Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Unlike Naturalists, You Creationists Have a Blind Faith"
www.apologeticspress.org ^ | 7/1/2013 | Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Posted on 07/22/2013 8:45:30 AM PDT by kimtom

We openly grant that the accusation represented by the title of this article is true, at least for many individuals today. But not for all.

“Blind Faith”—Many Have It

What is “blind faith”? What is meant by the accusation? The idea behind “blind faith” is that a person chooses to believe in something or someone (namely, God) without any supporting evidence. The portrait painted in our minds is that of a person who puts on a blindfold and steps up to a ledge. He cannot see what is beyond the ledge. He has no idea how far down the drop is—whether or not he will plummet to his death, break his legs, or simply fall down. He has no idea if there is water, a trampoline, or rocks at the bottom. He simply decides to believe that he will not die if he jumps off—that he will be safe. He has no evidence, only pure, baseless “faith.” So, he takes a “leap of faith.” Question: who in their right mind would do such a thing? Whoever has such a faith truly is naïve, an extremely emotionally, rather than rationally, charged individual, and possibly is in need of counseling, or has an agenda for having such a belief system.

Sadly many people have such a “faith.” Many people call themselves Christians, and claim to believe in the Bible, but clearly have not read it. They have a “blind faith” which, according to the Law of Rationality (Ruby, 1960, pp. 130-131), is irrational. Their belief in God is not based on the evidence, but is a blind leap into the dark without it. Philosphers call this phenomenon “fideism” (Popkin, 1967, 3:201-202). However, the ......

(Excerpt) Read more at apologeticspress.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creationism; evolution; notasciencetopic; philosophy; science; sourcetitlenoturl; truescience
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 next last
"Robert Jastrow, evolutionary astronomer and founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA: “At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. ...." (quote by a naturalist)
1 posted on 07/22/2013 8:45:30 AM PDT by kimtom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kimtom

Blind faith...

like, the assumption that the Oort cloud MUST exist to explain short period comets?

I say there is a “Troo cloud”, just inside the Oort cloud, that gobbles up any comets dropping out of the Oort cloud,

and therefore the solar system is “young”.

Prove me wrong.


2 posted on 07/22/2013 8:47:27 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kimtom

Those that don’t have faith in anything will believe anything.


3 posted on 07/22/2013 8:48:42 AM PDT by SkyDancer (Live your life in such a way that the Westboro church will want to picket your funeral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” — Hebrews 11:1

So, yes. Faith requires ... well, faith.

Or let me put it this way. If my faith is misplaced, I’ve got nothing to lose. But if I’m right, evolutionists have a lot to lose. Play ball.


4 posted on 07/22/2013 8:51:49 AM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (Army dad. And damned proud.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kimtom

Might I offer to naturalists that their “faith” is noun.

The “faith” of a creationist is a verb.

Hebrews 4:12


5 posted on 07/22/2013 8:52:16 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kimtom

We Creationists pray to a divine God.

Naturalists pray to a secular, human god—Charles Darwin.

Talk about blind faith.


6 posted on 07/22/2013 8:56:34 AM PDT by Arm_Bears (Refuse; Resist; Rebel; Revolt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kimtom

“At present...”

Unexplained is not inexplicable. You will note that the end of the quote does not end with the phrase, “therefore, god did it.”


7 posted on 07/22/2013 9:12:46 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arm_Bears

No they don’t. Why do you think it’s OK to lie? Does your religion teach that?


8 posted on 07/22/2013 9:13:51 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kimtom

The idea behind “blind faith” is that a person chooses to believe in something or someone (namely, God) without any supporting evidence

I have faith. It is not blind. I have supporting evidence. The Bible, human beings, flowers, animals, the sky and on and on. I can see all of that.


9 posted on 07/22/2013 9:14:05 AM PDT by SECURE AMERICA (Where can I go to sign up for the American Revolution 2013 and the Crusades 2013?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kimtom

The fact remains that we “creationists” don’t spend the better part of our existence trying to figure out “where we came from”.

Our “blind faith” gives us something to believe in, giving us strength to live our lives.

Meanwhile, no amout of science, or biology, has enabled anyone to create life, not even to make something as simple as a tree. If they could, they wouldn’t get so bent out of shape protecting the spotted owl, for they could just “create” a new one if they went extinct.

But, they will continue to theorize about the “big boom”, and evolution to justify their own sense of importance while the creationists enjoy the life we have been given.


10 posted on 07/22/2013 9:15:36 AM PDT by FrankR (They will become our ultimate masters the day we surrender the 2nd Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kimtom

Let us proclaim the mystery of faith!


11 posted on 07/22/2013 9:15:50 AM PDT by Buckeye Battle Cry (Audentis Fortuna Iuvat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stormer

only because he has a reputation to uphold, just like most atheist types, they are self centered and care only for their lot in life...despite evidence...

why would jastrow even use the word miracle?

what could he be thinking then, knowing he would be quoted and fully in context??


12 posted on 07/22/2013 9:19:09 AM PDT by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

And they do ... which means that whatever they believe at any given time is what they have faith in. Then when something comes along to catch their attention, they shift to believing in that new thing. In the end, they smugly proclaim themselves to be the ultimate arbiter of it all, that their faith is in themselves alone, proving in that instance that they cannot be a truthful arbiter since they have been bouncing from one explanation to another like a pinball thus being impelled all along by things not in their comprehension.


13 posted on 07/22/2013 9:20:49 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

Try thinking of that verse with the word ‘faith’ taken as an action word, a verb. The meaning becomes immediately more comprehensible, as faithing is the substance (an act always speaks louder than mere verbiage) of things hoped for, and the evidence of what is not seen (inside of you directing your behaviors).


14 posted on 07/22/2013 9:23:47 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: stormer

I beg your pardon—Who do we Creationists pray to, then?


15 posted on 07/22/2013 9:24:51 AM PDT by Arm_Bears (Refuse; Resist; Rebel; Revolt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Well said. Thanks for the thought.


16 posted on 07/22/2013 9:25:58 AM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (Army dad. And damned proud.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg
There is a pretentiousness when using terms like ‘blind faith’.
Tautology, pleonasm, redundancy, and using more words over and over again to say the same thing are terms and concepts that come to mind in this regard.
You can have ‘faith’ or not. Does ‘open eyed faith’ have a real meaning?
And it is hard to smoke out those who conceal their faith, like a faith in science(of today) or faith in mankind(irrespective of any reading of history)or faith in themselves(which is claiming to be some demigod, again in denial of their history).
The sum total of all the facts and reason of humanity is a very small and tentative thing.
Sometimes, I like to compare and contrast ‘blind faith’ with ‘overweening arrogance’.
TWB
17 posted on 07/22/2013 9:26:04 AM PDT by TWhiteBear (Sarah Palin...The Flame of the North)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kimtom

Like believing the fossils point to evolution even though there is not one actual transitory fossil. Shouldn’t there be millions of mutated fossils turning a dog into a horse?

Some people just don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution.

Pray for America to Wake Up


18 posted on 07/22/2013 9:28:47 AM PDT by bray (Coming soon: The Republic of Texas 2022)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg
Forgive my impertinence, but I have done a word study on that word faith and have a little essay on it on my profile page.
19 posted on 07/22/2013 9:31:03 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kimtom

and yet, it is science to belive that humans are related to oak trees and algae, also...


20 posted on 07/22/2013 9:33:47 AM PDT by RaceBannon (Telling the truth about RINOS, PAULTARDS, Liberals and Muslims has become hate speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bray

“Shouldn’t there be millions of mutated fossils turning a dog into a horse?” ... Um, no. But Science may be on the lookout for a fossil which indicates the branching point where the mammals known as horses began to exist different from the branch which became dogs, eventually. Or the reverse, dogs branching from the line which became horses. That’s the way the concept works; if it is valid is not the question you asked however.


21 posted on 07/22/2013 9:34:19 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon; Alamo-Girl; betty boop
Without picking at nits, there is an interesting thought experiment, using the conceptualization offered by Dr. Gerald Schroeder regarding the age of the Universe as counted by counting the number of times the Universe has doubled in size (looking from the big bang toward our day, a bit more than six times, so far), compared to the continuous counting from our perspective billions of years into the process looking back at the big bang. [ http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx }

If we take the perspective looking from the big bang, the rise of life on earth is a very short amount of one day, and the appearance of humans an even shorter period as a second in a day. I may be really a weird dude, but when I look at the process of evolution within the six plus days looking from the big bang to today I can accept that the process is what God uses, for it appears almost instantaneous at each change if it has all happened in just six days to today.

22 posted on 07/22/2013 9:42:49 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: kimtom

Faith is a method of knowledge. Just like science.

That is, one can come to know with as much certainty that God exists, as one can “know” anything exists.

This is because what is “reasonable” is not commonly what is accepted as “reasonable” rather what is truely reasonable is that which takes into account the totality of factors about a “thing”, to know that “thing”. This sounds the same as what is commonly believed but it is not.

That is, true knowledge of an object is dictated by the object in question, and the totality of factors that are true and part of that object. Not what we imagine is true, but what is actually true about an object, and everything about the object,excluding nothing.

Again this may sound the same as what everyone thinks is “reasonable” but is not. Indeed, what most think is “reasonable” is actually opinionated thought, influenced not by the totality of factors but by one’s prejudices.

If this intrigues whoever reads this post, then read “At the Origin of the Christian Claim” by Msgr. Luigi Giussani.

If not then continue to believe there is an inherrent dichotomy between science and faith if you wish. (Even though there isn’t, if one is truly reasonable as described above)


23 posted on 07/22/2013 9:42:49 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

then you deny Scripture

What is the order of Creation according to Genesis?

And how does that order of event smatch up to evolution?


24 posted on 07/22/2013 9:47:58 AM PDT by RaceBannon (Telling the truth about RINOS, PAULTARDS, Liberals and Muslims has become hate speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

The best reply to this I found on a local church’s message board:

Faith is not belief without understanding but trust without reservation.


25 posted on 07/22/2013 9:48:11 AM PDT by GeorgeTex (Obama-Four M President (Mendacious Manchurian Muslim Marxist))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

No I do not deny scripture. What Shroeder has enumerated lends even greater credulity to what God gave us in Genesis. I do however think that God did not include every itemized moment in the process He uses to Create it all. There is no need for God to itemize since He gave the Bible to be used by those of faith. It was not given as a Science book thus many steps may be left out of the description giving just the barest overview. Is it blasphemous to seek to fill in the steps God left out of the summary?


26 posted on 07/22/2013 9:54:26 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

If people won’t stand for something then they’ll fall for anything -Anon


27 posted on 07/22/2013 10:09:40 AM PDT by SkyDancer (Live your life in such a way that the Westboro church will want to picket your funeral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

If people won’t stand for something then they’ll fall for anything -Anon


28 posted on 07/22/2013 10:09:53 AM PDT by SkyDancer (Live your life in such a way that the Westboro church will want to picket your funeral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kimtom

Well, a true naturalist isn’t only void of blind faith, but of ANY faith. Just listen to Alex Rosenberg. These people don’t believe in free will and aren’t even sure that they are real. Perhaps we’re all in a video game.

This is why I favor intelligent design. It comports with basic beliefs and makes sense.


29 posted on 07/22/2013 10:11:06 AM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kimtom

Gene evidence has allowed us to move from theory to fact that dogs evolved from wolves over thousands of years, once released from the Ark, and did not evolve from jackals.
Over the last several hundred years, through principles of animal husbandry and ‘artificial selection,’ breeders have been able to breeds such as the St. Bernard and Chihuahua from the the first ‘dogs’, the molossus and alaunt.
Men using the materials provided to them: ‘artificial selection’ is a fact.

Why should it be surprising that over many millions of years G-d should not have been doing the same things with all of His creation?


30 posted on 07/22/2013 10:13:34 AM PDT by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: All armed conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bray

“..Shouldn’t there be millions of mutated fossils turning a dog into a horse?..”

yes, well, logic states there should be a clear line in the fossil record.
That is why they have artists drawing feathers on “dinosaurs” because they want to push that narrative.
(like Libs)


31 posted on 07/22/2013 10:18:25 AM PDT by kimtom (USA ; Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

“...Is it blasphemous to seek to fill in the steps God left out of the summary?....”

The “smartest” men on earth today, can’t understand life so why would God revel everything???
(rhetorical)


32 posted on 07/22/2013 10:25:34 AM PDT by kimtom (USA ; Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: kimtom

Because

Because you don’t understand
You don’t believe
Because you can’t find truth
You wail and grieve

In your heart
There is no Peace
You can’t let go
There’s no release

There must be Trust
And Love and Faith
For fear to leave
Life, in its place

Only the Spirit
Can bring true growth
Discernment yearns
To fill your mouth

For you to walk
The Shepherd’s Path
You must give up
All that you have

The more you give
The more is yours
And Faith and Love
And Trust endures


33 posted on 07/22/2013 10:26:29 AM PDT by wizr (We are "one Nation, under God " or "one nation, trod under ". Keep the Faith.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

So where are the branch fossils or do you just accept the theory on faith alone. Sorry, God is a better explanation, but I do admire your fundamental belief.

Pray for America to Wake Up


34 posted on 07/22/2013 10:39:05 AM PDT by bray (Coming soon: The Republic of Texas 2022)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: kimtom

You have to understand that evolutionists are simply smarter than God believers. It is about their superiority to us knuckle draggers.

After 150 years you would think scientists would begin to question their theory?

Pray for America to Wake Up


35 posted on 07/22/2013 10:41:29 AM PDT by bray (Coming soon: The Republic of Texas 2022)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: bray

It is about their superiority to us knuckle draggers....”

exactly...

How can smart men believe in spontaneous generation??

Abiogenesis


36 posted on 07/22/2013 10:47:35 AM PDT by kimtom (USA ; Freedom is not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Arm_Bears

I was referring to your contention that naturalists pray to Charles Darwin. You know better, but you can’t help but bear false witness.


37 posted on 07/22/2013 10:53:50 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kimtom

God’s answer in Romans 1:18-20:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.


38 posted on 07/22/2013 11:06:53 AM PDT by TurkeyLurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bray

Can you understand that I neither accept it nor reject it. I don’t think we have yet acquired enough data to make a final decision on the issue. And to answer my own question, it is NOT blasphemous to seek the portions of data God left out of the summary. we have acquired quite a few of these pieces of data and in every case the finding reinforces that a Designer is at work.


39 posted on 07/22/2013 11:12:16 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Exactly, which is why I do not give evolution the benefit of the doubt. It exists to prove God doesn’t exist.


40 posted on 07/22/2013 12:46:35 PM PDT by bray (Coming soon: The Republic of Texas 2022)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: bray

“Exactly, which is why I do not give evolution the benefit of the doubt. It exists to prove God doesn’t exist.”

Haven’t you heard of the primordial soup?

It’s primordial, and it’s soup !!!

Case closed.

/s


41 posted on 07/22/2013 1:35:02 PM PDT by WKTimpco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Thank you so much for sharing that link!

Truly, even scientists do not finish their sentences for all they can say is that the universe is 15 billion years old from our space/time coordinates but they leave that last part out.

Likewise, when considering inflationary theory and relativity as Dr. Schroeder explains, the universe is a week old from the inception space/time coordinates.

42 posted on 07/22/2013 9:51:17 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

I was particularly taken by the notion that when matter appears, ‘time takes hold’. Then the new counting when Adam is made, well that was a smashing idea! Got me really going for ‘That’s In The Bible?’ don’tchaknow.


43 posted on 07/22/2013 10:52:41 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: kimtom
"Unlike Naturalists, You Creationists Have a Blind Faith"

Sort of funny that those who posit a cause that is incapable of explaining the effect accuse those of having blind faith whose posited cause is capable of explaining the effect.
44 posted on 07/22/2013 11:03:27 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; RaceBannon; kimtom; bray
MHGinTN: " conceptualization offered by Dr. Gerald Schroeder regarding the age of the Universe as counted by counting the number of times the Universe has doubled in size (looking from the big bang toward our day, a bit more than six times, so far)..."

Age of the Universe, by Gerald Shroeder

Excellent article, well written and well worth the time to read and understand.
Thanks.
In summary: according to Einstein, to one traveling at or near the speed of light, billions of stationary years can go by in a single 24-hour day.

On kimtom's larger subject of faith versus reason -- we all have "faith" that when we flip the switch, a light will come on, and very few of us understand details of science, engineering, manufacturing and service required to make that happen.
But if, as happens occasionally, the light fails to come on, then our "faith" gives way to reason -- is it just a light bulb, or something in the switch, or maybe a local power outage?
So reasoning takes over when faith proves inadequate.

Well, then, in what sense is the Bible inadequate, that we should need to reason our way around or out of it?
I'd say, in no sense, but let's play along...

It's said that our interpretations of scripture don't always mesh well with scientific understandings.
For example, the Bible says G*d created the Universe plus life on earth, and G*d's Son brings us salvation and life.
By supposedly stark contrast, science tells us that Something created the Universe with life on earth, and Something's principles can bring us longer happier life.

So how is the Something of science different from the Bible's Deity?
Well first, science by it's own choice strips way from Something all values such as "plan", "purpose", "design", "objective", "love" and such moral values as would support those.
Science instead suggests the Universe is random, accidental, un-directed, arbitrary and without values or moral content.

Why does science say such things?
Because that's the nature of science.
Does science prevent us from seeing that the Universe had not only a moment of creation, but also a Creator?
Not in the least, especially when you consider the thin-to-nonexistent evidence supporting their speculations about possible "multiverses" and "time before creation".

Indeed, if we were to give such speculations any credence at all, might they just as easily be abodes for certain hosts mentioned in scripture?

My point is this: as long as fundamentals don't change, why sweat the small stuff?
True fundamentals never change.

45 posted on 07/28/2013 7:19:24 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Glad you enjoyed Schroeder's essay. He has put a great deal of scholarship (he searches the Torah and writings of the ancient Rabbis) and contemplation into that notion he so clearly articulates.

I wonder how many Christians would cringe at the notion that God is still creating, using the Salvation process through The Grace of God in Christ to bring into being new creations? ... That's in the Bible, if one looks.

46 posted on 07/28/2013 8:05:03 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: bray; kimtom; MHGinTN; RaceBannon; stormer
bray, post 18: "Like believing the fossils point to evolution even though there is not one actual transitory fossil.
Shouldn’t there be millions of mutated fossils turning a dog into a horse?
Some people just don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution."

Of course, no evolution theory says dogs turned into horses, and I'm certain you know that, but possibly enjoy a little hyperbole?

In fact, much of this type argument is just a word definition game -- what exactly is a "transitional form"?

Well, first of all, isn't every individual "transitional" between our ancestors and our progeny?
And if small biological changes help us to adapt better, aren't we more likely to survive and reproduce?
And doesn't DNA analysis allow us to track these generation-by-generation changes back into the depths of time?

Second, consider the total number of known species -- 1.5 million named, with another 5 million estimated as yet to be cataloged.
Of those, over 5,000 are mammals.
But how many mammal fossils do we have from, say, 5 million years ago?
A few dozen, a couple of hundred?
One estimate is that we have fossils of fewer than 1% of all species which ever lived.

Simply put: for every "transitional form" fossil we do have, 99 others are missing.

Third, we actually do have many transitional fossils, and none more complete than those of pre-human creatures, of which I've posted this photo now several times:

•(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
•(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
•(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
•(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
•(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
•(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
•(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
•(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
•(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
•(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
•(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
•(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
•(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
•(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

47 posted on 07/28/2013 8:12:33 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
MHGinTN: "I wonder how many Christians would cringe at the notion that God is still creating..."

Doubtless you're correct, but I never criticize Christians for details of their beliefs, on the general principle that as long as they get the basics right, there's no good reason for me to sweat the small stuff.

That's why we have ministers and priests, to deal with both the basics and minute details... ;-)

48 posted on 07/28/2013 9:11:36 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

the only evidence that any of those suppposed human-ape links exists in the imagination of the evolutionist


49 posted on 07/28/2013 9:47:15 AM PDT by RaceBannon (Telling the truth about RINOS, PAULTARDS, Liberals and Muslims has become hate speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
RaceBannon: "the only evidence that any of those suppposed human-ape links exists in the imagination of the evolutionist."

Well... it's called a scientific theory, meaning a hypothesis that's been confirmed frequently and strongly -- confirmed by predictions and falsifiable tests.

In the cases of pre-human creatures evidence exists in the form of DNA similarities of modern mankind to Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Floresiens ("Hobbits"), but also the similarity of human and more distant creatures like Chimpanses.

Evolution theory explains these all as descendants of common ancestors.
No other scientific hypothesis has been offered.
And that's about as close to the Truth as a scientific theory can ever get -- short of actual observations which make it not theory, but fact.
Yes, there are many confirmed observations (facts) associated with evolution, but the theory itself cannot be observed, and so remains a theory.

Of course, you may call it whatever you wish -- be that "scientific imagination" or "fantasy" -- it remains what it is: a theory which powerfully explains scientifically what we see in the world.

50 posted on 07/28/2013 11:18:29 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson