Evolution-Creation?

CreosMary · Mar 29, 2005

Conclusion

Code:

     As       shown above, Divine Revelation, theology, science and       philosophy all point to the fact that our first       parents, and in fact all forms of life on earth, were       specially created in their mature form by God as set       out in *Genesis*, Chapter l; and that the       evolution theory is merely rationalist philosophy       given to us in the form of just-so stories. The       following two opinions, given by persons who are       regarded as being expert in their own fields, but have       the opposing views of the purpose of life, express       what has been demonstrated above.

     Dietrich       von Hildebrand is said to be one of the greatest       Catholic philosophers of the twentieth century. In       “Teilhard de Chardin: A False Prophe*t*” (an       appendix to his book, *Trojan Horse in the City of       God*,[38](http://www.kolbecenter.org/butel_dof.htm#sdfootnote38sym)       he expressed the traditional Catholic viewpoint when       he wrote:

     **For       one thing, every careful thinker knows that a       reconciliation of science and the Christian faith has       never been needed, because true science (in       contradistinction to false philosophies disguised in       scientific garments) can never be incompatible with       the Christian faith**.

     The       evidence for intelligent design destroys the       philosophical position taken by secular evolutionists.       Their position is honestly described by a leading       evolutionist, the geneticist, (Professor) Richard       Lewontin, as follows:

    **We       take the side of science in spite of the absurdity of       some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to       fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and       life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific       community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because       we have a commitment to materialism. It is not that       the methods and institutions of science somehow compel       us to accept a material explanation of the phenomena       world; on the contrary, we are forced by our *a       priori*** adherence to material causes to create an       apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that       produce material explanations, no matter how       counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the       uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an       absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the       door.

CreosMary · Mar 29, 2005

Addendum

Code:

     Rev.       Father Brian Harrison, in an in-depth theological       treatise, “Did Woman Evolve from Beasts?” (*inter       alia*) shows that:

     **(a)       **as early as 3 February 557, in an epistle to King       Childebert I and later in an epistle, *Vas       Electionis*, addressed to the whole Church, Pope       Pelagius I taught that Adam and Eve “were not born       of other parents, but were created: one from the earth       and the other from the side of man” (see p. 8); and

     **(b)**       in 1312, the Council of Vienne not only affirmed the       doctrine of the special creation of Eve from Adam’s       side but also taught that it was a profound and       beautiful foreshadowing of the mystical foundation of       the Church, the immaculate Spouse of the Church,       whereby it prefigured the water and blood, symbols of       the principle sacraments that flowed from the side of       Christ at Calvary. See pp. 8-9. (Copies of this       article, sections 1 and 2, can be accessed on the web       site of the *Roman Theological Forum*, [www.rtforum.org](http://www.rtforum.org/),       “Living Tradition” Numbers 97 and 98, or on [users2.ev1.net/~origins](http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eorigins))

     These       traditional papal teachings based upon Divine       Revelation, as they are, together with similar       teachings of Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius X (*supra*),       surely affirm, without any shadow of doubt, that the       creation of our first parents as described in *Genesis*,       Chapter 2, is literally and historically true       and therefore forms part of the deposit of faith. It       follows then that this doctrine of creation can never       be replaced by the “new doctrine” of an       evolutionary creation.

I hope this helps to inform and clarify.
God Bless and Mary protect you all

Steve_Andersen · Mar 30, 2005

CreosMary

I know you mean well and are sincere
but…

I will pray for you

Frank_Calneggia · Mar 31, 2005

Who can doubt that the creation account in the Book of Genesis refers to six literal days, i.e. six days, beginning with the first day, that are successively separated by an evening and a morning, as stated in the text. For the first day to be separated from the second day by an evening and a morning, the sun must have already been in existence on the first day! Yet, the ‘creation’ of the sun occurs on the fourth day. What is the answer to this apparent paradox? Or to put the question in another way: what was God doing on each day? Was He creating the universe step by step over six days, or was He doing something entirely different? There is no doubt that God was doing something on each of those six days; but what was He doing?
We also need to understand something of the Nature of God’s Creative Act before we can fully appreciate the work of the six days. To find out more please follow this link:
members.iinet.net.au/~raphael/genesis.pdf

