Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
So you did not read the article and your claim they are lying in itself a lie.
Click to expand...
I did read the article. They lied by omission. You quoted the article, saying that there may have been a single pair 500,000 or more years ago. What they omitted was that humans, Homo sapiens, evolved about 300,000 years ago, at least 200,000 years after that possible (not definite) single pair. That pair, if they even existed, were not humans like us, but would have been Homo erectus or some earlier ancestor of H. erectus like Australopithecus afarensis.

That possible first couple cannot have been Homo sapiens. If they existed at all then they were some other species. You are reading far too much into the article, as the DI intended, as indicated by their omissions. If there was such a couple, then they were not human like us, and they could have been millions of years before the present. That 500,000 year figure is the latest possible; an earlier figure is easily possible.

The DI is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. They have an agenda, and their agenda requires them to be ‘economical with the truth’.

rossum
 
Last edited:
I almost fell off my chair laughing.

Again, you missed who published the findings. Not the DI. Not even ID friendly people. You are the one misleading by omission. But having an evo formed brain it is easy for you to lie as well as not recognize the truth. I remember a signature you always used. 😀

The fossil record is not continuous and you know how subjective these dates are for these fossils.
 
Oh dear. Not being able to rule something out. Hardly a ringing endorsement, is it? About the same likelihood as rolling ten sixes in succession?

Still, yes, it’s possible, but only if Adam and Eve lived 500 000 years ago. That will be in direct contradiction of what all the other creationists, the biblical literalists, think. This is a desperate attempt to have your cake and eat it. A week or so ago you said this: “I am not agreeable to 6000 years. Adam and Eve could be up to 10-12000 bp and 50,000 bp could be reasonable.”

So are you now telling us that half a million years bp is also reasonable?
 
buffalo said:
I almost fell off my chair laughing.
Click to expand...
I am happy to have provided some amusement.
Again, you missed who published the findings. Not the DI. Not even ID friendly people. You are the one misleading by omission.
Click to expand...
The web article you referenced was published by the DI: Dr. Gauger is a DI employee. The underlying scientific paper by Dr. Schaffner is correct: if there was ever a single couple, then that couple existed at least 500,000 years ago, maybe longer ago, and hence was not Homo sapiens.

The DI is equivocating the meaning of “human”. There is nothing in Schaffner’s paper that forbids the single couple being alive 65 million years ago in the aftermath of the Chixulub meteor, when populations of many surviving mammal species were reduced to very small numbers.

rossum
 
Really? We are looking at converging evidence.

Open your mind to the possibilities.

The first starting at the extreme - what if further analysis changes the date to more recent. Can you rule that out? No way. We have seen so many dates changed and overturned. We saw Lucy go from supposed ancestor back to just another ape or chimp. Lucy was built on a whole bunch of assumptions. From bones scattered all over the hillside a claim was made these are all from the same animal. Now we know different.

You will no doubt respond - that is how science is done. Right you are. So these and other dates may change, by magnitudes. The fossil evidence for all these lines of descent is very weak and most paleo guys know it and argue about it all the time. Yep, we found some pieces of bone fragment and we can paint the picture of the 10,000 pieces puzzle with certainty. Hogwash.

Remember, first science said from M Eve and Y Adam we are all descended, but several hundred years separated the two. Now science says, they were contemporaries but didn’t know each other. Next, science will say they lived in the same village…etc…

Now we see that genetic Adam and Eve cannot be ruled out.

Converging evidence…
 
Last edited:
At least you are straightening this out.

Right, the date could be further back. The take away and you should agree is it can no longer be claimed as impossible and that is pretty big news.
 
Thanks for the link, but you didn’t answer my question: Do you consider Noah’s Flood to be a myth?
 
curious_cath said:
You talked about “real, literary history” in the Old Testament. What is the distinction, in your views, between real, literal and mystical history? God talking from the clouds or from a bush is real and literal?
Click to expand...
I don’t know what you mean by “mystical history”.

God talking from the clouds or from a bush is real and literal? Of course it is. Why would you suppose otherwise? God “talking from the clouds” occurs in the NT was well - during the Transfiguration, for example.
 
God telling from the cloud is symbolic. A confirmation of a realization that you have already reached. At the transfiguration, Peter, James and John had already seen that Jesus was the Beloved Son. God only confirmed that in their own minds. The transfiguration is not literal history but spiritual evidence.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
I find it very easy to envision the process by which avian lungs could have evolved
Click to expand...
Evolution “science” requires a very vivid imagination and a penchant for junk science, that’s for sure. I suspect your aptitude for science is rather poor, as it seems you can’t tell the difference between real science and pseudo-scientific story-telling.
It also seems to me that that you have failed to notice that evolutionary “science” is built on endless assumptions and speculations and is therefore a joke and an insult to true science. Furthermore, no one can prove that macroevolution is even possible, let alone prove that birds evolved from reptiles!
A quick Google will give you plenty of opportunity to researchgthis for yourself
Click to expand...
What is “Google”?
But that’s not really the point. I want to emphasis that a) starting with an incorrect summary of what “must have” occurred, followed by b) describing either your own, or any other evolutionary scenario as “ludicrous” and “fairy tales” is so terribly counter-productive as to be the most self-destructive attitude to creationism, and the real reason that it is not taken seriously by scientists.
Click to expand...
One reason scientists don’t take creationsim seriously - or at all - is that the scientific community is a totalitarian closed-shop controlled by atheists. Another reason is that creationism is probably not useful to science. Evolutionism (belief in microbe-man evolution) isn’t useful to science either, but it’s preached as if it is.
 
Oh, I see. It’s a short step from the vanishingly small, but non-zero possibility of humans descending from a bottleneck of two Homo erectus half a million years ago to the fact of Adam and Eve ten thousand years ago. Well, that’s OK. Nothing wrong with optimism!

Glark! Still here? What do you reckon? When did Adam and Eve live? You granted earlier on that the “first two or three chapters of Genesis” were possibly presented in a mythological style. Does that mean you think they’re not literally true? Or that they are true, but mythological in literary style?
Glark said:
Evolution “science” requires a very vivid imagination and a penchant for junk science, that’s for sure. I suspect your aptitude for science is rather poor, as it seems you can’t tell the difference between real science and pseudo-scientific story-telling.
Click to expand...
Oh, tut, tut. You’re doing it again. Rather than this cheap sniping, which, as I say, only gives creationism a bad name, why not stand up for something you believe in.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
So when you say the first seventeen books of the Old Testament are “clearly” literal history, I can only say that this is not so for me, and ask what makes you think they are.
Click to expand...
What makes me think Genesis to 2Maccabees are clearly literal history? Er, I’ve read them. This is like asking, “What makes you think the sun rises in the east?”

Perhaps you are an atheist, in which case, an serious psychological and emotional barrier prevents you from acknowledging the bleedin’ obvious regarding the historicity of the aforementioned Scriptures.
Or If you are Catholic, it sounds like you’ve been reading too many modern scholarly books written by modern scholarly fools.

Even Wikipedia describes Joshua to 2Maccabees as “the historical books” … as does every form of Christianity and of course, the Judaism. Oh, and then there was some bloke called Jesus who believed that Adam and Noah were real, historical people and that the Flood was a real event.
The text is remarkably similar to the way myths are often presented.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. They read nothing like Greek or Roman mythology or Hinduism’s “holy books”, for example. And they read nothing like the Koran either.

The genealogy in Genesis 5 - is this myth, in your opinion? What about the Flood?

If the OT is loaded with myths, why should the New Testament be any different?
The description of major meteorological events as the outcome of conversations between human and divine personalities is entirely typical of mythological presentation.
Click to expand...
Please explain.
 
curious_cath said:
God telling from the cloud is symbolic. A confirmation of a realization that you have already reached. At the transfiguration, Peter, James and John had already seen that Jesus was the Beloved Son. God only confirmed that in their own minds. The transfiguration is not literal history but spiritual evidence.
Click to expand...
You’re obviously not Catholic. An atheist, perhaps?

What about the Resurrection? Not literal history either?
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
Glark! Still here?
Click to expand...
I’m so sorry.
What do you reckon? When did Adam and Eve live? You granted earlier on that the “first two or three chapters of Genesis” were possibly presented in a mythological style. Does that mean you think they’re not literally true? Or that they are true, but mythological in literary style?
Click to expand...
In answer to your questions:
  • According to the genealogies provided in the Bible and extraneous info, such the year the Septuagint was written, it can be shown that Adam was created somewhere between 5000-10000 years ago. However, since many Jewish publications display the current year as 5779 (aka 2018), I tend to favour this time period.
(You see, I think it wiser to put my trust in inspired Word of God than to put my trust in a bunch of mendacious atheist fools masquerading as scientists.)
  • I accept that, since the first two or three chapters of Genesis are describing a miracle - creation - some of the account may not be literal. Nevertheless, I believe in a literal six days of creation, mainly because of Exodus 20:9-11, where God directly compares six literal days of human labour to the six days of creation. And I believe that God created life instantaneously over those six days.
Oh, tut, tut. You’re doing it again. Rather than this cheap sniping, which, as I say, only gives creationism a bad name, why not stand up for something you believe in.
Click to expand...
I have been regularly involved this thread (and the previous 4 on the same subject) for a few months now. As a late-comer, you are not familiar with the beliefs I have been standing up for during that time.
As for my perceived “cheap sniping”’, I am simply trying to present the facts as I see them.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top