“...God made man
“But he used the monkey to do it!
“Apes in the plan
“And we’re all here to prove it!
“I can walk like an ape,
“Talk like an ape,
“Do what monkeys do...
“God made man,
“But a monkey supplied the glue!”
Posted on 10/20/2010 9:45:29 PM PDT by RobinMasters
Were human beings created by God in an instant, or over millions of years through evolution?
Glenn Beck addressed the question on his radio show today as he came to the defense of Christine O'Donnell, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate from Delaware under fire for challenging evolution.
"Did evolution just stop?" Beck asked rhetorically. "I haven't seen the half-monkey/half-person yet. ... There's no other species that's developing into half-people."
"I don't know how God creates. I don't know how we got here," he continued, wondering what God might tell him after he dies. "If God's like, 'Yup, you were a monkey once,' I'll be shocked, but I'll be cool with it."
Beck explained, "If God didn't create, if things evolve, then your rights evolve. You're not endowed by your Creator.
"Just like you go from a monkey to a man, you go from simple rights to higher rights and somebody has to take those rights and give them to you and take them away or change them. This is again the evolutionary thinking of progressivism."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Since virtually all of science is based on mathematics, and any number of scientific statements can be proved/confirmed or disproved/falsified without math, your statement is ludicrous.
And... if programming a computer makes me an expert "scientist," then I "are" one too, and if balancing my checkbook makes me a mathematician and logician, well, I "are" qualified there too. ;-)
So now, "qualified scientist" to "qualified scientist," and "mathematician" to "mathematician," let's discuss the great issues... ;-)
OneWingedShark: "Let’s start with radioactive decay; it has a nice, steady rate of decay where every period of some length of time that elapses half of the material decays into another material.."
No, let's not start there.
Let's start with the age and size of the Universe:
Astronomers have many different methods for measuring the distance to, and age of, stars, galaxies and other cosmic objects.
For one example, Cepheid variable stars can measure distances out to around 100 million light years.
"Since the universe must be at least as old as the oldest thing in it, there are a number of observations which put a lower limit on the age of the universe; these include"On 23 April 2009 a gamma-ray burst was detected which was later confirmed at being over 13 billion years old.[2]"
- the temperature of the coolest white dwarfs, which gradually cool as they age, and
- the dimmest turnoff point of main sequence stars in clusters (lower-mass stars spend a greater amount of time on the main sequence, so the lowest-mass stars that have evolved off of the main sequence set a minimum age).
"The estimated age of the universe is 13.75 ± 0.17 billion years,[1] the time since the Big Bang.
"The uncertainty range has been obtained by the agreement of a number of scientific research projects. These projects included
"Background radiation measurements give the cooling time of the universe since the Big Bang.
- background radiation measurements and
- more ways to measure the expansion of the universe.
Expansion of the universe measurements give accurate data to calculate the age of the universe."
So, we begin with Astro-Physics telling us that the Universe is over 13 billion years old.
I'm saying: you can't just categorically dismiss these numbers without also dismissing all of the related science and mathematics which produced them.
OneWingedShark: "Let’s start with radioactive decay.
Now let's talk about the age of the Earth:
"The age of the Earth has been determined to be 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3]
"This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples."
This brings us to your radiometric dating methods, of which there are about two dozen, including the shorter term Carbon-14 dating.
I'm saying: you can't just categorically dismiss these numbers without also dismissing all of the related science and mathematics which produced them.
OneWingedShark: "Let’s start with radioactive decay.
So far, we have dates from Astro-Physists on the age of the Universe, and dates from Physio-Chemists on the age of the Earth -- then what do Paleo-Biologists say about the earliest evidence of Life on Earth?
"The earliest identified organisms were minute and relatively featureless, their fossils look like small rods, which are very difficult to tell apart from structures that arise through abiotic physical processes."The oldest undisputed evidence of life on Earth, interpreted as fossilized bacteria, dates to 3,000 million years ago...[27]
..."Currently, the oldest unchallenged evidence for life is geochemical signatures from rocks deposited 3,400 million years ago,[27][32] although these statements have not been thoroughly examined by critics."
Where do these ages for earliest life come from?
First scientists determine ages for geological strata in which the fossils were found.
Methods include radiometric dating and comparisons with known ages of other related strata.
Whenever possible, fossils themselves are compared to the known ages of related fossils.
I'm saying: you can't just categorically dismiss these numbers without also dismissing all of the related science and mathematics which produced them.
OneWingedShark: "I’ve refuted dismissed the mathematics claim there..."
There, corrected it.
OneWingedShark: "The paleontology claim was impacted by the discovery of soft-tissue in dino-fossils"
No it wasn't, not in any serious way.
OneWingedShark: "The geology and paleontology claims are too intertwined: they determine the age of the fossils by what layer they were found in & they determine the age of the geologic-layers by what fossils they contain."
Not true. Multiple methods are used and compared.
OneWingedShark: "Astrophysics presents its own challenges to the evolutionary theory; namely that their star-generation theory says in order to produce 1 star you have to use up 20 stars worth of nebulae... and of all the novae/supernovae [star-deaths] that we’ve seen we’ve yet to see a star-birth (the most we’ve seen are stars that “could be” being born)."
Science is chock full of "challenges.", but your items here invalidate nothing.
For example: supernovas can be visible from millions of light-years away, while "star-birth" is shrouded in the dark clouds from which the stars come.
And some of those have been identified.
So here's the bottom line: your critical comments imply that you dismiss all of science that doesn't agree with your Biblical world view -- not just the theory of evolution.
OneWingedShark: "But were’re getting to the meat of why Evolution doesn’t work; the method that the theory uses as its engine [natural selection] is a purely subtractive procedure."
Apparently you know little about the actual theory of evolution.
Of course "[natural selection] is a purely subtractive procedure."
That's what the word "selection" implies.
So where do new genetic features come from? Mainly from mutations -- that is your "addition procedure".
In short: you have here summarily dismissed every branch of science which supports the theory of evolution and not your Biblical world view.
And I actually have no objection to that -- you are certainly entitled to your religious beliefs, even when they oppose science.
But I do object if you ever pretend your religious beliefs are science, or that science itself is nothing but another religion.
That would not be truthful.
God never performs miracles?
Don't see how that is so hard to believe since Glenn Beck has made himself a monkey over this.
“...God made man
“But he used the monkey to do it!
“Apes in the plan
“And we’re all here to prove it!
“I can walk like an ape,
“Talk like an ape,
“Do what monkeys do...
“God made man,
“But a monkey supplied the glue!”
Whose idea was GRAVITY & ELECTRICITY???
By definitionm a random process cannot
betray a logical trail.
In the Douay-Rheims translation, which is a very literal English translation, the first account is focused on how mankind fits in with the hierarchy of creation. The second account seems to focus on mankind’s relation to God, and of the complimentary relationship between man and woman.
Asking which of the two accounts is correct assumes that some how they are mutually exclusive, which they are not.
Here are the pertinent passages from Genesis 1 and 2;
Chapter 1:
[26]And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. [27] And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. [28] And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. [29] And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: [30] And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.
Chapter 2:
[7]And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. [8] And the Lord God had planted a paradise of pleasure from the beginning: wherein he placed man whom he had formed. [9] And the Lord God brought forth of the ground all manner of trees, fair to behold, and pleasant to eat of: the tree of life also in the midst of paradise: and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. [10] And a river went out of the place of pleasure to water paradise, which from thence is divided into four heads.
[11] The name of the one is Phison: that is it which compasseth all the land of Hevilath, where gold groweth. [12] And the gold of that land is very good: there is found bdellium, and the onyx stone. [13] And the name of the second river is Gehon: the same is it that compasseth all the land of Ethiopia. [14] And the name of the third river is Tigris: the same passeth along by the Assyrians. And the fourth river is Euphrates. [15] And the Lord God took man, and put him into the paradise of pleasure, to dress it, and to keep it.
[16] And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: [17] But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death. [18] And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself. [19] And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name. [20] And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself.
[21] Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. [22] And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam. [23] And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. [24] Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh. [25] And they were both naked: to wit, Adam and his wife: and were not ashamed.
I disagree fundamentally with Darwin and support creationism, however Glenn Beck got the argument wrong — at no point does evolution say that humans evolved from monkeys or apes. According to evolution, they had a common ancestor.
Having the will and means to defend oneself is not the same thing as a genetic change that enables one to survive better on available resources. Infants are born with the ability to produce an enzyme called lactase which enables them to metabolize the lactose (sugar) in their mother’s milk. As they get older they lose the capacity to produce lactase enzyme and can no longer consume milk without digestive problems.
However, a new mutation occurred in someone which enabled them to produce lactase into adulthood. Thus they could consume nutritious milk that others could not. Their children when inheriting this gene also had a survival advantage and passed the gene on to additional offspring. Eventually there was a large enough group to go migrating into Europe where their ability to drink milk year round gave them a survival advantage. Whether warfare was involved is a separate matter. I am talking biology, not behavior.
“Don’t environmental conditions factor into evolution?
Yes they do, because existing genes or newly mutated ones may prove to be more successful under changing environmental conditions. Changing conditions will reduce or increase certain genes which are less or more helpful in enabling their owners to survive.
Then sometimes a new (mutated) gene springs up which allows its owner to move successfully into a new environment. For example the first afro/southern Europeans who received the white gene mutation were able to live further north, because their lighter skin could absorb more sun produced Vitamin D, thus enabling their women to grow healthy pelvic girdles and bear live young in the north.
Glad you liked my post, but given that it was after 2 am, and I am over 70, please forgive the lack of paragraphs. At that point I was lucky to get the words down correctly.
Love your explanation. I was very impressed reading the life of Mr. Smith, and his struggles as a working man for acceptance by the aristocratic academic scientists. We owe much to the work and imagination of the “gifted amateurs” among us, such as Jane Goodall.
The interesting thing relative to Darwin and evolution is that Smith operated at least a generation earlier than Darwin. I wonder to what extent Darwin and for that matter Wallace were influenced by Smiths pioneering work with fossils?
“evolution(ism)...leads to things like Nazism, Communism, and world wars.”
Hitler and Stalin were followers of unscientific astrology and Lamarkianism among other pseudo scientific beliefs. Aside from the world wars these twi were involved in, religions, both the Christian and others have promoted plenty of warfare on their own. Study European history and such topics as the Hundred Year’s War, and the Thirty Years War, not to mention the Crusades.
Your “new mutation” example is somewhat flawed; that the babies of both groups produce lactase means that the [genetic] information to do so was present in both groups. Further how do you know that the Europeans weren’t the ‘mutants’ with the common genetic defect of their lactase production?
HGH is an example of something that, in the normal population, dies-off in production after a certain age. Some people have defective “off switches” for their HGH production and so always produce it; a famous person with that condition would be Andre the Giant (The Princess Bride, The Incredible Hulk).
But in both these cases, your lactase example & my HGH example, both groups are STILL human.
Between the end of the Napoleonic wars and 1913 an entire century had passed without a major or even significant European war. What ended that was the Darwinian idea of viewing your fellow man as a meat byproduct of random events.
Gen 1:20 says “And God said, ‘Let the waters move and bring forth the creature that hath life’”
Then Genesis goes on describing successive days, with more and more complex creatures, culminating in man.
I really don’t see how this differs from evolution.
Both forces, the forces of evolution, and the divine guidance of God can and do co-exist.
I guess the Chrimea and our own Civil War don’t really count. Except that as many died in our Civil War as were killed among our soldiers in WWII. I don’t think you can blame Darwin for the inhumanity of our own Civil War. And if you don’t believe it was inhuman, read Andersonville.
And you can quote even one German amongst circa 80 million alive then who said words to that effect?
How about one Brit, French, Russian, Italian or American of that time?
No, of course not, because the First World War had nothing to do with that.
Instead, it began as a classical war amongst all the very closely related Christian emperors, kings and princes to see which would be the dominant powers in Europe's future.
It ended in the destruction or fatal weakening of nearly all the old Empires, which set the stage for the rise of very popular national-socialist dictatorships bent on restoring their lost glory.
So, in terms of "political Darwinism," the First World War was a mass-extinction event, which cleared the ecosystem for the rise of a mutant political form -- national-socialist dictatorships.
Those expanded rapidly until destroyed in a second political "mass-extinction event"...
All of which has been going on since the beginnings of human civilization.
See, for examples: Egyptian, Persian, Chinese, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Spanish, French & British empires.
For examples of wars which depopulated whole regions, see: barbarian invasions, various Dark Ages, Crusades, 30-Years War & 100-Years War, amongst others.
Special exemptions are always granted under such conditions. ;-)
Of course they are, but DNA analysis shows the mutation was new at the time, and is just one example of many mutations which happen over time.
Further, the definition of "human" is itself entirely human.
We define ourselves as "human" and consider "human" any bones, fossils or DNA which seem essentially the same as our own.
But bones & fossils have been found of at least two dozen different species of pre-humans dated between us and the early primate fossils.
Some of these are arguably "human" -- i.e., Neanderthals.
Others are clearly more ape-like.
The exact line between "human" and "pre-human" is a matter for scientific analysis and debate.
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.