Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Are Fossils Proof Of Evolution?

Forum Quick Jump

104 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 1/10/2003 8:37 PM (GMT -6)

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

Public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin’s theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured, most recently by spokespersons for PBS’s Evolution series, that “all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution” as does “virtually every reputable scientist in the world.” The following scientists dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. There is scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Henry F. Schaefer: Nobel Nominee, Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia
Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U.
Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member
Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U.
Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U.
Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U.
Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois
Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College
Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U.
Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK
Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville
David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico
James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida
Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan
Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U.
Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder
Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College
William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago:
George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida
Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U.
James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah
Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington
Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories
Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universität München
Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis
Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member
Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho
Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho
David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U.
Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T.
Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia
Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M
Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada)
Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School
Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories
Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences
William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens
Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia
Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U.
Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College
Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin
Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U.
Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College
Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College
William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U.
Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia
Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine
Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U.
Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U.
Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T.
Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor
John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico
Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin
Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia
Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U.
David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author
Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland
John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U.
James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm
John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa
Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U.
Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City
Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington
Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute
Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U.
Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U.
Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior
James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U.
Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm
Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas:
Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U.
Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School
William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City
Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico
Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U.
Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago
Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology
Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College
Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U.
David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U.
Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA)
Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute
Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington
Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U.
Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan
Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College
Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley
Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina
Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U.
James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center
Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha
Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U.
David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U.
Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U.
Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology- U. of California, Berkeley:
James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U.
Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A &am

SeanG!

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."

Edited by - SeanG on 01/11/2003 01:38:35 AM

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 1/11/2003 12:04 PM (GMT -6)

Hey Scott,

Hey, your heart is noted and respected, dude! Most definitely. Understand that I'm not the LEAST bit interested in "attacking" you or addressing you personally on any subject we talk about. Okay, if you tell me that you just to be verbally assalted and what have you, I'll give it a go! Really, though, I'm trying REAL hard in all my posts to get better and better and being more clear about my reason for posting: to learn, to converse, and not to attack. I don't mean anything I say to come across that way, but sometimes it sounds that way, and I'm honing in on eliminating it!

You noted that one of the things that drew you to this site was the idea that those holding an open view might be more tolerant. Well, that's true in one respect, but don't forget that open theists (as we're called) are still human, making those stupid human mistakes--as I've said, I HATE being a human being sometimes!

In regard to your theology, we're on different sides of the road in many respects. But that's okay. Let's learn from each other and become better lovers of God, of each other, and of ourselves.

Hey, be blessed, Scott!

Starkman

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 1/13/2003 8:36 AM (GMT -6)

Sean,

To your main points:

quote:

Creation Research Society has a voting body of over 700 scientists...

Yes. And CRS is basically young-earthers - if you augment their ranks by the old-earthers and ID'ers out there, you'd probably have a number in the several thousands worldwide (most of them in America, that being home to most of the industrialized world's conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists).

Even all together, though, the creationists do not represent the consensus in science. And the more young-earth they get, the more their minority dwindles. For example, Gallup polls from the 1980's into the 2000's found that only about 5% of American scientists (of which there are a few hundred thousand) agree the evidence supports a recent (within 10,000 years) special creation of man.

There are a lot of people in the world, and even the Flat Earth Society has a few hundred members. My argument is not about absolute numbers, its about the proportionate consensus in the field. Thus the rule-of-thumb I was talking about is not shown to be supportive of the hundreds of young-earth scientists in the United States.

quote:

Its funny, Christianity would still be true even if not a single person on earth believed it to be true. And, a consensus of specialists in the field, as well as the larger part of the world population would reject Jesus’ claims and works. Walla! Christianity must not be true.
...
abstract thought on the majority… which, by the way was the defense of the Nazi's at the Nuremberg Trials.

As to Christianity: Yes, it would be true though no one believed it. But we know Christianity to be true ultimately (ie not only, but finally) by personal faith. We do not approach scientific issues of prehistory the same way. We approach them based on evidence, collected and interpreted per the scientific method; and when we lack personal experience of that process, we are reasonable in deferring to the consensus of others who have (meaning likewise that when and if that consensus shifts, we are reasonable to follow). Not that the consensus in a technical, non-normative domain is always right - but that it usually is, and the best we can do with such non-normative domains is play probabilities.

Tying this in with your comment on Nazism: Peoples' take on Christianity and God in general, as well as moral issues such as Nazism violated, are not really analogous to scientific questions. These things are normative, intuitive, and universally felt; scientific issues, like disputes in history and mathematics, are comparatively local, objective, and technical. And though Christians will disagree as to the extent sin corrupts our thought in such areas (eg, sin seems to have no effect on doing arithmetic correctly - so might it corrupt our origins science even though our arithmetic is fine?), we all agree that sin certainly clouds our perception of God and morality. Thus great moral failings like Nazism, or large-scale unbelief in God, are no precedent and no analogy for scientific revolutions.

Now, to the extent that these great normative issues of God and morality extend feelers into the domain investigable by scientific method, I still say we are reasonable in placing credence in the conclusions reached by that method, in direct proportion to the number and diversity of investigators worldwide, their degree of consensus, the stability of their consensus over time, etc. Regarding origins and prehistory: this area has gotten a high degree of attention from tens or hundreds of thousands of diverse researchers over generations, resulting in a conclusion held with a high degree of confidence by the vast majority of them. And thus I believe it deserves a good deal of credence.

Anyway, I feel I am beginning to repeat this theme too much (about the reasonableness of deferring to the well-established consensus of relevant authority in a technical field), so this is the last I'll mention of it.

Lastly as to this:

quote:

…however, if any of the “evolutionists” would like to give me just one proof of evolution, and then defend this evidence, I will by all means leave my “argument from authority” and actually deal with the tangible evidence, which apparently, none here like to do.

As I've indicated before, I for one am very reluctant to get into this since my days of feeling such debates were fruitful are over. All we would be, as ever in such debates between laymen, especially on the Internet, is two dilettantes comparing sources with one another - something everyone here can do themselves to their heart's content. I would be more than happy to recommend authors, books, periodicals, and Web sites where both positive evidence for mainstream science (including response to any creationist critique), as well as critique of creationism, can be found - from both a scientific perspective and a theistic, Christian perspective. Indeed I have dropped a lot of those names already in this thread. I see no need to serve as their poor proxy, and that is why I have been deliberately discussing here at a high, summary level only. If you do require active debate, though, your best venue for that would be the talk.origins newsgroup.

(By the way, saying "just one proof of evolution" would apparently reveal some unfamiliarity on your part with scientific method. "Convergence of evidence" and "induction to the best inference" are how science works.)

Best regards to you,

Scott

PS. I'll be available in this thread for one more round, after which you can have the last word if you like :-)

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 1/13/2003 8:39 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Hey, be blessed, Scott!

Starkman

Keith,

Thank you. I feel the same! With kindest regards,

Scott

anewbeginning
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88

Posted 1/13/2003 4:01 PM (GMT -6)

SeanG:

In regard to the age of the earth/universe, why do you feel threatened by an ancient creation? At what level of importance do you feel this issue should be considered? Also, I'm no scientist but I would like your response to two indications of an ancient earth. The Green River Formation in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming, and also the absence of naturally occuring radioactive elements with short half-lives (such as Neptunium with a half life of 100,000 years, I believe).

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 1/14/2003 1:44 PM (GMT -6)

anewbeginning, Hello, and a gracious thank you. you actually asked a question that is worth answering, although here, briefly due to my time restraint today. First however, I wish to note that I could give you 30 billion years for evolution to occur, and that still isn’t enough time in which you need for all the things to happen that evolution requires. That being said, showing the earth to be young or old has nothing to do with the fact of creation. However, I will defend the young earth position here if you so wish.

You asked, “and also the absence of naturally occurring radioactive elements with short half-lives…”

There is radioactive material with a half-life of three minutes found in granite, meaning that the granite had to be completely formed and cooled well before the three-minute half-life. Evolution, however, requires millions of years for the cooling off process.

A good brief introduction can be found at:

Of course there are critics of these (see text after web site), some answers to them are to be found at:

Of course, such incredible implications have not gone unopposed. Some observers have claimed that many Po radiohalos occur along cracks and cleavage planes in biotites, and that fluids may therefore have transported the Po into the biotites after the granitic rocks had formed.7 In a relatively few instances this is obviously true, but only 210Po radiohalos are found along such cracks, which are sometimes also bordered by discoloration with a width equivalent to the ring diameter of 210Po. This implies that only the longer-lived 210Po was transported in the fluids. Secondary 210Po radiohalos have also been found in coalified wood associated with sandstone-hosted U orebodies formed by groundwater flow.8 The Po was concentrated from the U-transporting fluids into the Se-rich radiocenters because of the geochemical affinity of Po with Se.

Critics also point to the apparent association between the occurrence of Po radiohalos and concentrations of U—16 out of 20 Po-radiohalo-bearing biotite localities have reported U in the rock or in an orebody.9 Thus it has been suggested that the fluids responsible for concentrating the U may have also transported the Po and concentrated it in the tiny radiocenters. 210Po is present in groundwaters,10 and in volcanic gases11 and fluids,12 and has been reported in submarine hydrothermal vent fluids and chimney deposits on the East Pacific Rise,13 where the 210Po appears to have been transported over distances of up to several kilometers in 20-30 days.

You also asked about the Green River, I do not normally do this, but I will again link you to a short article. However, if you wish, I can do a paper that incorporates evidence from multiple sources, and then some. Let me know what you think of these two items I linked to. Again, sorry about my current time restraints, I love giving answers in an in-depth manner.

Much Thought…

SeanG!

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."

Edited by - SeanG on 01/14/2003 6:46:22 PM

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 1/16/2003 1:12 PM (GMT -6)

Progressive creationism paints itself in another corner because of certain claims about the fossil record. For instance, one of my favorite Biblical scholars, Gleason Archer, who has produced one of my favorite surveys of the Old Testament, called in fact, A Survey of the Old Testament Introduction, is a progressive creationists. On pages 172-175 of his original edition (1966), he suggests that Pithecanthropus, the Swanscombe man, and Neanderthal, all be relegated to a period before Adam. What is commonly termed as “pre-adamic men.” Progressive creationists would posit that these “pre-human” races had no souls, and much like animals were merely instinctive creatures in no need of salvation.

However, as one example, the Neanderthal’s lives included gardening, music, religion, burial ceremonies, and the like. There is no evidence that they were not clothed, as often is depicted, nor that they were anything less than human. In fact, Nature science journal in 1908 related the discovery of a Neanderthal buried in a suit of armor (Nature 77 [22 April 1908]: 587). And there is evidence that the Broken Hill Man (skull) from Zambia, which is housed at the British Natural History Museum, has been recently, upon closer inspection, found to have a bullet hole through the skull, and that this was – most probably – the cause of death. What do progressive creationists like Dr. Archer, whom I highly respect, do with such evidence… just as the Darwinists do, sweep it under the carpet, refuse further investigation on the actual fossil in question (like the Broken Hill Man), make ad homonym attacks and simply state that since there are a majority of scientists who know evolution to be true, therefore (de facto), it must be true and any evidence to the contrary must be false.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Neanderthal

The Neanderthal skeletons differed slightly from that of the homo-sapien, but as noted pathologist Rudolpf Virchow at the University of Berlin said they belonged to a man suffering from rickets and arthritis - (caused by vitamin D deficiency). When afflicted with this at a young age, your facial features swell when making it into adult hood. Due to the overwhelming evidence, the British Natural History Museum in 1984 changed their old display of the Neanderthals from the brutish, naked, club carrying hunched walkers to a display with an upright person whom the sign in front of the new display says is classed Homo-sapien, or 100% human. In the process they moved their display of the brutish Neanderthal upstairs with that “shaven well dressed” look.

Even in 1955 Neanderthals were known to be human.. Anatomists William J. Straus of John Hopkins University and A. J. E. Cave of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital Medical College (London) were attending an anatomy conference in Paris. Looking at Boule’s reconstruction of the La Chapelle-aux-Saints skeleton, they immediately spotted significant errors, which they summarized in the Quarterly Review of Biology:

“There is nothing in this total morphological pattern to justify the common assumption that Neanderthal man was other than a fully erect biped when standing and walking. It may be that the arthritic ‘old man’ of La Chapelle-aux-Saints, the postural prototype of Neanderthal man, did actually stand and walk with something of a pathological kyphosis [hunch-back]; but, if so, he has his counterparts in modern in modern men similarly afflicted with spinal osteoarthritis. He cannot, in view of his manifest pathology, be used to provide us with a reliable picture of a healthy, normal Neanderthalian. Notwithstanding, if he could be reincarnated and placed in a New York subway – provided that he were bathed, shaved, and dressed in modern clothing – it is doubtful whether he would attract any more attention than some of its other denizens.”

Like Virchow, some believe they suffered from rickets and other bone diseases. Francis Ivanhoe made this case in a 1970 Nature article entitled Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?, which this article in the February 1971 Science Digest makes mention of:

“Neanderthal man may have looked like he did, not because he was closely related to the great apes, but because he had rickets, an article in the British publication, Nature, suggests. The diet of Neanderthal man was definitely lacking in Vitamin D.”

Rickets is not commonly seen today – in America, the disease was almost wiped out by fortifying milk with vitamin D. But in the past, particularly during the ice age, it may have been common, due to poor diet and less sunlight (which the body utilizes to make vitamin D). In the 1950’s, human paleontology was suffering from a case of the blahs. Piltdown Man had been exposed as a fraud; Nebraska Man was a pigs tooth; Java Man’s discoverer had called him a genus allied to the gibbons; Peking Man’s fossils had flown the coop; and Neanderthals had turned out to be Homo-sapiens (human).

SeanG!

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."

scott_jorgenson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271

Posted 1/16/2003 1:37 PM (GMT -6)

Again, I'd encourage everyone who has interest in these matters to check out the claims Sean is posting, by referring to mainstream scholarly opinion available on the Web, in journals, and books. In my previous postings I've demonstrated how to do this (and explained why I'm not doing it here myself) and named numerous sources for the mainstream view. You'll find, I believe, as I did, that creationist interpretations of the data, on balance, don't hold water; and in particular that the more young-earth they get, the more unsubstantiated they are.

Follow the smoke, and I can say for my part at least, that what you'll find is not fire, but - and I honestly hate to say this - a stink bomb. I wish it were not so, but there it is.

Checking-out,

Scott

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 1/16/2003 1:57 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Follow the smoke, and I can say for my part at least, that what you'll find is not fire, but - and I honestly hate to say this - a stink bomb. I wish it were not so, but there it is.

I think stink is too nice of a word to describe what you find when you read creationist literature. The shame the word creationist brings to my faith. *sigh*

Thanks for your contributions on this thar thread. I have learned that there is no creationism (this I knew), just annoying men and women who are bothering honest hard-working scientists who want to no more than to understand the surrounding world; and, that debating creaionists who don't want to listen is fruitless and not worth the psychic energy, I thank you for that.

If creationism is right, back to the dark ages we go.

Blessings

"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught

Edited by - A_Theist on 01/16/2003 6:59:26 PM

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 1/16/2003 4:31 PM (GMT -6)

Take note that I only quoted evolutionary journals and evolutionists. And take special note that the only response A_Theist can give is the ad homonym attack: “just annoying men and women who are bothering honest hard-working scientists who want to no more than to understand the surrounding world…”

I don’t know if A_Theist believes in “psychic energy,” but if he does, he would believe in reincarnation and a pantheistic worldview. In that case, I would love to discuss this with him. I may be wrong, he may have said it in a comic fashion.

Take note of another ad homonym attack, that if someone believes in creationism, we are back in the dark ages. Rather than answer the argument, he reverts to attacking like a politician on crack. If he had methodically read the list of scientists and professors who are creationists, he would have noted – just as one example – that the inventor of the MRI (one of the most important machines available to emergency rooms and hospitals all across the world) is a young earth creationist. If this is the dark ages, baby, bring it on!!

I was hoping for the gene sequence challenge, however, someone keeps sticking his nose through the door of this thread… would someone shut it, its drafty in here.

SeanG!
"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen." ~ An adaptation of Hebrews 11:1

Edited by - SeanG on 01/16/2003 9:34:54 PM

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 1/16/2003 5:39 PM (GMT -6)

I thought you would do more investigation before you tried to point out errors in my last post? Tisk Tisk!

Psychic:
1 : of or relating to the psyche

Psych/Psyche

1 : PSYCHOANALYZE
2 a : to anticipate correctly the intentions or actions of : OUTGUESS b : to analyze or figure out (as a problem or course of action) <I psyched it all out by myself and decided -- David Hulburd>
3 a : to make psychologically uneasy : INTIMIDATE, SCARE <pressure doesn't psych me -- Jerry Quarry> -- often used with out b : to make (as oneself) psychologically ready especially for performance -- often used with up <psyched herself up for the race>

Energy:

Main Entry: en·er·gy
Pronunciation: 'e-n&r-jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
Etymology: Late Latin energia, from Greek energeia activity, from energos active, from en in + ergon work -- more at WORK
Date: 1599
1 a : dynamic quality <narrative energy> b : the capacity of acting or being active <intellectual energy>
2 : vigorous exertion of power : EFFORT <investing time and energy>
3 : the capacity for doing work
4 : usable power (as heat or electricity); also : the resources for producing such power
synonym see POWER

It means using my cognivitve faculties; Or in the case of studying creationism: "wasting my cognitive faculties."

Is it an ad hominem to point out that you mispelled ad hominem?

I don't know how saying someone is annoying is an ad hominem, but if you say so, it must be true.

quote:
I was hoping for the gene sequence challenge

Then why did you bring it to an evangelical theology board?

quote:
Take note that I only quoted evolutionary journals and evolutionists

The two main sites you use in defense of creationism are the Answers in Genesis site, and the Institute for Creation Research. I would link em, but I don't want to waste my psychic energy--kind of like I am doing now.

Out

"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 1/17/2003 7:31 AM (GMT -6)

First of all A_Theist, you still haven’t dealt with the argument… deal with the argument. As for the misspelling, you still have committed the error of the ad hominem, which is, “appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.” You even did so in the last post. Let me explain, you said:

“The two main sites you use in defense of creationism are the Answers in Genesis site, and the Institute for Creation Research. I would link em, but I don't want to waste my psychic energy--kind of like I am doing now.”

I did not use those two sites in that post about the Neanderthal at all. I did use the two sites to post the hundreds of creation scientists – that you said are “just annoying men and women who are bothering honest hard-working scientists who want to no more than to understand the surrounding world.” Another ad hominem attack. You make it seem as if being a creationist is somehow not as worthy as being a naturalist, as if it is harkening to the dark ages. It was the reformation that sparked an interest in science. Yes, A_Theist, a religious movement made possible all the scientific advancements today. History 101 boss. And there are many a young earth creationist that have discovered and invented and formulated theories and hardware that is used in the process of saving lives and furthering science… not scientism – which is what naturalism is. And the Neanderthal finds discount progressive creationism, as do man made items in the pre-Cambrian (dated at 2.8 billion, yes, billion, years old). So even though these finds may seem non-theological… people like Dr. Boyd have to believe in progressive or gap theories counter to theology and counter to the hard evidence (no matter how old you think that evidence is).

In answering anewbeggining, I did post two papers from creation sites, due to the time shortage, however, this does discount the information just because it is written or posted on a creationist site. Another ad hominem attack. You must deal with the information, not the information giver. Remember, from your own link to Mirriam Webster:

marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

For instance, in my political section of my home library, I have a copy of the National Enquirer, the paper that talks about aliens mating with humans, and Tom cruise getting pregnant… that type of paper. However, the story they ran – and broke – on Jesse Jackson is a factual piece. Jesse Jackson couldn’t just dismiss it as wrong because of the source; he has to deal with the evidence.

Mind you, the information I presented about the Neanderthal is probably at most creation web sites, It is also at non-religious sites as well. Just because the following gentlemen are creationists, and rejected the evolutionary theories of their day, doesn’t dismiss the truth of their discoveries or the current use of their science or fields they founded:

SeanG!

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 1/17/2003 7:32 AM (GMT -6)

Double Post

Edited by - SeanG on 01/17/2003 12:36:42 PM

¡Que Payaso!
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 108

Posted 1/17/2003 3:45 PM (GMT -6)

SeanG,

This has been a fascinating thread to follow, and I only regret that others have not interacted with your arguements in as substantive a way as you have presented them. I would sincerely like to hear more meaningful dialogue (i.e., dialogue that goes beyond appeal to majority consensus and ad hominem arguements). Thanks for all your efforts here.

I have read Boyd's God at War and Russell Humphreys' Starlight and Time. I am intrigued by both efforts to explain an old universe (or earth) while holding to a 'young' creation of humankind. You mentioned a book by Weston Fields entitled Unformed and Unfilled: A Critique of the Gape Theory. Can you go into a little more detail as to why you described the gap theory as being "counter to theology and counter to the hard evidence"?

El Payaso

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." - Bilbo Baggins

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 1/17/2003 7:54 PM (GMT -6)

Hey Payaso! As my christian duty, I am going to save sean the legwork.

What about the gap theory?
A Gap in Knowledge (can you believe all of the catchy titles they come up with?)
Creation Ex Nihilo
Can evolution's long ages be squeezed into early Genesis?

From the Beginning of Creation:
Does Genesis have a Gap?

The Gap Theory: An Idea with Holes?
Morning has broken … but when?

What does 'replenish the earth' mean?

Unbinding the rules: Genesis Unbound

What’s wrong with ‘progressive creation?’

Raise a scholarly fist for the brave men who dare tackle the heresy of an old earth!

Snoogins

"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 1/17/2003 8:24 PM (GMT -6)

What would representing be if I didn't include links from the ICR website.

WHY THE GAP THEORY WON'T WORK

CLOSING THE GAP

*This one has a cute little cartoon*

DOES SCRIPTURE ALLOW A GAP?

There are so many more that I don't think I have the psychic energy to go on. But you get the point, don't you? Since there are all of these articles, and these arguments reside on Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research, they must be right. How could one argue with that?

Oh wait, I forgot one more thing.

How the reputations of these scholars goes untarnished

.Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. Hydraulic Engineering (Founder and President Emeritus of ICR)He has a B.S. from Rice University with honors in Civil Engineering and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Minnesota. Dr. Morris majored in engineering hydraulics/hydrology while minoring in Geology and Mathematics. He has served on the faculties of Rice University, the University of Minnesota, the University of Southwestern Louisiana, and Southern Illinois University. From 1957 to 1970 he was Head of the Department of Civil Engineering at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech). While at Virginia Tech, Dr. Morris was able to get approval for Ph.D. programs in Civil Engineering and Hydraulics. Dr. Morris authored Applied Hydraulics in Engineering, which has been used by over 100 colleges and universities at one time or another. It is still used today as a reference and even the main text in some university classes. As of 1993 and 30 years after the first edition was printed, there was no comparable textbook available.

.John Morris, Ph.D. Geological Engineering (President of ICR)
He has the B.S. in Civil Engineering from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and the M.S. and Ph.D. in Geological Engineering from the University of Oklahoma. He was a research assistant from 1978-1980 and assistant professor of Geological Engineering from 1980-1984 at Oklahoma University as well.

. Ken Hamm

I could not find any information on him. But he must be right, so it doesn't matter.

"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 1/18/2003 6:56 AM (GMT -6)

A_Theist, all I can say buddy, is, “think for yourself!”

payaso, thank you for your complement, I appreciate it immensely. You are very adept in seeing that arguments from majority and ad hominem arguments are not “enough” of an argument to appeal to anything beyond feelings. Thank you.

Let me say, as I let two authors say before. Dr. Hugh Ross will be in heaven. I have personally met him, and go to his journal all the time. He is the undisputed king of the anthropic principle, him and Dr. Walter Bradley that is (Dr. Bradley [in case you are curious] has a wonderful video presentation recorded before an audience at the University of California at Santa Barbara called, Creation of the Cosmos: Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design). And like these two progressive creationists I just mentioned, I do believe in the validity of the Big Bang, unlike Answers In Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research. Dr. Russell Humphrey’s video and book about that topic explain – using Einstein’s theory – the actuality of and older universe being created not so long ago (both called Starlight and Time. The video was horribly produced, it was bad… this being said, his summation at the end of the 23 minute video, was well worth it, as it tied the video together).

As you bring up Dr. Hugh Ross, lets deal just a bit with the order of creation, and Payaso, I highly recommend the book Creation and Time: A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross, it is good.

Dr. Ross explains that the “days of Genesis” were not only long periods of time, but, long enough periods to make up for the billions and billions-of-years that the universe requires. He also explains that each “day” overlapped onto the days before it and/or after it. This “overlapping” still does not help the order of events, for example, the Bible (I will post the Biblical first followed by the evolutionary) clearly states that the earth was created before the sun and stars; evolution says that the stars and sun came first. Oceans before land; land before oceans. Land plants were the first life forms created; marine organisms were first (in other words, fruit trees before fish; fish before the fruit trees). Land vegetation before the sun; sun before the land vegetation. Birds before land reptiles; reptiles before birds, etc.

Lets take the example of land vegetation and the sun. Trees, plants, and the like need energy from the sun to survive. However, the Bible gives an exact order of what was created when. Long ages or gaps don’t help the situation much, why not? Vegetation could last a day or two without the life giving sunlight, however, it couldn’t last without the sunlight for much longer, especially not millions of years… this would require God supernaturally keeping the vegetation alive for a long period of time. Hebrew scholar E. J. Young, in an excellent commentary on Genesis, Studies in Genesis One, says that the sun, moon and stars were created on the fourth day, not the first or before (Genesis 1:14-19).

Exodus 20:11 says, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the se and all that is in them…” Dr. Ross teaches that prior to the creation week, approximately 10-15 billion years of stellar evolution occurred. Believing thus, that the stars were not created instantaneously; rather, they evolved by the physical laws of nature put into place by God. I bring up Exodus for a reason, and it has to do with God placing his finger (“days of old,” a mysterious pre-incarnate appearance?) on a slab of rock, making sure that we would understand what a day is, especially in context with Exodus. The fourth commandment reads (Exodus 20:8-11 [KJV]):

day

days

day

days

day

The Holy Bible : King James Version

For those who wish a different version (Exodus 20:8-11 [NIV]):

day

days

day

days

day

The Holy Bible : New International Version

Simply put, this would make no sense if long ages were involved, or if these ages (“days”) overlapped. Just one example Payaso.

some of the “hard” evidence has to do with many things in the geologic column being “out of place.” Incised and broken [human] bones have been found in layers where they shouldn’t have been, in situ. Eoliths have been found in geologic ages where evolution and progressive creation says they aren’t supposed to be… not only eoliths, but also paleoliths and neoliths. Human skulls, advanced cultures, and the like, coming from almost every layer in the geological column. Un-mineralized ([soft] not replaced with minerals) T-Rex bones having red-blood cells in them, duckbill dinosaur bones, so fresh, the discoverers and later scientists thought they had to be bison bones. Upon further examination, a protein (osteocalcin) in malleable bone that chemists show could not have lasted more than a few thousand years, even in permafrost condition, as with the T-Rex blood cells. A block wall found in the carboniferous, a metallic tube (man made) from a chalk layer (Cretacious), a great many obviously man-made items coming from mines in South Africa, dated to the pre-Cambrian (2.8 billion years old), etc, etc.

The find coming out of mines in South Africa is a great example of dealing with the evidence. The story was first broke in a National Enquirer style publication. And in all my debates, this is the evidence offered as to why these finds are false. “Reputable” journals already assume mankind did not exist then, so they (by a priori beliefs) dismiss it as false, and look for any excuse to dismiss the evidence. No matter if these items are displayed in a natural history museum in South Africa, or have been published in various journals and books since. Because it was first published in a “shock” paper, it must be false. So Jesse Jackson didn’t have an affair, or produce a child out of wedlock… behind his wife’s back.

All these finds are evidence against the progressive creationist, as well as the Darwinists’. On any point, if you would like me to expand, just holler. Two books (by the same authors) that I highly recommend are the following – one being huge and encyclopedic, the other being a summation of the first:

Forbidden Archaeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race

The Hidden History of the Human Race: The Condensed Edition of Forbidden Archaeology

Being that these authors, Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson, are not creationists, nor Christians for that matter, they argue that mankind is much, much older that we are currently taught. This would be an obvious inference if one didn’t believe in creation or a geographic changing catastrophe, like a worldwide flood. The condensed version is simply a fascinating read, and can be found at Barnes and Noble. Read chapter 6 especially, that is, if you aren’t going to buy the book, take some time and read at the store.

Much thought

SeanG!

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."

Edited by - SeanG on 01/18/2003 12:10:59 PM

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 1/18/2003 8:28 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Dr. Hugh Ross will be in heaven

It is always good to see people who know the fate of other human beings. Well, when you are divinely inspired like seang is, I suppose things like that aren't too hard to see. Dr. Hugh Ross will be going to heaven because he doesn't believe in biological evolution.

A_Theist, all I can say buddy, is, “think for yourself!”

You should heed to your own advice, dawg.

Payaso

quote:
This has been a fascinating thread to follow, and I only regret that others have not interacted with your arguements in as substantive a way as you have presented them. I would sincerely like to hear more meaningful dialogue (i.e., dialogue that goes beyond appeal to majority consensus and ad hominem arguements). Thanks for all your efforts here.

Lets not forget about our friend Scott_Jorgenson. He made a valiant attempt at showing these arguments have all been presented before, but still wasn't convinced. Did you read that one, payaso? Not all of the opposition on this thread uses ad hominem attacks--and I am still trying to figure out how I was using them--, so it lead me to wonder: were you arbitrarily reading through this thread picking out points that were aesthetically pleasing to you?

Is it an ad hominem of sorts to be rude to someone who doesn't agree with you? (That was a reference to sean) I think I could dismiss his (sean) arguments a priori, and still be right. Until I am proven wrong (like maybe scientiffic american publishes an article stating they plainly got it wrong, and fires Michael Shermer), I reign victorious in my mind. Does seang really want evidence, or will he just ignore it in order to believe he is right. The guy has been reading for quite some time now, do you really think he wants to give up the foundation he built for his faith? That would be a travesty! I still wonder if he left that other board in hopes that he could spread his creationist message to those less educated on the topic of evolution. If you notice, he ignores what a lot of people say in defence of evolution, so this leads me to wonder why I SHOULDN'T take what he says seriously? Why should I?

quote:
I have laid out some great arguments at other sites, only to return 24 hours later and have 50 people posting rebuttals, statements, and the like. I am not one to let things slide, and so, my time was being consumed.

Hm, but I wonder if everyone had agreed with you you would've stayed?

May I have a link to this forum you recenlty left?

quote:
my wife is happy, as am I (my happiness being primarily driven by if she is happy)...

Your happiness in place of my happiness, what a deal.

quote:
...because I am not so overwhelmed by information that I need to respond to, and I spend less time on-line

Are you overwhelmed by having to prove your (assumed) rightness? All of these posts to defend your pride (faith) give me a good indication that what you said above is not the case.

"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught

Edited by - A_Theist on 01/18/2003 1:47:59 PM

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 1/19/2003 8:41 AM (GMT -6)

A_Theist, I am not divinely inspired, I simply can see the life transforming work of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in another believers life. The Bible has a simple formula to be saved, and this salvation is usually quantifies in a creed. And this creed is always part of a testimony, and I have personally heard and have read of Dr. Ross’s conversation testimony. He is saved, and will be in heaven.

As for your comments on Scott_Jorgenson, he offered no argument other than that of authority. Even the statement, “[h]e made a valiant attempt at showing these arguments have all been presented before, but still wasn't convinced,” what was this attempt? The mere statement of such? Did he get into a logical debate over the evidence, or does he merely like popping in here and there to say that he has already looked at the evidence and found it wanting! A_Theist, I know you missed the point, so I will elucidate, what evidence? How about the evidence that not one tangible fact verifies evolution? it is not enough for, say, Dr. Boyd to say that he will not “die” for this particular belief, but what if a theology can explain the evidence (i.e., the fossil evidence for example)? What if the Raelian’s are right and have a “theology” that explains the evidence as well? the problem is that the evidence refutes these theologies.

~ Take note that I respect Dr. Boyd’s theology much, much more so that the Raelian cult. I didn’t mean to put equal the two; I merely wish to show that someone from both camps would have to deal with the evidence that is counter to their presuppositions. ~

A_Theist said:

“Does seang really want evidence, or will he just ignore it in order to believe he is right. The guy has been reading for quite some time now, do you really think he wants to give up the foundation he built for his faith? That would be a travesty!”

Does anyone see the problem here? I will illustrate with an example from my college philosophy textbook (Philosophy: A Text with Readings, by Velasquez)… and trust me, my philosophy 101 teacher was continually frustrated with me because of her poor choice of a textbook. My example I wish to use in order to clear your thinking on the issue A_Theist, is that of “groupthink”, an idea coined by psychologist Irving Janis. The term refers to the tendency of cohesive groups to get increasingly out of touch with reality. He says that the symptoms of such groupthink include an “illusion of the groups invulnerability”; a “belief in the inherent morality of the group” and its activities; “collective rationalization” that discounts any outside information that might conflict the group’s assumptions; “stereotypes” of outsiders and critics as weak, stupid, or evil; “direct pressure on dissenters” within the group… etc., etc.

This professional has committed an error, that is, Dr. Janis gives the impression that he, unlike the rest of us, has somehow been able to evade the psychological forces that determine what (or how) the rest of us think – this is called the self-excepting fallacy. In other words, if his theory is true, then what makes us think that his theory is nothing more that groupthink? Is it that Dr. Janis and his psychologist buddies are committing “groupthink” as a cohesive group that is increasingly out of tough with reality? Who’s to say? Dr. Janis? I would say he is “groupthinking.”

Similarly, when you say, “Does seang really want evidence, or will he just ignore it in order to believe he is right. The guy has been reading for quite some time now, do you really think he wants to give up the foundation he built for his faith? That would be a travesty!” This is applicable to you A_Theist:

“Does A._Theist really want evidence, or will he just ignore it in order to believe he is right. The guy has been inundated for quite some time now via The Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, college courses, high school textbooks, popular scientific magazines (etc.), do you really think he wants to give up the foundation he built for his faith? That would be a travesty!”

Oh!, and A_Theist, keep in mind, I am "the man" on whatever board I go to!... And yes, the wife’s happiness is central to a cohesive household, period.

Also, if evolution is true, then the evidence should stand on its own… shouldn’t it? All you would have to point to is, say, an organ that has been proven to be vestigial, like the appendix, and your point would be reinforced. Not by your witty argumentation, but by the evidence. If I went to the hospital down the street and asked the doctors in the emergency room if the appendix is vestigial, almost all of them would concur. This would be discussing the evidence, and leaving open the possibility that there may be no evidence for evolution, which naturally leaves open that there is.

Which, by the way, I am still waiting to hear from you, evidence! You just seem to amble on about issues that are not the point of this strain. Stop with the “how I feel” thingy and get to something tangible.

SeanG!

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."

Edited by - SeanG on 01/20/2003 12:48:52 PM

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 1/19/2003 8:50 AM (GMT -6)

“The problem with Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult, and left untried.”

~G. K. Chesterton~

The same can be said of creationism.

SeanG!

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."

Edited by - SeanG on 01/20/2003 12:37:15 PM

anewbeginning
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88

Posted 1/20/2003 9:59 AM (GMT -6)

Hi SeanG:

Thanks for the response to my post, although it seems the creationist site you refered me to really had more of a non-explanation for the Green River Formation. Thats o.k. I am pretty much convinced in an ancient earth anyway. I'm a little confused about your stance on the age of the earth. What is it you wish to argue? Against naturalism? Against Darwinism? Against theistic evolution?
I think it is difficult if not impossible to disprove something such as theistic evolution. Even Darwinists concede that much. The notion doesn't really bother me. And you must admit there are some interesting fossils coming out of China presently. I'm no expert on evolutionary processes but I have read a little about it. I certainly not someone who is capable of championing it but I read somewhere that large morphological changes are really actually represented by minute changes in "DNA space". All this talk of "Transitional intermediates" may be unnecessary. At least, from a theistic standpoint.

You wrote:

Neanderthal

The Neanderthal skeletons differed slightly from that of the homo-sapien, but as noted pathologist Rudolpf Virchow at the University of Berlin said they belonged to a man suffering from rickets and arthritis - (caused by vitamin D deficiency). When afflicted with this at a young age, your facial features swell when making it into adult hood. Due to the overwhelming evidence, the British Natural History Museum in 1984 changed their old display of the Neanderthals from the brutish, naked, club carrying hunched walkers to a display with an upright person whom the sign in front of the new display says is classed Homo-sapien, or 100% human. In the process they moved their display of the brutish Neanderthal upstairs with that “shaven well dressed” look.

Even in 1955 Neanderthals were known to be human.. Anatomists William J. Straus of John Hopkins University and A. J. E. Cave of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital Medical College (London) were attending an anatomy conference in Paris. Looking at Boule’s reconstruction of the La Chapelle-aux-Saints skeleton, they immediately spotted significant errors, which they summarized in the Quarterly Review of Biology:

“There is nothing in this total morphological pattern to justify the common assumption that Neanderthal man was other than a fully erect biped when standing and walking. It may be that the arthritic ‘old man’ of La Chapelle-aux-Saints, the postural prototype of Neanderthal man, did actually stand and walk with something of a pathological kyphosis [hunch-back]; but, if so, he has his counterparts in modern in modern men similarly afflicted with spinal osteoarthritis. He cannot, in view of his manifest pathology, be used to provide us with a reliable picture of a healthy, normal Neanderthalian. Notwithstanding, if he could be reincarnated and placed in a New York subway – provided that he were bathed, shaved, and dressed in modern clothing – it is doubtful whether he would attract any more attention than some of its other denizens.”
Like Virchow, some believe they suffered from rickets and other bone diseases. Francis Ivanhoe made this case in a 1970 Nature article entitled Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?, which this article in the February 1971 Science Digest makes mention of:
“Neanderthal man may have looked like he did, not because he was closely related to the great apes, but because he had rickets, an article in the British publication, Nature, suggests. The diet of Neanderthal man was definitely lacking in Vitamin D.”
Rickets is not commonly seen today – in America, the disease was almost wiped out by fortifying milk with vitamin D. But in the past, particularly during the ice age, it may have been common, due to poor diet and less sunlight (which the body utilizes to make vitamin D). In the 1950’s, human paleontology was suffering from a case of the blahs. Piltdown Man had been exposed as a fraud; Nebraska Man was a pigs tooth; Java Man’s discoverer had called him a genus allied to the gibbons; Peking Man’s fossils had flown the coop; and Neanderthals had turned out to be Homo-sapiens (human).

Are you unaware of recent DNA testing which has demonstrated that Neanterthals WERE NOT human but in fact were a distincly separate species? Human to human DNA varies in less than 8 places(in sequence), Neanderthal DNA varied in at least 25 places.(Compare that to chimpanzee's which vary from a human in about 55 places)
As human knowledge increases, if evangelical Christianity continues to take dogmatic stances on scientific issues, I fear it will die a death of a thousand cuts.

anewbeginning
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 88

Posted 1/20/2003 1:01 PM (GMT -6)

Hi SeanG:

I feel you may have misunderstood my question regarding radioactive nuclides. Here is a table demonstrating what I meant.

Nuclide, Half Life in years, Found in Nature?,

V-50, 6x10^15, Y
Nd-144, 2.4x10^15, Y
Hf-174, 2x10^15, Y
Pt-192, 1x10^15, Y
In-115, 6x10^14, Y
Gd-152, 1.1x10^14, Y
Te-123, 1.2x10^13, Y
Pt-190, 6.9x10^11, Y
La-138, 1.1x10^11, Y
Sm-147, 1x10^11, Y
Rb-87, 4.9x10^10, Y
Re-187, 4.3x10^10, Y
Lu-176, 3.5x10^10, Y
Th-232, 1.4x10^10, Y
U-238, 4.5x10^9, Y
K-40, 1.3x10^9, Y
U-235, 7x10^8, Y
Pu-244, 8.2x10^7,
_____________________________________________________________

Sm-146, 7x10^7, N
Pb-205, 3x10^7, N
Cm-247, 1.6x10^7, N
Hf-182, 9x10^6, N
Pd-107, 7x10^6, N
Cs-135, 3x10^6, N
Tc-97, 2.6x10^6, N
Gd-150, 2.1x10^6, N
Zr-93, 1.5x10^6, N
Tc-98, 1.5x10^6, N
Dy-154, 1x10^6, N

I omitted nuclides which are produced naturally as by-products of radioactive decay. So, what are the odds that by chance no nuclide with a half-life of less than 70,000,000 years are found to exits in nature? About 536,000,000 to one! Of course, an ancient solar system (being comprised of super nova ejecta) would not have a problem with this data as any existing elements with quick(in comparison to age) decay rates would have dissapeared.

Edited by - anewbeginning on 01/20/2003 6:06:07 PM

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 1/20/2003 2:10 PM (GMT -6)

anewbeginning, the point you must counter is the fact that Neanderthals:

“Jewelry”

“molecular clock”

“The more this kind of evidence accumulates, the more they look like us.”

It was simply assumed that because the first few skeletal remains of the Neanderthal were found in a cave, that they must of lived in them. Many people today live in caves, are they any less evolved than we? When Ralph Solecki (Columbia University) excavated Shanidar Cave, Iraq, he discovered that about 80 Kurds had lived in that cave until 1970, during a time of political unrest. In fact, evidence suggests that the caves were used for burial sites, much like today. Not only that, but Neanderthal and human skeletal remains have been found buried together (I only say human in comparison to Neanderthal larger cranial capacity of the Neanderthal. Evolution says that the cranial capacity of “early man” started out small and evolved to our size, however, Neanderthal’s cranial capacity was larger than our own). The distinction between the two are impossible to tell, for instance, G.A. Clark (Arizona State University) states the problem well:

“That researchers cannot distinguish a ‘Neandertal’ from a ‘modern human’ might seem surprising to some, but there is little consensus on what these terms mean.”

Not only can “researchers” not distinguish between them anatomically, with religion and music being practiced, and ornamental jewelry and flowers being buried with the Neanderthal, they cannot distinguish between them culturally either.

“Paleontologists in Israel have discovered a fossil bone which shows that Neanderthals may have been just as capable of speech as modern humans. The bone, known as the hyoid, is from a Neanderthal who lived between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago [I would disagree with the ages herein]. The hyoid, a small U-shaped bone, is a key part of the vocal apparatus in modern human beings” (Bunney, Sarah, “Neanderthals Weren’t So Dumb After All,” New Scientist, vol. 123 [July 1, 1989], p. 43. p. 43)

anewbeggining, from what I can tell, the mtDNA issue of the Neanderthal deals with the molecular clock issue, which has been disproven for many years. Some similar examples inferred can be that of comparing the following:

Clouds are 100% water, jelly fish are 98% water, and watermelons are 97% water. 75% of the Human brain is water, 80% of an apple is water as is a human embryo. Does this prove they all evolved from a common ancestor? The kidney bean, the redwood tree and the opossum each have 22 chromosomes. Second or third cousins, perhaps? Humans have 46 chromosomes, which would make us near of kin to the bat (44) and tobacco (48). With a few million years of gradual evolution, we might even catch up with the carp (100) or maybe even the fern (480)” (from: http://www.av1611.org/jmelton/Evolution.html )This being said, the following quote should settle your challenge about mtDNA somewhat: Australian biochemist John P. Marcus makes a significant observation about a graph in the Cell article, which is the main article about the mtDNA and Neanderthal/human relations. He writes:

“This graph might lead one to think that Neandertal sequences are somewhere between modern human and chimp sequences. This could then give the impression that Neandertal is a link between chimps and humans. On closer examination, however, this is not the case. As labelled, the graph shows the number of differences between human-human, human-Neandertal, and human-chimp pairs. Significantly, the authors do not show the distribution of Neandertal-chimp differences. The reason they do not show this last of four possible comparisons between the populations is not clear to me. What is clear, however, from the DNA distance comparisons that I performed, is that the Neandertal sequence is actually further away from either of the two chimpanzee sequences than the modern human sequences are. My calculations show that every one of the human isolates that I used was ‘closer’ to chimp than was the Neandertal. The fact that Neanderthal and modern human sequences are approximately equidistant from the chimpanzee outgroup seems to be a good indication that Neanderthal and modern humans comprise one species. Clearly, the Neanderthal is no more related to chimps than any of the humans. If anything, Neanderthal is less related to chimps”

(This next large section is from http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2002/res0205a.htm ) The results of mtDNA research do not show clearly that Neanderthal was not our direct ancestor. Truth be told, a closer examination of the mtDNA research shows that it is not all it has been cracked up to be. The Krings study compared various DNA sequences from 1669 modern humans with one Neanderthal. Statistically, this not only is insignificant, but also incorrect. As Lubenow wrote in regard to this mtDNA research:

“Statistics has been used to cloud the relationship between Neandertals and modern humans. It is improper to use statistical ‘averages’ in situations where many entities are being compared with only one entity. In this case, 994 sequences from 1669 modern humans are compared with one sequence from one Neanderthal. Thus, there is no Neanderthal 'average,' and the comparison is not valid”

The original study showed that the Neanderthal individual had a minimum of 22 mtDNA substitution differences when compared to modern humans. Yet mtDNA substitution differences among modern humans range from 1 to 24. As Lubenow correctly noted:

“That means that there are a few modern humans who differ by 24 substitutions from a few other modern humans—two substitutions more than the Neanderthal individual. Would not logic demand that those few modern humans living today should also be placed in a separate species? To state the question is to reveal the absurdity of using such differences as a measure of species distinctions.”

Furthermore, as Maryellen Ruvolo of Harvard has pointed out, the genetic variation between the modern and Neanderthal sequences is within the range of substitutions within other single species of primates. She concluded: “...[T]here isn’t a yardstick for genetic difference upon which you can define a species.” Geneticist Simon Easteal of Australian National University, noting that chimpanzees, gorillas, and other primates have much more intra-species mtDNA diversity than modern humans, wrote: “The amount of diversity between Neanderthals and living humans is not exceptional.” In an article in Scientific American titled “Ancestral Quandary: Neanderthals Not Our Ancestors? Not So Fast,” Kate Wong observed:

“The evolutionary history of mtDNA, a lone gene, is only so informative.”

“You can always construct a gene tree for any set of genetic variation. But there’s a big distinction between gene trees and population trees”

:30).

D. Melnick and G. Hoelzer of Columbia University even went so far as to state: “Our results suggest serious problems with the use of mtDNA to estimate ‘true’ population genetic structure...” . Why is this the case? Luigi Cavalli-Sforza himself admitted that “...the mitochondrial genome represents only a small fraction of an individual’s genetic material and may not be representative of the whole.” (For references, see the link above.)

ARTICLES I RECOMMEND

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2002/res0205a.htm -“Neanderthal Man - Another Look”
- by Bert Thompson - He has a B.S. in Biology from Abilene Christian University and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Microbiology from Texas A&M. Dr. Thompson is a former professor in the College of Veterinary Medicine at Texas A&M, where he also served as Coordinator of the Cooperative Education Program in Biomedical Science. He is also a member of the American Society of Microbiology.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4218tj_v12n1.asp#r44 -“Recovery of Neandertal mtDNA: An Evaluation”
- by Marvin Lubenow - He has an M.S. in anthropology and zoology from Eastern Michigan University.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4371gc8-28-2000.asp - “Making Monkeys Out of Men”
- by David Menton – He has a B.A. from Mankato State University in Mankato Minnesota. Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University. Associate Professor of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine. Member of the American Association of Anatomists. Sigma Xi. Silver Award for Basic Research from the American Academy of Dermatology. Named "Teacher of the Year" in 1979 at Washington University School of Medicine. Coursemaster of Microscopic Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine. Written numerous articles in technical and scientific journals dealing with the barrier function and biomechanics of skin. Associate Editor of Stedman's Medical Dictionary, a standard medical reference work.

SeanG!

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."

“The problem with creation is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult, and left untried.”

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 1/20/2003 2:56 PM (GMT -6)

About the Green River article:

“If the standard interpretation is correct, then the number of shale layers between the ash layers should be the same throughout the Green River basin, since the number of years between the two eruptions would be the same.

However, the geologists found that the number of shale layers between the ash beds varied from 1160 to 1568, with the number of layers increasing by up to 35% from the basin center to the basin margin!”

This is evidence against the slow formation of this geological formation, and would point towards a catastrophic formation, much like Mt. St. Helens quick layer building. How could this be explained with gradualism? You said: “Thats o.k. I am pretty much convinced in an ancient earth anyway.” This may be your belief, but the volcanic ash layer showing divergent thickness in the shale layers, thus throwing out the uniformitarianism given to the rate of accumulation of said shale layers are shown to be based on assumption, rather than evidence. Volcanism in the Grand Canyon show signs of rapid formation as well.

Another example would be the 27-layer forest (“Specimen Ridge”) at Yellowstone. The story goes that a forest grew over 1,000’s of years, then died and was covered over by another layer over 10,000’s to millions of years. Then another forest grew, etc., until there were 27 layers built over millions of years.

When the trees from different layers (at Yellowstone) are compared, via their tree rings, an interesting thing is seen. The tree rings, in forests that supposedly date at 10,000’s years apart, have the same corresponding “weather rings.” In other words, when there is a dry season, and then a wet season, the rings are different. No matter the age difference (juvenile or mature) in the tree, you can pick up the corresponding rings of the trees. The 27 layers of forest prove to be from the same stock!

SeanG!

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."

“The problem with creation is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult, and left untried.”

Edited by - SeanG on 01/20/2003 7:58:06 PM

SeanG
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278

Posted 1/20/2003 3:38 PM (GMT -6)

anewbeginning, your nuclide question deals with the following, correct?

If I am correct, your argument is based on something like this - http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/isotopes.html - Right? It deals with Isochron dating, am I correct? I will answer more in-depth once you affirm the above.

SeanG!

"Evolution is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links not seen."

“The problem with creation is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult, and left untried.”

104 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:26 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual