Poll - Age Old Question Evolution or Creation

[VoodooAce]

Hhhmm..

What I find interesting is the evolution of creationism.

Religion has been under attack from science for hundreds of years.

What is believed now, based on faith, will change over time as science unviels the truth.....as has been happening for hundreds of years.

I'm sure we all know of the examples....where the religious believed something based on the currently accepted interpretations of the bible, beliefs that men of science proceeded to prove as false.

The story usually goes something like this. The religious (R) believe something because that is what they are told to believe. Science (S) disputes it. (R) says you just gotta have faith and believe it. (S) says, no, I can prove you're wrong. (R) says, RECANT, or be burned at the stake. (S) screams in vain as he is burned. (R) says, See, I told you we were right. The followers of (S) win out in the end as the facts become more and more indisputable. (R), after a hundred years or two, says, My bad, (S) was right all along....we just didn't know anybetter. Besides, it was that other kind of (R) (Catholic, Protestant) that was really wrong.


But things are different now, I suppose, and science is done, right?

The religious concede the mistakes of the past, but claim that they are no longer making them. The religious now are no different than 500 years ago. They believe they are right (you just gotta have faith) and that science is wrong.

I believe the Big Bang to be a very plausible theory....makes a lot of sense physically speaking. The occurance is predictable mathematically. Makes more sense to me than the 'Some dude just made it....in like, seven days or something' thing.

Evolution, however, is fact. It's only called a theory because it can't be observed in action and thus 'proven'. The process of evolution is one that takes hundreds and thousands of years....much longer than creationists say the earth has even existed.

The bible is good reading. A nice piece of historical fiction with some good stories. I find it as interesting as Greek mythology.

 

[VoodooAce]

I am very curious, though.

I'd like a creationist to explain to me:

A) Is the earth really only 6000 years old?

B) Do you really believe that?

C) What about all of the evidence to the contrary (and total lack of evidence to back up 'earth was built 6000 years ago in seven days' jazz.

Personally, as an amatuer astronomer, I am amazed at the degree to which science can 'predict' something based on mathematics. The type of thing astronomers have been doing for AT LEAST those 6000 years.

We can tell, by the very slight, but tell-tale wobble of the globe, how long its been since the earth was whacked by a very large asteroid.

 

[CurtSibling]

Well spoken, Voodooace!

The poll results seem to show scientific thought has got
The upper hand in this vote.

The voice of the people is always a good indicator...

 

[Vrylakas]

I'm in the comfort of my own home now, the wife is asleep on the couch, and with tea next to me I've just re-read my earlier post.

I want to make sure it's understood that while I stand by my earlier comments, I am certainly not anti-religion. Religion is a critical component still in modern society, a reality that even atheists must acknowledge. Religion provides a moral fabric, a social meeting ground for different elements within a community, and even more importantly it reminds us of a higher reality, a higher existance than our own small lives. Some call that higher reality "God", but even atheists have to admit their membership in a larger community, of Life in general, of existance. The reality of our modern societies is the need to always be aware of our multiplicity of identities: our individual identities, our community identities, our various group identities, our species identity, etc. etc. etc. Religion was and still is the means through which humans learn to juggle these various identities for the sake of both individual and society. And, to be aesthetically frank - the various religions around the world have spawned some of the most beautiful art humans have ever created. That some extremists use religion as a justification for other hidden agendas and motives is not religion's fault, and indeed the same can be said for politics, government, or any institution. Two weeks ago a Moslem cleric in Britain was quoted as saying, "Islam is not my religion; it's my ideology." That sums it up. I'm not against religion; I'm against extremists and the foolish ideas of some who use religion for ulterior motives.

As I've repeated several times, Science and Religion are two different beasts who cannot be cross-bred. A friend with whom I was discussing this matter said that modern fundamentalists (perhaps he was generalizing) have either rejected or forgotten the ancient world's approach to religion and science, to mythos and logos. The ancient world separated the two, saw the spiritual realm as real and important and even occasionally interfering in the physical world - but nonetheless separate and not to be confused with the physical world. The ancient world developed technologies and studied their environment without confusing it with the mythological world, the spiritual realm. The two were intertwined and parallel but separate, like inter-wrapping vines. Modern fundamentalists seem to have lost this view, and see the two realms as one - which creates major theological headaches especially for monotheists, and doubly so if they have sacred texts, a Bible or a Quran or Vedic texts.

In my posts I've tried to show how Evolution is a reality and how it is not comparable to anything Religion has to offer. Others have stressed how Science and Religion, even Evolution and Creationism, are not at odds or in contradiction and I would agree with that. (Anyone read Neil Gaiman's & Terry Pratchett's "Good Omens"?) Society needs both Science and Religion, in their respective areas of "expertise". We've all lived with the benefits of both, and to deny one for the other is foolhardy in my opinion.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by BlueMonday
Here's what I'm thinking: I think that it is extraordinarily narrow-minded to instantly throw away heaps upon heaps of scientific evidence in blind support of creationism. All manner of scientists have dug up compelling evidence to support the evolution theory. .

You call what I've been doing blind support of Creation? Blind? Eyes don't open any wider than mine.

Originally posted by BlueMonday
They've found the remains of pre-history man, nenderthals, and even a three-million year old skeleton which belongs to the first family of apes to walk upright. .

No reputable scientist will claim that Neanderthal man was a different species anymore. The best working theory is that they were a clannish group of tribes that inbred heavily and died out.

Originally posted by BlueMonday
Biologists have traced the evolution of present species backwards through time -all the way back to the point when all life was oceanic. .

No, all they've done is create a sort of 'road map' of the peth they think evolution took. It'll probably get you around FantasyLand pretty well...

Originally posted by BlueMonday
They've even been able to re-construct the creation of genetic material (the so called "premordial soup"). Given the right conditions, competeing molecules will develop and eventually congregate into larger organisms. .

The 'right' conditions, eh? Hard radiation, meteors, vulcanism, lightning, tides, and oceans and atmospheres. Sounds like a damn hostile envoronment for anything to grow in, let alone some very fragile chemicals... No one without a major axe to grind would buy that claptrap. Like most of the science in the ToE, it defies logic.

Originally posted by BlueMonday
Now here's why I don't believe in creationism: If it were true then there would be nothing man-like untill a few thousand years ago when man was just created. If there was no evolution and there was only creation there would be no neanderthal or three foot tall ape that walks upright. .

See above for Neanderthal man. Lucy, whom I assume you refer to in the 2nd part, was a chimp skeleton fragment, WITHOUT LOWER LEGS OR FEET, that some anthropolgist rans a few 'calculations' on, and came to the startling conclusion that it walked upright. An argument that literally had no legs to stand on, and yet no one breathed a word of contradiction or even criticism. Why?

Originally posted by BlueMonday
I also am filled with vicious amusement everytime creationists use the argument, "You have no hard evidence of evolution." First of all, that's not true. Did all those pre-human remains just appear out of nowhere? .

What pre-human remains? Boxes upon boxes of bone fragments, teeth, and funny-shaped rocks, that spend years gathering dust on a shelf until some anthropologist needs another research grant are not evidence.

Originally posted by BlueMonday
We do have evidence of evolution. We can see how we've evolved through time. .

From the context of your words, I'm guessing you mean in recorded history. AFAIK, we've been fully human the whole time. Can you provide details?

Originally posted by BlueMonday
Second of all, we have observed evolution. Our time span of knowledge is too short to observe evolution in large creatures; however we have seen it in various bacteria, viruses, and insects. One of the most obvious observations of evolution are the insects that develop resitence to pesticide. Most bugs die everytime we spray them, however a few develop a resistence to the pesticide, then they multiply and we have to come up with a new pesticide. Like it or not, those bugs evolve into stronger creatures..