CreosMary · Mar 31, 2005

Steve Andersen:

CreosMary

I know you mean well and are sincere
but…
I will pray for you

FOR WHAT Mr Sir, Your Excellency, you are so superior to me in all things, I prostrate myself before you Oh almighty master of supreme answer, Forgive me my innocent love of the Church and do not cast me aside in your anger but grant me forgiveness for my Silly faith in divine revaltion and Holy Mother Church
GB

CreosMary · Mar 31, 2005

I am sorry but I must alert everyone,
there has been ‘new revelation’ **
Mr Steve Anderson is GOD,**.
We looked for years and thought it was Jesus the Christ but it has been revealed No it is Steve. he has ALL the answers to everything so therefore he must be the incarnate word.

Please all bow before him come in let us bow to our God, let us kneel before the God who made us, for he is our God and we the people who belong to his pasture’

CreosMary · Mar 31, 2005

**A Summary of
Theistic Evolution
**by Dr. Robert Bennett

Code:

      What does theistic evolution mean and why do       Catholic creationists oppose it?

     The atheistic formula for evolution is:

     Evolution = inert matter + random chance + positive       mutation + natural selection + death + eons of time.

In the theistic evolutionary view, God is integrated into materialistic philosophy, not as omnipotent Lord of all things, but as an enabler of evolution:

Code:

     Theistic evolution = Evolution + God ....... as a       single symbolic concatenation, thevolution.

Evolution is the mechanism for all life on earth, but God set evolution in progress and guided the process of development, leading eventually to man. Genesis is styled as an allegory, in the genre of figurative language and fairy tales. Being more socially and politically acceptable than creation, theistic evolution tries to accommodate evolution and creation at the same time, as a shot-gun marriage of contraries. We are still responsible to our Creator, yet somehow the Darwinist is also seen to be credible.

Code:

     Allied to theistic evolution is progressive       creation, proposing that God intervened at various points in natural development, periodically creating new kinds. It allows a considerable degree of change after that, an evolutionary envelope within which further limited variation is possible. The progressive creationist would support multiple descent - a model of multiple progenitors as a forest, where kinds created in different periods would not share the same genealogical tree.

Thevolution is an ideology masquerading as both naturalism and theology. Creation and evolution are so strongly divergent that reconciliation is logically impossible. Theistic evolution’s attempted conflation reduces the message of the Bible to insignificance. By lacking Scriptural support, theistic evolution loses meaning through its own reductionism.

Code:

     The theistic evolutionist generally believes in:

an old Earth, billions of years old
wholly natural processes being responsible for life, once initial matter was created by God
a figurative and non-literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account (Biblical illiteracy?)
a God who uses evolution as a secondary and indirect means of creating life
a Bible containing no usable or relevant ideas which can be applied in present-day origins science
evolutionistic pronouncements that have priority over biblical statements
reinterpreting Scripture when and wherever it contradicts the present evolutionary world view

**Theistic Evolution: Conflicts with Theology, Revelation and the Magisterium **

Magisterial teaching is that Scripture interpretation begins with a literal and holistic exegesis, which always considers literary styles and genres in context. Thevolution specifically violates this teaching by:

Denial of the supernatural - Having days be megayears and miracles a natural process refutes Scripture in order to believe evolution’s story of origins.

Denial of Adam’s maturity - Adam was fully developed when created, able to tend the garden, hear and understand divine law, name the animals, speak and make moral decisions. Adam is not evolution’s ape-man, Homo erectus or Homo habilis, a hominid that lacked these faculties.

Denial that Eve came directly from Adam, but by some sort of simultaneous sexual evolution. The two sexes just happened to evolve in the same part of the planet, mate and human natural history started. The myth of Eve is refuted by:
Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female? - Matthew 19:4
But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ - 2 Corinthians 11:3
For Adam was formed first, then Eve - 1 Timothy 2:13.

