The Darwin anniversary is too good an opportunity to miss a bit of borax poking, as the Aussie expression goes. So for the edification of AW readers here is a prime example of Homo habilis. This fine fellow was morphed courtesy of the British Open University site, where you can upload a photo of yourself (or a dear friend, perhaps) and see what a handsome chap (or beautiful chapette) you or they would have made back when Adam was a boy.
Pictured is a latter-day Homo habilis (meaning 'handyman'), a creator of stone tools who lived in Africa 2.2 - 1.6 million years ago. This particular specimen, however, is very much alive and kicking, and has made a monkey of himself many times.
Additional clue: appropriately, he's the author of a book on creationism!
44 comments:
Hmm..I give up, who cares, he's mistaken....:)
I'm relieved they have changed Homo Erectus to Homo Ergaster since the time a member approached me after a sermon expressing dismay over using the words "Homo" and "Erectus" in the same context in church. He was kidding of course but we have laughed for a couple decades over that one.
I have a couple of flint tools, one homo habilis and one ergaster from east Africa. Amazing to hold
Evolution is an amazing process and only in our lifetime and really in the last 20 years has there been so much incontrovertable proof of the process. Men like Ken Ham and Duane Gish are woefully ignorant, deliberately avoidant and unqualified in having not done the hard work others have done to prove the now obvious.
I was alone once in a small wing of the Israeli Museum in Jerusalem when I turned the corner to confront a case where some of the finest Neanderthal finds from Mt. Carmel were kept. Eye to eye and I'm standing there with tears in my eyes..it was overwhelming and unexpected experience for me. I think it was the road not taken in study and profession that might have caught up with me at that moment.
I cannot recommend enough, Evolution-What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Don Prothero. He demolishes Creationist agendas and dishonest science in the best book ever yet published on the topic.
It is far more inspiring to me that we evolved over millions of years and that every cell and body part is a reflection of that process than to childishly cling to myths. The process thrives through the entire universe I am sure.
PS I notice Art Mokarrow basis almost all of his theology on a literal Adam and Eve, serpent and Trees. WCG and HWA certainly did. The implications of fundamentalists having missed the point of the mythologies are staggering. Worse than the Mormons having to face that genetics can show easily their Native Americans of the Book of Mormon were not Hebrew. It trashes their entire religion and concocted book.
The burden of "Original Sin" is washed away and humans can begin to entertain the idea they were born right the first time.
Of course they won't, or can't so there will have to be another Inquisition to restore the 19 or 50 truths again.
Morning blather....
Read Richard Dawkin's review of the book "Why Evolution is true" by Jerry Coyne.
Heat the Hornet
You may just want this book in your library.
Happy belated 200th birthday, Mr. Darwin!
Paul Ray
Another good one is Daniel Samson, _God and Evolution? The Implications of Darwin's Theory for Fundamentalism, the Bible, and the Meaning of Life_ (2006).
Samson is an ex-WCG minister. This book has apparently been discussed among current WCG leadership and may have contributed to the WCG leadership, Tkach Jr. et al, apparently rejecting creationism in favor of science, i.e. evolution, according to an article in the current Plain Truth.
..."This book has apparently been discussed among current WCG leadership and may have contributed to the WCG leadership, Tkach Jr. et al, apparently rejecting creationism in favor of science, i.e. evolution,"
As long as Joe realizes the implications for his happy slappy Evangleical perspectives. No literal Adam and Eve...No need to bother with the theology of Original Sin, inherent sin in man, and the need of redemption by execution. No Second Adam as there was never a first literally. No need to follow Paul's advice about marriage, relationships and women shutting up in church as they are based on a literal Adam and Eve experience. And no truth to Paul saying women obey men because women come from men and not men from women. (the rib story)
Augustine just rolled over in his grave....
Other than that...he's good to go.
Read these scriptures carefully concerning the role of Adam, the first man, in the theology of Paul in the NT. Without a literal Adam and Eve..this is all baloney.
New International Version
Romans 5
5:14
Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
If there was no Adam, there was no pattern of the one to come.
5:15
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
However, the many did not die because of the one (Adam) so the grace of Christ overflowing to all is questionable
5:16
Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
Of course, if one man's sin (Adam didn't do this because he is not real, the gift did not follow...
5:17
For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
If death reigned before Adam in any way, then the NT is not true.
5:18
Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
If no literal Adam existed to bring all others condemnation, then no Jesus was needed to fix it.
5:19
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
(same comment)
I Tim 2:11
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
2:12
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
2:13
For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
Not literally true
Isaiah
43:27
Your first father sinned; your spokesmen rebelled against me.
Not literally true so get off their backs Isaiah
Hosea
6:7
Like Adam, they have broken the covenant-- they were unfaithful to me there.
Never happened...get off their backs Hosea
Ad to this tracing Jesus geneology back to Adam (who can do that!) and we have Jesus related to a myth, so what else is mythical? On top of that, Jesus geneology ends with Mary if Joseph is not the dad, and God or the Holy Spirit is anyway. Geneolgies to Adam become moot.
The point being, any fundamentalist church that adopts the reality of evolution negates the very doctrines they find their Surprising God revealing.
"Read Richard Dawkin's review of the book "Why Evolution is true" by Jerry Coyne."
Bought a week or two ago. Still reading Prothero. It's good.
I didn't know there were so many "transition" fossils- er, I mean, new and exciting species that God kreated that died out after Adam and Eve left the Garden.
Paul Ray
Many at this blog desperately want to believe that Charles Darwin was right about his theory of evolution, or at least have others believe that they really believe in it. They seem to be afraid that it might look bad for them to simply say that they hate God's good laws and want to break them.
For anyone who is interested, the Living Church of God has a Tomorrow's World broadcast by John H. Ogwyn called
Was Darwin Wrong?
It tells the truth about the "missing links" and how evolutionists really operate.
Could the picture be "Homo Rodimus?"
".....WCG leadership, Tkach Jr. et al, apparently rejecting creationism in favor of science, i.e. evolution, according to an article in the current Plain Truth."
Isn't that the same gap-toothed Gap Theory the church has been preaching since the '70s??
When I was growing up in the church, we never had a problem with evolution, and had no issues surrounding playing with, reading about, or studying school lessons on, dinosaurs; we were one of the precursor groups that believed in "intelligent design", long before that theory became widely accepted.
I daresay Junior's just keeping on keeping on, in the same vein as always, in that regard.
PH - preaching since the '70s
HWA probably lifted the Gap Theory from the Scofield Reference Bible. Dr Hoeh's Compendium volume 1 included a timeline, and I believe he put Satan's rebellion at 4025 BC.
The WCG negative view on radiocarbon dating changed in the 70s, when Dr Hoeh came up with his pre-Adamic man "prototype" theory.
Anon 1:54 -
I listened to that program a few years ago, and read the National Geographic article mentioned. John Ogwyn's emotional appeal to reason and claim that Hitler believed in evolution was not the smartest rebuttal.
"The WCG negative view on radiocarbon dating changed in the 70s...."
Bizarre flashback alert! I remember the preaching of Hoeh's proto-Gap Theory and I also remember rants about "the world's science" and "radio-carbon dating as an instrument of Satan". (This was in the early '80s.)
Why oh why didn't I put two and two together?! More accurately, I should ask, why the hell didn't I put two and two together for myself, instead of blindly accepting the church's "For your eternal salvation, the answer is five!" ??
:-(
"They seem to be afraid that it might look bad for them to simply say that they hate God's good laws and want to break them."
Bilge....Don't presuppose you know the interests, hearts and minds of those that seek to know how this planet really works.
With ALL due respect to Mr. John Ogwyn, who I knew personally, he died, as have many others precisely because organisms do evolve. The evolution of life took his life. It was not so long ago that the staph that killed him was treatable. It has evolved and adapted to being attacked over decades and found a way around anti biotics.
Darwin was correct for his time. The last Twenty years have confirmed and clarified the processes of evolution and I would bet big money you have not read, nor would you read, nor understand EVOLUTION-What the Fossils Say and WHY It Matters.
No one reads books recommended that already challenge cherished views.
Creation Science is not science
"Sit down before a fact as a little child, be prepared to give up everry preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."
Thomas Huxley
"The Bible tells you how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go."
Pope John Paul 11
"When given a choice religion choses alchemy over chemistry, phrenology over neurology, astrology over astronomy and magic over physics."
me
"For anyone who is interested, the Living Church of God has a Tomorrow's World broadcast by John H. Ogwyn called
Was Darwin Wrong?
It tells the truth about the "missing links" and how evolutionists really operate."
One might also note, EVOLUTION-What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters tells the truth about transitional forms and how creationists really operate.
"Evolution" is just a religion. There is no proof that it's true, (actually, all evidence points the other way ) yet it's adherents hold fast. People will believe what they want.
"They seem to be afraid that it might look bad for them to simply say that they hate God's good laws and want to break them."
Yep, that's pretty much it. From paganism to atheism to the acceptance of evolution, all have their genesis in hating God's good laws and wanting to break them. People sat around with the Torah long ago and remarked to each other just how much they hated those laws, and they all agreed to put their carnal minds together to come up with convoluted reasons with which they could get out of having to keep God's good laws. Thus evolution and atheism were born, in one fell stroke.
"It tells the truth about the "missing links"...
Which "missing links"? You mean transition fossils?? Oh, there are plenty of those.
"...and how evolutionists really operate."
Yeah. Well, we are the carnal children of Satan, who sit around plotting how to get out of going to church on Saturdays.
But if you really want to see people who "operate" by means of ignorance and outright deceit, look no further than the Kreationists. Actually, your church leaders are experts in that field.
Paul Ray
Dawkins in a River Out of Eden,
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."
Natural selection entails the biological acquisition of function that serve the the benefit of the individual replicator for reproduction; any other function such as the good of the species,the harmony of the ecosystem, the best interest of the inhabitants of NZ, or the continuing existence of the universe would; as shown by Dawkins statement above, falsify the hypothesis.
The growth in knowledge since Darwin has been amazing proving him to be perhaps the greatest thinker and iconoclast of all time.
When he was on the scene, Yahwism/Christ Myth ruled supreme. Now the myth of the 1st century God/Man who calmed the "ferocious storm" (a ferocious storm on the Sea of Galilee?? - a small lake??) is now fully dismantled.
There has been speculation amongst scientists, based on fossils and radio carbon dating, that man like creatures have existed for 500,000 years or more, and that over this period mankind's progress was somewhat static. Something happened about 10,000 years ago, causing spectacular advancement of the species. Some have speculated that this advancement was due to man finally having developed a method of recording his thoughts, and accumulating knowledge. Others have speculated along the lines of communication between the left and right cortexes of the brain.
The Baha'i have believed that evolution did indeed take place, and of course we do see the evidence. But, they explain this sudden jump in intelligence by the creation, against this backdrop, of Adam and Eve, who were not the first members of the species of man, but were the first "God-conscious" members of the species.
From that point on, what happened? Some of the members of the God-conscious group intermarried with the earlier members of the species. Apparently, at least in the local Mesopotamian area, the resulting impure generations were destroyed by a flood.
Whether or not the surviving indiginous peoples on the other continents are related to the earlier evolutionary peoples is left to speculation. There has got to be a reason why some peoples have never advanced from tribalism.
It is entirely possible that God has used both creation, and evolution to fulfill His purpose. If that is true, there is no reason for argumentation as to which is true, since one would not invalidate the other.
Anon wrote:
"For anyone who is interested, the Living Church of God has a Tomorrow's World broadcast by John H. Ogwyn called
Was Darwin Wrong?
It tells the truth about the "missing links" and how evolutionists really operate."
POPPYCOCK!
Darwinian evolution conjectures that beneficial mutations occur and that natural selection will cause the proliferation of those traits. After a sufficient accumulation of traits, speciation occurs. An important feature
of this idea is that mutations occur gradually over great spans of time. That is why we cannot identify this kind of activity in the present. This gradualism is based on uniformitarianism, natural mechanisms and stable rates of change.
But there is a fatal flaw in this view. It does not describe reality. We find, for instance, that Homo Ergaster lived on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years. I read some years ago that some paleontologists had
found Ergaster or Erectus bones in Southeast Asia that were only about 12,000 years old. Neanderthal lived on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years. Ergaster is associated with a certain tool assemblage as is
Neanderthal. Ergaster appeared, lived on earth for eons and then became extinct. During this vast span of time, Ergaster did not change. His tool assemblage was essentially the same. The same is true of Neanderthal. These homonids exhibited no progressive
development. We can say the same for Cro-Magnon.
But during the Holocene, man experienced a sudden and precipitate rise to civilization. The high cultures of the Middle East developed swiftly. The model based on gradualism does not explain the stasis in the case of
Ergaster and Neanderthal nor does it account for the explosive development of modern man.
I, too, disavow creationism if you mean that the Universe was created 6,000 years ago and man co-existed with dinosaurs. But that is choosing the worst of the lot. I wholeheartedly accept the idea that God created all things. And I believe that Darwinian evolution is as much of a fantasy as the creationist museum located in Kentucky.
-- Neo
"Evolution" is just a religion."
No it isn't. It is a scientic theory, solidly supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence from various scientific fields, from geology to genetics. If evolution is a religion, then chemistry is a religion. Physics is a religion. Biochemistry is a religion. But I don't believe you put any thought into your statement- you are just parroting meaningless, false Kreationist talking points gathered from church literature or Kreationist websites.
"There is no proof that it's true, (actually, all evidence points the other way )"
1) Would you care to dispute the evidence for evolution?? Start anywhere. Take your pick.
2) Using your choice of evidence, can you show how it "points the other way?"
Waiting with bated breath from lungs which are the product of evolution,
Paul Ray
misc posters "they hate God's law"
Thomas Huxley's views on morality and religion have been misquoted, by GTA on air, and perhaps in PT articles. It was only later when I realised I should extend the "don't believe what I say" to include more than just Bible verses.
Neo-
Your argument is based on erroneous assumptions, or at least a mischaracterization or misunderstanding of what evolution is. As is usual with Kreationists of all stripe. A bit of humor:
Q: What is the difference between a Young Earth Kreationist and an Old Earth Kreationist?
A: A couple billion years.
"An important feature
of this idea is that mutations occur gradually over great spans of time."
First, what you call "Darwinian evolution" or gradualism, is not the sole mechanism of evolution. Yes, random mutations occur and natural selection (if "pressure" exists) will favor the existence of those organisms whose mutations have given them an adaptive advantage; they survive, that is all. But evolution is not limited to eon-spanning natural selection. There is allopatric speciation, punctuated equilibrium, and sympatric speciation, which of course involve random mutations, but also rely heavily upon geographical factors, reproductive habits, ect.
I simply don't know which evolutionist proposed that speciation occurs after a "sufficient accumulation of traits." Surely you must have read that out of context. Do you remember where you read that?
"But there is a fatal flaw in this view. It does not describe reality."
This is an equally gross misunderstanding of evolution. Even if we assume (incorrectly) that evolution consists solely of "Darwinian evolution/strict gradualism" (which it is not) your argument about ancestral humans is incorrect, and as an argument against evolution in general, irrelevant.
Evolution produces survival. That's all. It only allows an organism to adapt to whatever pressures exist at the moment. Evolution is not about "perfecting" an organism, but only providing a survival advantage. And if no pressure exists, then there very well may be no natural selection and evolution.
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? If their environment did not call for focused thinking skills, then those who didn't develop them would not be "culled"- and those who had them would breed into the background with the rest.
"And I believe that Darwinian evolution is as much of a fantasy as the creationist museum located in Kentucky."
Don't try to distance yourself from them. You are all the same. You believe in imaginary beings, and this belief mainly comes from an old book. This book weaves a fantastical tale of a supernatural being who created everything by magic. Any idea, or evidence, that is contrary to this fairy tale is a direct assault on your religious beliefs. So, because of this, like all Kreationists, you have to throw evolution out the window, all the while claiming (with innocence and upturned palms) that your rejection of evolution is based on logic and reason and careful consideration of the evidence.
And you can go on "believing" than evolution is a fantasy and I will go on KNOWING that Kreation is a fantasy, and KNOWING that evolution occured, is occuring, and will occur.
Good day to you sir. *tips hat*
Paul Ray
"Evolution is just a religion."
No it isn't. It is a scientic theory, solidly supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence from various scientific fields, from geology to genetics. If evolution is a religion, then chemistry is a religion. Physics is a religion. Biochemistry is a religion.
Paul Ray
Paul,
You are simply wrong, wrong, wrong. Chemistry is "science." Physics is "science." Biochemistry is "science." Nice, observable, repeatable facts that can be observed in reproducible experiments in laboratories around the world. (Of course, newer knowledge can add to some of the details--like Einstein's equations for relativity that better explain things at very high speeds but that also reduce down to Newton's old equations at slow speeds.)
Evolution, in stark contrast, is simply nonsense that people made up and have to continue to change to try to keep up with the latest findings of true "science." Evolution is a religion that has to change with the times. One does not have to carelessly accept unproven theories like evolution.
Also, if this helps, understand that believing in God and the Bible does NOT mean that one has to carelessly accept such complete frauds as Gerald Flurry and his PCG. Jesus said to beware of false prophets.
"Nice, observable, repeatable facts that can be observed in reproducible experiments in laboratories around the world."
Well, as far as reproducing millions of years of evolution in a lab, science is still trying to work that out. Perhaps Allah or Jehovah could lend some of their magic powder(the kind they used to create everything) to speed up the process.
Nevertheless, the theory of evolution is supported by well over a hundred years of nice, repeated observations. I challenge you to dispute the evidence. Take your pick. Go ahead. If you are right, then you are right.
"Evolution is a religion that has to change with the times."
Can you explain how evolution is a religion? Saying it doesn't make it so.
"One does not have to carelessly accept unproven theories like evolution."
Evolution is proven. Can you dispute the evidence? No. Probably not. I would guess that you haven't even studied evolution with any seriousness. At best, maybe a Kreationist website, video, or even (dare I dream?) a book. I doubt you have read textbooks on evolution with any consideration, and attempted to refute the evidence. No- like all Kreationists, this is a religious matter, not a scientific one, despite the protestations I can imgagine. Biblegod used his hoo-doo voodoo to create everything from thin air, and everything else is a lie. End of story. You don't need any more reason than that.
"Also, if this helps, understand that believing in God and the Bible does NOT mean that one has to carelessly accept such complete frauds as Gerald Flurry and his PCG..."
In regards to science and reality, there is no difference between the Pope, Ron Dart, and Flurry. Don't try to elevate yourself. You're still delusional.
Paul Ray
"1) Would you care to dispute the evidence for evolution?? Start anywhere. Take your pick."
ummm, there isn't any.
Isn't odd that no one denies the theory of relativity? The same arguments used to deny evolution could be used against relativity. Like evolution, relativity is "only a theory." Like evolution, relativity cannot really be "proven" by the average person who is not a specialist on the subject. Like evolution, relativity seems to be random: the apparent random motion of subatomic particles gave rise to Einstein's famous remark that "God does not play dice with the universe." Like evolution, relativity can be used to deny absolute values and defend situational ethics: if time and space are relative, then why can't morality be relative? But no religionist or creationist makes such claims about the theory of relativity. Why not? Simply because relativity does not address the issue of human origins. As human beings, we think we are so special and so unique that we cannot possibly be related genetically to animals and even plants. And yet we are. I believe that God is the great intelligence behind the process, but I also believe that human arrogance and ego leads many people to deny what we are and the process that God used to bring us to this point.
Wow, and the stupid comes out to play.
Amazing how people check their brains at the door when it comes to this subject. The facts are simple. Evolution is as close to a fact as it's possible to come without actually having experienced it. That's the end of the story. It's simply not up for debate. If you do, you just prove yourself stupid. Period.
"radio-carbon dating as an instrument of Satan".
Reminds me of when in the middle ages, people claimed that the printing press was an instrument of satan and when Gutenberg's accomplice in creating the printing press went to a town with a wagonload of bibles, they accused him of black magic and being under the influence of satan.
Russell Miller said,
"Amazing how people check their brains at the door when it comes to this subject. The facts are simple. Evolution is as close to a fact as it's possible to come without actually having experienced it. That's the end of the story. It's simply not up for debate. If you do, you just prove yourself stupid. Period."
Sorry Russell, evolution is still VERY much debatable. As a scientist, I know a great deal about the intracacies of biochemistry. For evolution to be absolutely true, and without any divine guidance, requires an INCREDIBLE amount of serendipity.
"Wow, and the stupid comes out to play."
hmmm, when you can't counter with an intelligent argument, just go with the personal attacks/insults because that will further your position ;-)
Jethro, dear boy, relativity has been questioned by none other than the encarcerated young Earter, Dr Kent Hovind.
In one of his videos, he had a graph showing how the speed of light has been changing. He needed to tamper with relativity to show how the universe could appear to be billions of light years across.
Someone once told me his son "disproved Einstein", but that was in a bar one night...
Doctor who?
Do any of the responders here have a degree in evolutionary biology?
It certainly doesn't read as if that is so.
Would jethro elaborate, please, on: 'if time and space are relative, then why can't morality be relative?'
Do you mean: Why can't each of us do what pleases us?
Jethro said...
"Isn't odd that no one denies the theory of relativity?"
While a student or an employee in Pasadena, I remember hearing Garner Ted Armstrong talk about relativity on the radio program one day. He used it as an example of scientists letting their intellects carry them to conclusions that were "just stupid" and "contrary to common sense" or words to that effect.
I also remember thinking at the time that Ted was speaking "with authority" on a subject in which he was almost totally ignorant.
I have to admit that for awhile in the late 1960's I thought the Gap Theory might explain some things by allowing the Earth to be as old as science says it is. I finally gave up on "church science" when Dr. Hoeh felt the need to voice the possibility of "pre-Adamic humanoids" in bible study one night. It was, in my opinion, his way of admitting that the fossil record, palentology and archeology had been closer to the truth than the church all along, at least when it came to the origins of human beings.
Here's the thing. I "believe" in evolution like most of the rest of you do because I (and you) are not smart scientists, but accept the the scientists' viewpoints because they are smarter than you (yes, there are also many that say the same thing). You have to have a certain amount of faith in the people that you read and their scientific research.
Even with the science, evolutionists cannot tell us where the primordial slime came from. They can tell us that humans evolved, but I contend that you need a God to create matter out of nothing. Scientists stop short of explaining the concept of something out of nothing. They can't. They take it on "faith" that it happened, without a God to create. Evolution, therefore, can only take you so far.
Why is it so difficult to look int other face and look at the hands of a chimp to see we share a common ancestor?
I can understand not understanding that your ear bones (as all mammals) evolved from the jaw bones of amphibians and reptiles and the fossils show the progressin clearly, but not that one cannot see the connection between us and apes.
"Sorry Russell, evolution is still VERY much debatable."
No it isn't. That evolution occurred is accepted. No debate, other than people who believe in imaginary beings. What is debated is exactly how it occurred. If you are a scientist then you will know that there is continual debate in almost every field of science on "the details." For example, I study an iron binding protein. We know that it exists, and that it binds iron. But there is a whole lot we don't know. I have my own hypothesis about the function of this protein, how the cell causes it to release iron, and exactly how the subunits of this protein are transcriptionally regulated in various cell types. My ideas may conflict with others. We argue. The ideas that stand up to scrutiny, via confirmation by experimentation, will live. Those ideas that have no evidence to suppor them will fall by the wayside (until they can be supported by evidence). It's a harsh world, science. It's very dog eat dog. When a scientist puts forth an idea, we attack him. In peer reviewed journals. In journal club. In public seminars. We pry, poke, and prod. We hem and haw and shake our heads until we are shown sufficient data that supports the hypothesis. We are ruthless with one another. This is how science works. As opposed to religion, and Kreationism. But to the point- debate over a theory is at the very core of science. It is how we weed out the true from the false. But again, whether evolution occurred is only debated by Kreationists/IDiots.
"As a scientist, I know a great deal about the intracacies of biochemistry."
Really? What is it you do? What is your degree in? And as far as the complexity of biochemistry, so what? Please tell me you have some original ideas supported by evidence, and not just re-hashed Behe. Flagelum anyone?
"...tion to be absolutely true, and without any divine guidance, requires an INCREDIBLE amount of serendipity."
Try expation.
And why "divine" guidance? What led you to this theory? Why not alien intelligence?
Paul Ray
"Here's the thing. I "believe" in evolution like most of the rest of you do..."
I don't "believe" in evolution, just as I do not "believe" in gravity.
"Even with the science, evolutionists cannot tell us where the primordial slime came from... Evolution, therefore, can only take you so far."
Since when did evolution encompass abiogenesis? It doesn't. They are two different theories. This is like trying to disprove the combustion engine by finding faults with the process of ore mining. Kreatard Myth # 450
Paul Ray
Paul Ray
Paul Ray --
Good point. Evolution does deal with banging, but not with the big bang. And I believe Dave Pack's science writer made some crack about how the study has been divided into specialized fields. Astrophysics at one end, biology at the other. Again expecting one size to fit all...
"I don't "believe" in evolution, just as I do not "believe" in gravity."
Sure you do. You just don't understand either.
As far as GTA goes, his schtick was using emotion-based ridicule to put down knowledge, of which he was actually quite ignorant.
He used childish kindergarten tactics, even though he vehemently denied doing so.
It's a bit like him prancing about naked, pulling his pud, and then later declaring, "I didn't do it!"
Finally Bob T has posted something about evolution, but like others, he has claimed evolution can't explain abiogenesis.
Post a Comment