Like it or not, thats Natural Selection, NOT evolution. They're still the exact same bugs that their parents were, it's just that there are now more of one variety than there used to be. Penecillin-resistant bacteria still cause the exact same ailments they used to, they eat the exact same foods, they produce the exact same chemicals, and they do everything else exactly the same as they always have. They have not changed one iota. A lot of their former neighbors are dead now, that's true.

Originally posted by BlueMonday
But thirdly and most importantly of all there is absolutely no evidence of creation. None whatsoever. We have tons of evidence supporting evolution and absolutely nothing to support creation. That's the deal breaker. If the creationists want evolutionists to prove evolution using scientific method, they should be held to the same standard. Right now we have all manner of evidence for evolution and nothing for creation.

You want evidence that we are created? Draw a breath. Look around. Listen to your heart beat. You exist, the world exists, the universe exists. Since it is all here,and it can't be proved that it got here by itself, it logically follows that it was created.

Originally posted by BlueMonday
But just because I don't believe in creation doesn't mean I don't believe in God. Evolution vs. creation is a moot point. It doesn't change the way we lead our lives, it doesn't change the way we should conduct ourselves, and it doesn't even change my belief in God. Whether it was evolution or creation has nothing to do with spirituality.

We are God's children because He created us. He is our Father, and that is the well-spring of His authority over us. It does matter.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Before I get to what lies beneath(heh), I wanted to address your comments on S vs. R. You are absoutely right in saying that many religions in the world have not distinguished themselves in the arena of modern thought. However, you cannot use this as a basis to dismiss Creationism. This is a form of fallacious logic known as Guilt by Association or Associative Fallacy. The statement: A~B and A=C, therefore B=C is not true.

Originally posted by VoodooAce
I am very curious, though.

I'd like a creationist to explain to me:

A) Is the earth really only 6000 years old?

B) Do you really believe that?

C) What about all of the evidence to the contrary (and total lack of evidence to back up 'earth was built 6000 years ago in seven days' jazz.

LOL, Young-Earth Creationism. Biblical Literalism at it's most destructive. If you had looked through some of my earlier posts on this subject you would already know why this is a silly bit of nonsense to any Christian capable of at least 25% reading comprehension, and a copy written in his native tongue.
I'll just break it down:

The Bible contains the passage "...a thousand years are as a day to Jehovah..." This is commonly misinterpreted to mean:

1 of God's Days = 1,000 revolutions of Earth around Sun.

Had the passage read "...a thousand years equal a day to Jehovah...", this belief might make sense, and I would countenance it. So what does it mean?

The Bible ALSO mentions Methusela, the oldest man ever. He clocked in at 969 years old before dying. Not quite one thousand years.

Take the two together, and they make a lot of sense. A day to Jehovah is a period of time longer than any man has ever been capable of comprehending. Moses, faced with visions of great and mighty acts of creation, explained them in the way he was inspired to do: he broke them up into specific parts, and referred to them as 'days'.
A man did serious labor in a day back then, so the idea of a God taking an entire day to work on something would put the reader in mind of the concept that it was a really long time for each thing to get done.

Originally posted by VoodooAce
Personally, as an amatuer astronomer, I am amazed at the degree to which science can 'predict' something based on mathematics. The type of thing astronomers have been doing for AT LEAST those 6000 years.

We can tell, by the very slight, but tell-tale wobble of the globe, how long its been since the earth was whacked by a very large asteroid.

Yes astronomy is amazingly accurate. Astronomy is one of the real sciences, where the scientists can show their math and say "See? I've proven that this is true. There's all the math, Is dotted and Ts crossed, so to speak." But you don't hear astronomers saying silly things like "Man came from monkeys." No they make rather dry, boring observations about the motions of the spheres, that are easily reproduceable, and easily verified. I greatly respect astronomers, because they are truth-tellers, not showmen, like biologists.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by BlueMonday
Here's what I'm thinking: I think that it is extraordinarily narrow-minded to instantly throw away heaps upon heaps of scientific evidence in blind support of creationism.

And exactly how open-minded is it to automatically dismiss Creationism when someone (me for instance) points out several large, gaping holes in the ToE?

Originally posted by BlueMonday
All manner of scientists have dug up compelling evidence to support the evolution theory. They've found the remains of pre-history man, nenderthals, and even a three-million year old skeleton which belongs to the first family of apes to walk upright..

No. Not at all true. They have found bone fragments that no possible test can prove even came from the same species, let alone the same organism, in a small geographical area, and used guesswork heavily biased by what the ToE teaches them to expect to find to create these skeletons.
No reputable scientist nowadays will even try to claim that 'Neanderthal man' was another species. The working theory is that they were a heavily clannish ethnic group that suffered defects from inbreeding and died out.

Originally posted by BlueMonday
Biologists have traced the evolution of present species backwards through time -all the way back to the point when all life was oceanic. .

Not even close to true. Scientists have speculated the ancestors of many species, but still arent even sure what dinosaur supposedly spawned what bird or mammal. They take fossils that could well have been fetal horses and call them eohippus, tell us it became equus, and show no intervening species, and leave us to hopefully forget to ask how a horse the size of a collie gave birth to a foal almost twice its size.

Originally posted by BlueMonday
They've even been able to re-construct the creation of genetic material (the so called "premordial soup"). Given the right conditions, competeing molecules will develop and eventually congregate into larger organisms.

And a list of those conditions reads like a sterilization chamber, which tends to raise more questions than it claims to answer. Hard radiation, lightning, tidal action, meteors, etc, all swirling 'gently' to mix up a chemical concoction that they still don't claim to know how it acheived cell-hood.

Originally posted by BlueMonday
Now here's why I don't believe in creationism: If it were true then there would be nothing man-like untill a few thousand years ago when man was just created. If there was no evolution and there was only creation there would be no neanderthal or three foot tall ape that walks upright. .

Neanderthal has been dismissed. I presume the second is dear sweet Lucy? The chimp that is assumed to walk upright because no one has ever seen its feet, and wouldn't it be really neat if it did? Oh? You didn't know? That's right, the feet were 'calculated' by an ANTHROPOLOGIST who wanted a missing link.

Originally posted by BlueMonday
I also am filled with vicious amusement everytime creationists use the argument, "You have no hard evidence of evolution." First of all, that's not true. Did all those pre-human remains just appear out of nowhere? .

What pre-humans?

Originally posted by BlueMonday
We do have evidence of evolution. We can see how we've evolved through time. .

Humans used to be different organisms? Do tell...

Originally posted by BlueMonday
Second of all, we have observed evolution. Our time span of knowledge is too short to observe evolution in large creatures; however we have seen it in various bacteria, viruses, and insects. One of the most obvious observations of evolution are the insects that develop resitence to pesticide. Most bugs die everytime we spray them, however a few develop a resistence to the pesticide, then they multiply and we have to come up with a new pesticide. Like it or not, those bugs evolve into stronger creatures.

But thirdly and most importantly of all there is absolutely no evidence of creation. None whatsoever. We have tons of evidence supporting evolution and absolutely nothing to support creation. That's the deal breaker. If the creationists want evolutionists to prove evolution using scientific method, they should be held to the same standard. Right now we have all manner of evidence for evolution and nothing for creation

But just because I don't believe in creation doesn't mean I don't believe in God. Evolution vs. creation is a moot point. It doesn't change the way we lead our lives, it doesn't change the way we should conduct ourselves, and it doesn't even change my belief in God. Whether it was evolution or creation has nothing to do with spirituality.

 

[PinkyGen]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

And exactly how open-minded is it to automatically dismiss Creationism when someone (me for instance) points out several large, gaping holes in the ToE?

Well, these are holes you have made by distorting the truth by most likely quoting from some creationist website. However, aside from the bible, one must also point out there is no proof at all for god directed creationism.

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

No. Not at all true. They have found bone fragments that no possible test can prove even came from the same species, let alone the same organism, in a small geographical area, and used guesswork heavily biased by what the ToE teaches them to expect to find to create these skeletons.
No reputable scientist nowadays will even try to claim that 'Neanderthal man' was another species. The working theory is that they were a heavily clannish ethnic group that suffered defects from inbreeding and died out.

You are quite correct in pointing out that neanderthal man was most likely just the same as homo sapiens, and that even homo erectus might possibly be the same as well. However, Austroliphithacis (obviously mispelled on my part), is quite radically different from homo sapiens in bone structure.

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

Not even close to true. Scientists have speculated the ancestors of many species, but still arent even sure what dinosaur supposedly spawned what bird or mammal. They take fossils that could well have been fetal horses and call them eohippus, tell us it became equus, and show no intervening species, and leave us to hopefully forget to ask how a horse the size of a collie gave birth to a foal almost twice its size.

Don't know what books you have been reading, but there has been no grand conspiracy to lie about the bones. I'm going to trust peer-reviewed work from anthropogolists actually examining the bones rather than where you got this from. Looking at the bone structure of what they did uncover, they can make an estimate of what supporting structure would be needed for it in order to function properly. (I continue this below when we come to Lucy)

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

And a list of those conditions reads like a sterilization chamber, which tends to raise more questions than it claims to answer. Hard radiation, lightning, tidal action, meteors, etc, all swirling 'gently' to mix up a chemical concoction that they still don't claim to know how it acheived cell-hood.

Actually, the conditions simulated were quite similiar to that of earth around the time of abiogenesis. The test was not rigged.

Neanderthal has been dismissed. I presume the second is dear sweet Lucy? The chimp that is assumed to walk upright because no one has ever seen its feet, and wouldn't it be really neat if it did? Oh? You didn't know? That's right, the feet were 'calculated' by an ANTHROPOLOGIST who wanted a missing link.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Again, this relates to above, but lucy is far more than just a chimp, as the bones they have recovered are far different than just a chimps, particulary in respect to the face and possible brain size. Around 40% of her bone structure was recovered (notice enough to tell it was a she), including her pelvis, femur, and tibia. She was bi-pedal, and the ratio of humerus divided by femur is both different from modern homo-sapiens and from "chimps" as you so aptly called them.

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

What pre-humans?

Humans used to be different organisms? Do tell...

I suggest you study your biology again.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by PinkyGen
Well, these are holes you have made by distorting the truth by most likely quoting from some creationist website. However, aside from the bible, one must also point out there is no proof at all for god directed creationism.

Oh. I contradicted what you say, so I must be quoting some Christian Science website. I see. A profound argument indeed. Creationism is a faith-based belief. It ackowledges that all of the universe, and everything in it, is a miracle wrought by God. As such, it is not quantifiable. Denying that a miracle happened simply because it is miraculous is fallacious arguing. You need to disprove Creation, by proving Evolution, or some other explanation (since it's obvious that ToE is wrong).

Originally posted by PinkyGen
You are quite correct in pointing out that neanderthal man was most likely just the same as homo sapiens, and that even homo erectus might possibly be the same as well. However, Austroliphithacis (obviously mispelled on my part), is quite radically different from homo sapiens in bone structure.

Lucy? Let's not forget 'who' Australopithecus is. A 40%-'complete' structure that is alleged to be a bipedal pre-human, with no other members of it's 'species' extant to back it up, and that has no feet to back up it's upright posture.

Originally posted by PinkyGen
Don't know what books you have been reading, but there has been no grand conspiracy to lie about the bones. I'm going to trust peer-reviewed work from anthropogolists actually examining the bones rather than where you got this from.

Do you even understand the concept of peer review? One 'scientist' working in Field A publishes a paper. Another scientist, working in the same field, publishes a paper that says the first one is right, and now all of a sudden both are Gospel? Doesn't that strike you, or anyone else, as just a tad over-credulent? The trust factor on paleoanthropology is so high these people must be allowed to make their own change at the register. I guess it is heart-warming, in a world so full of mistrust, to see one group of people in whom almost the entire civilized world has placed their total blind faith.

Originally posted by PinkyGen
Actually, the conditions simulated were quite similiar to that of earth around the time of abiogenesis. The test was not rigged.

How do you know for a fact that those conditions existed then? All they had to go on were some mildly educated guesses, based mostly on work done by a branch of science that itself was wroking from the assumption that evolution was a fact. Hardly an experiment that can consider itself free of bias.

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
Neanderthal has been dismissed. I presume the second is dear sweet Lucy? The chimp that is assumed to walk upright because no one has ever seen its feet, and wouldn't it be really neat if it did? Oh? You didn't know? That's right, the feet were 'calculated' by an ANTHROPOLOGIST who wanted a missing link.

Originally posted by PinkyGen
Looking at the bone structure of what they did uncover, they can make an estimate of what supporting structure would be needed for it in order to function properly. (I continue this below when we come to Lucy)

And with only each other to 'check their work'. How utterly convienent.

Originally posted by PinkyGen
Again, this relates to above, but lucy is far more than just a chimp, as the bones they have recovered are far different than just a chimps, particulary in respect to the face and possible brain size.

And of course there is no possibility whatsoever that the bones came from different organisms.

Originally posted by PinkyGen
Around 40% of her bone structure was recovered (notice enough to tell it was a she), including her pelvis, femur, and tibia. She was bi-pedal, and the ratio of humerus divided by femur is both different from modern homo-sapiens and from "chimps" as you so aptly called them.

So they rummaged through some boxes of crud from a digsite (nearly 10 years after the fact, mind you), and played jigsaw puzzle, and came up with one fragmentary skeleton, that no other fossils have been found from members of that species, and this is considered incontrovertible proof? Of what? Gullibility on the part of the average newspaper reader?

Originally posted by PinkyGen
I suggest you study your biology again.

No thanks, I prefer science.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Somehow or another, I managed to double-post up there. It looks like my first reply wasn't munched by the ether, but managed to get onto the forum. I guess both can stay, since there is material in both that is good. Sorry.

 

[bvd]

Creationists claim that the remains of early human subspecies are those of skeletally deformed, microcephalic midgets; that dinosaurs walked alongside humans; that carbon dating is a grossly erroneous procedure, which somehow determined the ages of rocks to be in the billions of years when they could be no older than eight thousand; that the stars materialized for the benefit of humans; blah...

It's fortunate that more rational conclusions have been reached. On the matter of evolution, though the guiding mechanism of the ascent to humans (mainly, the step to genetic coding) is only vaguely understood - that it came about is; it is fact, not conjecture. And even if it were, there needn't be total unanimity; there are uneducated millions who believe that evil spirits bear contagens - does that mean we should stop teaching "germ theory"?

Creation, posthumous existence (at least, described by whomever invented heaven and hell) and miracles are all man-made lies. Even if God exists, everything said of "Him" is false, since nobody is capable of a divine level of perception or clairvoyance and "He" certainly makes no attempt to converse with us. Thus there lies no way to prove or refute his presence...

...but the opposite of faith is certainty.

What we do know is that if there was some sort of intelligence that wrought the universe we come to know, it worked at least fifteen billion years before the story described in Genesis.

 

[Maj]

This entire debate is rather confusing. In order to prove Creation Theory, all that appears to be required as "evidence" is faith. In order to prove Evolutionary Theory, mounds of data needs to be generated, analyzed, categorized, etc. before even a grainy picture can begin to emerge.

To justify (not prove) ET, CT must be discarded. To justify CT, ET must be discarded.

With so many issues surrounding inaccuracy, unreliability, mistrust, etc. in the scientific method and design, coming to disprove ET may seem a rather simple matter for creationists (or members of a party arguing another theory of existence/development). There are still many holes in ET, even though it has proven, in part, to explain the history of life (as most scientists would define it).

Rather than trying to prove ET in order properly dispell the arguments of creationists, maybe the argument should be brought to the doorstep of the Creation Theory. Can anyone justify ET by disproving CT, or is a theory driven so strongly by faith disprovable? Or maybe I have this wrong ... CT is largely faith driven, right?

-Maj

 

[PinkyGen]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

Oh. I contradicted what you say, so I must be quoting some Christian Science website. I see. A profound argument indeed. Creationism is a faith-based belief. It ackowledges that all of the universe, and everything in it, is a miracle wrought by God. As such, it is not quantifiable. Denying that a miracle happened simply because it is miraculous is fallacious arguing. You need to disprove Creation, by proving Evolution, or some other explanation (since it's obvious that ToE is wrong).

Quite frankly, this is utter B.S. While I must present compelling evidence (which you seem to dismiss for no reason, but more of this later), you need not submit one ounce of proof for creationism, and you win? Your entire argument hinges on this "miracle" that there is no evidence for. I am denying the "miracle" because there is no proof it actually happened.

Under your system, what's to stop me from theoretically pro-claiming I myself am an entity that created the entire world. I'm claiming a miracle that has no proof, but then again, what proof is there that I am not an entity that has created the world.

Oh, and even if evolution is proven wrong, which I very much doubt, creationism does not win by default. In order to be a valid theory (hence taught in the classrooms and such), it needs proof, not just faith.

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

Lucy? Let's not forget 'who' Australopithecus is. A 40%-'complete' structure that is alleged to be a bipedal pre-human, with no other members of it's 'species' extant to back it up, and that has no feet to back up it's upright posture.

I am attatching a picture of Lucy at the bottom. Notice that the the bones I stated before were recovered, and are configured in a way that points to bi-pedalism. They don't need the feet, as the bones already existing would not function properly if she weren't bipedal. Also, other bones are wildly different from both chimp and man.

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

Do you even understand the concept of peer review? One 'scientist' working in Field A publishes a paper. Another scientist, working in the same field, publishes a paper that says the first one is right, and now all of a sudden both are Gospel? Doesn't that strike you, or anyone else, as just a tad over-credulent? The trust factor on paleoanthropology is so high these people must be allowed to make their own change at the register. I guess it is heart-warming, in a world so full of mistrust, to see one group of people in whom almost the entire civilized world has placed their total blind faith.

In order to publish the paper in any scientific magazine, there methods are examined. It's is not just one other scientist working the field. Also, the fact that most, if not all, anthropologists have accepted Lucy. (Oops, I forgot that the entire field is consumed in the vast conspiracy to falsely support evolution )

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

How do you know for a fact that those conditions existed then? All they had to go on were some mildly educated guesses, based mostly on work done by a branch of science that itself was wroking from the assumption that evolution was a fact. Hardly an experiment that can consider itself free of bias.

These guesses are based on what conditions we know the earth was in at the time. They were not slanted to support evolution, unless for the fact that the conditions were not a 6,000 year old earth.

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

And with only each other to 'check their work'. How utterly convienent.

Yes, it's all the big scientific-conspiracy (TM)

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

And of course there is no possibility whatsoever that the bones came from different organisms.

So they rummaged through some boxes of crud from a digsite (nearly 10 years after the fact, mind you), and played jigsaw puzzle, and came up with one fragmentary skeleton, that no other fossils have been found from members of that species, and this is considered incontrovertible proof? Of what? Gullibility on the part of the average newspaper reader?

I can just see them now, storing all their bones in one big box, not labelling or seperating anything, not taking the slightest care in the world to follow any procedure.
Oh, and they have found other skeletons of Lucy's relatives. There is also nothing to suggest it's two or morecorpses that just "happen" to be in the same location, unless its another one of these "miracles" we can accept without proof that you seem to be fond of.

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

No thanks, I prefer science.

The form of science that doesn't require proof, but accepts miracles as long as they aren't disproven? I don't remember that class.

 

[PinkyGen]

Oops, forgot to insert Lucy picture, and edit doesn't seem to give me that option.

 

[CrayonX]

Originally posted by Maj
This entire debate is rather confusing. In order to prove Creation Theory, all that appears to be required as "evidence" is faith. In order to prove Evolutionary Theory, mounds of data needs to be generated, analyzed, categorized, etc. before even a grainy picture can begin to emerge.

To justify (not prove) ET, CT must be discarded. To justify CT, ET must be discarded.

With so many issues surrounding inaccuracy, unreliability, mistrust, etc. in the scientific method and design, coming to disprove ET may seem a rather simple matter for creationists (or members of a party arguing another theory of existence/development). There are still many holes in ET, even though it has proven, in part, to explain the history of life (as most scientists would define it).

Rather than trying to prove ET in order properly dispell the arguments of creationists, maybe the argument should be brought to the doorstep of the Creation Theory. Can anyone justify ET by disproving CT, or is a theory driven so strongly by faith disprovable? Or maybe I have this wrong ... CT is largely faith driven, right?

-Maj

You're right, it's not as black and white. Most arguments as based on preconceived biases that have little to do with the argument at hand....

Creationist: "I believe in Creationism because God..."
Evolutionist: (oh, right, GOD...) "Ha! Well I believe in Evolution because science has proven..."
Creationist: (oh right, PROOF) "Proof? Then why is it still called a THEORY? Those bones may have been from monkeys..."
Evolutionist: (oh boy here we go...) "How can you refute so many proofs of evolution? It's a lot more proven than God..."
Creationist: "Well, you're just closed minded"
Evolutionist: "Well, you're just ignorant"
Creationist: "You're so sacreligious"
Evolutionist: "Well you're a loser"

Well, at least the discussions are entertaining...

 

[CrayonX]

Nice picture.
It's so hard to get hard facts about anything for either topic. Everyone's primary source seems to be the 100% reliable internet.

 

[Magnus]

According to Michael Shermer (Why People Believe Weird Things (pp137-138): (Shermer can also be found at http://www.skeptic.com/)

There are three ways to look at the interraction between science and religion.

1. Same Worlds Model - "Science and religion deal with the same subjects and not only is there overlap and conciliation but someday science may subsume religion completely."

2. Separate Worlds Model - "Science and religion deal with different subjects, do not overlap, and the two should coexist peacefully with one another."

3. Conflicting Worlds Model - "One is right and the other is wrong, there can be no reconciliation between the two viewpoints."

My personal choice is #2. Each is separate and each has its own significant sphere.

PS - I notice FL2 has stopped debating Vrylakas. Perhaps his arguments are just too convincing?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by PinkyGen
Oops, forgot to insert Lucy picture, and edit doesn't seem to give me that option.

Anyone else notice the obvious thing I noticed as soon as I saw that photo? (Besides the total lack of feet, that is.)

Yes, that's right, that hip bone...it's not at all right for an upright posture, is it? And look at how poorly the femur 'sockets' into the hip. Even if we assume a normal amount of cartilage, there will still be a huge gap.

Tell me Mr. Natural Selection = New Species, how did this creature survive making a loud popping noise with every step to alert predators of its presence?

I saw a picture of Lucy once before, but it hadn't been laid out like this. This was a huge error for Evolutionists to make. Actually allowing the world to see Lucy as an assembled skeleton, very sloppy. Well, thanks for the fresh magazine, it's always nice to have another one to toss on my mounds of ammunition...

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Magnus
PS - I notice FL2 has stopped debating Vrylakas. Perhaps his arguments are just too convincing?

Perhaps the last thing he said was a complete dodge that had nothing to do with the issue, and I didn't bother wasting my time? Perhaps you noticed that Vrylakas hasn't bothered to post one syllable since?

 

[Knowltok 2]

Yes, that's right, that hip bone...it's not at all right for an upright posture, is it? And look at how poorly the femur 'sockets' into the hip. Even if we assume a normal amount of cartilage, there will still be a huge gap.

Dare anyone ask for your credentials as to hip bones, how they work and what noise if any they would make while functioning? I freely admit that apart from have two hips myself, and being able to operate them relatively noise free, I am no expert. So perhaps you could enlighten me as to why I should accept your statements as fact. Thank you.