Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Err...while there are have been many pieces recovered, there are also some skulls in remarkable condition. Guess it all boils down to who you know in academia....
I posted the video because there are so many other posts that assault Christianity and Creationism. There have been a lot of demands for "scientific proof." Well, the guy in this video IS a scientist and says that evolution is NOT as widely accepted among scientists as atheists claim it is.
The dude's opinion is not scientific proof.
Quote:
I provided a video of a non-Christian scientist's point of view. The reaction I expected is what I received. Anytime ANYTHING anti-evolution comes up, atheists explain away the source somehow. If it's Christian, it's "propaganda." (As if atheism doesn't have its own proganda and agenda!) If it's not from Christian sources, then the source is either an idiot or something else. In this case, it was STILL considered "propaganda." Big surprise.
This video fails at empirical evidence: there is none for creationism. Evolution doesn't fail at evidence. Where is the propaganda? The dude in the video didn't present proof of anything.
I am a Christian and here is my take on eviloution.........
High school biology textbooks are riddled with errors, misstatements, and exaggerations about evolution. This may come as a surprise to you, especially since evolution is taught a fact in most public schools. But, believe it or not, there is much more to the issue of evolution than is included in the pages of most high school biology textbooks. In fact, when all the facts are considered, and despite all appearances to the contrary, evolution is a theory in crisis. Let me explain.
As a high school student in the late 1950’s Jonathan Wells was steeped in the theory of evolution. Even though he had grown up in a Christian home Jonathan abandoned his faith when he went off to college. He credits the theory of evolution as playing a major role in his decision to become an atheist. According to Jonathan, “The evolutionary story simply replaced the religious imagery I had grown up with.” Jonathan continued his education by earning two college degrees and two doctorate degrees, but all the while he continued to assume evolution was true. After all, that’s what everybody was teaching him. But when he began to look at evolution critically, he came to an entirely different conclusion.
In 2000 Jonathan Wells recorded his findings on evolution in a book called Icons of Evolution. In Icons, Wells demolishes the most common examples used as support for the theory of evolution. When I picked up a copy of his book, it was his subtitle that most piqued my interest: Why Much of What We Teach about Evolution is Wrong. In his book, Wells lists 10 examples of why evolution is wrong. Let’s briefly consider three of his examples. There is a good chance you will find one of the following examples in your current biology textbook.
In 1953 Stanley Miller used a laboratory apparatus to artificially produce amino acids—the building blocks of life. In his experiment Miller simulated the early conditions of life on earth, shot an electric current through it, and “bam” out came amino acids. If this was true, then God was out of a job. For if man can create life from non-life, then why would we need God? Although his experiment was heralded as a significant breakthrough (and still appears in most biology textbooks today), it has major flaws.
First, there is no existence that the pre-biotic soup (warm little ponds) ever even existed! Second, geological evidence indicates that the early atmosphere would have been very hostile, not friendly, to the production of life. Even if an amino acid was produced it could not have survived. Third, the amino acids produced by Miller were not even the types of amino acids that have any relevance to living cells. Even Miller, forty years after his famous experiment conceded in Scientific American: “The problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.” When the rubber hits the road, evolutionists simply have no idea how life could have emerged from non-life.
Probably the most well known example used to teach evolution is Darwin’s tree of life. Textbooks are full of the illustration of how all living creatures are modified descendants of a common ancestor that lived millions of years ago. The simple tree-like structure is meant to illustrate how creatures “evolve” over time and eventually account for all the complexity and diversity in the circle of life. But does the evidence of geology support such a claim?
Interestingly, even Darwin was aware of how his own theory was at odds with the facts. He observed in The Origin of Species, “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” Since the time of Darwin, the evidence has been even more disparaging for his theory.
According to Darwin’s theory, the geological record should be full of species that are slowly increasing in complexity over time. Since evolution relies on time, chance, and incremental steps, sudden leaps are not possible. But this is exactly what the fossil record shows, which directly contradicts the theory of evolution! (Note: I assume old-earth dating for the sake of argument—even if we accept an old earth evolution is still false!)