Denial of a six day creation - Apes learned to walk upright and became men, it is said, by using the Genesis ‘day’ figuratively as a long time. Yet in Genesis 1 the days are numbered. Nowhere in scripture is that done if it doesn’t mean a twenty-four hour period. The exposition in Genesis is very clear that all the world was made in six days, while evolution demands more time. The details of Adam’s creation contrasts strongly with the origin of the other creatures created ex nihilo, implying that God acted in a special way when he brought the first man into being. These two different views of origins cannot ever be reconciled.

CreosMary · Mar 31, 2005

Denial of a six day creation - Apes learned to walk upright and became men, it is said, by using the Genesis ‘day’ figuratively as a long time. Yet in Genesis 1 the days are numbered. Nowhere in scripture is that done if it doesn’t mean a twenty-four hour period. The exposition in Genesis is very clear that all the world was made in six days, while evolution demands more time. The details of Adam’s creation contrasts strongly with the origin of the other creatures created ex nihilo, implying that God acted in a special way when he brought the first man into being. These two different views of origins cannot ever be reconciled.

Code:

     Denial of core Biblical       integrity - The Bible is regarded as a myth, a       parable, or an allegory, not as a historical report of       biological, astronomical and anthropological facts       given in didactic [teaching] form. Scriptural events       are reduced to mythical imagery, and an understanding       of the message of the Bible as being true in word and       meaning is lost. Yet nowhere are there any indications       that the creation account should be understood in any       other way than as a factual report.

     The work of salvation is       undercut - Adam's fall into sin was a real event, the       direct cause of sin in the world:
  *Therefore as sin came into the world through one       man and death through sin, and so death spread to all       men because all men sinned-- *Romans 5:12.

     Theistic evolution does       not recognize Adam as the first man, created directly       from the dust of the ground by God:
  *Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the       ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of       life; and man became a living being*. - Gen 2:7.

     However, the sinner Adam       and the Saviour Jesus are linked together in the Bible       by Romans 5:17-19:
  *If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned       through that one man, much more will those who receive       the abundance of grace and the free gift of       righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus       Christ. Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation       for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads       to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man's       disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's       obedience many will be made righteous.*

     Any Biblical view which       deconstructs Adam's role undermines Jesus' work of       redemption.

     2) Original sin brought death into the world for       all living things. Death before the fall of man must       have occurred over the eons of evolution.

     The nature of God as       good is falsely represented because death and       suffering are ascribed to the Creator as principles of       creation.

     Death due to Adam's sin       is a serious challenge to theistic evolution, as many       creatures already would have died in the theistic       evolution process.

     Evolution portrays       fossils (which imply death, disease and bloodshed) as       formed before people appeared on earth. Yet Scripture       says that everything is in 'bondage to decay' because       of Adam's sin:*
  For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its       own will but by the will of him who subjected it in       hope;* *because the creation itself will be set       free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious       liberty of the children of God*. (Romans 8:20-21)

CreosMary · Mar 31, 2005

Theistic evolution is a compromise based on a contradiction. The Bible doesn’t teach evolution, and evolutionists cannot believe the Bible. Sin is made meaningless, a harmless evolutionary factor, in opposition to the declaration of the Holy Spirit that sin means breaking our relation to God. This isn’t resolved by adding “God” to the evolutionary scenario.

Code:

  4) The Church teaches the impossibility that the       first man could have been the son of an animal,       generated by a beast in the proper natural sense of       the term. "Only from a man can another man       descend, whom he can call father and progenitor."

  5) Theistic evolution trangresses the liberty of       discussion allowed by the Magisterium regarding       evolution. It assumes the origin of the human body       from preexisting and living matter were already fully       demonstrated by the scientific facts discovered up to       now. Then, by reasoning on them, it ignores the       sources of revelation which demand the greatest       reserve and caution in this controversy.

  6) It is a consensus of modern theologians, not a       Magisterial declaration, that transformism, the       evolution of the first man's body from a lower       species, is compatible with the faith. Two conditions       are added to this concession:

  the       soul was immediately created by God out of nothing

  somehow God exercised a       special providence over whatever process preceded the       origin of man's body, so that the first man was not       literally generated by a brute beast.

