Posted on 02/22/2017 11:14:17 AM PST by fishtank
“I think this article was focusing on some silly people doing wild guess work...”
I actually did understand this.
My question focuses on how do you support the above contention?”
How do you account for the most prestigious publications in the world, e.g. The BBC, “focusing on some silly people doing wild guess work with fossils...”?
(PS, I liked your cloud example)
As a non-biologist this may not be the best term for it, but what I meant was that the simple most obvious result of the survival-of-the-fittest/natural selection principle. For example if some population of organisms is exposed to a new disease which most find fatal, but a minority have resistance to, that in a few generations the surviving organisms will mostly be resistant. I do not mean that a specific organism can adapt or evolve like pokimon do. Nor am I talking here about developing a new complex trait that the ancestors did not have.
Define that and explain how it us not redundant.
I guess it might be redundant to some extent. But the word "evolution" is loaded with some concepts I wanted to leave out...particularly abiogenies and the development of new complex features that were not already present in ancestors.
2). Justify your “of course”.
I think it is not even a controversy when one knows my meaning.
I don’t really watch BBC, but I am under the impression there is better evidence for evolutionary theory in studying DNA similarities than this kind of wild fossil guesswork. But I am not of a strong opinion here, and neither qualified nor inspired to defend evolutionary theory beyond that.
“In a sinkhole in the mountains, fragments of a small, flat-faced skull were unearthed, alongside several other bones. The remains were identified as belonging to a previously unknown species of hominin. It was called Homo antecessor.
It was assumed that it would fill out and grow into something resembling heidelbergensis
The face of this new species of human ancestor appeared to be far more like our own, and even had the distinctive hollowing of the canine fossa. Yet it lived 850,000 years ago, well before H. heidelbergensis.”
—
However, later discoveries suggest this is not the case. “We now have four fragments from antecessor adult and sub-adult skulls,” says Stringer. “It looks like they maintain the morphology we see in the child’s skull.”
Yeah. All based on 4 fragments.
4 fragments and the periodic table, as it were, gets completely reorganized.
Physical anthropology is an exacting discipline with fine people working at it, I’m sure, but the sensationalism associated makes it seem like a joke.
Term you’re looking for is natural selection.
.
So you think psuedo-science satisfies some basic human need?
I do just fine without it.
.
You can blame that on modern medicine. But for immunizations and intervention medicine, opportunistic disease and critical injury would cull the species of its weakest members, assuring strong genes. Now, humanity requires everybody is repaired. Bad genes propagate and intermingle with other bad genes.
Progress, as in Marxism.
Both are products of the 19th Century repudiation of Natural Law under the Creator.
Well said.
I excelled in actual hard science, and garnered two awards in same (along with multiple awards in mathematics). Yet I am called anti-science because I dispute the dark fantasy that is a result of the rejection of God the Creator.
Macro-Evolution is non-replicable; it is therefore not a verifiable theory.
Yes, we are degenerating: entropy.
I have a so-called genius IQ. I would bet that if I had lived in ancient times, I would have been relatively less unusual intellectually.
The Ancients accomplished wonders without the advantage of the cumulative aggregation of intergenerational technologies.
While most commentators identify falling stars only as Lucifer, in his Concise Commentary Matthew Henry provides a second, human identity. Human falling stars are tepid, indecisive, weak or apostate clergy who, having ceased to be a minister of Christ,
"... he who is represented by this star becomes the minister of the devil; and lets loose the powers of hell against the churches of Christ. On the opening of the bottomless pit, there arose a great smoke. The devil carries on his designs by blinding the eyes of men...putting out light and knowledge, and promoting ignorance and error. Out of this smoke there came a swarm of locusts, emblems of the devil's agents, who promote superstition, idolatry, error, and cruelty...the true believers...should be untouched (but) a secret poison and infection in the soul, should rob many others of purity, and....peace. The locusts had no power to hurt those who had the seal of God. God's all-powerful, distinguishing grace will keep his people from total and final apostacy." (Commentary on Revelation 9: 1-12)
Evolutionary theories (cosmogonies), whether theistic or secular are inseparable from pagan and pantheist nature and Mystery religions. This is why over eighty years ago, Rev. C. Leopold Clarke wrote that priests who embrace evolution are apostates from the 'Truth as it is in Jesus.' (1 John2:2) Rev. Clarke, a lecturer at a London Bible college, discerned that evolution is the antithesis to the Revelation of God in the Deity of Jesus Christ, thus it is the greatest and most active agent of moral and spiritual disintegration:
"It is a battering-ram of unbelief – a sapping and mining operation that intends to blow Religion sky-high. The one thing which the human mind demands in its conception of God, is that, being Almighty, He works sovereignly and miraculously – and this is the thing with which Evolution dispenses....Already a tremendous effect, on a wide scale has been produced by the impact of this teaching – an effect which can only be likened to the...collapse of foundations..." (Evolution and the Break-Up of Christendom, Philip Bell, creation.com, Nov. 27, 2012)
The faith of the Christian Church and of the average Christian has had, and still has, its foundation as much in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis, the book of beginnings revealed 'mouth to mouth' by the Angel to Moses, as in that of the person and deity of Jesus Christ. But how horrible a travesty of the sacred office of the Christian Ministry to see church leaders more eager to be abreast of the times than earnestly contending for the Faith once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). It is high time, said Rev. Clarke, that the Church,
".... separated herself from the humiliating entanglement attending her desire to be thought up to date...What, after all, have custodians of Divine Revelation to do making terms with speculative Biology, which has....no message of comfort or help to the soul?" (ibid)
The primary tactic employed by priests eager to accommodate themselves and the Christian Church to modern science and evolutionary thinking is predictable. It is the argument that evolution is entirely compatible with the Bible when we see Genesis, especially the first three chapters, in a non-literal, non-historical context. This is the argument embraced and advanced by Pope Francis, Hugh Ross and mega-church pastor Timothy J. Keller.
With a position paper Keller published with the evolutionary 'Christian' organization Bio Logos he joined the ranks of falling stars (Catholic and Protestant priests) stretching back to the Renaissance. Their slippery-slide into apostasy began when they gave into the temptation to embrace a non-literal, non-historical view of Genesis. (A response to Timothy Keller's 'Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople," Lita Cosner, Sept. 9, 2010, creation.com)
This is not a heresy unique to modern times. The early Church Fathers dealt with this damnable heresy as well, counting it among the heretical tendencies of the Origenists. Fourth-century Fathers such as John Chrysostom, Basil the Great and Ephraim the Syrian, all of whom wrote commentaries on Genesis, specifically warned against treating Genesis as an unhistorical myth or allegory. John Chrysostom strongly warned against paying heed to these heretics,
"...let us stop up our hearing against them, and let us believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is written in it, let us strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas." (Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 31)
As St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote, higher theological, spiritual meaning and by extension, spiritual regeneration is founded upon humble, simple faith in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis and one cannot apprehend rightly the Scriptures without believing in the historical reality of the events and people they describe. (ibid, Seraphim Rose, p. 40)
In the integral worldview teachings of the Fathers, neither the literal nor historical meaning of the Revelations of the pre-incarnate Jesus, the Angel who spoke to Moses, can be regarded as expendable. There are at least four critically important reasons why. First, to reduce the Revelation of God to allegory and myth is to contradict and usurp the authority of God, ultimately deny the deity of Jesus Christ; twist, distort, add to and subtract from the entire Bible and finally, to imperil the salvation of believers.
Scenarios commonly proposed by modern Origenists posit a cleverly disguised pantheist/immanent or evolver-god subject to the space-time dimension and forces of evolution. But it is sinful man who carries the burden of time, not the Holy Triune God. This is a crucial point, for when evolutionary 'Christians' add millions and billions of zeros (time) to God they have transferred their own limitations onto Him. They have 'limited' God and made Him over in their own image. This is not only idolatrous but satanic.
Bingo. And that means it’s just as much faith-based as creationism.
I agree that we can’t conclude or even assume that antecessor is our common ancestor, but it’s closer than the previous candidate. Additionally, there’s recent genetic evidence that our common ancestor is further back in time than previously believed, so there probably is truth to the claim that some of our facial features are related to those of antecessor, are conserved from the common ancestor and that they predate Neanderthals.
So when magic science worshippers label you anti-science, take it as a compliment :-)
Agreed again. We stand on the shoulders of giants. They were generally much more intelligent than we are.
The Ancients accomplished wonders without the advantage of the cumulative aggregation of intergenerational technologies.
= = =
And they did not have EPA Regs.
But generally speaking, they did not ‘dirty their own nest’.
More modernly, Panama Canal, Hoover Dam, Los Angeles Aqueduct, and others ... constructed by folks using their brains (and not wasting 99% of their time/lives on sports, entertainment, social media).
That is exactly right. Visit so-called third world countries and you see a lot of healthy, not overweight, adults. The weak ones died already. I read one time a doctor observing that one of the ... funny things about modern medicine was that it made for an unhealthy general population. I just did a lengthy Google search and could not find that referenced anywhere, but that observation sure made me think about unintended consequences.
Do you really thing anyone has read your post, I mean past the first two sentences? Who are you writing for, yourself or the intended reader? I ask not to be unkind, but to point out that you are not communicating at all.
I cannot imagine that the people who made the old sailing ships, requiring a huge infrastructure, then sailed them around the world, were more ignorant that modern man. One man sails around the world in a modern yacht with GPS and it is a news story, it was just commonplace for huge ships to make long ocean voyages back then. We have now unbelievable technology to help us do incredible feats, like go to the moon, but it is no more that the Anchients did with an astrolabe sailing around the world.... Amazing.
Evolutionary theories (cosmogonies)...
Cosmogony I thought was about the origins of the natural universe or cosmos rather than the evolution of life after life started however it started. This is an issue I have with naturalists/materialists who conflate "evolution" into an explanation for life and the cosmos. Its obviously inadequate to do so. Of course there is usually a lot of equivocation on this point. When many materialists argue that the universe is all there is, they will commonly cite evolution as an explanation of life. But when defending evolution as a theory its proponents treat the problem of the first self replicating life as a separate issue....which is the hard part. I mean 99.99999999999+% of the problem is how the heck we got the first replicating life. But they focus all their time trying to argue for the tiny part of the problem that plausible. Kind of like a committee of people "bike shedding"
While I don't want to be critical of people who take the Genesis narratives as literal and infer a 6000 year old natural universe, it seems to me less likely than a very old 15 billion year old universe, and independent of how old I think the universe is, I think some of the narratives were not intended to be taken literally. I don't think Lucifer is a snake. I do not think there is a place on the face of the Earth we live on where Eden is still there but our access is blocked on the east side by cherubim swinging flaming swords back and forth. When I read language like: "the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil" I do not think of the narrative as literal historical events but as a poetic or prophetic representation. And I consider this all common sense, but I do not consider any of it my own personal doctrine, since I am not a clergy member and just a layman. I have what I think most likely, and that is all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.