Perry: Perhaps you could start a topic with the piece of evidence you find the strongest?
Evolution in a Theological context
Perry: So a footprint sold by a convicted murder that even AiG say is junk is your best argument?
uh, the list of videos evolve! Perry, could you perhaps explain briefly exactly what they found in those T-rex bones and how it relate to their dating?
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time." -- Bertrand Russell
Aguest (peace to you)
Peace to you, as well, dear Bohm -
Well, on several occasions you have speculated that scientists have discovered fossils in a suspicious way; thats a pretty damning accusation to throw around.
With exception to the timeframe (i.e., 99.99% after Mr. Darwin published his theory), I have no other suspicions (except when fossils are fabricated... or misrepresented as something they are not). I do not believe that all of them are necessarily fake, however. I do question their predecession to homo sapien if they're NOT homo sapien. I have no problem with them being either the result of some anomally or mutation within the homo sapien specieis... or something OTHER than homo anything... including, perhaps, an entirely different genus...
Lets try to simplify the argument a bit. I claim that the simplest explanation of the fossils we have found is that they actually represent the diversity in the time the died. Can we agree so far?
That depends on what you mean by "diversity". If you are saying that they actually represent the diversity among homo sapiens at the time they died... and such diversity was the result of environmental factors, including climate, location, nutrition, and health, etc., which may have affected not only the owner of the fossils founds, but perhaps their progenator(s)... I would say that we agree. If you are saying that some actually represent diversity in that they are another genus AND species that, although NOT of the same genus existed alongside homo sapien... but eventually died out/became extinct... well, I'm not going to toss out that possibility, although I consider it more remote.
The thing is, dear Bohm, we KNOW that both skulls and jaws are subject to deformity/malformity. We KNOW this. And we know that while injury, disease, and even genes can play a part, one MAJOR cause... is inbreeding. Another is occurrences in the fetal stage, during birth... and even post-natal, when things like culture and religion dictated customs such as the reshaping of babies heads, jaws, and more.
(By the way, i believe Jesus lived, and i dont have total faith in science, if i understand the statement correctly).
I am glad to hear it; however, there are many who argue the opposite (as to Christ) because they claim there were "no actual eyewitnesses" and dismiss the accounts/records of those who either claim they were... or interviewed those who were. Which is why I sometimes find it curious when people say, "Josephus said"... as if what is attributed to him is completely credible (and given the debates, apparently not all agree it is), more so than anyone else of the times. I know, I know... he was a historian and had no personal agenda. However, he was born after my Lord was put to death. There is Luke's accounts, however, a physician and historian who was COMMISSIONED to find out what was going on just after my Lord's death. Why would he lie/make it up? Theophilus would have certainly wanted an accurate, unbiased report. What did Luke have to gain by giving him anything else? It is reasonable to believe, however, that Josephus did have an agenda: saving his own neck from the Romans. That he, a Jew, failed to commit suicide after talking all of his men into doing so rather than be captured by the Romans... and then not only going to work for the Romans but even changing his name and all but taking on their culture and beliefs, I have to say, I am a little suspect of his... ummmm... credibility. Just a little.
Again, I don't totally disagree with science OR evolution, dear Bohm. I just don't totally accept it all, either. What can I say? If man has taught me nothing else... it's to take great care when putting my faith in him.
Again, I bid you peace!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
Dear Bohm, Cofty, and other "pure" evolutionists... may you all have peace! If you're "done" here, no problem; let's all move on. If you're not done, however, I would like to ask/pose the following re the e.coli experiment and how it bears on the belief that humans (homo sapien) similarly evolved (or evolved from other "homo" species):
In the experiment, although the species of e.coli adapted and, as a result, evolved... even 50,000 generations... the experiment findings were, in the end, that it was still the species "e.coli" (escherichia coli), yes? Never did the experiment say that the specimens involved evolved into any other escherichia species... whether new or already known. Yes? The experiment basically showed that the species e.coli (of the escherichia genus) merely adapted to its environment and so became a stronger strain... of the same species: e.coli. Yes? As support, I offer what I read via the link:
"Examination of samples of the population frozen at earlier time points led to the discovery that a citrate-using variant had evolved in the population at some point between generations 31,000 and 31,500. They used a number of genetic markers unique to this population to exclude the possibility that the citrate-using E. coli were contaminants."
