How much time does the average person need to spend worrying about this?
Posted on 07/07/2007 2:31:35 AM PDT by balch3
So, I'll keep it simple.
Remember children's stories - say The Tortoise & the hare?
Well, the FACTS are that there really was no race between a tortoise and a rabbit.
The TRUTH is "Slow and steady wins the race"
It is a story. It is allegory. It teaches morals and truths - NOT facts.
The creationists actually believe that somewhere out there, animals are holding races with turtles and rabbits competing.
“...so in the Past, He made great Creatures...”
God did, right? As someone once said, “You are not far from the kingdom of God...” But unless you are saying that these “great creatures” came into being via God’s direct creating of them (God made the dinosaurs, rather than God, via some evolutionary process, created the dinosaurs) you still have not answered the question of how they came into very being. What is the factual basis for explaining the emergence of these “great creatures” via the evolutionary process?
Good first step though.
And, seeing how no human has completely figured out HOW life and evolution works - I'd say that system is ALOT more complex than pulling an Elephant out of one's butt.
No normal person spends that much time brooding over and inventing fantasy graphs of Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis apemen, having tantrums with anyone who disagrees with their agenda to impose such views. The whole cult of "primitive man" is the product of 19th-century Victorian abnormal sexual psychology. Take a look at pictures of the secular humanist nerds who dreamt it up and at their fantasy primitive apemen.
“I have seen David Copperfield make elephants appear out of thin air.”
Of course, we both know you were deceived, tricked into thinking that what you thought you saw just happen actually happened. This was an illusion, sleight of hand, misdirection, etc. designed to entertain (right?)
Again, you say, “God can do MUCH better than that,” to which I give a hearty, “Amen.” But, then you go on to ascribe to Him a theory of creation [evolution] and immediately place limits on the “MUCH” He can do.
My question to you would be where does your understanding of the God you talk about in your post derive? If it is from your own sense that He simply must be, then how do you know what He is capable/incapable of? If your understanding of Him is from a religious system, what teaching, writing, etc. of that religious system do you find to be consistent with your view that God used evolution in the creation process?
And, I guess ultimately, when you say, “seeing how no human has completely figured out HOW life and evolution works...”, I just wonder how it is that so many evolutionists cannot see that the step/leap of faith they take is no less than that taken by the religionist (some would argue that the evolutionist takes a greater step of faith), which was/is my original point.
Darwin himself stated that:” If no transitional animals
are found, his theory is not valid”.
No human has completely figured out HOW gravity works either. I guess before we accept that this gravity actually exists we will need a lot more convincing. For myself, I think this 'gravity' is nothing more than angels pushing us down so that we don't fly to heaven.
And there exist many transitional animals, most of which are extinct. They did the job of surviving and reproducing better than their precursors and thus made their precursors extinct. And follow on creatures did the same to them. It would be illogical to expect many precursor animals to still be living.
So then, why did God create homo erectus and homo habilis bones? Were they made when the world was created 6000 years ago, like the dinosaurs? If they were ever alive (rather than bones planted for foolish scientists to find) then why couldn't God correctly create humans the first time? Was it beyond His ability?
How much time does the average person need to spend worrying about this?
> It is a story. It is allegory. It teaches morals and
> truths - NOT facts.
Tell me. Do you allegorize the virgin birth and resurrection, too?
How about the miracles of Christ and the Second Coming? Are those allegorical?
Where do you draw the line?
And if there are those that draw the line differently than you, does that make them stupid in your most elevated estimation?
If the Bible clearly presents something as FACT, and you “know” it to be FALSE, then how can you rely on anything at all in the Bible?
If you’re just looking for a good book of morals, you could probably write one yourself.
And it would be every bit as valid as a book of morals written by, say, Mahomet or Karl Marx. N’est ce pas?
No normal person spends that much time brooding over and inventing fantasy graphs of Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis apemen, having tantrums with anyone who disagrees with their agenda to impose such views. The whole cult of "primitive man" is the product of 19th-century Victorian abnormal sexual psychology. Take a look at pictures of the secular humanist nerds who dreamt it up and at their fantasy primitive apemen.
As someone who spent six years in grad school, with half the time spent in studying fossil man, evolution, human races, anatomy, osteology, primates, and a lot of closely related subjects I regret to have to inform you that you have a severe case of recto-fossal ambiguity.
Good thing that there have been lots of transitionals found, eh?
This is a nice example of a transitional. Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the right center):
Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)
Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)
Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)
Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)
Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)
See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33
Struck a nerve?
Good response. Ignore the question and hope it goes away. That way you don't have to figure out the answer.
Liberal sexual hangups are behind the hysteria for atheistic Darwinism. There are only a few things that get liberal secular humanists that worked up. They had to get rid of Christianity to pave the way for their Brave New World and they saw the Monkey Bones silliness as the way to do it.Struck a nerve?No normal person spends that much time brooding over and inventing fantasy graphs of Homo Erectus [sic] and Homo Habilis [sic] apemen, having tantrums with anyone who disagrees with their agenda to impose such views. The whole cult of "primitive man" is the product of 19th-century Victorian abnormal sexual psychology. Take a look at pictures of the secular humanist nerds who dreamt it up and at their fantasy primitive apemen.
I have studied the field, and it is clear that you haven't. You are relying on invective, not scientific argument. That might play in certain venues, but it doesn't cut it in science.
If you have any serious objections to the theory of evolution, and some scientific support for those objections, now might be a good time to post them.
But, be advised: the creationist websites and the tripe they peddle are not likely to be of much use to you. They are full of misrepresentations, inaccurate quote-mines, distortions, and outright lies. They simply are not doing science!
So, if you have some specific objections to the theory of evolution, and the underlying science, lets hear them. Otherwise my previous post stands.
When you were "studying" the history and philosophy of science and came to the secondary literature on the 17th-century roots of mechanistic scientism, you took a wrong turn.
Checkmate.
Checkmate.
As I thought. No specific scientific objections to the theory of evolution.
Care to try again? I suggest you try science this time, not religious fundamentalism.
Or, be brave and admit where your arguments are really coming from.
It's a pretty common syndrome among liberal secular humanists not to realize the cognitive distortions of "scientism" and the mechanistic model of reality. The fossil record yields no conclusions regarding a Creatio ex nihilo so science cannot resolve the fundamental issue empirically or in imaginative theoretical models.
Truthfully, I am not sure what you are disagreeing with in my jeering post. Quite a few of the most ardent Darwinists of the liberal secular humanist type are sexually maladjusted and suffer from a pathological resentment of Christianity and Christians. It comes out in their irrational and emotionalist tantrums to impose the ideology (which is after all a political matter rather than scientific one).
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.