  7) The only niche allotted to God is whatever       evolution cannot explain with current scientific       theory. God is reduced to filling in the unknown gaps       of knowledge. Far from being immutable God Himself is       changing and evolving - a God of the gaps!

  8) The Bible provides a time-scale for history:

  Both       beginning and end are defined -

  *In       the beginning God created the heavens and the earth*       - Genesis 1:1

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come. Matthew 24:14.

The duration of creation was six days -
for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day - Exodus 20:11.

Code:

  The       age of the universe may be estimated, but not computed       exactly, in terms of the Patriarchal genealogies, as       more than six thousand years, not billions. But       thevolution favors time-scales involving gigayears,       for which there is no convincing and undisputed       physical basis. This undermines the credibility of       Scripture in other places.

  9) Theistic evolution worships the false idol of       Darwinism as its god, as the Hebrews worshipped the       golden calf at Mt. Sinai. Scientifically it differs       not from atheistic evolution, accepting purposeless,       naturalistic and material processes for the origin and       development of life.

  10) Human presence in evolution is accidental and       unplanned, a vagary of random natural selection,       likely never to occur again. This view destroys the       basic message of Scripture, God's love for us.

CreosMary · Mar 31, 2005

heistic Evolution : **Conflicts with Science ** All scientific arguments against evolution hold as well for theistic evolution. A few of these are:

The 2nd law of thermodynamics and overall increase of entropy would have caused the heat death of the universe over billions of years.
Code:
```
 2) The increase of genetic information complexity       required for evolution has never been observed.
```
Even cultural anthropology does not confirm that the bridge between man and animal has been crossed by any credible facts. To read man’s nature, detecting thought and volitional powers, distinguishing purely animal instincts, all from the incomplete earliest known archaeological remains - all this is raw speculation, not science.
Code:
```
 **Theistic Evolution: Conflicts with Philosophy              **
```

1)Intelligence and the capacity for free choice involve self-reference and self-causation. This presupposes the personal self, which only human beings possess. Nor can these capacities be rooted in matter as modifications of organically based functions, as matter has never demonstrated such capacities.

2)Fossil remains and primitive tools do not necessarily show the presence of morally responsible persons. Subhuman primates today evidence some tool-making ability which can be explained through imitation or instinct.

It is philosophically inconsistent to conflate God (theism) with evolution (naturalism). God’s use of evolution would make Him unnecessary. Evolution has no purpose or teleology, contrary to the God of Scriptures. Theistic evolution is inherently paradoxical, promoting a ‘providential randomness’ where God disguises His goals with evolution as though without purpose - a purposeless purpose.
Code:
```
 **Theistic Evolution: Some Questions and Puzzles              **
```

If man’s creation took millions of years through successive transformations of life-forms, why does Scripture tell us that God made man from dust?

Code:

     If truly an apelike prehuman, Adam would die; so       why the warning - *but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die. *- Genesis 2:17.

If Adam was the end of the evolutionary line and thousands of evolving men had already died, then how could death come by Adam?

If Adam was surrounded by his ape brothers, why was he lonely? The Bible recounts that there was not found among the animals a suitable mate or helper for Adam.

Code:

     Did God erase from Adam's mind what he used to be?

     Did God also remove from his hominid relatives all       recognition of Adam?

Why couldn’t God have started from dirt to make man, as in the literal reading, not just re-soul an existing creature?

Code:

     Did Adam evolve but not Eve? The Bible says she was       made from Adam's side.

In what language or myth does ‘human evolution’ mean ‘create from dust’(Adam) or ‘create from Adam’s side’(Eve)? Certainly not Hebrew.

Code:

     When Cain wed and bred with a woman from Nod, was       she human or simian?

     If Cain's wife was neither, had God made a hybrid       variant of human and beast, one that wasn't sterile?

     When did Adam lose his ape hair?

     After the first man was ensouled and then sinned,       didn't his ape brothers become potential food?

How do you understand the goodness of God if He used evolution, ‘nature red in tooth and claw’, to create everything?

