Posted on 12/21/2005 6:22:46 AM PST by truthfinder9
One of biggest paradigm shifts in origins in recent years is when genetics and morphological studies began to show that Neanderthals and humans weren’t related. Sure, a lot of Darwin Fundies around here don’t know that because they get all of their science from the talking point lists of their Fundamentalist Leaders. So this is probably a big shock too, science is also showing that man is not related to any hominids including apes.
In the groundbreaking book, Who was Adam?, biochemist Fazale Rana examines the scientific research that is overturning Darwinian Fundamentalism. Here, using peer-reviewed research that the Darwin Fundies claim doesn’t exist, Rana shows man is unique and designed.
And he details the latest findings on the fossil record, junk DNA, Neanderthals, human and chimp genetics. There's more science here than most Darwin Fundies have ever read, but this will be the next great paradigm shift.
“The parallels between Genesis and the latest scientific data are profound...” - John A. Bloom, Ph.D., professor of physics, Biola University
On Rana’s previous book, Origins of Life:
“Evolution has just been dealt its deathblow. After reading Origins of Life, it is clear that evolution could not have occurred.” - Richard Smalley, Nobel Laureate, Chemistry, 1996, professor of physics and astronomy, Rice University
Real science by real scientists. According to Darwin Fundies this doesn't exist, but here it is.
Deceptive sophistry. The common ancestor between humans and chimps was a primate, or in the common vernacular, an ape.
Saying "I don't know" is hardly ducking the question. And I believe Genesis is true but it doesn't say how old the earth is. It just says God created everything in the earth in six days.
It says he created humans as humans.
From an objective standpoint, humans are apes. We are closer, morphologically and genetically, to chimpanzees and bonobos than either of them are to gorillas.
So you don't believe God created humans?
No it doesn't. You're trying to divine God's methods from Genesis, which is a very dangerous and presumptive proposition.
Genesis isn't a manual that's supposed to teach goatherders all the steps that God took to create the universe. It has a very different purpose.
Life is full of conjecture & opinion, thats one thing that separates us from primates and a door knob.
The universe is 12 billion years old is conjecture & opinion. It used to be 9 Billion years old until recently.
Of course. Because until He had formed/evolved them into their present form, they weren't humans.
You need to read up on Entropy.
>>>All creation is related because we are created by the same Creator. Simple.>>>
Yep.
I don't understand why we can't embrace both concepts. That our creator USES evolution in His/Her brilliance of creation.
perhaps you could enlighten me?
Look, no one has to believe the Bible. But just because I do doesn't make me less intelligent than you.
Genesis says He created the universe, the earth, and all life on it in six days. That is laughable on its face.
Even twisting the literal meaning of six days to be some other length of time means that you've abandoned the truth of Genesis. Once you do that, you may as well accept the rest of science, including evolution.
Saying that Genesis can't be accepted on the time required to create the universe and all life, but can be trusted on its description the creation of man is contradictory.
Okay, well if you don't believe the Bible, that's fine. But why do you think God would lie to us?
I'd like to know how something can be "related" to another biologically without in some way "descending" from it. Also, I thought "common descent" was an evolutionary principle, with all life eventually traceable to the lower, smaller, or simpler life forms. Not that there is a single evolution story. Which one do you believe?
If you read what I wrote (instead of reacting to the words "Give it a rest"), you would know that I did not "equate the ID argument with terrorism". I simply said that this is too critical a time in the War on Terror to get distracted by sidebar arguments about ID (however valid those arguments might be). An old Armor Officer friend of mine, who had been through a few scrapes in his time, used to say, "picking your fights is fifty percent of winning 'em". Imagine the impact on the war effort in WWII if America had stopped to have a full-blown national debate on social trend that came along: women's skirt lengths, the effects of "swing" music on America's youth, pre-marital sex, or biblical literalism versus a more rational interpretation, etc. I would like to say that American public opinion is so "diverse" and "sophisticated" that we can take any number of topics, from the ridiculous to the sublime in stride, and still have enough attention span left to give the War on Terror its due, but I would have to be totally ignorant of how the public debate over the war has gone to make that argument.
Where does it say he created the universe in six days?
Parents need to understand the school choices they make will lead them to one form of preaching or another.
The point of my argument is the PA ruling FINALLY draws the line: Darwinism will be taught in Public Schools.
I never believed it was wise to force Public Schools to teach creationism. There are other schools for that.
What I hope this ruling will do is to WAKE UP parents that a Public School education now has some guarantees.
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.