Question for sjt18

[sjt18]

I've heard some argue that the fossils we have of early hominids are actually diseased malnourished human skeletons or apes.

That's a lot of diseased human fossils all from the same time period with no healthy ones, though.

Not really alot of fossils... but whatever.

 

[droski]

The facts are not in dispute. The interpretation of the facts are. I am not one who will tell you that creationists have come up with a great interpretation for every piece of evidence that is out there. They haven't.

However, I am just as puzzled as you by how someone could be an evolutionist with as many problems as the theory has. Not just small ones but catastrophic ones. I am troubled by any truth claim where most of the proponents either do not know or outright deny that much of what they believe is bound by presupposition as much as fact.

So I guess the place to start between the two of us... we can do it by PM's if you like... is what "early man" types you are talking about. How do you KNOW it is not a conjecture (myth)?

i know it's not a myth because of the vast evidence of a more primitave version of man existing before us. i'm not saying that there is definitive proof that we all came from apes from africa, only that there is pretty definitive proof that humans didn't start out like they are today and that is in direct conflict withe creationism.

 

[IPorange]

The facts are not in dispute. The interpretation of the facts are. I am not one who will tell you that creationists have come up with a great interpretation for every piece of evidence that is out there. They haven't.

However, I am just as puzzled as you by how someone could be an evolutionist with as many problems as the theory has. Not just small ones but catastrophic ones. I am troubled by any truth claim where most of the proponents either do not know or outright deny that much of what they believe is bound by presupposition as much as fact.

So I guess the place to start between the two of us... we can do it by PM's if you like... is what "early man" types you are talking about. How do you KNOW it is not a conjecture (myth)?

What catastrophic problems do you see in evolution? And how can you day that, without seeing catastrophic problems with faith?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

i studied the history of the bible (reluctantly ) for 4 years of catholic school and i don't remember seeing any evidence that eye witnesses wrote the bible and someone just sat on it for a couple of years.

John, Peter, James, Matthew at a minimum were eyewitnesses to Christ's ministry and resurrection.

Mark according to many transcribed a sermon by Peter. Luke records that he went to eyewitnesses for details.

They taught none of that to you in Catholic school?

 

[droski]

Not really alot of fossils... but whatever.

there are many reasons why say hundreds of thousands of fossils wouldn't exist. decay and the like. but there are certainly ample fossils to suggest that primitive man did exist and none to show modern man existed during the same time.

 

[droski]

John, Peter, James, Matthew at a minimum were eyewitnesses to Christ's ministry and resurrection.

Mark according to many transcribed a sermon by Peter. Luke records that he went to eyewitnesses for details.

They taught none of that to you in Catholic school?

so someone just sat on the text for decades?

what's the evidence that mark transcribed a sermon by peter?

they taught me the bible was written by man many years after jesus' death, was a good book, and should not be interpreted literally.

 

[sjt18]

What catastrophic problems do you see in evolution? And how can you day that, without seeing catastrophic problems with faith?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Evolution demands faith so I am not sure the dichotomy you are drawing.

One catastrophic problem is the lack of a mechanism for the ascendence of species from less complex to more complex ones. The one proposed and tried for the last 100+ years simply does not work. Mutations are almost all bad. The "good" ones are almost always interdependent with bad ones.

Evolutionists claim that it happens so slow that you cannot reproduce it by experiment or observe it... but how is that not a faith statement?

Worse yet, most of the bad mutations will not be filtered out by natural selection. Most of them are very subtle in their expressions until combined with other mutations or environmental conditions. It is too late to reverse at that point being broadcast into the population. Population genetics tells us that our genomes are winding down... not building up.

This is contradictory to what ToE predicts and claims as the norm for all of natural history.

That is just one problem. Fossils (especially transitional ones) are a problem acknowledged even by leading evolutionists. I can't remember the author but one guy said that the fossil record far more resembled a field of grass than a tree. Origin of life is a big unresolved problem. The design characteristics and complexity of genetics is a problem. The rigid boundaries of adaptive change are a huge unanticipated problem.

After over 100 years, the hard evidence for evolution is no better than it was at the start. It amounts to "just so" stories that interpret what we observe as remnants of past events.

That is fine if you want to believe it. But you should accept that you are basically placing faith in people operating on assumptions and philosophical presuppositions to derive interpretations of things that were not observed, are not subject to experimental repetition, and DO have alternative explanations.

 

[sjt18]

so someone just sat on the text for decades?

What exactly are you talking about?

The gospels with the possible exception of John were complete before the destruction of Jerusalim in the 70's... and before the deaths of several Apostles and many eyewitnesses.

what's the evidence that mark transcribed a sermon by peter?

I have read it in several commentaries just as I presented it here. Unless your faith hinges on that one point... I won't go dig up all the resources.

they taught me the bible was written by man many years after jesus' death, was a good book, and should not be interpreted literally.

Many years? Would you call 30 "many" if written by an eyewitness who had been recounting those events to others in sermons for 30 years?

 

[droski]

The gospels with the possible exception of John were complete before the destruction of Jerusalim in the 70's... and before the deaths of several Apostles and many eyewitnesses.?

there were eyewitnesses alive in 70 AD? even 50 AD there wouldn't ahve been many considering the lifespan of the era.

 

[sjt18]

there are many reasons why say hundreds of thousands of fossils wouldn't exist. decay and the like. but there are certainly ample fossils to suggest that primitive man did exist and none to show modern man existed during the same time.

Not true on either account. The sum of the fossils claimed as primitive man is very small. Some have suggested it would fit in a coffin or small pick up bed. Most of what you see in books are interpretive drawings based on nothing more than a few bones.

Considering the existence of these fossils is so rare to start with... why would it be important that they were not found with human fossils... which are virtually non-existent.

Lucy for instance... I think one of the major US natural history museums still portrays AA as having human feet. Why? Because the original fossil find was very incomplete. An artist filled in the blanks and rendered a drawing... that happened to be very wrong. It has been known for years now that Lucy had arboral feet and did not have the hips for bipedal locomotion.

BTW, IIRC, AA fossils were found in the same strata with evidence for thoroughly modern men.

All I ask is that you find resources from the other side and consider them before making such broad statements.

 

[droski]

Not true on either account. The sum of the fossils claimed as primitive man is very small. Some have suggested it would fit in a coffin or small pick up bed. Most of what you see in books are interpretive drawings based on nothing more than a few bones.

Considering the existence of these fossils is so rare to start with... why would it be important that they were not found with human fossils... which are virtually non-existent.

Lucy for instance... I think one of the major US natural history museums still portrays AA as having human feet. Why? Because the original fossil find was very incomplete. An artist filled in the blanks and rendered a drawing... that happened to be very wrong. It has been known for years now that Lucy had arboral feet and did not have the hips for bipedal locomotion.

BTW, IIRC, AA fossils were found in the same strata with evidence for thoroughly modern men.

All I ask is that you find resources from the other side and consider them before making such broad statements.

i'm talking more like 200,000 years ago rather than 2 million. even then we can see noticable differences between those people and today.

 

[sjt18]

there were eyewitnesses alive in 70 AD? even 50 AD there wouldn't ahve been many considering the lifespan of the era.

We have fairly reliable history/tradition for when the Apostles died. Jesus died between 33 and 37 AD.... so no, it would not have been surprising at all for their natural lives to extend into the 70's. You would be talking about men who were between 50 and 70 years old. John lived to be very old but was probably the youngest of the disciples.

 

[sjt18]

i'm talking more like 200,000 years ago rather than 2 million. even then we can see noticable differences between those people and today.

Cite the example of a fossil from that period that does not fall within the normal cranal range for modern humans. I'm guessing that is the proof you are referring to. I don't think evolutionists even draw that distinction any more.

I think most have resigned to the notion that neanderthal was a branch of humans that went extinct. Their brain capacity was definitely within the range of "human".

 

[sjt18]

FTR, I am not telling you that you must believe what I believe. I am only trying to get you to think and be critical of your view. If you take a look at what the other side has to say and still believe as you do then I support your prerogative to believe as you like completely.

 

[droski]

We have fairly reliable history/tradition for when the Apostles died. Jesus died between 33 and 37 AD.... so no, it would not have been surprising at all for their natural lives to extend into the 70's. You would be talking about men who were between 50 and 70 years old. John lived to be very old but was probably the youngest of the disciples.

with an average age of 39 a very small minority maybe 1/10 would live till 60. And that's assuming the most optomistic views of when the bible was written.

Cite the example of a fossil from that period that does not fall within the normal cranal range for modern humans. I'm guessing that is the proof you are referring to. I don't think evolutionists even draw that distinction any more.

I think most have resigned to the notion that neanderthal was a branch of humans that went extinct. Their brain capacity was definitely within the range of "human".

but neanderthals were certainly never talked about in the bible. the bible states god created humans in his image. the simple existance of neanderthals disproves that.

 

[droski]

FTR, I am not telling you that you must believe what I believe. I am only trying to get you to think and be critical of your view. If you take a look at what the other side has to say and still believe as you do then I support your prerogative to believe as you like completely.

i'm always one to be critical of all views. i'm not saying evolution is the gods' truth, only that they physical evidence that does exists seems to show that the earth is far older than teh bible suggests and many species existed that were never mentioned in teh bible. in my view the simpliest explanation is that the bible was writen for and by a people with a very basic understanding of science and the world around them. i don't begrudge others for thinking differently

 

[sjt18]

with an average age of 39 a very small minority maybe 1/10 would live till 60. And that's assuming the most optomistic views of when the bible was written.

