Spiritual Warrior Posted August 23, 2004 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 108 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/15/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted August 23, 2004 Fossil finds, radiometric dating, etc. In Christ Truseek Which fossil finds (specifically) and Radio metric dating of what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truseek Posted August 23, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 34 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 344 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/29/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/20/1982 Share Posted August 23, 2004 in fact, I don't know a single one who does think that homo erectus was an ancestor of humans. The article which the first Google result for "homo erectus" directs you to is titled "Homo erectus: The first large-brained humans" The second, "Human Ancestors Hall: Homo erectus" It would seem to me that much of Evolution hinges on drawing the conclusion that humans are evolved from some other primates from the fact that creatures similar in bone structure to humans existed. This evidence, to me, is far from inconclusive, and most definitely does nothing to discredit the idea of humans being created. Perhaps I am being dense or missing something. In Christ Trusee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truseek Posted August 23, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 34 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 344 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/29/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/20/1982 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Fossil finds, radiometric dating, etc. In Christ Truseek Which fossil finds (specifically) and Radio metric dating of what? There is already an age of the Earth thread. I do not wish to hijack this one with a debate with regard to the Earth's age. In Christ Truseek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bread_of_Life Posted August 23, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Author Share Posted August 23, 2004 The article which the first Google result for "homo erectus" directs you to is titled "Homo erectus: The first large-brained humans" The second, "Human Ancestors Hall: Homo erectus" Google, frankly, can give you whatever it likes. No (or too few for me to know about them) paleontologists believe that homo erectus was an ancestor of humans - but rather a close cousin, diverged from the human lineage within the last 2 million years. There is no longer a real debate about this, given extensive fossil finds. It would seem to me that much of Evolution hinges on drawing the conclusion that humans are evolved from some other primates from the fact that creatures similar in bone structure to humans existed. This evidence, to me, is far from inconclusive, and most definitely does nothing to discredit the idea of humans being created. The fact that the human family tree is bushy, and that we find the offshoots as well as the lineal branches does not discredit the idea that humans evolved. These offshoots from our lineage are strong evidence that such a lineage existed. The fact that we find fossils in chronological order - getting more "human-like" as time progresses is also strong evidence that humans evolved. Humans did not exist 4 million years ago - nor did any of the genus homo-. Darwin's theory predicts this, creationism does not. Darwin's theory also predicts that we should find both transitionals (direct leneal antecendants) and intermediates (non lineal cousins, seperated through cladogenesis). In the case of human evolution, we find both in some abundance. I would recommend that you take the time to arrange a visit to a museum that holds some of these exhibits, and also to discuss the finds with a paleontologist there. I think that, once you are faced with the evidence face to face as it were - once you actually hold fossils in your hands and examine them, and look at them in chronological order, that it will be harder to deny the graduated changes that led to human beings - and that you will see the necessity for an explanation of these finds above and beyond the idea of seperate creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiritual Warrior Posted August 23, 2004 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 108 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/15/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted August 23, 2004 There is no longer a real debate about this, given extensive fossil finds. How extensive. What is your definition of extensive in numbers? According to Mark Varney, "Almost all textbooks on evolution include the peppered moth as the classic example of evolution by natural selection. There are two types of peppered moths: a light colored speckled variety and a dark variety. Most peppered moths in England were the light variety, which were camouflaged as they rested on the tree trunks. The black variety stood out against the light bark and were easily seen and eaten by birds. But as the industrial revolution created pollution that covered tree trunks with soot, the dark variety was camouflaged better, so birds ate more of the light moths. "The peppered moth story has been trumpeted since the 1950's as proof positive that evolution by natural selection is true. In 1978, one famous geneticist called the peppered moth 'the clearest case in which a conspicuous enolutionary process has actually been observed.' However, this 'clearest case' of purported Darwinian evolution by natural selection is not true! The nocturnal peppered moth does not rest on the trunks of trees during the day. In fact, despite over 40 years of intense field study, only two peppered moths have ever been seen naturally resting on tree trunks! "So where did all the evolution textbook pictures of peppered moths on different colored tree trunks come from? Simply put, they were all staged. The moths were glued pinned or placed onto tree trunks and their pictures taken. The scientists who use these pictures in thier books to prove evolution all conveniently forgot to tell their readers this fact. If the best example of evolution is a fraud, couldn't the rest of it be also, makes you wonder, doesn't it?" But besides all of this, consider what is actually occuring in this "conspicuous evolutionary process": Before the moths environment changed, some were mostly white, and some were mostly black. No new color or variety came into being, yet we have supposedly just witnessed evolution. Even if the "evidence" had not been faked, it still does not show anything evolving-except the evolutionary theory tale. A traveler that has wondered of the path can not bear to be told about it. James said in James 4:6 that "God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble. You don't want to let pride keep you from acknowledging the truth (II Tim. 3). This is what got Satan thrown in hell. Every man has a conscience. Let your conscience bear witness that you are a sinner and will be punished for it on the day of judgement. Repent of your sins (confess them to God), if you have a Bible read it. and obey what you read. And get in a good bible believing church. God bless! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truseek Posted August 23, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 34 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 344 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/29/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/20/1982 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Google, frankly, can give you whatever it likes. No (or too few for me to know about them) paleontologists believe that homo erectus was an ancestor of humans - but rather a close cousin, diverged from the human lineage within the last 2 million years. There is no longer a real debate about this, given extensive fossil finds. Gotcha, yeh I don't seem to be finding any paleontologists that believe this. The fact that we find fossils in chronological order - getting more "human-like" as time progresses is also strong evidence that humans evolved. Humans did not exist 4 million years ago - nor did any of the genus homo-. Darwin's theory predicts this, creationism does not. But my view does. I believe that God created, basically, in an increasingly complex manner; beginning with simple life forms, and finally ending with those created in His image, humans. This is not my view alone, it has been and is held by quite a few Christian apologists/theologians, Drs. Hugh Ross and Norm Geisler to name some, also hold this view of "progressive crationism." Not that that does anything insofar as proving my view, of course. Perhaps you have answered this already, SA, and perhaps I should start another thread for it, but what do you believe with regard to abiogenesis? In Christ Truseek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bread_of_Life Posted August 23, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Author Share Posted August 23, 2004 Spiritual Warrior How extensive. What is your definition of extensive in numbers? I think that a picture says a thousand words. Below is a link to a picture of the original Afarensis collection. It is quite an old picture unfortunately, and it does not show the full extent of modern finds - however it shows how large a body of evidence was required to classify Afarensis as a new species: http://nikolai.faithweb.com/Resize%20of%20afarenis2.jpg As for industrial melanism, there are two myths going around about this. The first creationist response was to say that there were two varieties of moth to start off with, one dark and one white, and that the white one died out. This would avoid the unfortunate admission from creationists that mutation really can be advantageous. However - the evidence clearly shows otherwise - the light moths really did become darker by natural selection (the darker they were, the better they survived, and thus darker moths were "selected"). The second myth is the one above - that the time spent by moths on tree trunks was foundational to the story of the peppered moth - that without moths resting on tree trunks 24/7, the story was invalidated. This is incorrect. Coal burned during the early decades of the industrial revolution produced soot that blanketed the countryside of the industrial areas of England between London and Manchester. Several naturalists noted that the typica (lighter) form was more common in the countryside, while the carbonaria (darker) moth prevailed in the sooty regions. Not surprisingly, many jumped to the conclusion that the darker moths had some sort of survival advantage in the newly-darkened landscape. In recent years, the burning of cleaner fuels and the advent of Clean Air laws has changed the countryside even in industrial areas, and the sootiness that prevailed during the 19th century is all but gone from urban England. Coincidentally, the prevalance of the carbonaria form has declined dramatically. In fact, some biologists suggest that the dark forms will be all but extinct within a few decades. For evolutionary biologists, the question behind the rise and fall of the carbonaria form is "Why?" Why should the dark phenotype have appeared so suddenly, come to dominate the population in industrial areas, and then have declined just as sharply when levels of pollution declined? To many biologists, the answer seemed obvious. In areas where pollution had darkened the landscape, the darker moths were better camouflaged and less like to be eaten by birds. Under less-polluted conditions, the light-colored moths prevailed for similar reasons. But was the obvious answer correct? Kettlewell, a scientist in the 1950s, set out to check whether it was. He found that: "in unpolluted areas, more of his light-colored moths had survived. In soot-blacked areas, more of the dark-colored moths had survived. Thus Kettlewell showed that in each environment the moths that were better camouflaged had the higher survival rate. It was logical to conclude that when soot darkened the tree trunks in the area, natural selection caused the dark-colored moths to become more common." (Miller and Levine, Biology) However, in 1998, Michael E. N. Majerus of the Department of Genetics at the University of Cambridge carefully re-examined Kettlewell's studies, as well as many others that have since appeared. What he reported, first of all, was that Kettlewell's experiments, indicating that moth survival depends upon color-related camouflage, were generally correct: " Differential bird predation of the typica and carbonaria forms, in habitats affected by industrial pollution to different degrees, is the primary influence on the evolution of melanism in the peppered moth." (P. 116, Melanism - Evolution in Action, M. E. N. Majerus, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998). However, Majerus also discovered that many of Kettlewell's experiments didn't really test the elements of the story as well as they should have. For example, in testing how likely light and dark moths were to be eaten, he placed moths on the sides of tree trunks, a place where they rarely perch in nature. He also records how well comoflaged the moths seemed to be by visual inspection. This might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but since his work it has become clear that birds see ultraviolet much better than we do, and therefore what seems well-camouflaged to the human eye may not be to a bird. In addition, neither Kettlewell nor those who checked his work were able to compensate for the degree to which migration of moths from surrounding areas might have affected the actual numbers of light and dark moths he counted in various regions of the countryside. These criticisms have led some critics of evolution to charge that the peppered moth story is "faked," or is "known to be wrong." Neither charge is correct. In fact, the basic elements of the peppered moth story are quite correct. The population of dark moths rose and fell in parallel to industrial pollution, and the percentage of dark moths in the population was clearly highest in regions of the countryside that were most polluted. As Majerus, the principal scientific critic of Kettlewell's work wrote: "My view of the rise and fall of the melanic form of the peppered moth is that differential bird predation in more or less polluted regions, together with migration, are primarily responsible, almost to the exclusion of other factors." (p. 155). In other words, what we are seeing here is the scientific process at its best. Majerus and other ecologists have carefully examined the details of Kettlewell's work and found them to be lacking. As Majerus explains, to be absolutely certain of exactly how natural selection produced the rise and fall of the carbonaria form, we need better experiments to show that birds (in a natural environment) really do respond to camouflage in the ways we have presumed, that the primary reason the dark moths did better in polluted areas was because of camouflage (and not other factors like behavior), and that migration rates of moths from the surrounding countryside are not so great that they overwhelm the influence of selection in local regions by birds. Until these studies are done, the peppered moth story will be incomplete. Not wrong, but incomplete. What we do know is that the rise and fall of dark-colored moths, a phenomenon known as "industrial melanism," remains a striking and persuasive example of natural selection in action. What we have to be cautious about is attributing 100% of the work of natural selection in this case to the camouflage of the moths and their direct visibility to birds. Truseek Gotcha, yeh I don't seem to be finding any paleontologists that believe this. I didn't think you would, I certainly do not know of any. Homo erectus has been found too recently without any more "human-like adaptions" to be our ancestor - and Habilis evolved in a slightly different way. But my view does. I believe that God created, basically, in an increasingly complex manner; beginning with simple life forms, and finally ending with those created in His image, humans. This is not my view alone, it has been and is held by quite a few Christian apologists/theologians, Drs. Hugh Ross and Norm Geisler to name some, also hold this view of "progressive crationism." Not that that does anything insofar as proving my view, of course. I'm not certain that this view explains the fossil record particularly well, nor is it testable (in fact, it seems to me to be deliberately free from predictions or ways of testing. What you are essentially saying is that God created and killed off about 15 or more increasingly human-like species in chronological order. To put it in the context of Whale evolution, he created a series of fish, then amphibians, then land animals, then mammals, before finally creating some partially water based mammals with adapted hind legs, before finally returning mammals to the water by creating the whale, all in chronological order. This is all ad hoc of course, with little or no supporting evidence from either nature or the bible - whereas evolution requires no ad hoc additions to explain this data, in fact it predicts it. It's almost like saying "God planted the fossil record" - I mean, after all, why not? Furthermore, the fossil record only generall increases in complexity, it isn't a rule, and it certainly isn't uniform. In fact, there are several mass extinctions within the fossil record that took out a lot of large complex life. Perhaps you have answered this already, SA, and perhaps I should start another thread for it, but what do you believe with regard to abiogenesis? I believe that there are several hypotheses concerning how abiogenesis might have happened, that a few are viable, but that it is unlikely that we might ever know which really took place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiritual Warrior Posted August 23, 2004 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 108 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/15/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted August 23, 2004 H.S. Lipson, professor of physics at the University of Manchester, UK, stated, "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'blend' their observations to fit it". Evolutionist John Reader (Missing Links) explains this biased interpretation: "Ever since Darwin's work....preconceptions have led evidence by the nose." Harvard professor and evolutionist Steven Jay Gould admits this scientific bias: "Facts do not 'speak for themselves'; they are read in light of theory." Even Charles Darwin concedes, "Alas, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dagmas." When scientists proclaim the theory of evolution as "fact," keep in mind that they are not unbiased observers who are simply reporting the evidence. Men devised the theory of evolution precisely because it eliminates the need for GOD. If mankind has no creator to whom He is accountable, each man can do what is right in his own eyes. And that is really the main issue. We can go in circles for a long time about scientific blah.. blah.. blah... But I have noticed many, many dodgings of legitimate questions (where did matter come from to start the big bang) and the really funny thing to me is a direct avoidance of scripture which sends the message to Christians that non believers have something to fear, but why be afraid if it isn't true. Interesting... very interesting. And as I've stated before and so I will again, and again and again, The atheist can't find God for the same reason, the boy who got caught smoking in the boy's room cant find the pricipal's office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bread_of_Life Posted August 23, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Author Share Posted August 23, 2004 Spiritual Warrior, You claim that you have observed many atheists dodging legitmate questions concerning evolution. Yet, what I have noticed just from the last couple of posts on this forum is that you have asked me several questions about evolution, I have answered them at length - even going so far as to scan a picture into my computer and put it up on web-hosting for you - and you have substantially ignored the whole lot. You have not even been so good as to admit that your allegations concerning industrial melanism were wrong, even though I quoted the recent paper into the flaws in the older studies, and its conclusions, and they were substantially different from the conclusions you came to. Given that you now accuse us atheists of dodging questions and moulding the evidence to our own ends, then I must protest that you are essentially doing the same - moving from one flawed argument to another without even acknowledging when the last is refuted, or pausing to explain the evidence presented to you. This is quite irregular, in terms of scientific method - and surely demonstrates that rather than me being afraid of the evidence and questioning my beliefs, that really in fact you are scared of the evidence, and questioning your beliefs. Also, you say that: Men devised the theory of evolution precisely because it eliminates the need for GOD. If mankind has no creator to whom He is accountable, each man can do what is right in his own eyes. Yet you present no actual evidence either that evolution actually does avoid the need for a creator - nor that early evolutionists actually created the theory with this goal. Indeed, I could present evidence from the original manuscript of the origin of species to show that Darwin refers to "originally created forms" many times when discussing the one or few original lifeforms from which all species sprang. This would seem to refute the idea that evolution was made to replace or usurp a creator. Furthermore, the fact that evolution can only explain the origin of species, and even then only to explain the natural causes of species, means that evolution cannot replace or usurp a supernatural creator - and nor can any scientific subject. Your misunderstanding of the scope of science and particularly evolutionary theory is demonstrated clearly by your beleiving that asking "where did matter come from to start the big bang" is relevant to evolutionary theory. In fact, this question of ultimate origins of things is not only irrelevant to evolution, which concerns the diversification and change of life, but it is also irrelevant to any scientific discipline - science cannot tell us about ultimate origins - only philosophy and theology cover this domain of inquiry. Neither, I should say is evolution a moral theory - and therefore it is incapable of drawing any conclusions on ethics, responsibility or the way we ought to act. Evolution has no values or moral preferences from which to draw these conclusions - it is a purely factual theory, about what *is*, not what *ought*. Also, just to note, you have also ignored my repeated comments concerning your use of unjustified and non-evidenced quotes - especially where they are out of context. Peppering your posts with quotes from scientists, but without any reasoning, evidence or context will not advance your arguments, but rather will be a waste of your finger's energy in going CTRL-C CTRL-V. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiritual Warrior Posted August 24, 2004 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 108 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/15/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted August 24, 2004 But yet you do the very same thing that you accuse me of, by avoiding answering every one (ALL) of my evolution questions. The truth of the matter is you can't answer all of these questions without having to humble yourself and admit that they can't be explained. netither can any other evolutionist, and you are too proud to admit it. And I feel sorry for you SA, I believe that you could be a great asset to the cause of Christ if you would just submit yourself to Jesus and make him your savior. Why do you get frustrated at the Christian who posts his christian views, simply because they aren't directly logical for a debate (have no content) in your perspective. Would you like for me to ask your permission next time I want to post a few interesting thoughts and quotes. Or should I say hey, Scientific Atheist I'm about to post something that may be liguistically or politically incorrect how should I word this so that others can debate it properly according to your perspective. Look, I am sure that there are many atheists on line that are missing out on your extreme intelligence. Why don't you go and bless them with your vast knowledge of the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts