Young Earth Creationists and Other Hominid Species

[PanTerra]

This is something that is pretty ironic on a couple of levels. YECs often deride uniforitarianism in their literature as a way to discredit conventional geology. Yet they use Charles Lyell's uniformitarian idea of Gradualism in so many of their arguments for a young earth. For instance, moon-recession, ocean salinity, earth's gravity, population growth, moon dust accumulation, and so on. It is also ironic that all this effort in arguing against Lyell's uniformitarianism is irrelevant as some kind of "stumper," being that it has fallen away to history since the late 19th century. Geologists haven't subscribe to it for quite a long time.

[Trimac20]

Originally Posted by HalfNelson

Well, as a Bible believing YEC, I can tell you that no where in the bible is the term immortal soul ever used. Human beings do not have a soul that exists absent of a physical body. Psalm 146:4 "His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish" A living person IS a soul. A human being's brain is what gives them the ability to function as a human being. We see with our eyes, feel with our hands, smell with our noses, and hear with our ears as well. All these components decompose upon death. That is why death is such a terrible thing, because we cease to exist, it is the polar opposite of life. If we had a conciousness that existed beyond the death of our physical bodies, then that wouldn't really be death.

So, to answer your question, no they don't have eternal souls. As for believing in their existence? I do believe that scientists really did dig up some of the bones they assembled into what is shown in museums as the various ancestors to modern man. I think that what we see in museums is nothing more than an example of the determination of science to look at everything they find and come to a conclusion that leaves God out of the equation. The scientific community is just as much a human endeavor as any other community. Deceit, corruption, and selfish pride, can exist in any group and I don't doubt for a second that it is present within the scientific community as well. No, I don't think the community as a whole is deceitful or corrupt, but I do believe there are probably at least 1 or 2 influential individuals who would rather distort their findings than admit how wrong they are or how wrong their mentor was. Everything, minus the bones themselves, has been conjecture regarding what the physical capabilities of these supposed primitive beings were. With every single find, they are already starting with the assumption that we are the most advance form of human being that has existed on earth. They don't believe in Adam or Eve, let alone that their descendants lived over 900 years and most likely used close to 100% of their brains full potential. They don't believe that sin has had a degrading effect on the human condition.

So, yes I believe that scientists have found some bones that are in fact real bones. I don't necessarily belive the scientific conjecture about who or what those bones may have belonged to.

Humanism likes to portray the narrative as that of humans improving, but some sobering truths about 'progression' are beginning to change that way. I don't really see how other hominid species invalidate the Bible, I mean they could merely be HOW God created Adam and Eve. It doesn't mean he literally made them out of clay, it could be a symbolic reference to how all life comes from the earth/stardust.

[HalfNelson]

Originally Posted by rifleman

Yup: there it is: The First Standard Over-active Response: anything we atheists say as HATEFUL. Please, in simple point-form, outline the so-called hate. Versus, you know, simple observation!)

I will certainly do that if you outline in simple point-form, where in my post I said anything about hate.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by PanTerra

This is something that is pretty ironic on a couple of levels. YECs often deride uniforitarianism in their literature as a way to discredit conventional geology. Yet they use Charles Lyell's uniformitarian idea of Gradualism in so many of their arguments for a young earth. For instance, moon-recession, ocean salinity, earth's gravity, population growth, moon dust accumulation, and so on. It is also ironic that all this effort in arguing against Lyell's uniformitarianism is irrelevant as some kind of "stumper," being that it has fallen away to history since the late 19th century. Geologists haven't subscribe to it for quite a long time.

Originally Posted by Trimac20

Humanism likes to portray the narrative as that of humans improving, but some sobering truths about 'progression' are beginning to change that way. I don't really see how other hominid species invalidate the Bible, I mean they could merely be HOW God created Adam and Eve. It doesn't mean he literally made them out of clay, it could be a symbolic reference to how all life comes from the earth/stardust.

Apologies; a mis-quote over-reaction this time on my part (Oh but ps: please let me know when you see a Christian ever openly admitting their errors... ever! ). Again my apologies, but your "angry are we?" comment is a close follow-on, and if I had the time to waste, I can assure you, TriMac, that the word hate does flow here often.

Meantime, I do see many statist Christians critique modern science by claiming we cling to some outdated unitarianism method, long since found to be only one of the known methods of our creation here. The Christian comments are frequent on such geological errors. Fact: unitarianism does indeed participate in our planet's formation, but I will still point to PanTerra's correct response for those who can fathom it (It''s just basic but complex modern geology after all, and is now well established that we did indeed come along in spurts and violent catastrophic, plus more uniform, events. All Fact.).

It's a case of selective Christian quote-mining I'm afraid. The formation of our physical world and this universe, now basically trackable on the basis of now better-understood SaP (sub-Atomic Particle) interactions, to the point that what we can duplicate here in our latest labs ("Out with it! Damn the Evilâ„¢ Large Hadron Collider!" ..becry the statist Christians), why, durned if we then also, viola, see it all just like that, out there. As "predicted" in our hypotheses! Wow, huh? Right on our Evilâ„¢ plan for global Evilâ„¢ Domination!

So, yeah: it is all happening according to a set of laws. But.. whose' laws? Who knows: but not, at that level of complexity, likely the only playbook that some mythical goat-herd-idenitiable type was ever used in His Ultiâ„¢-Plan and unchangeable super-template.

Nope. Never made that quantum-leap statement you just over-made, highlighted in blue above. Never would I ever say that! But it is, by PROCESS, a very difficult thing to just toss out there, unlike, for instance the unmistakable rubble-tripe that, for example, Kent Hovind & Banana Man Comfort and other noatables (oh yeah: ""dr"' Carl Baugh (small "d" on purpose, or else I'm The Pope, by personal decree!). What an idiot!@) have blithely yammered out as "The Most Undeniable Truth"!

Scientists are after all, only imperfectly evolved humans, and so that's why The SM process is so firmly in place, exactly to prevent such blatant pre-determinations. Even if such transient conclusions do get out there past intensive vetting & review and then official accredited journal publication, the subsequent and inevitable journal readership process sets the rest of the related scientific field right on top of such potentially incorrect reporting.

And so, it results in a slurry and swarm of new research, as in some very famous cases, if only to discredit some well-placed, top-tenured, professor. As well, though, such events have also turned the tails on the somewhat establishment beliefs, which is only a good thing. Very new stuff does indeed then arise. Obviously.

You fundy Christians have to get over your constant drumbeat claim that the scientific community has some particular anti-spirituality axe to grind against well, anything. We are, usually by our initial personal nature, and mostly from our experiences (and oh yeah; mental attitudes during our formative and naive pre-Christian adulthood years), predominantly open to thinking about "stuff".

As well, we generally have not had such thoughts fervently dismissed or denigrated by our overwrought parents, so we've been the ones making homemade telescope or microscopes or little experiments up in our rooms, instead of praying to a Fake God to take care of it all for us without any effort on our part 'cept tithing and groveling at the foot of wooden icons or bibles, or rote-chanting some mindlessly inappropriate illogical goobldy-**** about an instant Creation Event so easily discredited on the most basic grounds....

FYI & FACT: Science is ALWAYS and proudly self-vetting itself, a process that would, if allowed in established religion, kill it all off in a matter of a mere year or two. So, acordingly, no such observation or questioning is EVER allowed within Christian ranks (Science's Fabulous Pseudo-Open Mind Policy: if you open-minded Christians know otherwise, please do provide us with good examples!).

In fact, we scientists are justifiably proud of NOT BEING immutably and absolutely intransigent about our "beliefs". It's the only acceptable standard by which we might advance our necessary understandings: No God will be here to save us all when that macro-asteroid is rapidly inbound (that science, btw, will pre-detect, but not through prayers or visions...).

We'd best be also living on an established lunar colony that we may then use to biologically re-diversify the remnants of a flamed-out post apocalyptic world, or to get us well out of this solar system eventually, "To boldly go where no man (woman) has gone before!" [as a barely audible whispered undertone, absent ancient tribal taboos...) to quote the enlightened Jean'luc Picard!

Helm, Warp One Engage! - YouTube