Where does that number come from... and how exactly does it serve as "proof" that the disciples could not or did not live longer?

Here's part of the claims: The martyrdom of the Apostles

but neanderthals were certainly never talked about in the bible. the bible states god created humans in his image. .

Are you sure? Many groups in the Bible are distinct presumably by their appearance though full descriptions are not given. The sons of Anak for instance were known for great height and strength.

However if Neanderthal was simply another group of humans with a few physical deviations then why would the Bible mention them if they were not in the middle east. Most of the neanderthal discoveries are in central and northern Europe are they not?

the simple existance of neanderthals disproves that

No it doesn't. No more than the existence of pygmies or aboriginals does. Can you cite a single passage in the Bible claiming that humans were always restricted to the limits of very modern body types?

 

[sjt18]

i'm always one to be critical of all views. i'm not saying evolution is the gods' truth, only that they physical evidence that does exists seems to show that the earth is far older than teh bible suggests

So if a plausible explanation were given as an alternative you would be open to it, right? It seems as though many of your objections are based on dated or incomplete info.

and many species existed that were never mentioned in teh bible.

You are looking for an inventory of all animals that ever existed in the Bible?

in my view the simpliest explanation is that the bible was writen for and by a people with a very basic understanding of science and the world around them. i don't begrudge others for thinking differently

The Bible was not written as a comprehensive science text. It does not have to answer every question to be consistent with the evidence. There only has to be plausible explanations... just like with ToE.

 

[droski]

Can you cite a single passage in the Bible claiming that humans were always restricted to the limits of very modern body types?

it said god created humans in his image. to me that implies modern and ONE body type and taht the human form hasn't changed.

 

[droski]

So if a plausible explanation were given as an alternative you would be open to it, right? It seems as though many of your objections are based on dated or incomplete info. You are looking for an inventory of all animals that ever existed in the Bible?

The Bible was not written as a comprehensive science text. It does not have to answer every question to be consistent with the evidence. There only has to be plausible explanations... just like with ToE.

one plausible explantion yes. you take 100 plausible explanations that have to be true to happen and than it becomes implausible. i'm not looking for an inventory, but the new testament seems to be sorely lacking in anything predating the time it was written.

never said it had to answer every question

 

[sjt18]

it said god created humans in his image. to me that implies modern and ONE body type and taht the human form hasn't changed.

To most fundamental biblical scholars that passage implies little to nothing about physical form. The Bible is very clear that God is a Spirit.

I'm not saying the human body's design is irrelevant... but we really aren't talking about bigger variations than exist within humankind right now.

Religio-Political Talk: 1/6/08 - 1/13/08

 

[IPorange]

Cite the example of a fossil from that period that does not fall within the normal cranal range for modern humans. I'm guessing that is the proof you are referring to. I don't think evolutionists even draw that distinction any more.

I think most have resigned to the notion that neanderthal was a branch of humans that went extinct. Their brain capacity was definitely within the range of "human".

I've heard this creationist argument before, and doesn't make much sense to me. Are you saying that the skulls of these fossils are not that different from modern man? One look from even a casual observer can see that clearly they are not the same at all.

Modern human brain size varies widely, and the extreme lower end does overlap with Homo erectus and other early hominids-- but this doesn't mean that their skulls are "normal." The physiology of the skulls are vastly different in terms of brain casing, which is what we are really talking about here. The small side of the scale of modern human brains are small because the head/person was/is small. It's purely a matter of proportion. Hominid skulls actually have a proportionally smaller brain case.

It's really a strange argument. Because 95 % of a particular hominid population's brain size overlap with less than 1 % of modern humans' brain size, they're the same? Please.

Homo habilis was not a man by modern standards, yet he clearly wasn't an ape in terms of his brain physiology. What were you saying about there being no transitional fossils again?


Every fossil is a "transitional" fossil on some scale of reference, including our own skeletons.

 

[sjt18]

one plausible explantion yes. you take 100 plausible explanations that have to be true to happen and than it becomes implausible.

You have just condemned the ToE... and any other interpretation of natural history more than about 4000 years current.

i'm not looking for an inventory, but the new testament seems to be sorely lacking in anything predating the time it was written.

So what? Why would that be of any importance whatsoever?

never said it had to answer every question

You pretty much just did, didn't you? You said unless it includes something "predating the time it was written" it is somehow invalidated.

 

[IPorange]

Yup, totally all modern humans here.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_GHnh3ILnS...AAAnM/MEKgmwEQqXA/s1600-h/evolution+human.jpg

 

[MWR]

Yup, totally all modern humans here.

evolution+human.jpg (image)

Well, it you're going to post pictures of your family reunion.........