Replies

There is an article in the latest issue of Discovery about an Aussie fellow who found two skulls that seem to throw not a few monkey wrenches (heh heh) into the evolution-where did we come from-how did we get here debate. Turns out that the skulls cause problems with the migration of people to Australia. Further, he cites people who have the opinion that the different alleged "kinds of skulls" are merely different people groups. An Asiatic skull would be different from a Euro skull, which would differ from an African skull, and so on.

But it gets better. In a book called "Bones of Contention," the author puts out in chart form all the different kinds of skulls/skeletons (Cro-Magnan, Neadertal, etc) that have been found, where, and when, and y'know what? THERE IS A TON OF OVERLAP! It's not clean and constant, there are things appearing where and when they shouldn't, and other things living and appearing long after they're supposed to be dead! Pretty wild, huh?

Sorry, but I don't buy the evolution thing, and I didn't even before I became a Christian. Too many holes in the theories, and too many people pushing it as fact. BTW, the Aussie guy has been shunned by the "open minded members of the scientific community," showing how open some of these die hard evolutionists are to new ideas. Science? I think not.

Sorry, but I don't buy the evolution thing, and I didn't even before I became a Christian. Too many holes in the theories, and too many people pushing it as fact

Let's try to relate this to real world stuff...

First, let me try to define the word "theory" as it pertains to science. A theory is an explanation which fits all the known facts, and can be used to make predictions, which then can be tested experimentally. For an idea to attain the status of "scientific theory" means that it has been subjected to the highest level of scrutiny. An idea whose foundation is shaky and not well supported by facts is called a "hypothesis."

I've been working on a hypothesis (my idea does not merit the lofty designation of "theory") for several years now, and so have several other researchers, at least 6 other groups that I can think of on the spur of the moment. If the system we are researching can be compared to a 5,000 piece puzzle, then I've found about three pieces, and the other researchers maybe 50 to 100 pieces. Every bit of research that I and they have done says we're still missing a whole lot of pieces. By your reckoning, though, we should look at all the gaps in our knowledge, conclude that the subject and everything we know about it is crap, and throw it all away.

Thank God, we scientists don't have that attitude. We just keep plugging away, even when it looks like our research is raising more questions than it answers.