So, they started with the species e.coli... and ended up with, yes, a stronger strain... but of still the same species: e.coli. Yes?
Now, what I would like to understand is how that relates to the premise that the species homo sapien... "evolved" from other homo species. For example, that the species homo sapien evolved from the species homo antecessor. And.or homo erectus. And.or homo neanderthanlensis. And all of the other species in between. "Homo" is the genus for these species, with "sapien" being one (and supposedly the only remaining one) of the species. Yes?
Now, "evolutionary biology/biolation" is concerned with the origin of species, from a common descent and descent of species, including their change, multiplication and diversity over time. Yes? Okay.
My question, then, is if the e. coli species in the experiment evolved... to only be e.coli (albeit, a stronger species of e.coli)... still...how does that experiment show that the homo sapien species evolved from other "homo" species?
Which IS the premise, yes? But would not the TRUE result need to show the e.coli evolving into some other species... one other than e.coli? And to correlate with human "evolution", wouldn't the accurate comparison be a weaker "strain" of the homo sapien species adapting... and thus evolving... into a stronger strain of the SAME species... i.e., homo sapien?
Wouldn't the experiment have to show the e.coli species evolving into an entirely different species in order to support the "theory" that humans... homo sapien... evolved from, say, homo erectus, which is an entirely different species? Better yet, wouldn't it have to show that, say, specimens from, say, the e.coli species evolved into something like, say, one of the other escherichia species (for example, e.albertii)... or perhaps even a NEW escherichia species... in order to support theory of human evolution... as it is stated/believed now and relates to the experiment?
IF the experiment showed, for example, the escherichia genus evolving into, say, the salmonells genus... then I could see the argument that the genus, homo... which consists (okay, today) SOLELY of the species sapien... evolved... by means of evolution, into another genus. OR... if the species e.coli had evolved into another species, I could see where the same thing may have occurred with the species, homo sapien.
But that is not what the experiment showed.
According to the "experts", sapien is the ONLY species in the homo genus. But common sense says that is NOT because it is the LAST species of the genus, as a result of the evolution of the GENUS... but because the OTHER species of the genus (if such is even the case)... have not survived. Which shows NOT that the homo sapien evolved FROM the other species in the homo genus... but was the strongest species of the genus known as "homo." And that it, as a species... survived... when other species... and not other "strains" of the SAME species... did not.
Am I am missing something, here?
If I am unclear as to what I mean and what I am asking for clarification for, just let me know. But it seems to ME that "science" is doing a similar "if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS" dance... than theology is famous for.
I am NOT afraid of science... or trying to understand science... any more than I am afraid of theology. The freedom given me by Christ has taught me to fear virtually nothing (other than those things that common sense say we should fear so long as we exist in the flesh; for example, the open sea, if one does not know the sea, or possess faith to overcome its strength. I certainly don't possess such faith, right now. Thus, I totally respect the sea).
Please know, I am not trying to "contend" with you. Rather, the "reasoning" offered by pure "evolutionists" is often NO different to me than the "reasoning" offered by theologist (pure or otherwise).
So, tell me, please... what am I missing/misunderstanding?
Thank you and, again, peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
P.S. Again, I absolutely DO believe that homo sapien has evolved... intellectually... NOT because his brain has changed/evolved... but as a result of necessity related to his environment, progress... and learning from what he has produced previously. I believe his capacity for all of this has existed from the beginning, but he didn't know how/couldn't access it... without the "lessons" of what came before. Again, peace to you!
Aguest: Sorry for the long waiting time.
Look. I am having a really hard time following your replies, so i think it might be better to just try to clarify one question.
Scientists have dug up a lot of fossils of "human-like" creatures. As i understand you, you speculate that these might be very sick individuals. What i would like to ask you is this: Is it not the most simple explanation to assume that these fossils was not sick, and actually represented what was alive at the time?