In the Cambrian Explosion (which is dated by scientists to 530 million years ago), all the major body plans for animals show up in a geological instant without any trace of less complex ancestors. Rather than emerging in a step-by-step fashion, as predicted by evolutionary theory, the most complex animals show up virtually overnight (which is why the Cambrian Explosion is also called “The Biological Big Bang”). The Cambrian explosion occurred within an exceedingly narrow window of geologic time, lasting no more than 5 million years. Compared with the 3-plus-billion-year history of life on earth, the period of the explosion is less than one minute in a 24-hour-day. In comparison, this is less than one stride across an entire football field. Rather than life evolving over a long period of life on earth as Darwin surmised, it actually appeared in a very short time span. Darwins’ tree of life is a myth.
Probably the most common example used to support evolution is the idea that humans evolved from apes. The pictures of a knuckle-walking ape evolving through a series of stages into an upright human being are included in virtually all biology textbooks. And the fossils fill the halls of museums. Yet the evidence, as in the case of the other supposed evidences for evolution, is not as straightforward as it appears.
The first problem with the fossil record is that interpretations are greatly influenced by personal beliefs and prejudices. Scientists often begin with the conviction that human evolution is true and then fit the existing fossils into their preconceived ideas. This is illustrated in the famous example of the “Piltdown Man.” In 1912 paleontologist Charles Dawson found some pieces of a human skull and part of an ape-like lower jaw with no teeth in a gravel pit in England. Since scientists had supposed that an earlier ancestor would have a large brain and an ape-like jaw, it was assumed to be the “missing link.” Since “Piltdown Man” fit the description so accurately, no one checked to see if the skull and jaw fragments even belonged to the same individual. Later findings demonstrated that the skull was human and the jaw fragments belonged to an orangutan. In fact, the jaw had been chemically treated to make it look like a fossil and the teeth had been deliberately filed down.
The second problem is that the fossil record is open to many interpretations as individual specimens can be reconstructed in many different ways. For example, when National Geographic hired four artists to reconstruct a female character from seven fossil bones found in Africa, they came up with radically different interpretations. The reconstructions varied from a modern African woman to apelike creatures with varied foreheads, jaws and faces. Even though the artists had the exact same fossils they interpreted them in completely different ways.
The case for evolution is greatly overstated. Nevertheless, most biology textbooks have errors, misstatements, and biased data about evolution.
Okay, happy, I didn't quote the Bible to prove my case.
all the major body plans for animals show up in a geological instant without any trace of less complex ancestors.
Not all the "major body plans" for animals show up in that period, rather all the major phyla and some that don't exist anymore. Anyhow the Cambrian Explosion is rather interesting though, but what you see in the Cambrian Explosion is rather typical behavior of a non-linear system. I can point you to many other such explosions. Take for example Civilization and its associated technology. For long periods we lived in tribal and band societies and then fairly recently civilizations started to form and here we are today typing on a computer. That is the same sort of explosion, but in this case its cultural.
But, you are right to point out the oddity. Its an oddity that many people that work with evolution just brush over which can be frustrating to some, but this oddity at least as a reasonable answer when you look at the study of non-linear systems (e.g., Choas Theory, Ergodic Theory etc)
This may come as a surprise to you, especially since evolution is taught a fact in most public schools.
That's good, because evolution is a fact. We observe it in nature and in the lab. There is also a well evidenced, useful theory of evolution that scientists use to make successful predictions about the world around us.
Quote:
When the rubber hits the road, evolutionists simply have no idea how life could have emerged from non-life.
Why don't you discuss something more recent than work done over 50 years ago? There's been a lot more work done since the 50s, you know.
And like most creationists, your source doesn't understand that the theory of evolution doesn't try to explain the origins of life. Even if life was magically created by gods, the evidence is still overwhelmingly in favor of the theory of evolution.
Quote:
Probably the most well known example used to teach evolution is Darwin’s tree of life. Textbooks are full of the illustration of how all living creatures are modified descendants of a common ancestor that lived millions of years ago. The simple tree-like structure is meant to illustrate how creatures “evolve” over time and eventually account for all the complexity and diversity in the circle of life. But does the evidence of geology support such a claim?
If you read the next paragraph in Darwin's book instead of pulling quotes out of context, you'd know the answer to your rhetorical question.
How does magical creationism in 6 days explain the fossil record we do see? You know, the one which shows creatures sorted by age with other creatures that existed along side them, as if the theory of evolution was true.
Quote:
In the Cambrian Explosion (which is dated by scientists to 530 million years ago), all the major body plans for animals show up in a geological instant without any trace of less complex ancestors.
The Cambrian Explosion was a period of 40 million years or so. How does magical creation by god in 6 days explain this?
And "without any trace of less complex ancestors" is false. There are a number of pre-Cambrian fossils that have been discovered. Your entire premise here is false, so there's no point in going into detail about your claims.
Quote:
Probably the most common example used to support evolution is the idea that humans evolved from apes.
Hardly. It's only creationists who get caught up in worrying too much about this, since they're the ones who have to protect their "god made us special" religious faith despite all the evidence to the contrary. Since you've obviously done a lot of work with biology textbooks, you'd know that there's many more commonly used examples.
Quote:
The first problem with the fossil record is that interpretations are greatly influenced by personal beliefs and prejudices. Scientists often begin with the conviction that human evolution is true and then fit the existing fossils into their preconceived ideas. This is illustrated in the famous example of the “Piltdown Man.” In 1912 paleontologist Charles Dawson found some pieces of a human skull and part of an ape-like lower jaw with no teeth in a gravel pit in England. Since scientists had supposed that an earlier ancestor would have a large brain and an ape-like jaw, it was assumed to be the “missing link.” Since “Piltdown Man” fit the description so accurately, no one checked to see if the skull and jaw fragments even belonged to the same individual. Later findings demonstrated that the skull was human and the jaw fragments belonged to an orangutan. In fact, the jaw had been chemically treated to make it look like a fossil and the teeth had been deliberately filed down.
This is at best an incomplete description of the events surrounding this set of fossils. It was always treated with skepticism by scientists for various reasons. Even though it took many years to conclusively prove that it wasn't genuine, it wasn't all that important to the study of human ancestors. Anthropologist Sherwood Washburn was quoted as saying
Quote:
"I remember writing a paper on human evolution in 1944, and I simply left Piltdown out. You could make sense of human evolution if you didn't try to put Piltdown into it."
But in any case it's a good thing creationists were there to find the fraud and keep those lying scientists from getting away with the plan. Oh wait, never mind, it was scientists who discovered the fraud and corrected the record. Kind of goes against your claim that scientists are biased in a particular direction and ignore data that disagrees with that claim, huh?
So there have been a few marginal fossils which were frauds, and those frauds have been corrected by normal scientific investigation. How do you explain the multitude of other genuine hominid fossils?
Quote:
Even though the artists had the exact same fossils they interpreted them in completely different ways.
Let's see your source for this, please. How do you quantify "radically different"? Did one reconstruction have 6 legs while another had compound eyes and wings? Just how different were they?
Quote:
The case for evolution is greatly overstated. Nevertheless, most biology textbooks have errors, misstatements, and biased data about evolution.
Well, that does it then. Primary school textbooks are imperfect, therefore we should embrace the magical creation of the entire universe in 6 days.
And please provide some evidence of "biased data". There's no evidence of a vast conspiracy among scientists of various cultures, races and religions all having the common goal of shutting down the obvious truth of magical creation as believed in by a minority American modernist protestant religious movement.
Location: Midessa, Texas Home Yangzhou, Jiangsu temporarily
1,506 posts, read 4,278,870 times
Reputation: 992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Route_66_traveler
Probably the most common example used to support evolution is the idea that humans evolved from apes.
Humans are apes, so this is really an example of the kind of evolution that most creationists agree does happen. Creationists often argue that microevolution within a kind is fact, but that one kind can never change to another kind. So a finch is still a finch, a fruitfly is still a fruitfly, and an ape is still an ape. Of course the definition of "kind" is poorly developed, so maybe in this case one type of ape (human) and another type of ape (some human ancestor) are actually different kinds.
Generally they don't pass around rare fossils for undergrad Anthropology majors to handle.
I'm in the graduate program, thank you. I've handled my fair share of "rare fossils."
I don't wish to quibble with you about this. Seems to me that you and I are on the same side of this issue....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Big surprise.
