Fact, Fable, and Darwin

One America ^ | 09-2004 | Rodney Stark

[taxesareforever]

So, could not God have created us through evolution?

Since God is capable of doing anything the answer is yes. However, the question that is being discussed is "did He?" And the answer is no, He did not. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (Gen. 1:26,27) God was not an amoeba or a monkey before He was God. Neither was man.

[muawiyah]

The boundaries do appear to be quite flexible ~ not uniformly so, but flexible nonetheless.

If I read yet one more story about how Darwin's Finches in the Galapagos are spinning off another new species I think I'll gag.

Just 'cause they live on one island and have blue beaks, and live on another island and have purple beaks, doesn't mean those little fellows don't want to get together and make fertilized eggs.

It takes much more than an observation of beak shape, size and color to demonstrate that there are different species ~ not that there aren't ~ but I'm going to reserve my judgment until we have a full genome report on every last single bird out there even if we have to kill them all to take samples.

.

[muawiyah]

That part of Genesis was written before they'd figured out there was really only one God.

[razzle]

"The day I start paying attention to sociology professors is the day that I get someone to take a sledgehammer and put me out of my misery..."

This is a quite common response strategy from darwinists; berating someone's credentials, their personal appearance, or anything other than the issues being discussed. It illuminates the dilemma they are in defending the myth.

[Stultis]

TAGLINE: "darwinism is in its death throes"

You forgot, "...since 1859!"

[Cruising Speed]

I write as neither a creationist nor a Darwinist...

What BS, I wasn't born yesterday nor did I ever fall off a turnip truck.

[Old Professer]

One might as wonder where all this stuff came from if it was here forever.

[Coyoteman]

This is a quite common response strategy from darwinists; berating someone's credentials, their personal appearance, or anything other than the issues being discussed. It illuminates the dilemma they are in defending the myth.

False. I posted some real data to you in post #227, above.

In case you missed it, below is some additional data. I have yet to see you make any substantive response to any of this data.

---

Herto skulls (Homo sapiens idaltu)

Some new fossils from Herto in Ethiopia, are the oldest known modern human fossils, at 160,000 yrs. The discoverers have assigned them to a new subspecies, Homo sapiens idaltu, and say that they are anatomically and chronologically intermediate between older archaic humans and more recent fully modern humans. Their age and anatomy is cited as strong evidence for the emergence of modern humans from Africa, and against the multiregional theory which argues that modern humans evolved in many places around the world.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/herto.html

[Jaguarbhzrd]

I always wondered why God would have as ineffient a form as we do.

If God is all powerful, then why does he have a body like ours?

He could design himself any body he wished, why would he want one like ours?

[Doctor Stochastic]

The optmist believes that out bodies are designed the best that God could. The pessimist fears the optmist is correct.

[razzle]

"...since 1859!"

Actually the serious opposition to darwinism began in 1985 with "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by Michael Denton. The longer darwinists go without any real evidence, the problem spreads and becomes more acute; since nearly eveyone gave darwin the benefit of the doubt for many many years. I (and others) would not have had a problem with the theory except for the prolonged lack of evidence and the recent trend to shut down all opposition and treat this mythology as a fact.

Regarding the coyote's evidence from post #248, this skull is at best an example of microevolution (Asians getting taller, etc.) and microevolution is not the issue.

[Coyoteman]

Regarding the coyote's evidence from post #248, this skull is at best an example of microevolution (Asians getting taller, etc.) and microevolution is not the issue.

And the skull in post #227?

And the one below?

---

Fossil: Sts 5

Site: Sterkfontein Cave, South Africa (1)

Discovered By: R. Broom & J. Robinson 1947 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 2.5 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, floral & faunal data (1, 4)

Species Name: Australopithecus africanus (1, 2)

Gender: Male (based on CAT scan of wisdom teeth roots) (1, 30) Female (original interpretation) (4)

Cranial Capacity: 485 cc (2, 4)

Information: No tools found in same layer (4)

Interpretation: Erect posture (based on forward facing foramen magnum) (8)

Nickname: Mrs. Ples (1)

See original source for notes:
http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=24

[taxesareforever]

If God is all powerful, then why does he have a body like ours? He could design himself any body he wished, why would he want one like ours?

Why don't you put that in your book of questions to ask God when you get to heaven? By the way, try utilizing the Bible to find your answers: "My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,' says the Lord. 'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8-9

[ml1954]

Actually the serious opposition to darwinism began in 1985 with "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by Michael Denton. The longer darwinists go without any real evidence, the problem spreads and becomes more acute; since nearly eveyone gave darwin the benefit of the doubt for many many years. I (and others) would not have had a problem with the theory except for the prolonged lack of evidence and the recent trend to shut down all opposition and treat this mythology as a fact.

Regarding the coyote's evidence from post #248, this skull is at best an example of microevolution (Asians getting taller, etc.) and microevolution is not the issue.

The 'serious' opposition began in 1985? So you think there was no 'serious' opposition from 1859 until 1985. That's 126 years with no serious opposition, using your own statements. So you admit that everything prior was not 'serious', and so should be dismissed. We agree here. Where we apparently disagree is on the part about after 1985. Now what exactly changed in 1985?

[VadeRetro]

Actually the serious opposition to darwinism began in 1985 with "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by Michael Denton.

No, really. Darwinism has supposedly been in its death throes since 1859. The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism.

In recent reading of Dembski and other ID proponents I saw them make a claim which has been made for over 40 years. This claim is one that the young-earthers have been making. The claim is that the theory of evolution (or major supporting concepts for it) is increasingly being abandoned by scientists, or is about to fall. This claim has many forms and has been made for over 178 years. This is a compilation of the claims over time. The purpose of this compilation is two-fold. First, it is to show that the claim has been made for a long, long time. Secondly, it is to show that entire careers have passed without seeing any of this movement away from evolution. Third, it is to show that the creationists are merely making these statements for the purpose of keeping hope alive that they are making progress towards their goal. In point of fact, no such progress is being made as anyone who has watched this area for the last 40 years can testify. The claim is false as history and present-day events show, yet that doesn't stop anyone wanting to sell books from making that claim. Now for the claims in chronological order...

Nothing special happened in 1985. Denton himself has abandoned much of his 1985 position and accepted common descent.

[VadeRetro]

"My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,' says the Lord. 'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8-9

Might as well have said, "My image is not your image."

[Jaguarbhzrd]

It was just a question.

Seriously, if you look objectively at it, I know, that's hard for you, why would any God want a body like ours?

It is poorly designed, it ages far too quickly, it is fragile, it has aches and pains, etc.

Why would any God, that could create any body for himself that he chose, would want a weak, puny, poorly designed one like ours?

[taxesareforever]

Seriously, if you look objectively at it, I know, that's hard for you, why would any God want a body like ours?

Jesus had to have a body like ours in order to live and die like us in order to be the sacrifice for all our sins.

[Stultis]

Actually the serious opposition to darwinism began in 1985 with "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by Michael Denton.

You CAN'T be serious? This was one of the silliest antievolution books I ever read. Most of it just reiterated old, and previously discredited, antievolution arguments. The only innovation Denton offered was his molecular analysis (and that using data from Susan Dayhoff's protein sequence atlas, which nothing in particular wrong with that, but puzzling since much better and more recent data was available).

Anyway, all Denton did was point out that organisms grouped into nested hierarchies. DUH! His diagrams were exactly the same as conventional "tree" type phylogenies, the only difference being that he was having us look "down" at them from an "overhead" view rather from the side as the are normally viewed. The whole thing was a stunning exercise in gratuitous silliness.

Oh, there was one respect in which his diagrams differed from convention, in that he showed humans and apes as distinct categories, at a time when it was known that, at least on the molecular evidence, humans in fact group with chimpanzees, exclusive of gorillas and other apes. But then if you trace out Denton's footnote, as I did when I read the book, and look at the relevant data in Dayhoff, you'll find that Denton MISREPRESENTED IT. For the protein he referenced (one of the globins IIRC) human and chimpanzee sequences were identical and differed from the gorilla in several positions.

In any case, if Denton's argument was so seminal, why did he himself subsequently repudiate it?!

[Coyoteman]

In any case, if Denton's argument was so seminal, why did he himself subsequently repudiate it?!

He's doing apologetics, not science, so it doesn't count?