Please Help Me!

  • Thread starter Thread starter JosephSharon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JosephSharon

Guest
I accidently read something today while reading the Wikipedia article about Nairobi, Kenya, that bothered me very much.

It was mentioned that on display at a Natural History museum in Nairobi were the full remains of a “homo erectus” boy. As a person who does not ascribe to Darwinism and who was previously winning in the battle against atheism, this bothers me more than you can imagine.

Would someone please provide me with a refutation of that claim? Were those remains human and merely misidentified?

Please help me!
 
I accidently read something today while reading the Wikipedia article about Nairobi, Kenya, that bothered me very much.

It was mentioned that on display at a Natural History museum in Nairobi were the full remains of a “homo erectus” boy. As a person who does not ascribe to Darwinism and who was previously winning in the battle against atheism, this bothers me more than you can imagine.

Would someone please provide me with a refutation of that claim? Were those remains human and merely misidentified?

Please help me!
Joseph, I don’t know anything about this, but I just wanted to say that if you find evolution to be true, you don’t have to be an atheist… there are many (orthodox) Christians who believe in theistic evolution… (that God used evolution). Don’t lose your faith over this 🙂 I even think that it’s best to just not think about these things, and just leave them up to God, and focus on prayer and good works.

As for me, though, I don’t believe in Darwinism either. Sorry I don’t know about the museum in Kenya, but here’s an article I found about evolution: tanbooks.com/doct/evolution_hoax.htm

God bless
 
Please, someone help me.

There are refutations for “Peking man” and “Java man.” T

There must be one for this!
 
I accidently read something today while reading the Wikipedia article about Nairobi, Kenya, that bothered me very much.

It was mentioned that on display at a Natural History museum in Nairobi were the full remains of a “homo erectus” boy. As a person who does not ascribe to Darwinism and who was previously winning in the battle against atheism, this bothers me more than you can imagine.

Would someone please provide me with a refutation of that claim? Were those remains human and merely misidentified?

Please help me!
No, they weren’t misidentified. And believing in evolution does not equal atheism. There’s no reason you can’t just tell yourself that the scientists who identified these remains were wrong.
 
Please, don’t by any means let your faith be unsettled by the possibility that theistic evolution might be true. Nor any of the other scientific theories such as the ‘big bang’.

The bible talks about days in the Creation story, but that same bible makes quite clear that God doesn’t reckon time as we do - ‘a thousand years are as a day, a day is as a thousand years’.

Remember, this is a God who took thousands of years to fulfil the prophecy, made first in Eden, that a saviour would come to mankind. And one who, after 2,000 years, still hasn’t fulfilled His prophecy that He would come again. He said ‘I come soon’ - but remember, God is outside time. He DOES come soon to each of us, being that our lives are brief, even the longest.
 
I accidently read something today while reading the Wikipedia article about Nairobi, Kenya, that bothered me very much.

It was mentioned that on display at a Natural History museum in Nairobi were the full remains of a “homo erectus” boy. As a person who does not ascribe to Darwinism and who was previously winning in the battle against atheism, this bothers me more than you can imagine.

Would someone please provide me with a refutation of that claim? Were those remains human and merely misidentified?

Please help me!
Darwinism…is but one idea…and not a good one largely…but there are other various theories.

There can be various “pre-human” forms of life that resemble man…

(and just cause such can have existed…does not mean “darwinism” is right…)
 
It was mentioned that on display at a Natural History museum in Nairobi were the full remains of a “homo erectus” boy.
If it is backed up with a source(s), then it is very likely to be true.
As a person who does not ascribe to Darwinism and who was previously winning in the battle against atheism, this bothers me more than you can imagine.
What on earth is Darwinism? No, seriously? If you mean the scientific theory of evolution, why do you call it Darwinism? This makes it sound like a religion, which evolution is definitely not… I mean, do you call The Theory of relativity Einsteinism?

And let me tell you, Evolution has far greater proof than this one thing you read about. The proof is practically undeniable. (if anyone disagrees, you are free to tell me so, and why)

But as others have said, you don’t have to be an atheist to believe in evolution. But atheists use evolution a lot. (I also use it) Usually to counter arguments like; “The human body is too complex etc…”
Would someone please provide me with a refutation of that claim? Were those remains human and merely misidentified?
Very unlikely. (haven’t read the article though)
Please help me!
What do you want us to tell you? The truth or invent something like; “Of course they were wrong…erm…because they are lying, yes, yes, they made it up!”

Don’t close your eyes from reality. I feel that creationism is just that.
 
Darwinism (which can be like a religion for some) is not the same as “evolution” there are various theories of evolution…so to reject Darwinism as a belief or a theory is not the same as to reject “evolution”.

God in his creation can involve a kind of evolution (a kind of secondary causation) in the means…and we certainly can discover evidence of such…

One can rightly reject Darwinism and still humanly hold that certain theories involving evolutionary means seem to hold some water…
 
Please, someone help me.

There are refutations for “Peking man” and “Java man.” T

There must be one for this!
Peace be with you! The facts on early human history are still being gathered, interperted and debated, that’s why it is called the THEORY of Evolution, not the LAW of Evolution. If at some point, evolution does become an indusputable fact, so what? If God chooses to use evolution in His divine plan, who are we to say He can’t? If evolution is true, and He is revealing it to us now, we should thank Him for considering us worthy to understand a teeny little bit about Him and His universe. By the way, about 400 - 500 years ago, some very learned men were freaking about the possibility of the earth revolving around the sun, and that worked out ok. :eek:
 
Joseph, please just listen to the posters on this thread carefully. What they’re telling you is true. The Church is not against evolution because evolution is not against the Church, or against the Bible, or against truth. Evolution is not contradictory to Catholicism.

Don’t let this conflict disturb you. Read what the other posters here have said, especially the links that have been provided, as they lead to some very good articles on this subject.
 
I read this article and it’s clear from the constant revisions and revisions, year after year ‘this is science’, that they do not actually know what they are doing and are just roving around speculating based on their preconceived world-views.

I noted some apologetics articles criticizing ‘hoaxes’ involved just using Google without even typing in detailed searches like: Nairobi “homo erectus” hoax
 
If it is backed up with a source(s), then it is very likely to be true.
I don’t agree. There are many cases of sources and references being cited in articles and papers but when investigated turned out there was absolutely no connection to the subject matter. Some writers use sources and references to feign credibility.
What on earth is Darwinism? No, seriously? If you mean the scientific theory of evolution, why do you call it Darwinism? This makes it sound like a religion, which evolution is definitely not… I mean, do you call The Theory of relativity Einsteinism?
I think it is called Darwinism because it has become a religion to many people. They believe it it ardently even though it cannot be proven to be factual by the scientific method. Also the theory of evolution is not all there is to “Darwinism”. His beliefs and inferences in the book “the origin of species” is what I believe the term darwinism refers to.
And let me tell you, Evolution has far greater proof than this one thing you read about. The proof is practically undeniable. (if anyone disagrees, you are free to tell me so, and why)
I would like to know some examples of the “proof” you speak of. Evolution as far as I am aware is still a theory. If there were proof it would be a fact. There may be “evidence” for evolution which is largely circumstantial (by Richard Dawkins’ own admission) but certainly there is no proof of it as no one alive has ever seen it happen and it cannot be witnessed in a timeframe conducive to human experimentation. Piltdown man, neanderthal man and cro-magnon man have all been uncovered as clever (and some not so clever) hoaxes. So has the archeopteryx (reptile-bird) and many other “missing links”.

What evolution proponents fail to produce is what Darwin himself said would be the only evidence that evolution was true…transitional forms/species. Instead of the these transitional forms what we see are huge leaps in speciation and orders of organisms. Also many evolution proponents use the “presence” of vestigial limbs or organs (leftovers) on exsiting or fossilized organisms as evidence of evolution only to find out that these organs actually had uses (See the book: vestigial organs are fully functional and see many lists and information on the so-called vestigial organs).

The truth is that evolution, although it may be true, given the current evidence available to our scientists, requires more faith and imagination to believe in it to be considered a true scientific theory to me.
But as others have said, you don’t have to be an atheist to believe in evolution. But atheists use evolution a lot. (I also use it) Usually to counter arguments like; “The human body is too complex etc…”
Firstly your expression “believe in evolution” reflects why the term Darwinism is being used to much to describe the “movement”. No one says they believe in gravity. Why? Because gravity is a provable and testable phenomenon. It is not a theory. Evolution is not real science in its truest sense becasue it cannot be tested and is based on circumstantial evidence. Secondly I doubt highly that using the theory of evolution to counter such arguments makes much logical sense because evolution cannot explain the complexity of life forms in any event.

Like I said evolution may in fact be true but it cannot be explained without admitting to an intelligent driving force for it to have occurred in such magnificent order as it has without all species going extinct. Evolution presupposes that countless mutations took place to organisms over great periods of time and some of these mutations have, by pure chance/accident proved to be beneficial to the organisms. Hmm. Now lets put things in perrspective here. Did the giraffe, the woodpecker or the flagellum develop their complexity by mere luck and chance over zillions of years after zillions of mutations in zillions of species? Evolution says they did so evolution must be religious since the only way for this to be possible would be for it all to be actioned by an intelligent being or beings…ah.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top