Sunday, 15 February 2009

Evolved we have

It's kind of sad how what was meant to be a humorous post, featuring a morphed photograph of William Dankenbring, can bring the creationism advocates out of the woodwork. As far as I'm concerned, there is no debate. Evolved we have, as Yoda might say.

Most Christians would agree. Catholics and mainline Protestants long ago decided to front up to the inevitable. We don't read the Bible to learn about science, and we don't need to believe six impossible things before breakfast each day. We read the Bible to engage in an ongoing adventure that holds a mirror up to reality, that challenges us to live justly, that directs us to realign our lives with the Good Spirit, that enables us to become authentic, free and compassionate people. If reading the Bible doesn't do that, then we're probably better off not reading it at all. The kingdom of God isn't just some future pie in the sky hope, it's supposed to erupt in our midst and spill over as a blessing for those around us.

Which is why so much that goes on in the small sectarian communities that make up the Armstrong diaspora is unhealthy. If we read the Bible to fuel our "prophetic" conjectures, if we read the Bible to discover "new truth" that will make us special and better than other people, then we've exchanged the bread of life for junk food.

104 comments:

Anonymous said...

I remember a quote, I hope evolution isn't true. But if it is, I hope no one finds out about it.

Even though I'm one of the anons, I feel like throwing in an admission or clarification. I have my own personal reservation about evolution, but I consider this my personal belief. I really take objections to false statements and misleading arguments, from either side. While not being able to disprove evolution, it doesn't help when creationists ridicule, misquote and generally bad-mouth scientists and others who accept evolution. Whatever happened, happened; calling it names won't change it.

If someone found the original documents Moses is said to have edited to write Genesis, and if they detailed the reason for creating the now extinct species, I think they would carry some weight. And if they did, denying them wouldn't change anything either.

The Third Witness said...

Anyone seen my Occam's Razor?

Dennis said...

I rather marvel knowing every element in my body is billions years old stardust, that my DNA carries the code of my inner fish, tetrapod, ape, hominid and human and every cell the record of the long journey out of Africa.

Then somehow and in someway we became self aware and became the first hominid to be able to talk, then talk to ourselves, then think and introspect and reason.

Then we got religious to explain the apparently inexplicable and it's been nothing but the Wonderful World Tomorrow ever since. :(

Anonymous said...

"We read the Bible to engage in an ongoing adventure that holds a mirror up to reality, that challenges us to live justly, that directs us to realign our lives with the Good Spirit, that enables us to become authentic, free and compassionate people. If reading the Bible doesn't do that, then we're probably better off not reading it at all."

Best quote in the history of the ex-CoG Internet ever.

Corky said...

As far as I'm concerned, there is no debate. Evolved we have, as Yoda might say.

Right you are too, the mountain of evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming.

Those who don't know that have never studied it.

No matter how much they claim they have, they have not.

Some may even believe they have studied it - by reading creationist web sites - but, that's not where the facts are, that's where the lies are.

Those guys are preachers, with agendas, and they have a real liking for engineers as scientists.

Sure, if I want to know about biology, I'm going to go to the Sunday school teacher who has a PhD in electrical engineering. Sure, he'll know all about it! NOT!

Neotherm said...

"Think about it. If a certain branch of the bush that is human evolution had no pressure put upon them to necessitate the formation of higher intelligence, then why would we wonder why some didn't evolve higher intelligence?"

This is rather a breathtaking statement. Essentially, you have proclaimed arbitrarily that there was no pressure on these early homonids that I cited. I do not think that most archaeologists would agree with you on that. Neanderthal was under extrordinary pressure. Cro-Magnon may have been actively trying to exterminate Neanderthal.
If that were not happening there was just the need to survive under Pleistocene conditions. The smartest Neanderthals should have been selected for surivial with the consequent improvement of their race. You can counter this by convincing me that intelligence does not increase survivability. Good luck.

The fact is, I prefer Gavin's approach. Just proclaim evolution true because you want it to be that way. At least that is honest.

-- Neo

the rest said...

why!

Anonymous said...

"The fact is, I prefer Gavin's approach. Just proclaim evolution true because you want it to be that way. At least that is honest."

I am not of the opinion that yours is an honest assessment of Gavin's approach as outlined in the post, Neo.

Russell Miller said...

Anonymous @ 10:54:

I think most evolutionists feel the same way you do as far as being open minded. I promise you that if someone came up with credible evidence throwing doubt on evolution, most scientists (not all, they are human) would be very glad to take a look at it and possibly even modify their theories. That's just how science works - it's about forming theories to fit the evidence, not the other way around.

And so far, I have not seen one credible bit of evidence that throws doubt on the whole of evolution. There have been things discovered that changes the *how* a little bit here and there, but only in the small picture. This species evolved a little differently, the mechanisms are just a little different molecularly.

That's not evidence evolution is not correct as a whole.

You give me solid, credible evidence that is a) peer-reviewed by credible scientists, b) introduced by a scientist of which evolutionary biology is in his/her field of expertise, and c) proves evolution to be completely wrong, and I'll become a creationist. I promise you it won't happen. Ever.

(I reserve the right, of course, to consult those who are trained in science and biology, etc., to determine the veracity of said evidence, because I refuse to fall victim to the same thing the creationists have - listening to people who don't know what they're talking about).

Anonymous said...

"Right you are too, the mountain of evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming."


yeah right, just like the mountain of evidence in support of global warming is overwhelming.
but then, I'm sure you'll find someone to believe you.

Skeptic Pro said...

Our moderator has said before he isn't an atheist. And he makes that quite clear as to why some read the Bible which...

"...directs us to realign our lives with the Good Spirit, that enables us to become authentic, free people and compassionate people. If reading the Bible doesn't do that, then we're probably better off not reading it at all."

I couldn't agree more. This is one of the wisest observations Mr. Rumney has written to date. But there are those here who will pick themselves up and go on reading the Bible as if nothing happened.

Dennis said...

Homo Ergaster (Erectus) lasted on the planet about 1 million years and the changes leading to Neanderthal began around 500,000 years ago. Neanderthals were pretty darn successful in Europe for over 200,000 years. Stunning actually. Moderns showed up, our of Africa 40,000 ish years ago and overlapped Neanderthals for several thousand years. Most archaeologist feel that the moderns marginalized Neanderthal with a few better skills, better birth rates and such rather than routing them intentionally. Neanderthals probably died out in Spain.

The heyday of Neanders..was from 70,000 to 30,000 BP.

Every hominid previous to Homo Sapien Sapien has proven to have been extremely successful. In fact, you will note that each successive hominid lasts about half as long as the previous one.

The next steps in human evolution will be biomechanical in nature. Brains can only get so large in spite of what you read and see about aliens. Neanderthals actually had a larger physical brain than moderns do yet only seemed to live in the moment. The seldom lived past 35. The distinctions between them and moderns probably would not have allowed for interbreeding and for a long time separate but equal was the rule from the fossil record. Only late in the game, around 30,000 years ago do they finally disappear with rather a whimper.

It only takes a few thousand years of minor advantages to marginalize the competition. Lets face it, if one frog can jump only 8.9 inches and another 9.1, only one will get to the top of the stairs.

Cro-magnon was a new breed of us who had time for cave art, burial of its dead and ornaments. A newer kind of consciousness but not fully conscious either in my opinion. That would take a gradual awakening over another 20,000 years with major leaps of consciousness coming, imo, only as late as 3000 BC which is reflected in how humans expressed themselves in writing. But this is a different story.

Greg D said...

"Dennis Dietz, Ambassador College Big Sandy's instructor in physics [in 1975], had scientific training (PhD in physics), an active mind, and was dedicated to the church. As I remember, it was after I had looked up the Britannica article and done my own thinking that I talked with Dietz about it. I was surprised when Dietz told me that he saw no conflict between evolution and the Bible, and that in his opinion the claims in church literature that there was such a conflict was a mistaken path to go. He described several examples to me of creationist literature making incorrect representations and flawed arguments.

"Dietz explained his thinking to me this way. If you take Genesis 1 at face value, he said, it _sounds_ like earth was created a few thousand years ago. Of course there are ways of explaining it differently, such as the 'gap' theory between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2, and so on. But when all is said and done, those have the feel of special pleading. The most uncomplicated reading of Genesis 1 is a short history of the universe in which everything is only a few thousand years old. But all natural evidence--stratification, radiometric dating, and so on--indicates an earth and universe far older than the few thousand years suggested by Genesis. Of course one can say God created the appearance of age. But would God give us minds, then set everything up to deceive humans into thinking there was great age when there really wasn't? Therefore there is a paradox: Genesis 1 suggests a young earth, whereas scientific methods indicate an old earth. This suggested to Dietz that maybe the meaning of Genesis was something other than what people were assuming. Maybe Genesis was not about telling the age of the universe in the literal sense, but was conveying some other point. This was Dietz's reasoning.

"I also sought out Donald Deakins, head of the science department at Ambassador College, Big Sandy, for a talk. Dr. Deakins' training and degree was in biology, right at the heart of the issue. I asked Deakins if it was true, as the illustrated booklets from headquarters said, that new species (Genesis 'kinds') coming about through natural selection were impossible. Deakins answered by recounting Darwin's observations of geographic distributions and separate species from common ancestors that--cut off from one another by oceans or mountain ranges--separately developed to the point where they no longer could interbreed and are distinct species today. For church literature to say this could not happen was wrong; it had happened, Deakins explained. (However Deakins suggested this could still be part of a wider definition of 'microevolution' which is permissable within creationism.) Deakins said the arguments published by the church on evolution were not scientifically sound. Once life started, he said, there was no _scientific_ reason why the evolutionary process could not have happened--the various species, development of organs such as eyes, the whole works. Deakins told me he still rejected evolution for theological (rather than scientific) reasons. But he was straight with me about the science. That was like a breath of fresh air.

"So both Dietz and Deakins--the two leading scientists on the faculty at Ambassador College, Big Sandy [in 1975], and both in good standing with the church, independently told me, directly and matter-of-factly, that church literature on evolution emanating from headquarters was filled with misinformation."
-- from "Showdown at Big Sandy", pp. 412-14.

Greg D said...

"Another person who was not happy with the way Genesis and natural history were understood at Ambassador College was the leading theoretician in the church on such matters: Dr. Hoeh.

"In March 1975 Dr. Hoeh gave an address at a student forum at Big Sandy which was very odd.

"Student forums with special speakers were held weekly in the Field House on the Big Sandy campus. Attendance was compulsory for all students. About two-thirds of the time the guest speakers would be someone from the outside with some interesting topic. Other times the speaker would be a member of the Ambassador College faculty presenting some area of research or subject matter to the wider student body. On this particular occasion Dr. Hoeh from Pasadena was the speaker. His talk was about geology and creationism.

"In his address Dr. Hoeh said the church had no answers on basic questions concerning radiocarbon dating, the Flood, prehistoric humans, and so on. It was odd because few other sermons or messages took the theme of despairing at what was unresolved with no solution given at the end. But that was Dr. Hoeh's message to the faculty and students that day. He said: we criticize the world's scientists and historians, but _we don't know what happened, we don't have answers_. He just spelled it out: _we don't know what we are talking about_. Hoeh said plainly that a large part of what Ambassador students sitting in that forum had learned in their Ancient World History and Systematic Theology classes relating to Genesis and the Flood--based in large part on Hoeh's articles--was worthless. And he offered nothing better in its place. It was one of the most unusual, amazing, self-revelatory public statements of a leading church figure I ever heard.

"It was so odd, so out of key with what sermons and messages normally were, yet Dr. Hoeh had so much stature and reputation (including his iconoclasm) that he could get away with giving a talk like this. I never heard a later comment about it. It is as if it went in one ear and out the other of everyone present, and life went on as if he had never spoken. In later years, I found that other students who must have been present that day did not even remember this had happened. (Did it go right over their heads?)

"Here is what Dr. Hoeh said at this student forum at Big Sandy, direct from my notes taken as he was speaking. This was March 20, 1975.

"'Is there no disagreement between true science and true religion?
"'What evidence is there then for this agreement?
"'On origins there is no problem. But it is difficult to reconcile some facts of nature with the Bible from here on. Like what is man, where did he appear historically, and what did he look like? After Genesis 1:1 there are problems.
"'Our own views were often wrong because of Adventist influence. We followed George McCready Price, for example. The evidence doesn't fit that all geological evidence is from the Flood! Creationists are as closed-minded as evolutionists!
"'We are ourselves in disarray about how to reconcile geology and the Bible. We have no voice, no official position at any level. After 25 years we know less than when we started! It is our responsibility to get this straightened out.
"'_Is_ there any way to reconcile present human knowledge with revelation? Do we presume we can know in areas that we can't? Are there limitations to what we can know? Such as the Flood--can it be established to be Late Tertiary? how can we say the world is willingly ignorant when we don't have the answers ourselves? We need to know what can be proved and what can't, what is proof and what isn't.
"'We don't even know the limits to where we may test the questions! Our own faculty can't answer even the simplest questions. We don't know. No coherent solutions have been proposed.
"'Will it come down to having two compartments in your mind--science and revelation? Like Benjamin Mazar who says he is a Jew in the synagogue and an archaeologist at the dig site?
"'Generally our positions are philosophical, not subject to investigation, private positions. If we have no evidence we can't offer a public opinion! Floods today leave things virtually untouched. What _would_ a Flood cause? Could the reason the Bible tells of a Flood be because we couldn't know it from geology or archaeology?
"'Radiometric dating.
"'If Genesis 1-11 can be proved true and not myth then why hasn't someone come up with the proof yet? Will we have to ultimately say it is a matter of faith? Will we someday be able to define what is a human artifact and what isn't?'"
-- from "Showdown at Big Sandy", pp. 417-19

Greg D said...

"That evening [March 20, 1975] Ken Herrmann had been kind enough to invite me and two other students along with several faculty to his home where Dr. Hoeh was visiting and discussing things further. The next morning I wrote a few notes of the evening as I remembered things. No doubt there was more than this, but here are my complete notes:

"'[skipping much] Hoeh: ...No creationist has ever yet defined radiometric dating to know where we're at. We have to live with an apparent contradiction. The data is there, it's the right interpretation of it that we need ... We have invented theories to explain away problems.'"

"POSTSCRIPT: DR. HOEH RETURNS TO BIG SANDY TWO YEARS LATER WITH SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEMS

"Two years later Dr. Hoeh returned to Ambassador College, Big Sandy, and in a similar address to the faculty and student body announced he had solutions to the problems he had raised in his earlier forum. This address took place March 17, 1977. (This was after I was no longer at Big Sandy.) According to a transcript of his remarks I have recently found [footnote to Craig White] Dr. Hoeh opened with the following words:

" 'Two years ago this month I had the privilege of addressing the Assembly of the Big Sandy campus of Ambassador College. At that time I challenged you to investigate the isues that stood in the way of a proper synthesis of science, history and biblical studies on the nature and purpose of man. By the evening of that day a number of your faculty and students had participated in a series of discussions with me. A breakthrough was apparent. And now, two years later, I want to summarize for you both the causes of our past discussions and the simple solutions...' "

"Dr. Hoeh's solution was a theory of multiple trial creations of species including proto-humans, done by God and his angels, in which God and the angels experimented and worked out design problems until God was ready to create Adam and Eve. Sometimes demons were involved too. All of the pre-Adamic hominids, in this theory, including Cro-Magnon man, were without the 'spirit in man.' They were practice humans before God was ready to go with Adam. All of the practice humans went extinct before Adam, Hoeh said. The chief virtue of this theory from Dr. Hoeh's point of view was it accounted for the fossil finds of early humans without need to challenge conventional scientific datings (which Hoeh had come to accept as accurate). He concluded his 1977 Big Sandy address: 'So it is now possible to reconcile Bible, history, and C-14 with a totally new view of the kind of world angels were asked to govern.'

"Poor Dr. Hoeh. His new theory of trial creations of prehistoric men before a Genesis re-creation week 6000 years ago was no solution. For example, Australian aborigines go back at least 15,000 years without interruption in Australia. [Native Americans] go back continuously at least 15,000 years in North America, and so on. How did Dr. Hoeh get all these peoples wiped out, then the same kind of people migrated right back there again in the same place, with the same customs, tools, and genetic makeup, this time all descended from Adam? (And 1600 years later, wiped out again in Noah's Flood, and then Noah's descendants right back there again.) He never explained that. In addition, according to later reports based on genetic science (e.g. _Science_ magazine, Oct. 8, 1999), all humans on earth are descended from a single woman believed to have lived (according to the 1999 estimate) c. 145,000 years ago in southern Africa. Scientists refer to her as 'Eve.' This is slightly different from Hoeh's theory in which all living humans are supposed to be descended from his Eve 6000 years ago (and Noah's wife 4400 years ago).

"Dr. Hoeh never published any of this. And in his entire life he never published any of his scientific or historical theories in any peer-reviewed journal. This was not science. This was pseudo-science. Real science gets published in scientific journals."

-- from "Showdown at Big Sandy", pp. 419-22

SmilinJackSprat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

"You can counter this by convincing me that intelligence does not increase survivability."


I am afraid that I will not be able to convince you of anything. This is, for you, a religious matter, not a scientific one. Evidence and logic are out, mental masturbation is in.

Intelligence may increase survivability to some degree, but it may not be necessary for an organism to survive. I point to most living organisms as an example.

And how does the lack of the development of intelligence in certain organisms in the ancestral "bush" of human discredit the entire theory of evolution?? Is this the best you have? Why don't you directly refute the evidence?


Paul Ray

The Unsurprised said...

You might think that some Armstrongists might believe in "evolution" :
Whether to believe in the "transformation" of a sleazy salesman into a "daughter-boinker", or a loving Jesus-like son of a sleazy salesman, into a person who became an "any port in the storm" sleazoid sonny boy.

It's just how it goes.

Nothing surprising.

Questeruk said...

Evolution is taught as fact. It is the party line; it’s the emperor’s clothes.

What happens to a young university student, learning biology or a related subject? What if the student feels that the whole thing doesn’t fly?

I don’t mean that he believes in creationism, there is no need. An atheist can see the holes in evolution just as well as a theist. Maybe the young student doesn’t even have an alternative idea, but just sees the problems with the evolutionary idea.

What happens if this view is expressed? There goes any meaningful career, because any career that they might achieve is going to be in the wilderness, if the views are beyond the boundaries of evolutionism.

No supporting peer reviews, because no one else wants to muddy their own waters.

No chance of awards, or even a Noble prize.

Much better to just toe the party line.

Given this, is it any wonder that this is what most scientists do, toe the party line, admire the emperor’s clothes.

And most laymen are fooled by this scientific solidarity. They too believe everything is cut and dried, that the impossible is possible – it’s all been sorted out. And they too join in parroting the party line.

The truth of this can be seen by perusing some of the recent posts to this and the previous posting.

Leonardo said...

Excellent and succinct commentary, Gavin!

This is a topic that fundamentalism (especially the COG variety) is going to have to face up to sooner or later – just like authorities of the Catholic Church had to face up to the fact of heliocentricism, as controversial a matter as that was at the time.

The anti-evolution temper tantrums of the COG’s will only take them so far, which in reality is nowhere.

Occasionally I read the anti-evolutionary articles in various COG publications (a standard feature in such literature) geared toward steering the faithful away from the evil of evolution – but such articles are laughable once one has exposed one’s mind to the actual discoveries of science.

As Sam Harris once put it in his book THE END OF FAITH, “Nothing is as sacred as the facts.”

I’ve had many conversations on this controversial topic with a number of COG members, and, for the most part, they completely misunderstand evolutionary theory, and the ever-growing abundance of facts that supports it. And even more sad is their unwillingness to remedy such ignorance. Thus the straw-man caricaturized version of evolution they insist on attacking, the one that seems so hostile to their revealed God-given truths, doesn’t really exist in reality, but only in the minds of the fundamentalist creationists.

But having had to confront this foundational subject myself the past decade or so, and having been convinced of the factual reality of it, I sincerely understand how unsettling studying this subject can be, because it requires a complete re-assessment of one’s worldview – which is seen by most COG folks as the opening of a Pandora’s Box, so it’s considerably easier to remain arrogantly ignorant in one’s “revealed certainties.”

But as someone recently mentioned, so I too can heartily recommend an excellent book, written by a former pastor in the WCG, entitled GOD AND EVOLUTION?: THE IMPLICATIONS OF DARWIN’S THEORY FOR FUNDAMENTALISM, THE BIBLE AND THE MEANING OF LIFE.

It’s author, Daniel J. Samson, discusses the agony he endured after he honestly was willing to confront the facts supporting evolution, and what eventually caused him to face up to them and integrate them into his worldview. He poignantly talks of how, after spending a long study session one night in a university library, he came walking out of the building, looked up at the stars, and just cried his eyes out because the God-inspired worldview he had been fed as an AC student was proved mistaken. You can imagine how difficult this would be for someone who is a pastor!

But to those who truly seek after the truth that will set them free, the facts are never enemies, only friends.

Corky said...

The fact is, I prefer Gavin's approach. Just proclaim evolution true because you want it to be that way. At least that is honest.

-- Neo


Want it to be? I didn't. I argued against it for thirty years and then I finally, honestly did a study of it (without the Armstrong booklets and other creationist propaganda).

Personally, I only care that it is true simply because it is and not out of any want or need for it to be true. To me, God still wouldn't exist whether evolution was true or not.

Anonymous said...

Similarity does not mean one evolved from the other; it suggest ( to me at least) that all have the same author who is intelligent not to always re-invent another form of locomotion if the wheel served the purpose well!

Mr. Scribe said...

Corkey wrote...
"Sure, if I want to know about biology, I'm going to go to the Sunday school teacher who has a PhD in electrical engineering."

Yes I am going to see my auto mechanic tomorrow and will ask him if evolution is the truth. I'm sure he is an expert! Then I will post his opinion here. :-)

lnrd said...

let the mystery be

Anonymous said...

"Evolution is taught as fact. It is the party line; it’s the emperor’s clothes.'

Then you should be able to refute the evidence that supports the theory, right?

"What happens to a young university student, learning biology or a related subject? What if the student feels that the whole thing doesn’t fly?"

Are we talking about a person who honestly has a difficult time understanding the theory and the evidence, or a religious person who rejects evolution solely on the grounds that it contradicts their religious ideology?

"I don’t mean that he believes in creationism..."

Uh, right. Everyone who rejects evolution and believes in the existence of a supernatural deity, raise your hand.

"An atheist can see the holes in evolution just as well as a theist."

What holes???



" Maybe the young student doesn’t even have an alternative idea, but just sees the problems with the evolutionary idea."

Mm-hmm. Yep. Most anti-evolutionists have no "alternative idea." Nope. Jehovah who? Nope. Just hard, rational thinking people who just want to get to the bottom of things no matter where it leads them. Hypocrite. This is what really bothers me about you devious weasels. Religious motivation? Us? No way, man! We just want the truth, and evolution is just bunk, dude! Leave Jesus out of this!
Scoundrels! The only reason you are here at the table is because of your religious beliefs. You could care less about scientific truth, about as much as the Catholic Church did in the Dark Ages.


"What happens if this view is expressed? There goes any meaningful career, because any career that they might achieve is going to be in the wilderness, if the views are beyond the boundaries of evolutionism."

Right. How many times have you watched "Expelled?"

"No supporting peer reviews, because no one else wants to muddy their own waters. No chance of awards, or even a Noble prize."

That is a lie, and displays a total lack of understanding of how science works. If Herbert Armstrong had the data, even he could win a Nobel.


"..is it any wonder that this is what most scientists do, toe the party line, admire the emperor’s clothes."

I missed that talk when I started grad school. I didn't get the Nazi Evolutionists briefing, where they threaten young scientists and make them sign a Darwin loyalty statment. Then you get a secret handshake and password. Only then, can you get academic positions and be published in scientific journals. Retard.

"And most laymen are fooled by this scientific solidarity. They too believe everything is cut and dried, that the impossible is possible – it’s all been sorted out. And they too join in parroting the party line."

That's right. It's a big conspiracy. It's also true about open-heart surgery. It's a lie, but we've managed to fool the proles. Retard.



Paul Ray

SmilinJackSprat said...

I know a little of science, and quite a few scientists, several of them observant Jews. One of the most astute among them is an MIT trained doctor of nuclear physics, a brilliant student of and believer in the inerrant genius of the Hebrew Torah. I've discussed evolution with him somewhat; he prefers to call the lengthy creative process "development."

He finds no conflict between the fossil record and the Hebrew Torah, but no one would come to that conclusion by reading the KJV or its derivative versions.

People think there are only two options in this discussion: (1) creation, and (2) evolution. What a tragic place to be. It derives from a misreading of Moses and has become the stuff of angry controversy and denial of the scientific accuracy of the Biblical creation account. The problem is misinformation on both sides.

There is a third and better option that derives from two equivalent and perfectly reliable sources: Nature (science) and Moses. Study them for a refreshing break from the futile war between two frauds: Bible translations and Godless evolutionary theory.

You'll find a big bang, an ancient and virtually sentient universe, an earth with power to bring forth life, a human population walking the earth for a hundred millennia before Adam -- a lot of stuff that would never enter the mind of a Creationist. It's all there, in the writings of Moses and in the geologic record preserved in stone.

Creation is a process still underway, still developing. And we, through arguments pro, con and alternative are gradually progressing toward understanding it all. Not Creationism, not exactly evolution either, but a lengthy developmental process in which we, the earth, the solar system, the universe -- and God -- are all active participants.

Byker Bob said...

Most commentary amongst evolutionists and creationists is reflexive reaction to the "God issue." I think that is what often takes things to the ridiculous levels, and the mocking of obvious extremes.

Stereotypes come into play, too. Personally, I believe in both evolution, and creation. I can't see the two as mutually exclusive. Both could have run concurrently, and the human products of evolution could have been at least partially assimilated by the products of creation. But, many folks who believe exclusively in science have a need to lump all believers in God into a supergroup of young earthers, even though many believers find the whole young earth thing to be preposterous. Reduce someone to the status of cartoon carricature, and then attack the easy target. For their part, many believers want to assume that all evolutionists are godless tools of Satan, which is equally preposterous. Again, reduce and attack.

Where a person might stand in all of this is usually pretty accurately indicative of that person's individual personality, philosophical needs, and educational background as opposed to dispassionate in-depth analysis and detailed study of all pertinent facts. Most people gravitate towards their beliefs or non belief based on the natural workings of their personalities, something that was set up for them early in life, and with which they had very little to do by and of themselves. In so many cases, while there are some brilliant students or researchers, individual knowledge of the total spectrum is at best perfunctory. People go for the Cliff's Notes, and pick and choose what appeals to them, and when necessary, they can come up with some intelligent sounding rationalizations of those beliefs.

But, as Hank Jr. once quipped in one of his live performances, "Waylon, most folks don't know a damned thing!" Which is to say that humanity in general is like the parable of the blind men and the elephant. We probably know today more than humanity has known at any time in the past, but there is still so much to be known, and discovered. One of the valuable aspects of belief is the thought that perhaps one day, we'll get to know and understand all of the things which are currently mysteries.

BB

Anonymous said...

""Dr. Hoeh's solution was a theory of multiple trial creations of species including proto-humans, done by God and his angels, in which God and the angels experimented and worked out design problems until God was ready to create Adam and Eve."

Hoopla Hoeh's "solution" was absolute uncontested church canon, by the mid-1980s --- this is what I heard growing up, exclusive of everything else.

What I find it hardest to believe, is how some of the splinters have swung so far the other way, and are now young earth nutbars. Whatever happened to their "truth once delivered", eh??

(OK Pack doesn't count, because he wants the World Tomorrow to be like it was in the '50s.)

Strange, I don't fall in either of the camps here on AW: I've never had a problem with evolution per se; I've just switched my views on how evolution came about, From god-haunted to, "We're here, let's do the best we can with what we've got, instead of arguing why we got here, until it's too late for us to create any good in this world ourselves."

Or something like that.

Anonymous said...

SJS -

That sounds like Gerald Schroeder. I've heard him lecture, but haven't read any of his books. He brought out some simple but very interesting points, including, as you mentioned, errors in Torah translation...

Anonymous said...

A favorite method of "disproving" evolution that we've seen used is the loose brick. If you can find an exception, so it goes, the whole theory fails. If every anomaly and every quirk in every species hasn't been explained, it fails. A good way to go if you're preaching to the choir, or giving doctoral students ideas for research topics.

I've heard "disagreeing scientists" as an argument as well. If evolution is true, so it goes, then it seems every scientist must agree on the minutiae. Just like all the splinters agree on everything, so they must be correct. Wait a minute...

Questeruk said...

Gavin, you point out a policy for this board:-

“While there is wide latitude on what appears under comments, abusive posts and name calling aimed at other posters will mean a quick trip to the trash folder”.


I would just like to point out that in Paul Ray’s recent post referring to my comments – I was personally called amongst other things:-

1. Hypocrite
2. Devious weasel
3. Scoundrel
4. Liar
5. Retard.

It’s very clear that Paul does not agree with me, but I do object to this abuse, aimed specifically at me, and implying motives on my part which just are not there.

Is it not possible to disagree without personal abuse?

There is no way that I am requesting anyone to be banned or anything like that – but a little restraint on judging other peoples motives and mentality would be appreciated.

Anonymous said...

I spent Sunday afternoon in the American Museum of Natural History. Their display of past life forms is staggering. The fossil record is far more complex than creationists would have you believe. Only those whose minds are already made up can reject the conclusion that life has existed on this planet for an immense length of time in a staggering array of forms.

At one time it was possible to argue against evolution but that time is long past.

Questeruk said...

“Is it any wonder that this is what most scientists do, toe the party line, admire the emperor’s clothes”.

A follow-up on my previous comment (above). The following is from an interview with Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe, a scientist who does not go along with creationism, but also believes ‘conventional evolution’ also has serious problems.

Question: Have you ever, during the course of your research over the last 40 odd years, ever had any official intervention in your research? Has anybody ever tapped you on the shoulder and said, "We don't like what you're doing"?

CW: Yes, at some point this was the case.

And this point I think I should mention is that in the early 80s, there was a request for Fred Hoyle or myself to appear at an Arkansas Creation trial. Fred Hoyle was approached by the lawyers in Arkansas asking if he would step in as an expert witness to say that Darwinian evolution on Earth was not the total answer to the whole question of Life.

He was very busy at the time with Anglo/Australian telescope among other things, so he told me if I wanted to do that, that I should perhaps go.

We decided that I should present a restricted testimony from our work to argue that purely Earth-bound evolution didn't explain the whole phenomenon of Life.

Although we had some sympathy for the religious or political aspirations of the Creationists, we thought we could go along with their stance of a possible need for a "Creator" to originate life on a cosmic scale. We could not rule that out on a logical basis as I have already said.

For those reasons Fred Hoyle and I thought it was entirely reasonable to accept their invitation and give our testimony at the Arkansas trial.

In the run up to the event we had a huge amount of hostility directed against us and I remember several distinguished scientists who tapped us on the shoulder and said, "You shouldn't do that!".

After the event, my family and I were intimidated with serious death threats. The Police in Cardiff investigated these threats for over 2 years and concluded that the source was a mystery!

Question: Nothing from a government source? No shadowy figure has stepped forth and said, "Could you stop this?"

CW: It's hard to answer that question. I think there were some.

Question: You do?

CW: Yes. Maybe I shouldn't answer this question because it could lead to further problems.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget that evolution requires faith as well. That is, faith that matter came from nothing, that matter naturally selected how to organize itself to become life, and faith that life forms developed intelligence to evolve into higher forms of life. Well, unfortunately, science doesn't allow these arguments. The law of the conservation of matter prevents matter coming from nothing. Natural selection requires that an intelligence selected something.....

Anonymous said...

Why creationists have nothing to fear from science:

If there is a God and that God created all things, science will eventually prove it and how it was done, so relax. You are used to having others do the heavy lifting for you anyway.

In the meantime, try to be productive and enjoy life, there is NO guarantee of what comes next but there is irrefutable proof of what happens to your body.

Byker Bob said...

I cannot deny that the evolutionary process is one of God's sustaining tools for the universe, as are the laws of physics, or gravity. I place the evolutionary laws into the general category of the self-sustaining nature of the universe.

However, I don't believe that Darwin's theories of natural selectivity, ie "survival of the fittest" do any better job of explaining certain anomalies, such as the gay community, than does conventional Christianity.

A large percentage of the gay community explain that they were born that way. Most Christians cannot accept that a loving God would create a people who are deliberately programmed in this way. Yet, according to Darwin, wouldn't genetic gays have died out from the gene pool by this stage of evolution? Consider the domestication of the common house cat. Thousands of cats have been euthanised over the years for displaying natural feral tendencies, until the general species is gentle, and perfectly suited for human companionship.

Regardless as to whether one believes in God, Darwin, or both, there are still going to be some anomalies and mysteries.

BB

Anonymous said...

Questeruk:

Art thee a minister and a little sensitive of ridicule? Paul and Corky have been applying those labels to non-believers / non-subscribers to evolutution for years. Don't take it personally unless you consider yourself the defacto representative for creationists.

Anonymous said...

Genesis 1:1 provides the foundation: ‘...In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’. Before the divine activity of the ‘six days’ the material universe was here—an endless magnificent panorama of multi-billions of suns (stars) and planets.

Before God again acted, earth was shrouded in water and vapour (v.2). We don’t know for how many millions or billions of years, nor what the environment was like before that mighty flood. Nor do we know what variety of life prevailed.

In fullness of time, then, God acted to bring order. ‘… in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is’ (Exodus 20:11). Clearly the ‘six days’ refers to the ordering of our own solar system—for the universe, as we have seen, already existed.

It’s generally accepted by creationists that this all took place in one calendar week. Hence the controversy over the fossil record. There is another possibility.

Each ‘day’ was indeed a 24-hour day (vv 3-5 show that light was filtering through the clouds, and earth was spinning, producing day and night.) There was indeed ‘…evening and there was morning, one day’.

On each of these normal days the Creator set in motion a process. Verses 6-10, for example was the process of preparation for the creation of life—the drying out of the planet. We are not told how long this required—perhaps millions of years.

Similarly, the creation (vv.11-13) and the subsequent ‘evolution’ of vegetation ‘...after its kind’ over a long undisclosed time-span—initiated on ‘...a third day’.

The creative activity of ‘..a fourth day’ may have been soon after day three. Again, we are not told how long is each interval. The varied ‘kinds’ of sea and aerial life followed on day five, and animals on day six—also with subsequent unknown aeons of time to multiply and produce variety.

Could the same principle be applied to the pinnacle—and purpose—of creation, man? At some point in the development of the ‘man-kind’ God added the human spirit, and homo sapiens came into being.

Former Theology Student said...

There's one sure thing (which will soon be refuted), if Darwinian evolution be true, then the alleged "Plan of Salvation" is a hoax--at least in a Biblical sense.

(Here, referring to PoS I don't consider the many flavors of such Christianity have dreamed up--it's just so boring with so many contradictions).

Anonymous said...

"....certain anomalies, such as the gay community...."

Your Christianized prejudices are showing again, Bob.

Anonymous said...

"Yet, according to Darwin, wouldn't genetic gays have died out from the gene pool by this stage of evolution?"

Um. OK, I posted my response before I read the rest of Bob's comment. This probably won't make me popular with my fellow liberal atheists, but Bob, do you know what the population of the world today actually is? Do you realize how stretched for resources we are in all respects, air, food, water, landmass, etc? What you see as "anomalies" are actually proof of evolution at work!

Oh, and the implied comparison of homosexuals to feral cats who need to be euthanized to "normalize the race" was over the top, even for you.

Neotherm said...

"Homo Ergaster (Erectus) lasted on the planet about 1 million years and the changes leading to Neanderthal began around 500,000 years ago."

Not so fast Dennis. So you know of intermediate forms that would incontrovertibly establish that Neanderthal is derived from Homo Ergaster?

-- Neo

Neotherm said...

"And how does the lack of the development of intelligence in certain organisms in the ancestral "bush" of human discredit the entire theory of evolution?? Is this the best you have? Why don't you directly refute the evidence?"

Because any paleobiologist worth his salt would tell you that these homonids were pressured and should have developed intelligence. In fact they would say Homo Erectus gave rise to Neanderthal only they can't produce any convincing intermediate forms. They do not deny that conditions were right.

What we see in reality is a sudden rise of intelligence within the last 10,000. And it was not gradual. And it was not isolated.

When a theory does not describe reality, then that is a pretty good refutation and it is time for another theory.

-- Neo

Anonymous said...

"In the meantime, try to be productive and enjoy life, there is NO guarantee of what comes next but there is irrefutable proof of what happens to your body."

Man, that's cold! Ha!


Paul Ray

Anonymous said...

"A large percentage of the gay community explain that they were born that way. Most Christians cannot accept that a loving God would create a people who are deliberately programmed in this way."

Yet maybe God made things that way, some gay some straight.

And maybe God has no problem with someone being gay; being gay is not a moral issue.

It isn't a right or wrong.

Being Gay is certainly not breaking one of the ten commandments. The ten commandments predate the law of Moses, that was written by men.

Men wrote the Bible (woman of course were excluded from the process) men defined God in a manner they saw fit. Today we would call it social engineering.

The ten commandments do address family issues and marriage. But they do not address sexual preference.

Neotherm said...

Hoeh believed that God had to engineer man in stages. This is not what I would call heretical. It is just naive. HWA imagined a God who was like a human being, like many of the present neotheists (Pinnock, et al). This kind of progressive development through time stems from the belief that God is bounded by time and space just like humans. The notion is facetious.

To his credit, he recognized there was a difference between early homonids and Adam and his descendants.

I see nothing wrong with the gap theory to establish chronology. But I believe that the statement that God "let there be light" indicates a far greater destruction than we might have imagined. I believe that in the environs of earth, even the principles of physics quit working.

-- Neo

-- Neo

Byker Bob said...

Aggie,

I don't know that I can trust in your abilities to read, rationally process, and accurately respond to written words any more. Your first response and subsequent correction are indicative of an emotional gut reaction prior to thoroughly digesting what I actually said.

Where did I say, or imply that gays should be euthanized? That is patently ridiculous! If the honorable truth were known, I don't even believe in the euthanizing of cats for the convenience of humans, let alone humans themselves. I've also stated many times that I believe in universal salvation.

I had hoped, via my post, to stimulate some conversation which might provide some additional understanding of some things which can't be satisfactorily explained either by religion, or evolution.

Overpopulation, while it certainly could be remedied by same sex attraction, or for that matter sterility, is usually alleviated in nature by disaster, disease, or predators.

There are other issues which could be similarly raised, such as mental retardation, and mental illness. Or, left handedness, for that matter.

I've noticed over the past year, that you do tend to take great offense at certain types of remarks. If by chance you happen to be a member of the gay community, I apologize for the offense. I can assure you that no offense was intended. If you don't trust me, at least please trust Gavin. I am certain that if anyone posted anything racist, or blatantly homophobic, Gavin would not allow it to appear on his blog.

BB

Anonymous said...

Most of you are probably already aware of the WCG's Christian Odyssey magazine recent feature on this topic BEFORE Gavin wrote about it.

http://www.christianodyssey.com/science/evolution.htm

Some will applaud it - others will hate it. And then there are those who will be tormented because almost everything they hated or found fault with WCG is no longer true...(but they would never admit to it).

Anonymous said...

"Don't forget that evolution requires faith as well."

No it doesn't. Evolution happened, and is happening. It takes no more faith than gravity does.


"That is, faith that matter came from nothing,..."


Do you realize that you are no longer talking about the theory of evolution?


"...that matter naturally selected how to organize itself to become life...."

No "it" didn't. You are mindlessly repeating the same false assumptions of the Kreatards. Look, do a bit of research. Miller (and his experiments have been repeated and under much stricter conditions) demonstrated that amino acids can be formed without the intervention of a supernatural sky-buddy. And a lot of biochemical processes, such as simple protein folding, occur just by hydrophobic/philic and charge interactions.


"and faith that life forms developed intelligence to evolve into higher forms of life."


Wow. Yet another Kreatard gross mischaracterization. For an organism to evolve in order to adapt and survive takes no "intelligence." Higher intelligence may be a by-product, or even a direct product, depending upon the evolutionary pressures, but in no way is it neccessary. All that is, is something that will give the organism a leg up (pun intended) for adaptation and survival. That is all. This may be nothing more that a slightly longer beak.
And it takes no faith- it is well documented and has been for at least a hundred years.

"Well, unfortunately, science doesn't allow these arguments."

Horse-puckey. Science allows all arguments, provided they are supported with evidence. Your whole little diatribe is 1) false in that it mischaracterizes evolution and 2) is basically an argument from incredulity with not a shred of evidence to support it. You don't even bother trying to refute the mounds of evidence for evolution.


"The law of the conservation of matter prevents matter coming from nothing."

Which has nothing to do with evolution. But it puts your sky buddy Jehovah in a pickle, doesn't it? Probably not. He circumvents his own laws in creating them. It's all perfectly reasonable.

Do you consider the universe a closed system?



"Natural selection requires that an intelligence selected something....."

Really? Based on what? Do you even understand natural selection? Why don't you go find out, and then we can talk.

This is typical of most Kreatards- they have no understanding whatsoever of what evolution is, or isn't. And why should they? They have no interest in understanding what it is. They could care less about taking a look at the evidence. They made up their minds before the fact. Like I say, this is a religious matter, not a scientific one.


Paul Ray



Paul Ray

Anonymous said...

"Question: Have you ever, during the course of your research over the last 40 odd years, ever had any official intervention in your research..."

"In the run up to the event we had a huge amount of hostility directed against us and I remember several distinguished scientists who tapped us on the shoulder and said, "You shouldn't do that!"."

Um, where is the intervention in his research?? And according to you, if you are a scientist who does not accept evolution, then:

"No supporting peer reviews..."

Chandra has authored over 300 hundred papers, some of them even appearing in one of the world's top scientific journal, Nature. I guess Chandra somehow escaped the notice of the International Evolutionist Nazi Conspirators (IENC), who suppress all opposition to evolution.


"No chance of awards, or even a Noble prize."

Since very few win the Nobel, we can assume that Chandra hasn't won the award for reasons other than the IENC. As far as awards, he has won several, and has held many, many professioral positions. And you are right- he isn't a Kreatard. At all. Though I found this quote intersting:

It impressed me as a great theory, seductive and compelling, even though it ran counter to my own cultural inheritance of Buddhist beliefs that the Universe is eternal and that the patterns of life within it have a permanent quality."

Why is it that when there are anti-evolutionists around, there is also religion around? Just a coincidence??

I was thinking about this today. Most Kreatards insist that their rejection of evolution is purely on logical grounds. The evidence just isn't there, they say.

But why are almost all Kreatards religious??? If the evidence for evolution doesn't exist, then why can only the religious or agnostic see this?? Is it a grand conspiracy? No, what is happening here is that Kreatards reject evolution for religious reasons. It has nothing to do with the evidence. In fact, as seen here, most don't even know what evolution is, or have seen the evidence for it. Nor do they want to. They reject evolution because the Koran/Bible sez that Allah/Jehovah sprinkled magic pixie dust and everything boinked everything into existence. And anything else is a lie. Period.

So when a Kreatard claims that they reject evolution for any reason other than their religious views, you can be assured that they are lying. Weasels.

Paul Ray

Anonymous said...

Somehow I find creation/evolution arguments as sided and heated as arguments over conspiracy theories. One side is correct, and that won't change regardless of the opinions of the other side.

The difference is, we're not going to find an insider or a whistle-blower to come forward.

lnrd said...

Dust bin King!

Gavin could u post the #1.

I know that I have been put to the Bin on many occasions, those posts that go through I treasure.

lnrd.

Gavin said...

lnrd:

The problem is that I don't understand most of your comments, which are brief one-liners, and don't seem to have any context. I'm guessing English might not be your first language. I'm pleased you persevere!

Anonymous said...

"HWA imagined a God who was like a human being, like many of the present neotheists (Pinnock, et al)."

Agree with this, and so did most of the upper echelons of the ministry, back in the day. Even Hieronymous Wolverton, according to chapter 1 of The Bible Story.

No, I couldn't stomach typing it all up for ISA. Why couldn't the idiot who posted them on the Internet scan them with OCR to get them to PDF??

Selecting, copying, and pasting the garbage would get the more wacko stuff highlighted faster, at least. Or maybe the site administrator of the HWA Worship Archive realizes that, and that's why he made it more difficult.

"I don't know that I can trust in your abilities to read, rationally process, and accurately respond to written words any more."

Thanks, Bob, that's not abusive at all. Skirts the thin line between insult and condescension, but you're used to doing that, from your days over at ISA, ain't'cha?

"Overpopulation, while it certainly could be remedied by same sex attraction, or for that matter sterility, is usually alleviated in nature by disaster, disease, or predators."

Interesting you should bring up sterility. Have you read Rachel Carson's Silent Spring? The manufactured estrogens in the environment are making male fish (and the male population who ate them, before pregnant women and children were prohibited from doing so) sterile.

In many cases, male animals in the wild became feminized (i.e., with cancers or mutations of the reproductive organs, etcetera.), due the influx of man-made estriols.

"Where did I say, or imply that gays should be euthanized?"

"A large percentage of the gay community explain that they were born that way. Most Christians cannot accept that a loving God would create a people who are deliberately programmed in this way. Yet, according to Darwin, wouldn't genetic gays have died out from the gene pool by this stage of evolution? Consider the domestication of the common house cat. Thousands of cats have been euthanised over the years for displaying natural feral tendencies, until the general species is gentle, and perfectly suited for human companionship."

If you weren't implying that, why did you even mention "the domestication of the common house cat" in the same paragraph, Bob?

"I've noticed over the past year, that you do tend to take great offense at certain types of remarks."

Yes, and if you pay attention, you will also notice that I take offense when those on my side of the fence call believers stupid, delusional, etcetera. I'm not picking on you exclusively, Bob, and I hope you don't think that just based on our exchanges.

I wouldn't say that I take "great offense", more that I take egalitarian offense --- or maybe I'm a little too PC for my own good and everyone else's. *shrug*.

"If by chance you happen to be a member of the gay community, I apologize for the offense."

Oh, yeah, that's right: When I take offense at prejudicial remarks made against other human beings, that automatically means I must be of course be a member of the community you're singling out.

Sorry, no, Bob. You're stereotyping again.

(Let's just say, if creationism is correct, Sky Buddy pretty much broke the mold after I came out, and leave it at that OK?)

"I am certain that if anyone posted anything racist, or blatantly homophobic, Gavin would not allow it to appear on his blog."

I think Gavin's more tolerant of you trying to push the envelope (and your own agenda) than I was, over at ISA. But that's my own personal opinion. After all, he lets all the CoG crap through, too. There's a lesson in that Bob......

"PPS... uh, you wouldn't be Tom M would you? I can smell his brimstone brand of aftershave on your post too."

Only way to know for sure is to check the IP addresses, Gavin. Or are you being facetious? ;-) (If not, email me, and I'll walk you through it.)

Gavin said...

To the anonymous person who replied to Questeruk's comments - but has been relegated to the dustbin:

1. Thanks for your comments/insults. Duly noted.

2. Terms like "satanic venom", "clever ruse" (referring to yours truly), "sinful and shameless evolutionists" and "Godless perverts" can only be a cowardly tactic when the people you are slagging off have the intestinal fortitude to identify themselves while you hide behind "anonymous."

3. Comments are in fact welcome from anyone who can state their case reasonably. Paul Ray is a regular here alongside Byker Bob, and I for one appreciate hearing from both of them. If you don't like it, go hang out on another site.

PS... uh, you wouldn't be Tom M would you? I can smell his brimstone brand of aftershave on your post too.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Paul Ray. Your arguments always resort to ad hominem attacks when you miss the point. Evolution deals with origins. Natural selection implies that something did the selecting. What began that process? I thought science says that life only comes from life. Creationist agree with this. I am sorry you disagree with science.

Corky said...

Neotherm said...

What we see in reality is a sudden rise of intelligence within the last 10,000. And it was not gradual. And it was not isolated.

I think you are confusing intelligence with knowledge.

The ability to make and use tools shows intelligence. Then over hundreds of thousands of years the tools got better and better.

Then finally, about 15,000 years ago, when humans were in sufficient numbers, sophisticated civilizations began.

Then, with the advent of languages and writing and trade between the civilizations, knowledge began to increase.

Suddenly? Nope, very gradual. Even today there are tribes existing who know nothing beyond late stone age tool making. Does that mean they are not intelligent? No, it doesn't, they are just as intelligent as any other humans.

They don't have the knowledge of Wall Street as a New York stockbroker does but they are still just as intelligent.

How much intelligence do you think it took for a stone age man to invent an arrowhead made of stone? Can you make one? Could you do it without any prior knowledge of stone arrowheads?

Neotherm said...

"So when a Kreatard claims that they reject evolution for any reason other than their religious views, you can be assured that they are lying. Weasels."

We could easily reverse this and ask why are most evolutionists are atheists. It is clear that they do not have a problem with biology but with the concept of God.

I am surprised that Gavin let the term Kreatard pass. That term is a little infantile in my opinion.

-- Neo

Dennis said...

As Donald Johanson notes:

"Anatomical evidence
Sometime prior to 1 million years ago early hominids, sometimes referred to as Homo ergaster, exited Africa and dispersed into other parts of the Old World. Living in disparate geographical areas their morphology became
diversified through the processes of genetic drift and natural selection.

In Asia these hominids evolved into Peking Man and Java Man, collectively referred to as Homo erectus.
In Europe and western Asia they evolved into the Neanderthals."

So the current view is that Neanderthal did not evolve from Homo Erectus but that both erectus and neanderthal share the common ancestor of Ergaster

Anonymous said...

"Your arguments always resort to ad hominem attacks when you miss the point. Evolution deals with origins."

Yes, evolution deals with origins- how organisms have evolved. It does not deal with how life came to be. This is the theory of abiogenesis. Two different areas of study. And I didn't miss the point:

"Don't forget that evolution requires faith as well. That is, faith that matter came from nothing..."

You clearly attempted to portray evolution and abiogenesis as one and the same. Are you misinformed, or as your dusty old tome says, willingly ignorant??

Paul Ray

Anonymous said...

"We could easily reverse this and ask why are most evolutionists are atheists."

http://www.palanski.com/2009/02/evolution-acceptance-by-religion.html

It's quite pathetic when more Muslims accept evolution than do evangelical Christians. I mean, that's all most as bad as Iran ranking higher than the US in which countries accept evolution more than others. And 80% of Hindus and 77% of Jews accept evolution? What is this?? I thought the majority of those who accepted evolution were rabid atheists!

Many, many people of all stripes, not just mainly atheists, accept evolution. However, you will rarely find a Kreatard who doesn't believe in some kind of magic sky buddy.

Once again, if the reason Kreatards reject evolution is mainly due to a problem with the evidence (or as they see, a lack thereof), then why don't we see large swaths of the population rejecting it too?? Why mainly the religious?

And once again, the answer is that it isn't a rejection based on the evidence; it is a rejection based solely on religious beliefs. When it comes to evolution, the Kreatards are like the three monkeys (hee-hee), See no Evolution, Hear no Evolution, Speak no Evolution.

"I am surprised that Gavin let the term Kreatard pass. That term is a little infantile in my opinion."

Infantile, yes, and also, a spot on label.


Paul Ray
(a "Paultard" himself)

Anonymous said...

"I am surprised that Gavin let the term Kreatard pass. That term is a little infantile in my opinion."

Seconded.

Anonymous said...

"Most of you are probably already aware of the WCG's Christian Odyssey magazine recent feature on this topic BEFORE Gavin wrote about it."

OK I read it. And here I thought Ted Johnston was confused!

Q: Are you saying that a literal interpretation of the Bible is wrong?

A. It depends on the passage. Parts of the Bible that are intended to be understood literally should be understood literally, and parts that are intended to be understood figuratively should be taken figuratively. For example, some 40 percent of the Bible consists of poetry and metaphors."

Hear that? That's the sound of my jaw hitting the floor. Say whaaaa?!

Summary of Our Christian Faith
-----------
The Bible is the inspired and infallible Word of God, fully authoritative for all matters of faith and practice. Source
-----------


Yeah no that's not contradictory, not in the slightest.....

Do I hate the article? No. I just can't make heads nor tails of just what it is they're trying to say.

"40% of the Bible consists of poetry and metaphors?" Up that number by as little as a measly 20%, and even I could see my way clear to going back to church again!

"“Literal” and “true” are not the same thing, and the truth is, to interpret things literally that are not intended to be interpreted literally is to miss the truth completely."

Well, they're half-way to gnosticism; if only they would drop the literal dying-rising-godman schtick they grafted on from the Protestants they bedded down with, after the changes......

Neotherm said...

"I think you are confusing intelligence with knowledge."

When people move from Neolithic hunting and gathering to writing complex language in a very short time period(further, without any apparent intervening stages of development) can we really say that the hunters and gatherers just became more knowledgeable? When this writing development is accompanied by the flowering of the arts, technology and agriculture at the same time, can we just say that people became more knowledgeable? Further, if this were a phenomenon of accumulating knowledge over a long period of time, would we not see signs of progressive and gradual development instead of a sudden flourishing?

Just a few questions.

-- Neo

Questeruk said...

Gavin said... “To the anonymous person who replied to Questeruk's comments - but has been relegated to the dustbin:

“Terms like "satanic venom", ….."sinful and shameless evolutionists" and "Godless perverts" ……


I am assuming from the comments Gavin quoted that the ‘anonymous’ contributor was attempting to support my viewpoint.

If that is the kind of support I am getting, I would prefer to distance myself from it. Returning insults with equally unacceptable insults defeats the object, and is something that I can do without.

Atheist, theists, and every shade in between are all equal human beings, with their own unique personality.

I should also like to add that I have nothing against Paul Ray. He and I obviously disagree on most things, and he continually misreads my motives (I assume deliberately, but maybe not). While it does get a bit irritating to be continually insulted, I realise that it is Paul’s way of getting his point across.

It’s not my way of doing things, and I feel it detracts from his credibility, but to each his own.

If we all agreed, there would be little point in having this board.

Anonymous said...

"So the current view is that Neanderthal did not evolve from Homo Erectus but that both erectus and neanderthal share the common ancestor of Ergaster"

There certainly is evidence that evolution occurs within species.

But there is no significant body of evidence that evolution creates significant new species.

It is in this area that evolution is a theory and not provable... almost all of the missing links ar still missing.

Anonymous said...

"The evolution battle finds its center in the species. If one species cannot change into another, then there is no evolution of life forms. Yet even Darwin admitted that such changes never occurred.

'Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed.'- Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters."

A small aside... said...

Sorry to go off-topic in this current thread of spirited debate, but our blog-buddy Bob Thiel once again shows he has a sense of humour:

If someone like Martin Luther or Huldrych Zwingli or John Calvin arose today and did what those people did, they would be exposed as frauds and not true Christians.

Just a little diversion from the evolving discussion we created.

Greg D said...

With apologies for the length, some more from my chapter "Creation and Origins" in my mid-1970s AC Big Sandy reminiscences _Showdown at Big Sandy_:

"It was basic to Herbert Armstrong's message that evolution was not simply factually wrong. It was _willful_ ignorance on the part of the vast majority of the world's scientists who, against all reason, _chose to reject God_ ... Just as the choice was set up with the healing doctrine, choose faith in God or choose to go to a doctor, so it was with evolution: either God created or there was evolution. You can have one or the other but not both. And, it was darkly pointed out, the world had chosen to believe in evolution, and just look what has resulted (insert list of social ills here).

"Garner Ted Armstrong would spend countless radio and television programs presenting what he said were claims of the theory of evolution, and then debunk them ... Garner Ted would ridicule things that scientists said. He would paint pictures in words of dead proto-woodpeckers littering forest floors because they could not survive without having fully developed abilities. Yet fully-developed woodpeckers do exist, even though (as he had just conclusively shown) they could not have come about through evolution. After showing evolution to be impossible through illustrated case examples such as this, Garner Ted would give the only logical conclusion: since there was no natural explanation, the diverse life-forms therefore came about by special creation, just as in Genesis chapter one. When Garner Ted contrasted the claims of scientists against common sense and logic in this manner, the scientists just came out looking like idiots.

"This was drilled in as basic, like programming, like teaching Pavlov's dogs to salivate at the ring of a bell.

"At some belated point an elementary question dawned on me. If evolution had so many glaring fallacies and was so obviously impossible, why did so many biologists (just about 100%) not think it was ridiculous? What was the biologists' explanation in their own words, instead of the caricatures presented in Plain Truth articles?

"I realized that my honest answer to this question was: 'I don't know.' I took the fateful step, one day in the fall of 1975 toward the end of my Big Sandy days, of deciding to find out. I pulled the Encyclopedia Britannica off the shelf of the library in the Redwood Building and looked up an article entitled something like "Evolution, Evidences for," photocopied it and studied it carefully.

"What I found was eye-opening. There were five distinct evidences for development of earth's life forms from common origins discussed in this article. To my surprise the case was quite convincing.

([foonote] "compare...J. Richard Wakefield, 'Biological Evolution. An Overview of Mechanisms and Evidence' [link--find through google if interested] ... Note: the author of this last study, J. Richard Wakefield, is not the Ambassador College, Big Sandy, biology instructor Richard Wakefield of the 1970s whose class I took in 1973. I have verified that these are not the same persons and that the identical names are coincidence. What are the odds of this happening by chance? Yet it is so." [end footnote])

"In church literature it was taught that the whole range of life-forms on earth today were created as full-blown species in six days, 6000 years ago. Other interpretations of Genesis were condemned. It was said as a mantra, 'there is no contradiction between the Bible and _true_ science.' _True_ science, it was explained, could be known by this criterion: it was consistent with the correct interpretation of the Bible (which in the case of Genesis 1 was creation of earth's life-forms by the spoken command of God and _not_ evolution). True science most certainly was not what a consensus of scientists published in peer-reviewed scientific literature said. On some matters, like the true scientific explanation of human origins as created six thousand years ago, Satan had brainwashed nearly all practitioners of the various scientific disciplines on earth.

"I began to suspect there might be something wrong with this picture. I considered that no one, not even the most literal-minded fundamentalist, takes the Bible literally on _everything_. (If so, we'd believe the earth has corners, that God has wings, that the earth rests on pillars holding it up, and so on.) This is not to say the authors of Genesis necessarily read their own words as metaphor. The authors of Genesis probably did believe in things like a physical 'vault' over the sky (which could be attained if one built a tower or a ladder tall enough), i.e. earth as a flat circle with a giant dome over it. There are repeated biblical allusions to 'foundations' or pillars upon which the earth rests. Few today have problems reading those as metaphor, but the ancient authors probably believed those pillars were as real as the six days of creation...

"Of course there was the theological question of how did the first humans receive the potential to become divine. This was supposed to be an objection to humans' descent from earlier primates. If so, it meant that at some point hominids became able to receive the spirit of God with potential to become divine, but their ancestors--their parents--were not. Well, I considered, yes, that did logically follow. But that brought up the whole question of the animal world. The church generally thought that all animals, once they died, were dead forever, unlike humans who have a role in the world to come. But there were always a few in the Worldwide Church of God here and there (occasionally I ran into such people) who pointed out that Rom 8:19-21 says _all_ creation has a role in the world to come. In this view, we may not know exactly how it works, but the animals, and the first humans' parents, will have a role in the world to come too.

([footnote] "One scripture cited in Ambassador College classes to supposedly show a difference between humans and animals in the hereafter was Eccl 3:21, 'Who knows (if) the spirit of man really goes upward, and the spirit of the beast really goes downward to the earth?' However, occasionally someone would correctly point out that that verse is a question and is stating the opposite, that there is no difference between the fates of humans and animals. Pointing this out could be hazardous, though, as one unknown student at Pasadena learned according to this report: '[O]ne student wrote a research paper for an Ambassador theology class, claiming that the scriptures speak of a spirit in animals as well as a spirit in man. He provided considerable evidence in support of his contention. Upon presenting the paper to his instructors, the student was urged to keep his ideas to himself. It seems the spirit in man and the idea that animals differ from man is a pet concept of Mr. Armstrong's, and the theology instructors were afraid to present the student's findings to him. The following semester the student was not allowed to register for classes and was expelled from the college. He was charged with the crime of "highbrowing the ministers," whatever that means', H.E., in Ambassador Review, June 1976.")

"... I came to a different reading of Gen 1:1-2 in my Big Sandy days. The way I came to read it, verse one was like a title or section heading: 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' That was the _title_. The creation had not happened yet. Starting with the next verse and going on for the rest of the chapter, the text describes the creation. The tohu and bohu of Gen 1:2 was the condition of the universe _before_ God started creating. The creation of Gen 1:1 _was_ the six days of Genesis 1 which started from an original state of tohu and bohu.

"In this reading of Gen 1:1 as a title (and the six days as the creation of Gen 1:1), there was a corollary: the creation of God of Genesis 1 was not, as often assumed, _ex nihilo_ in which matter was brought into existence where before there was empty space or nothing. Rather, the tohu and bohu description of Gen 1:2 was the description of the pre-creation state of things. Before God created, it was not that there was nothing. There was chaotic wilderness-like stuff already in existence. God's creation (in terms of the text) was when an intelligent mind introduced order into the chaos, engaged the chaotic wilderness and out of the raw stuff of that chaos created design and beauty.

"Of course some might object that this leaves unexplained where the wild, unordered matter came from. In this reading of Genesis that indeed is left unexplained, just as where God came from and what he was doing before the creation also is left unexplained. But think: which is harder to explain: the existence of chaotic matter in space before God creates, or the existence of totally empty space before God creates? When I thought about it, both seemed equally paradoxical. It was not as if limitless empty space as the pre-creation state was somehow less paradoxical.

"A second corollary to this reading was that Genesis indeed was a picture of an earth and universe only a few thousand years old. The 'gap' theory was an attempt to remove some of the scientific conflict with a literal reading of Genesis 1. But it wasn't what Genesis 1 was saying. Genesis 1 was telling of a six-day process of creation, which if one takes the Bible literally, was only a few thousand years ago.

"On scientific grounds there is an ancient universe and development of earth's various life-forms over time from common origins. I came to see at Big Sandy that Genesis 1 should not be a basis for objection to this, any more than the biblical 'pillars' upon which the earth rests should be a basis for objection to scientific explanations of the earth which do not involve being supported on pillars. The problem was not with the scientists who encountered, and with much struggle, worked out natural explanations for these processes, I thought. Scientists should be regarded as searchers into the mysteries of God, of what makes the universe _tick_--which is slowly uncovered by means of the scientific method. The way I came to see it at Big Sandy, science is a _window_ into the very _soul of God_. I liked these two quotations:

'It is the glory of God to conceal a thing.
'But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.'
-- Prov 25:2

'Nature and Nature's Laws lay hid in Night
'God said, Let Newton be!--And all was Light.'
-- Alexander Pope "

You know who said...

'Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed.'- Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters."

That's a bit like quoting Henry Ford on there being no evidence for antilock brakes or global positioning gizmos in cars back then.

That's a great 150 year old quote.

I willing to bet we have learned more in the past 25 years than in the previous 150

Anonymous said...

"That's a bit like quoting Henry Ford on there being no evidence for antilock brakes or global positioning gizmos in cars back then.

That's a great 150 year old quote.

I willing to bet we have learned more in the past 25 years than in the previous 150"

There is still NO EVIDENCE of evolution between species.

So 150 years later; just theories, simply theories, good sounding theories...

But no proof in the fossil record.

Anonymous said...

While sitting through an otherwise interesting lecture (on Maxwell's equations) thoughts of this thread of discussion remained...

Paul Ray mentions abiogenesis, and that, IMHO, is where Creationists should concentrate. That, and the astrophysics and cosmology that theorize on the origin of the universe. Those were the two big moments.

We all accept microevolution, even if we call it variations. As for arguments about macroevolution, that is where we polarize our views. Even William Jennings Bryan was not concerned with non-human evolution; his objection was the demoting of man to being just another species of mammal.

Mel said...

I'm looking for an old HWA booklet entitled, Just What do You Mean- 'SardTards'?

It was something about church eras and the people involved.

IIRC, other "tard-related" booklets include:

The Wonderful World Tardmorrow

Send MONEY NOW, and DON'T be Tardy!

Clean Meats and Clean Feets, by Garner Tard Armstrong,

and, of course, the ever popular...

Only a Tard Would Eat Lard

oh...and...

The TRUE History of the TRUE Tard, an autobiography by HWA

Corky said...

Neotherm said...
"I think you are confusing intelligence with knowledge."

When people move from Neolithic hunting and gathering to writing complex language in a very short time period(further, without any apparent intervening stages of development) can we really say that the hunters and gatherers just became more knowledgeable?


You're the one saying they did it in a "short time", not me.

However, only after the development of civilizations can we say it was in a short time, because everything else is "pre-historical".

There is more pre-historical history of human evolution and development than there is historical history of human development. Therefore, it could not possibly have been "in a short time".

But again, knowledge and intelligence is not the same thing. Humans have probably always been just as intelligent as they are today - they just didn't know "stuff" yet.

Anonymous said...

Mel, I think you must of been watch too many episodes of Dr Who.

[For the uninitiated, Dr Who started as a low budget sci-fi program on the BBC, and became the longest running sci-fi series in history. The joke is, his time/space vehicle was called the TARDIS.

Mel said...

Hi Anon,

Actually, I think I haven't watched ENOUGH episodes of Doctor Who.

And, your comment got me thinking...

As in a stream, where there are eddies, wakes, vortexes, etc...that tend to remain rather constant in form, with only different water flowing through those enduring forms...

...there were different actors embodying the "Dr.-Who-Form", over the years.

And, I shall not mention the "religious-huckster-form"...


oops! Gotta go, I see a phone booth in the middle of my living room, and it's calling to me.
(Either that, or my neighbor's goat is jingling his bell rather loudly.)

SmilinJackSprat said...

The Genesis account is vastly more sophisticated than what can be presented in a literal translation. The first three verses could easily occupy all of a thick volume. It flatly cannot be expressed in word for word translation because nothing like a literal translation into any other language can even begin to express the genius of the Hebrew Torah. This is not hyperbole; it is a simple fact of material "breathed by God."

For example, the verb, bara, is only used of God bringing forth from nothing, around 15 billion Adamic earth-years ago. In that instant we had tohu vavohu, the raw materials thus created exploding, swirling, hot, expanding, cooling, congealing, gradually forming galaxies, suns, planets. We still see these processess at work in astronomical photographs, and we can measure the background heat from the initial big bang.

"The earth was without form and void" is too awkward to make good sense. This was 10 billion years before the earth formed from the initial tohu vavohu -- but that chaotic ball of subatomic energies was already expanding and cooling, collapsing into atoms, molecules, nebulae, galaxies, suns and planets. By the time water can appear on our planet, life springs forth almost immediately. It should be understood from that that the earth itself possesses power to bring forth life; we are surrounded by a virtually living, sentient universe.

Our translations cannot present all this extraordinary material by literally bringing Hebrew into English or other languages. This is a unsearchably deep, rich, open expression of God's mind and secrets, generously given to mankind through Moses and the children of Israel. Whether or not a person approaches Torah with awe, if it is studied at least respectfully, it will in time convince the student of its genius. It is an astounding challenge to even the most brilliant minds -- but you'll have to find that out for yourself because each individual has his or her own portion in the Torah. God speaks to each person according to that person's makup.

Anonymous said...

Thanks again Paul Ray. Most people don't know that there are 2 areas of study, abiogenesis and evolution. Suffice it to say, when we speak of evolution as creationist, we generally include abioenesis in our arguments because they are sequitur theories. Life comes from life is obviously the first theory. I appreciate that you stopped your ad hominem arguments in your last post addressing my comment. Sometimes the ability to debate without logical fallacies far exceeds whatever evidence we think we have.

Anonymous said...

Just a small request, please.

Would 'Paul Ray' please introduce (rather than signing) his pieces with his name rather than Anonymous.

This would save me having to plow through his repetitive and lengthy - and, it seems, increasingly vitriolic, contributions to the blog.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

"....in a very short time period."


How long is this time period?


Paul Ray

Byker Bob said...

tard: derisive suffix thought to have been originated by a London Cockney who emigrated to Nacodoches, Texas to pursue graduate level studies in atheism. When used in combination with other common words or phrases, denotes a deep philosophical alliance with a specific school of thought, practiced to the state of intoxication or extreme fanaticism.
A more extreme form of the suffix "phile". See also fanatic.

Applications shared with me by a friend who is a Strong's Exhaustive Concorditard: Creatard, Anglo-Israelitard, gaytard, Ambassitard, COGlitard, HWAcacatard, Athitard, Agnostitard, Sabbitard, Weinlatard, Homoerotic Ergastitard, Hieronymous Woolvitard, Sardustard, Tardus Philadelphicus, Buddhatard, Anglotard, Afrotard, Greenhouse Gastard, Tetrohydrolcannabitard, Hoehtard, Petratard, Torahtard, Obamatard, Lembatard, Judeotard, Young Earthtard, Gappitard, Hari Krishnatard, Purple Hymnitard, Flatustard, Roditard, Unclean Meattard, Psychedellitard, Monica Lewinskitard, Autoerotitard, relativitard, secular humanitard, transvestitard, Elvistard, kung futard, retard, and finally, leotard.

Hope that helps.

BB

Anonymous said...

"There certainly is evidence that evolution occurs within species.But there is no significant body of evidence that evolution creates significant new species."

How does evolution "within" species occur? What are the results? And what would be the effects of this "within" evolution on an organism over a period of say, 600 million years?

And you couldn't be more wrong- there is significant evidence for the evolution of one "species" into another. Two for example:

Fish to Amphibian:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik


Reptile to Bird:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinornithosaurus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microraptor



"It is in this area that evolution is a theory and not provable..."

Gravity is also a theory. No, it really is. It is only a theory.



"almost all of the missing links ar still missing."

Really? How many missing links are there, by the way? The problem with fossils is that they are so rare. It is estimated that out of all organisms thought to have existed, we have only 0.1% to 1% of their fossil forms.
But, all you really need are a couple to demonstrate that species can evolve into other species. And in fact, just one would do. And we have several.

Since you have repeated three typical mischaracterizations/misunderstandings used by Kreatards, I can only assume that you will view transition fossils in the same manner:

1) Hey, that's a new species! What weird looking creatures God has created! Amazing!

2)Hey, that's not an intermediate form! That's just a bird(or reptile) or a fish(or amphibian). And if they share common characteristics, so what? It proves nothing. Allah is great!

3)God just created these transitional forms to test our faith. Jehovah is great!


Paul Ray

Anonymous said...

"Would 'Paul Ray' please introduce (rather than signing) his pieces with his name rather than Anonymous."

No.

At least I do identify myself. I find it ironic, an anonymous poster asking if a poster could not only identify himself, but in a particular manner to his choosing.


Paul Ray

Anonymous said...

"'Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed.'- Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters."

This book you are quoting from doesn't even exist.

And the book that it supposedly comes from does not contain the first part of the quote, only the second half.

"Darwin never wrote a book called "My Life and Letters".
_The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin_, and _More Letters of
Charles Darwin_ (two volumes each) were published in 1887 and 1902
respectively. (Charles Darwin died in 1882.) They were assembled
by his son Francis and A. C. Seward. Since they are of such wide
interest, you can download all four volumes from Project Gutenberg.
I just did. One advantage of having electronic copies is that it
is rather trivial to use search software to find quotes.
Having had no luck with finding the entire quote, I just searched
for a couple of word pairs. Of the first half, I was unable to
find any trace. No pair of significant adjacent words from the
first have seem to be found in any of the four volumes. You are
free to try your own hand at it if you like. You'll find the second
half (inaccurately) quoted in volume 2 of "Life and Letters of
Charles Darwin", in a letter to G. Bentham, May 22, 1863."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.agnosticism/msg/2da42a3658f5ba51


Kreatards love to quote mine. It's about all they have, since the majority of them refuse to address the actual evidence.

And as someone else pointed out, so what? Darwin had no transition fossil at the time, they were discovered soon after.


Paul Ray

Anonymous said...

"But no proof in the fossil record."


I will make a suggestion for all the Kreatards here. If you want to refute the theory of evolution, then for heaven's sake why don't you familiarize yourself with it? Why don't you actually study it? If you want to refute quantum physics, then wouldn't it be a wise move to understand what quantum physics is, and isn't??


My suggestion is to go to the library or bookstore and get a copy of either Donald Prothero's Evolution: What The Fossils Say And Why It Matters, or Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True. I've almost finished the former, and deep into the latter. Both are easy to understand.

If you were to read just one of these books, then you would be better prepared to "refute" evolution. And gaining knowledge is always a good thing.

But, I fear most of you simply won't do it. Because this isn't about science, or evidence, or truth. It's all about your religion.

Paul Ray

Blog Critic said...

To "Paul Ray"-

It is a little odd that you would sign in as one of the anonymous posters then leave a name at the end.

Also, as a mild complaint, I wish I knew how many "anonymous" posters there are. But, then, no one knows the answer to that. But it's most confusing to read hardline, mindless parroting god talk from one anon. and reasoned, critical thinking from another.

My other gripe is about the lack of numbering of these posts. Other blogs allow it but I guess it was too big a problem for Google with all their billions.

Just some free ranting...

Anon.

Anonymous said...

"It is a little odd that you would sign in as one of the anonymous posters then leave a name at the end."

Why? You think there is something fishy going on?

The reason is an old habit- when you were required to sign in via Google to post, it always kicked me back and to post I would have to sign up again. So, when the Anon option came up, I used it and signed my name, not paying attention to the other options.


Paul Ray

Anonymous said...

"Two for example..."

Two examples of evolution between species? Is that the best you can do for the past 150 years since Darwin?

Only two...

Pathetically little evidence.

That is exactly my point. There is NO CONCLUSIVE evidence of evolution between species.

Anonymous #001 said...

And don't criticize
What you can't understand

- - - Robert Zimmerman

Study. Research. Good point, PR. Isn't our presence here a result of HWA's claim of doing intensive study to disprove the Sabbath, only to believe it? (As did the earlier COG leader, Gilbert Cranmer.)

But then, HWA said he studied to disprove evolution, and believed he did disprove it. But, taking his word for it, he did study it.

I keep my friends close, and my enemies closer.
- - - Montgomery Burns

Anon. said...

Mel - another analogy from the Doctor:

Early in the series, the Doctor's companion notices the camouflage device wasn't working, which is why the TARDIS was always a police call box.

What worked in London in the 60s didn't suit other times and places. WWW is the technology, but it's still the KORE package.

Anonymous said...

"Two examples of evolution between species? Is that the best you can do for the past 150 years since Darwin?

Only two...

Pathetically little evidence."


Oh Zeus, please grant me patience.

Kreatard. Do you really think that there are only two transition fossils discovered in the last 150 years? You probably do. Before I actually started studying evolution, I also thought there were no transition fossils. My wife, after reading Why Evolution is True remarked that she was very surprised that there was so much evidence in support of evolution. It's no surprise- we all were all fed the same lies about evolution from ministers and top Kreatards, and had no evolution instruction in elementary, high school, or in college (that's right).

There are more than two transition fossils. In fact, this woefully primitive Wiki list contains 49:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils


This list, concentrating on fish/amphibian development, contains around 29.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#fish


This list, concentrating on amphibians/reptiles/birds/early mammals contains around 54:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html

And on:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html


And on:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html


And on:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html

The last three lists looked to contain more than the first few lists. And these lists are most likely incomplete.


You didn't even bother to look, did you?? All it would have taken was a simple internet search.Of course not. You don't want to.

"That is exactly my point. There is NO CONCLUSIVE evidence of evolution between species."

Are you the anonymous Kreatard who was talking about evolution "within" species but not between? Is so, could you answer the questions that I asked? I'll repeat them:

How does evolution "within" species occur? What are the results? And what would be the effects of this "within" evolution on an organism over a period of say, 600 million years?


Paul Ray

Anonymous said...

"Pathetically little evidence..."

Oh, Boys and Girls, did you notice something? Anon didn't even address the fossils themselves, just shifted tack and ridiculed the numbers of examples I gave. Hmmm.

Hopefully some of our more persistent Kreatards will actually try to refute the evidence, instead of ignoring it.
But please, try to do a bit more than scanning a Kreationist article.
Read the original published reports first. If you have trouble accessing them, I'll be more than willing to help you out.


Paul Ray

SmilinJackSprat said...

What is the point here? Are we simply arguing what the fossil record means, scientifically? Are we marvelling at what must have been the processes through which the Creator brought everything and everyone into being? Are we dismissing God and Bible on evidence of evolution? Are we trying to create grounds on which we may finally dismiss accountability to heaven?

I ask because years ago I went through several books by Julian Huxley. In one or two of them he said he worked diligently on evolutionary theory in order to rid us of guilt for having sex with so many pleasant partners. He and his partners loved the sex, but with that pesky Bible around they always felt guilty after doing the deed. I've always had a chuckle over that, because of the stupidity of trying to extrapolate sexual freedom from a fossil record in earth strata. God knows it's there, and I doubt it convinces Him that He doesn't exist. He's still the big Papi in the sky, and we're still beholden.

What's the real motivation here?

Anonymous said...

SJS, I guess Huxley had a big decision to make to appease his conscience, evolutionary theory, or religious hucksterism. Hmm.

larry said...

Oh Boy!, SJS, you really didn't make any friends with that post!

Anonymous said...

SmilinJackSprat, you could not possibly have read Julian Huxley writing what you say you read, because such a quotation from Julian Huxley does not exist. That alleged quotation from Julian Huxley is an "urban legend" which, however much quoted and repeated, including in Church of God literature and old Plain Truth articles, is just completely bogus and spurious. You read the urban legend, and then mistakenly and secondarily incorporated it into your own personal memory.
In any case, the reasons approximately 100% of the world's biologists accepted evolution are widely available historically and have nothing--nothing--to do with these biologists' proclivity for sexual promiscuity. That is just creationist fabrication.

Corky said...

SmilinJackSprat said...
What is the point here? Are we simply arguing what the fossil record means, scientifically? Are we marvelling at what must have been the processes through which the Creator brought everything and everyone into being? Are we dismissing God and Bible on evidence of evolution? Are we trying to create grounds on which we may finally dismiss accountability to heaven?

Speaking on my own behalf, I dismiss God and the Bible on the grounds of no proof of a God. On the grounds of no evidence what so ever of a God or angels or devil existence - none.

Evolution just answers one more mystery in the world that we didn't know the answer to before.

If a person wants to continue to blame lightning, thunder and rain on a god - that's their sickness, the rest of us know better. That big mystery about the weather was solved long ago but it took hundreds of years for Christians to accept it.

Geology came along and debunked the worldwide Noah flood story about 200 years ago - Christians are beginning to understand that one now though - too bad Jesus didn't, he thought it was literal.

The Bible was written by late bronze and early iron age men and it shows. But, for people who believe in talking snakes (and it didn't surprise Eve that the snake could talk) and in talking asses (and it didn't surprise Balaam that his ass could talk) then, what can one say about the willingness to believe fantasy?

And people imagine that they are "intelligent" . . . pfft!

Anonymous said...

"In one or two of them he said he worked diligently on evolutionary theory in order to rid us of guilt for having sex with so many pleasant partners. He and his partners loved the sex, but with that pesky Bible around they always felt guilty after doing the deed."

Good point, if the fossil record were filled with hundreds of examples of evolution between species it would definitively prove evolution; and folks could then feel free to fornicate!

An interesting society to contemplate...

If God (both the masculine and the feminine) were a myth there would be no moral law.

Byker Bob said...

I've been cogitating this thread quite intently. I believe that it's just awesome, the way in which God is so powerfully using Paul Ray to describe for us His creative methodology! If you couple this with Smilin' Jack's dissertations lamenting some of the poor translations of the Torah, a pattern begins to emerge. Both are demonstrating that the "poof!" and "fantazma!" people, or "kreatards" as Paul calls them, are really doing God a disservice, by making His design and creation process appear to be both simplistic and ridiculous!

Kreatards make analytical or objective thinking people mock.

Let's face it! There are people out there who are actually teaching that Genesis 1 was not unlike an episode of "Bewitched", with God being the equivalent of Samantha twitching her nose and suddenly Adam and Eve appearing. Is it any wonder that educated or intelligent people would have some misgivings about this? The problem we have today is not so much with the concept of creation, as it is with the description with which the bronze age primitives have left us, and/or the imprecision of our modern languages in capturing the full intent and meaning of the original Hebrew. Remember, Hebrew became a dead language for hundreds of years, and was not resurrected until the late nineteenth century!

Pay attention to what Paul Ray is describing, people! It will give you a much deeper understanding for and appreciation of God!

BB

"Apparent coincidence is God's way of maintaining anonymity."

SmilinJackSprat said...

Anon 4:19 tells me, "SmilinJackSprat, you could not possibly have read Julian Huxley writing what you say you read, because such a quotation from Julian Huxley does not exist. That alleged quotation from Julian Huxley is an "urban legend" which, however much quoted and repeated, including in Church of God literature and old Plain Truth articles, is just completely bogus and spurious."

Here's some material I found in Julian Huxley years ago. The first line needs more text to fix context, but I think you'll catch the drift. I no longer have the book at my fingertips, only a couple quotes, with a reference if you'd like to dig a little deeper.

"Why is [casual] sex both an inspiring blessing and primal curse, inflicting guilt as well as joy? ... I thought of my grandfather defending Darwin against Bishop Wilberforce, of the slow acceptance of Darwin’s views in face of religious prejudice, and realized more fully than ever that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection had emerged as one of the great liberating concepts of science, freeing man from cramping myths and dogma, achieving for life the same sort of illuminating synthesis that Newton had provided for inanimate nature. I resolved that all my scientific studies would be undertaken in a Darwinian spirit and that my major work would be concerned with evolution, in nature and in man" (Julian Huxley. Memories, Vol. 1, pp. 69, 73).

SmilinJackSprat said...

Corky, I couldn't disagree with you more, but I take pride in your fierce resolve to think for yourself, and in Gavin's willingness to publish all of us.

Thomas Jefferson said, "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." ... in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800.

Samuel Adams expressed a similar feeling without reference to Deity. "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." -- Samuel Adams

I know you wouldn't say it my way, Corky, but may God speed honest men and women who listen to all, but do their own thinking and come to their own conclusions.

Quotes from "http://freedomkeys.com/vigil.htm"

Anonymous said...

SmilinJackSprat, in response to your quotations from Julian Huxley, according to your citation the two quotations are separated by **four pages** (pp. 69, 73). There is nothing internal to the quotations to indicate they have anything to do with one another. Without having the book at hand to check I cannot say for sure, but I strongly suspect you have either misread or misunderstood Huxley's sense, since the sense you claim is so odd and unsupported by anything else known to come from Julian Huxley.

Anonymous said...

"I've always had a chuckle over that, because of the stupidity of trying to extrapolate sexual freedom from a fossil record in earth strata."

You couldn't be closer to the truth! The men who discovered the fossil strata in the 19th century, who, despite being Christians, were closet homosexuals. Darwin, too, was a closet homosexual. They all figured the only way they could indulge in their deviant sexual lusts was to somehow escape the condemnation of heaven. Darwin and others met in secret in San Francisco in 1875 and for a week (of hot anal sex and oysters on the half shell) they deliberated. Here is a portion of the actual notes:


Darwin: "Gentleman, how do we live our wanton lifestyles yet escape the condemnation of Almighty God??"

Huxley: "I know! We convince people that the account of Genesis isn't true!"

Darwin: "Bloddy hell! That's Brillant, love!"

And thus evolution was born. Unfortunately, they did not realize that changing public opinion about God wouldn't change the actual existence or condemnation of God. It just made them feel alot better, and made hooking up alot easier.

The hard part was coming up with the actual theory. But, in the end, a friend of Darwin, high on opium, said,

"Hey, dude- wouldn't it be cool if like, uh, animals, like, transformed into other animals?"

Darwin cried aloud, and they made love. Natural selection was conceived.


So, Jack, you couldn't be more right!


Paul Ray

Corky said...

Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820