What are some thoughts on this new find?
Interesting find. I wonder how it will help us better understand God’s creation?
Another extinct gorilla that’s supposed to be mankind’s ancestor. :rolleyes: If you want to believe it, that’s fine, I guess, but evolution is still nothing more than a fairy tale for adults.
Interesting find. I’m curious to see how this will play out. Clearly, it is a very important discovery.
How did we get to such a strange place where the world (that portion that publishes anyways) is divided into the militant atheist evolutionists and the biblical fundamentalists??
Why do BOTH sides constantly trespass on the jurisdiction of the other? Revelation simply doesn’t tell us anything about the scientific details of how God created the world. Why would it?
Nor is it remotely rational to conclude that evolutionary observations in the fossil record preclude a Creator.
How’d we get this way???
How did we? Science is great for observing things but it must, as is presently the case, offer only natural, non-God conclusions. Why do we see Man Created God on the sides of buses? It’s because evolutionary psychology tells us the following: man’s very primitive mind, through his genes, created the concept of god/gods as a survival mechanism. We needed to think like this until we became so smart, like some today, that we can now discard that silly god idea. So the next time you see a billboard that tells you, Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief, just remember, your selfish genes gave your ancestors bigger and bigger brains until we could discard god entirely.
Oh darn, my Baloney Detection Meter just blew up
The fact that certain faithless scientists have twisted the theory of evolution to their own ends in no way impacts the actual science. I could not care less what Dawkins thinks about God. It’s his loss.
I invite you to read this article:
I was thinking about his myself.
It seems to me since science is about proving errors. Severe limits are placed by its own definition to find the truth. Science is provisional. We could go around in circles for centuries and not get any closer. God knows this. To point us in the right direction He enlightened us with Revelation. Religion never trespasses on empirical science. They are complementary and will always support the truth. The problem is in the interpretations. When science leaves its domain and moves into philosophy then the fireworks start. This comes from the two opposing worldviews - good and evil, God and materialism.
Which of these two is more open to the truth?
That’s gobbledygook from Young Earhters; read their “about us” page. creation.com/about-us#what_we_believe
Not even worth bothering with.
What Dawkins believes doesn’t change truth.
The theory gets twisted by everyoneey. I mean, there were probably dozens of trained, professional scientists involved in this story, which was 17 years in the making, and I repeat, making.
"researchers had only the following bone fragments to discern all of this information: fragment of the right mandible, one intermediate hand phalanx, left humerus and ulna, distal humerus, proximal hand phalanx fragment, left clavicle fragment, proximal foot phalanx, and a few teeth. Additionally, these bones were not laid out neatly in typical skeletal format, all grouped together just waiting for researchers to dig them up. No indeed. These few bones took researchers 5 years to collect, and came from 5 different locations! And so, from a fossilized toe, a piece of jawbone, a finger, arm bones, a clavicle, and a few teeth we have this incredible “ape-man” telling us “how apes became human.”
And to top it of , they don’t even date to the same period!
The quote comes from an excellent rebuttle of the story, way back in 2001, about 9 years after they started finding the bones in various locations.
While more generous to the scientists the BBC story still points out some of the weakness’ of the story.
It seems every whipabout theres another ancient ‘man’ found, that all these different species of ‘men’ must have been tripping over each other. Indeed som are known to have co-existed alongside each other. Some of the ‘older’ fossils seem more advanced than some of their ‘younger’ counterparts, when you would assume it should be the other way around. Seeing as ‘evolution’ works in a linear progression.
I wouldn’t mind so much if the facts were clearly presented, and derived from a single fossil source. That is, a complete fossil of an example of the species they are taking about. But to put all this together is kind of like cutting the pieces of the jigsaw to make them fit. They are building their version of the species from several different examples from different sources and time periods. It smacks of desparation to me.
The only complete fossils found were deliberate hoaxes that fooled the world and had us all supposed to believe in, like Piltdown man. For 40 years we had unquestioned proof of Darwinism, until somebody bothered to check it out:rolleyes:
In “The Darwin Myth”, author Benjamin Wiker offers a critical analysis of Darwin’s theories as well as the social, scientific, and religious implications of his work, leading us to the inevitable truth about Darwin’s powerful - yet ultimately poisonous - legacy. Scientists often challenge conventional wisdom and spark debates that last for generations. But no scientist has fuelled more debate than Charles Darwin. To some he is the revolutionary ‘father’ of evolution. To others he is the perverse ‘originator’ of modern eugenics. And in “The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin”, author Benjamin Wiker brings these conflicting identities to light. He offers a critical examination of Darwin’s theories as well as the scientific, social, and religious implications of his life and work. In “The Darwin Myth”, Wiker reveals: How Darwin’s theories were originally met by scepticism and criticism - much of which he couldn’t refute and are still valid today; why Darwin didn’t ‘discover’ evolution; and how science itself suggests God created the universe. Laying out the evidence and sound scientific arguments, Wiker illuminates the inevitable truth about Darwin’s powerful - yet ultimately poisonous - legacy.
That Young Earther web site is also founded on non-Catholic beliefs:
- The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
- The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.*
There’s nothing more asinine than “sola scriptura” fundamentalists trying to lecture Catholics about science. :tsktsk:
I’m not sure about that. Back in the Stone Age I had a very good priest who taught Sociology in our Catholic high school. We discussed evolution and his comment was that it was okay for Catholics to believe in evolution just as long as we believed that God created Adam and Eve in his own image and that they had souls. I don’t think there is anything in church teaching that says we cannot believe that.
You’re absolutely right. I also went to Catholic school pre-Vatican II, and the very conservative sisters who taught us didn’t bat an eye at the theory of evolution. They simply said that, as long we we believe that God “breathed a soul” into the first man, we were good.
The “fundamentalist” Catholics who always have their knickers in a twist at the mention of evolution boggle my mind. It’s not really anything I gave thought to at all until a very Catholic, very brilliant, young evolutionary biologist married my daughter and then received his PhD. As I’ve mentioned here before, he simply states “Evolution is God’s modus operandi”; I’m good with that.
Athiestic philosophy posing as science is bad enough. Indoctrinating schoolchildren is what gets folks upset.
Indoctrinating schoolchildren in creationism, creation science, intelligent design and whatever would certainly get an awful lot of people upset.
Just to respond to one of the earlier poster’s assertion that “evolution works in a linear progression”…
This is one of the more prevalent errors that people have about evolution. We have been taught, actively and passively, that evolution conforms to some sort of linear narrative, typically from simplicity to complexity. While this might describe the trajectory of some organisms, on the whole this is not the case. Consider bacteria; they are not somehow “less evolved.” They have been evolving alongside all other life without changing their basic anatomical plan, but have been evolving nonetheless. The emergence of penicillin resistant staphylococcus, for instance, shows recent evolution in strains of “unevolved” bacteria.
In more complex organisms, the evolutionary trajectory often skews towards decreased complexity as well. Consider molluscs; evidence points to their evolution around the Cambrian period from a worm-like common ancestor. This common ancestor would have had, presumably, a head - a localized concentration of ganglia and sensory organs, which is definitely a move towards complexity. Down the road, though, the branch of mollusca that became bivalves followed a path of decephalization, i.e. losing their heads (literally). Wasting energy localizing all of their sensory organs into a “head” while encased in a shell would have been disadvantageous, so goodbye head. This, from our perspective, would be a move from complexity to simplicity. Parallels to this can be seen in species that demonstrate paedomorphism, or a return to a juvenile body plan as adults (some salamanders, eels, and many other “complex” life forms have evolved this plan in response to environmental pressures.
Fundamentally, then, evolution doesn’t move in “one direction,” or in some linear narrative. The old Ascent of Man charts that show the ape slowly standing up are the product of a human need to place ourselves as the culmination of a narrative, to be the happy ending so to speak. The truth is that evolution doesn’t follow a path or have a plan; it simply preserves the traits that work. Sometimes these are atavistic traits that appear, to our perspective, to “move backwards.” It isn’t a question of progress, ascent, or descent; it just is.
Notice how this has nothing to do with the soul. If God created us in His image, one has to consider this image might be more one of moral, ethical, and immortal soul-ishness than simple body plan. If Shaquille O’Neal, Herve Villechaise, and I are all lined up together, we would be most alike in being entities with souls, not as humans with similar bodies.
I love it!!
My DH and I are both scientists with PhDs. And we both believe that evolution has had a hand in the history of our universe and our planet. But we both absolutely believe that God had a hand in evolution.
I love your son-in-law’s statement…“Evolution is God’s modus operandi”
I’ve always professed that God “could” have snapped his fingers and created the earth and humankind the way it is spelled out in Genesis. The God I believe in is easily that powerful. But I also believe that God is waaaay more intelligent than I can even comprehend, and that evolution (which is complex, intricate, delicate and sophisticated) gives us the barest glimpse into just how intelligent God is!
I don’t know what I think about early hominid fossils and whether or not they are related to man? I don’t know whether God allowed some form of ape to evolve until it eventually was “human enough” that God breathed a soul into it and mankind was born…or whether he merely decided that the world He was evolving was sufficiently “evolved enough” and then He created man, de novo, from nothingness. I don’t know. I don’t need to know. As a PhD scientist, it does not bother me to leave that part of my conjecture completely blank. It is enough for me to know that my God has been in control through the entirety of history. Anything I could envision is merely my limited, human conjecture anyhow. No one can know for certain. Even the best-trained scientists. That is why it is called the “theory” of evolution.
I don’t need to know. I am content, with all my years of education, to know that God is in control. My belief in evolution is that it is God-dictated-and-controlled. So my belief in evolution does nothing to diminish my belief in God.
And I reiterate - I love your son-in-law’s statement – “Evolution is God’s modus operandi”
Peace and God Bless,
That doesn’t happen in the public school.