they are more like a chain full of weak or missing links
Just as the church eventually did with heliocentric theory, Christians will eventually accept Evolution. You fundamentalists are the last hold outs in the world.
Cin,
You are eloquent (or your sources are), but mistaken. We'll have to disagree. Your unfortunate, mistaken view of faith will forever limit you to the realm of what you understand or can prove. It reminds me of the person who never wants to risk being hurt, so never falls in love. The person who never wants to risk being fooled will likewise never find faith.
When you finally look for meaing outside of intellect, you may find you need faith more than you thought. But don't fear – real faith is very unlike what you think it is.
My point is that there are countless pieces of evidence for evolution spanning multiple scientific fields and yet in the eyes of a creationist, NONE are valid.
My point is that there are countless pieces of evidence for CREATION spanning multiple scientific fields and yet in the eyes of a EVOLUTIONIST, NONE are valid.
"Reality is what doesn`t go away when you stop believeing in it"- I forget who made that quote but it seems to fit this discussion.
There are thousands of religious God concepts in the world. Many involve FAITH and personal experience. The world of science and indeed the skeptical individual are AWARE that these are all different and highly subjective in nature. In other words, one religious persons revelation is no more indicative of anything outside his/her own brain than a daydream they had . Even Buddhists experience trancendental mental states,none of which involve God or Jesus warning of eternal hellfire…wonder why?
Science proceeds on metaphysically naturalistic grounds. This is not a bias ,simply put ,there has never been the slightest shred of evidence of any kind for the existence of the supernatural. The very word doesn`t even make sense . Everything that exists must be Natural ,whether we know about it yet or not! There has never been any other catagory of reality.
This is why we do Astronomy and not Astrology. This is why the germ theory of disease replaced the Demon posession theory of disease (don`t laugh, Jesus believed this).
This is why the germ theory of disease replaced the Demon posession theory of disease (don`t laugh, Jesus believed this).
I agree with much of your description of science and the supernatural, although again, I think science can proceed from certain starting assumptions, be they materialistic (abiogenesis) or supernatural (creation event).
And Jesus did not doubt the germ theory. In fact, some people were healed of fevers and leprosy (no demons involved) while others who had demons had them cast out. I think where the confusion comes in is the case of the "epileptic" whom Jesus cast the demon out of. Many interpret this as saying that epilepsy is caused by demons. However, this is a poor translation. In this case, it is conceivable that the possessed man had seizures, not because he was a medical epileptic, but because he had demons, and the resulting psycho-somatic illnesses.
My point is that there are countless pieces of evidence for CREATION spanning multiple scientific fields and yet in the eyes of a EVOLUTIONIST, NONE are valid.
Examples?
The fact that you call a fictional book "reality", instead of seeing what I correctly called it – "culture", proves my point very well. You have culture and reality confused.
You missed my point. That novel is a reality you must deal with. You are threatened by it.
When you finally look for meaning outside of intellect, you may find you need faith more than you thought.
I was finished believing in the tooth fairy, Santa, witches, ghosts, demons, and the great big sugar daddy in the sky long ago. I have faith in the love of my family. I have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow. I have faith that you will continue to deny evolution and promote the supernatural even when everyone thinks you're irrational to do so.
Examples?
Just visit answersingenesis.com and browse across the disciplines.
You missed my point. That novel is a reality you must deal with. You are threatened by it.
No, I got your point. But as I remarked, this book is viewed differently by various xians – as a threat, or as an indicator of a larger threat, and/or as an opportunity.
The fact is, Jesus said that the "world,", meaning this world's value systems based on the love of money, possessions, and pleasure, not to mention anti-faith and anti-god sentiments, will always war against the truths of xianity. It is no surprise. Jesus warned "if they hated me, they will hate you also." That is the reality we are faced with.
I was finished believing in the tooth fairy, Santa, witches, ghosts, demons, and the great big sugar daddy in the sky long ago.
Well, this is another good example of how you (a) misunderstand faith, and (b) have a corresponding low view of it. I'm sorry that you continue to hold on to your erroneous charicature of faith. Hopefully, you will actually read the words of Jesus to better inform your opinions. I mean, having not even read the Sermon on the Mount, I'm surprised that you can form any opinion on xianity that is not second-hand.
But before you go read, let me fill you in on a secret. Jesus said that he taught in parables for a reason – so that skeptics looking to find fault could easily dismiss what he said, while those actually searching for truth could easily understand it. This goes hand in hand with the "parable of the sower" which you should probably read first. Jesus said that if you don't understand this parable, you won't understand the rest of them.
But also, let me save you some time – the meaning of the parable of the sower is this – if your heart is hard, you won't hear or understand. If it is prepared to listen, you will.
I can't find the examples you refer to. Do you have a link?
This book is viewed differently by various xians – as a threat, or as an indicator of a larger threat, and/or as an opportunity.
This is my point LOL. Christians are protecting their faith.
Well, this is another good example of how you (a) misunderstand faith, and (b) have a corresponding low view of it.
I read the sermon after reading the Ghandi quote. I used to go to church every Sunday for years. It still does not make creationism into science.
Christians are protecting their faith.
What's wrong with that? So are evolutionists ;)
I used to go to church every Sunday for years.
You went to church for years and never read the Sermon on the Mount? Was it a Christian church? If it was, sounds like it may have been a CHINO church (Christian in Name Only).
On Answers in Genesis, go to the link below and you can choose your topic: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
You went to church for years and never read the Sermon on the Mount?
I wasn't old enough to read yet when I first went to church. I did read all 7 books of the Chronicles of Narnia in 3rd grade. The sermon was a bit too advanced for me at that age. I'm a bad Christian in your eyes I guess. What are some examples of CHINO churches?
"Christians are protecting their faith." What's wrong with that? So are evolutionists ;)
(Sigh) Here we go again. Evolution is not faith. If a better scientific theory comes along and replaces evolution so be it. Creationists can't say the same because one can't reason with scripture, no matter how eloquent the argument.
My point is that there are countless pieces of evidence for CREATION spanning multiple scientific fields and yet in the eyes of a EVOLUTIONIST, NONE are valid.
I looked at this article http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/c…
This is your scientific evidence? The Bible? Weak stuff Seeker. The bible is not admissible as evidence, science is.
I wasn't old enough to read yet when I first went to church…I'm a bad Christian in your eyes I guess.
I'm not sure if you're a christian at all – are you? I never tried to determine that, don't have all enough info. If you were that young, then your mention of having gone to church for so many years is less meaningful in one sense, since you lacked adult critical reasoning skills, and probably experieneced xianity from a child's emotional perspective, and not from an adult one. That's not invalid, just less pertinent to discussions of logic and faith.
(Sigh) Here we go again. Evolution is not faith.
Sorry, I was being a little facetous. What's wrong with defending what one considers to be the historical, scientific, or theological truth? That's what xians are doing.
This is your scientific evidence? The Bible? Weak stuff Seeker.
Some of the articles are bible related, and for the sake of science folks, they should separate them out. I should have told you to look at the ones marked "technical" or "semi-technical."
Feel free to browse here:
Answers in Genesis – click on the ones labeled "technical" or "semi-techinical"
Journal of Creation (sorry, most articles not online b/c they are enticing you to subsrcribe)
ICR Articles Archive by topic
I'm not sure if you're a Christian at all – are you?
I was baptized, does that make me a Christian? I really don't know!
What's wrong with defending what one considers to be the historical, scientific, or theological truth?
A few points here…
1. Forcing creationism into public schools is aggressive not defensive. I'll provide an eloquent reference by Mark I. Vuletic…
As Tim Berra points out,
There is no law that mandates the teaching of evolution, and there should not be, yet it is practically universally taught in universities and colleges around the world. The theory of evolution is taught because it is what best explains the data in a rational manner. (Berra 1990:139-140)
Creationists, however, constantly attempt to use legal channels to force science teachers to teach creationism under one name or another. The two most prominent examples of the 20th century were
* The Tennessee Anti-Evolution Act (passed in 1925, repealed in 1967), which made it unlawful to teach in public school "any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals" (Zetterberg 1983:386); and
* The Tennessee Creationism Act (passed in 1973, declared unconstitutional in 1975), which prohibited biology textbooks from representing evolution as a "scientific fact" as opposed to "theory," and demanded that all textbooks that do discuss evolution give equal emphasis to other "theories" including the Genesis account. (Zetterberg 1983:387)
With such early failures, creationists have become more sophisticated in their legal machinations, trying to stack local school boards with creationists by stealth, searching for more neutral-sounding euphemisms than "creation science" (for instance, "abrupt origins theory", "intelligent design", or even "teaching the controversy"), lobbying for public opinion, and looking for loopholes in the Constitution. The object is always the same: instead of changing science education the way Darwin did (by offering the scientific community a better theory) the creationists, realizing that they have nothing to offer, can only try to force scientists to bend their knees through public opinion or state power.
2. Defending historical truth? What other historical accounts of creationism can you point to aside from religious books like the bible?
3. Defending scientific truth? The scientists of the world beg to differ.
4. Defending theological truth. Finally, you are calling a spade a spade. Nothing is wrong with defending your theological ideals. However, evolution is not attacking them much like the Earth orbiting the sun is not an attack on theology, though heliocentric theory was once thought of as such!
I was baptized, does that make me a Christian? I really don't know!
Probably not. What makes you a Christian is what you believe, not a mere outward symbol or ritual. The question is, do you understand and believe the basic Christian message?
Defending historical truth? What other historical accounts of creationism can you point to aside from religious books like the bible?
Well, if everything was created all at once, what evidences would you expect to see? In geology? In palaentology? In archaeology?
If the earth was young, what would you expect to see?
Creationism makes predictions on such assumptions. Again, you'll have to troll those links cause I don't have time now ;)
Defending scientific truth? The scientists of the world beg to differ.
Well, except for Kepler, Pascal, Newton, and others. Not to mention the small but growing list of dissenters.
Defending theological truth. Finally, you are calling a spade a spade. Nothing is wrong with defending your theological ideals.
As I and many have said, evolutionists are unable to separate their philosophic and faith assumptions from their science, which is part of the problem. Creationists readily admit their assumptions, and then move on to doing real science, but you seem to dislike this methodology. I understand that, but disagree.
What makes you a Christian is what you believe, not a mere outward symbol or ritual.
So baptized Catholics are not Christians?
Baptism: A religious sacrament marked by the symbolic use of water and resulting in admission of the recipient into the community of Christians.
You also list Newton. Hint: he lived before Darwin.
Creationists readily admit their assumptions, and then move on to doing real science
Like witchcraft and exorcism no doubt.
Personally, if I thought the earth were only a few thousand years old, then I would expect radiometric dating to indicate strange similarities across the board. Elements that should have decayed if the earth were old would still be found in significant amounts. There would be less fossils, and all forms of life would be found mixed together throughout the geological column. Seasonal deposits should be few. Limestone layers would be small. Less meteor craters, especially those near long-term human settlements, would be discovered.
Elements that should have decayed if the earth were old would still be found in significant amounts.
Right. Like fossils dated at many millions of years old should have relatively NO C14 in them:
“Fossils older than 100,000 years should have too little 14C to measure, but dating labs consistently find 14C, well above background levels, in fossils supposedly many millions of years old.23,24 For example, no source of coal has been found that lacks 14C, yet this fossil fuel supposedly ranges up to hundreds of millions of years old. Fossils in rocks dated at 1–500 Ma by long-age radioisotope dating methods gave an average radiocarbon ‘age’ of about 50,000 years, much less than the limits of modern carbon dating24 (see pp. 65–69 in The Revised and Expanded Answers Book for why even these radiocarbon ages are inflated). Furthermore, there was no pattern of younger to older in the carbon dates that correlated with the evolutionary/uniformitarian ‘ages’.24
This evidence is consistent with the fossil-bearing rock layers being formed in the year-long global catastrophe of the biblical Flood, as flood geologists since Nicholas Steno (1631–1687) have recognized.
Even Precambrian (‘older than 545 Ma’) graphite, which is not of organic origin, contains 14C above background levels.25 This is consistent with Earth itself being only thousands of years old, as a straightforward reading of the Bible would suggest.”
all forms of life would be found mixed together throughout the geological column.
How well do paleantologists know fossil distributions? discusses how little we know about fossil distribution. It is complicated by the fact that creationists assert that most fossils exist due to rapid burial in a global flood (which there is evidence for), so the distribution pattern would not necessarily be even, though we should see more advanced forms in the earlier sediments, and a more random distribution. And so we do:
“The reality of the geologic column is predicated on the belief that fossils have restricted ranges in rock strata. In actuality, as more and more fossils are found, the ranges of fossils keep increasing. I provide a few recent examples of this, and then show that stratigraphic-range extension is not the exception but the rule. The constant extension of ranges simultaneously reduces the credibility of the geologic column and organic evolution, and makes it easier for the Genesis Flood to explain an increasingly-random fossil record.”
Limestone layers would be small.
Creationists have addressed this – see Can Flood geology explain thick chalk beds?. Also see this post on the formation of Grand Canyon limestone.
“Since, for example, in southern England there are three main chalk beds stacked on top of one another, then this scenario of three successive, explosive, massive blooms coincides with the rock record. Given that the turnover rate for coccoliths is up to two days,28 then these chalk beds could thus have been produced in as little as six days, totally conceivable within the time framework of the flood. ”
Less meteor craters, especially those near long-term human settlements, would be discovered.
This really attacks young earth assumptions, not creationism itself – so this has little to do w/ old earth creationism. This also assumes a constant rate of meteor activity, which is contraindicated by our observations of the moon. However, you can read this article:
“Several authors have suggested that the Flood might have been precipitated by a large number of meteoroids falling upon the earth.2,8,9 The question is whether these impacts were recorded on other bodies as Spencer suggested.2 The lunar surface indicates that there have been two distinct cratering epochs in the moon’s history. The sheer size of the latter impacts and their effect upon the geology of the moon point to catastrophe.”
Oh, and I missed one:
There would be less fossils
Not if a catclysmic flood buried them all at one time.
I believe you also missed seasonal deposits, but do not fear, I will do it for you .
As noted earlier, you really do not have to link everywhere. I read AiG and ICR, if admittedly more for the entertainment value than anything else.
The carbon dating would be replied with contamination and poor methodology. The flood evidence would be countered with layered deposits, fossils, feces, burrows, roots, etc. The fossil record works nowhere near as nicely for creationists as AiG postulates. The limestone argument makes no sense from either observed deposition or the limestone deposits. The meteor argument is nonsense and again ignores radiometric dating.
This is why the germ theory of disease replaced the Demon posession theory of disease (don`t laugh, Jesus believed this). -Richard
In this case, it is conceivable that the possessed man had seizures, not because he was a medical epileptic, but because he had demons, and the resulting psycho-somatic illnesses. -Seeker
Seeker, I know you have a biology degree but if you ever become a doctor, I hope you would never list "Demons" as a possible diagnosis for seizure symptoms.
The belief in Satan is quite a conversation stopper ,hey?
Seeker, I know you have a biology degree but if you ever become a doctor, I hope you would never list "Demons" as a possible diagnosis for seizure symptoms.
Actually, I just read an interiew w/ M. Scott Peck, who, after doing research, would like to see demonic possession added to the DSM IV.
Oh God!
Ummmm… good luck with that there Seeker.
I suppose ,by your reasoning you would happily denounce the likes of myself and Cineaste to the Christian authorities for summary execution by burning alive at the stake? Hmmm?
I think science can proceed from certain starting assumptions, be they materialistic (abiogenesis) or supernatural (creation event).-SEEKER
Science isn`t a word you can shove around and warp to fit your prejudices . The supernatural is not supported by science because it fails to meet the minimum criteria for scientific examination.
Simply because the bible says that Jesus cured Leprosy and other infectious diseases does not mean that he had knowledge of the agents involved ,(bacteria ,viruses, prions) . That is fatally assumptive. A false dichotomy.
The claim that hominid fossils are either wholly homo sapiens or wholly simian is just bunk. There is no scientist working in any of the relevant fields who would come close to such a fatuous, bizarre, and at heart, dishonest claim.
The mountain of evidence — thousands of specimens in 20 different species, showing exactly the sort of step-by-step evolution creationists wish had not occurred — must strike real fear, if it makes the creationist dissemble so.