If death and suffering did not arise with Adam’s sin and the resulting curse, how can Jesus’ suffering and physical death pay the penalty for sin and give us eternal life? The Word of God clearly says - *For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive - *1 Cor 15:22.

If the first 11 chapters of Genesis are allegorical, though written as plain narrative and understood by Jesus to be so, what other Biblical facts are figurative?
I

CreosMary · Mar 31, 2005

It is written -
But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist have been stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men…. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up. 2 Peter 3:7,10, and

Code:

     *Then I saw a new heaven and a       new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth       had passed away, and the sea was no more - *Rev       21:1 .

     Why then should God want to       destroy creation and build a new heaven and earth, if       the world now is just as it was when created, and He       called all creation 'good'?

     **How long is a day?              **

     Probably nothing typifies the       battle of theistic vs. creationist Catholics more than       the debate over the Genesis meaning of the Hebrew word       for day, *yom*. Its liberal and fuzzy       interpretation is key to undermining faith in the Word       of God right from the very beginning of Holy Scripture       and to plant the seeds of doubt which bloom ultimately       in evolution.

     *Yom* is said to be flexible       to the point of  incredulity.       Hiding within these three letters is said to be a span       of epochs, as many as 3 gigayears or over a trillion       days (in the common use of day). Parallels are drawn       to the use of day in modern English, which usually       means the 24 hour variety, but on occasion has other       colloquial meanings, such as “daytime”, the length       of sunlight, or a indefinite period or era, as when       using “the present day” to mean modern times.        It’s this last sense which the theistics       apply in the attempt to conflate modernity with Church       dogma. 

     Indeed, some uses of *yom*       in the Bible do follow the English semantics. There       are instances where the use of day there does follow       the current English usage. But this is more a proof        of the unity of human thought over four and a       half millennia, as expressed orally in language       patterns. Pointing out possible meanings for ‘day’       has nothing to do with the actual correct choice of       exegesis for *yom* in Genesis.

     A biblical hermeneutics based on       the myriad translations available today would be       fruitless, as they differ on the translation of the       first use of  yom       in the phrase “*yom echad*”, rendered in       various versions as ‘one day’, ‘day one’, ‘a       first day’ , or ‘the first day’.        Those that do agree on this phrase’s       translation will typically then disagree on the exact       phrasing or meaning of the other six days. [1](http://www.kolbecenter.org/bennett.thevol2.htm#note1)

    The use of the surrounding       context, however, is a useful approach, as is also       researching the original Hebrew text.        As pointed out by many creationists, the use of       ‘morning’ and ‘evening’ as delimiters is a       convincing argument for interpretation of *yom*       as a 24 hour day, along with the associated numbering       of the days, which always means a 24 hour day in       Scripture.  Convincing,       that is, to those with an open mind and no hidden       agenda.

CreosMary · Mar 31, 2005

It is rarely noted that the syntax of sentences containing yom in Genesis 1 & 2 is variable and unusual. For each day the literal translation from Hebrew is:

Code:

     Gen        1:5                one day

     Gen        1:8                a second day

     Gen        1:13              a third day

     Gen        1:19              a fourth day

     Gen        1:23              a fifth day

     Gen        1:31              the sixth day

     Gen        2:2                the seventh day

     Note that the correct translation       of ‘*yom echad*’ is ‘one day’ and the phrasing for the other 6 days is not exactly the same as for Gen 1:5. The form of the Gen 1:5 sentence is associated with a definition or equation, as in ‘3 and 4 is 7’. This is the first time that a day is quantified as : evening and morning.

                 So we read ‘evening and morning is/equals one       day’. Gen 1:5 is actually defining what *yom* means in unequivocal mathematical terms, as if aware of the potential ambiguity in the word’s usage and spelling out its sense when first used. There is no escape from the meaning intended in the source language:

     An evening and a morning = 1 day.          A simple sentence with a simple message: The       Genesis *yom* is a single 24 hour calendar day.

The literal sequence of days first defines the meaning of yom as 24 hours long, then indicates a sequence of ordinary days (as defined in Gen 1:5) up to the sixth and seventh days, which are specially noted by the definite article for the creation of man and the day God stopped creating from nothing.

The Torah scholar Nachmanides says the word ‘erev’, translated as ‘evening’, has as root the Hebrew letters Ayin, Resh, Bet - which means chaos, mixture, disorder. Evening is derived from ‘erev’, because when the sun goes down, vision becomes blurry. The root’s literal meaning is ‘there was disorder’. The word for ‘morning’ - ‘boker’ - has just the opposite root meaning: orderly, able to be discerned. Each day represents a sequence of steps that progress from disorder to order. This analysis of the core or primitive meanings of the Hebrew words clarifies two problems of theistic revisionists:

There is no evening and day phrase in Gen 2:2 for the seventh day of rest…… because the creation of order from chaos was complete !

The absence of the Sun – a light source - for the first three days is of no significance to the root translation !

Code:

   Many       translators use ‘first’ for *echad*, but there is a qualitative difference, Nachmanides says, between "one" and "first." One is absolute; first is comparative On Day One, time was created. The use of "first" implies comparison - an existing series. But there was no existing series. Day One was all there was, the very beginning of the Jewish calendar. 

   There are at least two important       lessons here.

**When Scriptural meaning is important (and when is it not?) the source language must be used and interpreted in the deepest literal sense when possible (the root stem of derived words). **
**There is no wiggle room in the length of the Genesis ‘day’. From the very start it’s defined as 24 hours long, anticipating those modernists who would have it ambiguous. **

Note: Of 15 Bibles sampled only two translated the Hebrew source correctly (2 of 15), the American Standard Bible and Young’s Literal Translation.
s.

CreosMary · Mar 31, 2005

Conclusion

Code:

     Theistic evolution is rejected by both sides of its       attempted dualistic embrace.

     William of Ockham's razor calls for science to 'cut       cleanly', by eliminating extraneous contributions to       its knowledge base and choose the simplest option. To       today's materialist that choice would be evolution.       But at least the Darwinists recognize this principle       of contradiction between evolution and religion by       dispensing with any reference to religion, God or       special creation. Theistic evolution desperately seeks       the secular approval of the scientific establishment,       but attempts to somehow cling desparately to spiritual       values. As they are unable to face the ultimate       nihilism that evolution implies, their equivocation is       also found contemptible by Darwin's followers.       Ockham's principle applied to theistic evolution       requires a choice that the thevolutionist is unwilling       to make.

     The objective spiritual side of Catholic tradition       realizes that this unholy alliance in thevolution is       not a merger of equals. In the face of (m)any       conflicts, it is the immutable Word of God which must       yield to the fickle words of Darwin or Dawkins. This       cannot stand. Of all the Scripture cited above against       thevolutionary ideas, perhaps these two verses best       summarize the case:

     *No servant can serve two       masters; for either he will hate the one and love the       other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise       the other.* Luke 16:13

     *I know your works; I know that       you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either       cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot       nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.* Rev       3:15,16

     What we witness today is an attempt at delayed       compensation, a reparation by modern theologians for       the perceived error and inherited guilt of the       Galilean controversy. There is no comparison between       that 17th century misunderstood event and the heresy       of accepting both evolution and special creation as an       individual world view compatible with salvation. In       some future Church council, hopefully in our lifetime,       thevolution will be recognized and declared *anathema*.       Until then, we pray that the evolutionists within the       Church may come to believe the Word of God as written,       and return to the faith in special creation handed       down to us by the Church fathers.

God Bless you all and please Steve Bless me… Pant! pant!

vz71 · Apr 9, 2005

I had to answer this as uncertain.

I disbelieve evolution, but I also do not believe genesis to be a literal rendering of the events.

The poll question seems to ask if you believe genesis literally or do you believe evolution.

I do not believe either. Now perhaps if the question were more clearly defined…

Z

buffalo · Apr 11, 2005

New-found skull could sink our current ideas about human evolution.

After a decade of digging through the sand dunes of northern Chad, Michel Brunet found a skull 6-7 million years old. He named it Toumaï.

Toumaï is thought to be the oldest fossil from a member of the human family. It’s a dispatch from the time when humans and chimpanzee were going their separate evolutionary ways. A thrilling, but confusing dispatch1,2.

Sahelanthropus tchadensis - Toumaï’s scientific name - was probably one of many similar species living in Africa at that time. “There must have been a group of apes knocking around between 5 and 8 million years ago for which there’s a very poor fossil record,” says anthropologist Bernard Wood of George Washington University in Washington DC.

Toumaï is the tip of that iceberg - one that could sink our current ideas about human evolution. “Anybody who thinks this isn’t going to get more complex isn’t learning from history,” says Wood.

“When I went to medical school in 1963, human evolution looked like a ladder,” he says. The ladder stepped from monkey to man through a progression of intermediates, each slightly less ape-like than the last.

Now human evolution looks like a bush. We have a menagerie of fossil hominids - the group containing everything thought more closely related to humans than chimps. How they are related to each other and which, if any of them, are human forebears is still debated.

Most members of the group are less than three million years old. After Toumaï, the next-oldest hominid is the 6-million-year old Orrorin tugenensis. But Orrorin is known only from a few teeth and bone scraps, and its evolutionary allegiances are controversial.

Our knowledge of Toumaï’s period is “at the 1963 stage”, says Wood.

more…

Orogeny · Apr 11, 2005

Buffalo,

I’m not sure what point you wanted to make with that post, but Toumai does nothing to dispute evolution. In fact, it does just the opposite. It is one more piece of the puzzle of human evolution.

Peace

Tim

Brad · Apr 12, 2005

Orogeny:

Buffalo,

I’m not sure what point you wanted to make with that post, but Toumai does nothing to dispute evolution. In fact, it does just the opposite. It is one more piece of the puzzle of human evolution.

Peace

Tim

I recommend this book:

caseforacreator.com/home.php

Brad · Apr 12, 2005

Kevin Walker:

Steven Hawking had an audience with his eminence Pope John Paul and the Pope liked what Dr. Hawking had to say. The Pope has his degree in Phenomenology.

Cosmologists just discovered that not only is the universe expanding, its also excelerating. One could view this as the hand of God.

I like what the Bible has to say about life, and I like to use science to prove it. Science is a useful tool for the theologian!

An expanding universe is one of the proofs for a beginning point of the universe itself. I don’t think Hawking believes in a beginning point. I know he, at one point, did not believe there could be a God that cared about our irrelevant planet.

Brad · Apr 12, 2005

There are so many versions of evolution, it is difficult to sort out up from down. The way that I see it, there are 2 portions of evolutionary theory that have been commonly implied as fact in our schools that cannot be reonciled with the Christian faith:

God did not directly create everything material in the universe.
Humans evolved from a purposeless, random sequence of events that included transition between species.

It is these 2 points that cause many to lose their faith as they study evolution because they directly contradict Christianity. Fortunately there is increasing and compelling scientific evidence available that refutes these 2 ideas. Unfortunately, they are still implied in most schools.

Orogeny · Apr 12, 2005

Brad:

It is these 2 points that cause many to lose their faith as they study evolution because they directly contradict Christianity.

I guess I am one of the lucky ones then.

Fortunately there is increasing and compelling scientific evidence available that refutes these 2 ideas. Unfortunately, they are still implied in most schools.

There are philosophical arguments against evolution, but I am unaware of the scientific evidence you cite.

For example, where are the mammal or fish fossils in Cambrian sediments? Where is the flower pollen in coal deposits from the Carboniferous period? How about evidence of humans in the Morrison Formation?

Peace

Tim

Evolution-Creation?

CreosMary

Guest

CreosMary

Guest

Steve_Andersen

Guest

Frank_Calneggia

Guest

CreosMary

Guest

CreosMary

Guest

CreosMary

Guest

CreosMary

Guest

CreosMary

Guest

CreosMary

Guest

CreosMary

Guest

CreosMary

Guest

CreosMary

Guest

vz71

Well-known member

buffalo

Guest

Orogeny

Guest

Brad

Guest

Brad

Guest

Brad

Guest

Orogeny

Guest