Posted on 07/29/2002 6:35:04 PM PDT by Tribune7
Printer-friendly format July 26, 2002, 6:11PM
A bone to pick: Missing link is evolutionists' weakest By JEFF FARMER
It has been said that if anyone wants to see something badly enough, they can see anything, in anything. Such was the case recently, but unlike some ghostly visage of the Madonna in a coffee stain, this was a vision of our ancestral past in the form of one recently discovered prehistoric skull, dubbed Sahelanthropus tchadensis.
Papers across the globe heralded the news with great fanfare. With words like "scientists hailed" and "startling find" sprinkled into the news coverage, who couldn't help but think evolutionists had finally found their holy grail of missing links?
For those of us with more than a passing interest in such topics as, "Where did we come from? And how did we get here?," this recent discovery and its subsequent coverage fall far short of its lofty claims. A healthy criticism is in order.
Practically before the fossil's discoverer, the French paleoanthropologist Michel Brunet, could come out of the heat of a Chadian desert, a number of his evolutionary colleagues had questioned his conclusions.
In spite of the obvious national pride, Brigitte Senut of the Natural History of Paris sees Brunet's skull as probably that of an ancient female gorilla and not the head of man's earliest ancestor. While looking at the same evidence, such as the skull's flattened face and shorter canine teeth, she draws a completely different conclusion.
Of course, one might be inclined to ask why such critiques never seem to get the same front-page coverage? It's also important to point out that throughout history, various species, such as cats, have had varying lengths of canine teeth. That does not make them any closer to evolving into another species.
A Washington Post article goes on to describe this latest fossil as having human-like traits, such as tooth enamel thicker than a chimpanzee's. This apparently indicates that it did not dine exclusively on the fruit diet common to apes. But apes don't dine exclusively on fruit; rather, their diet is supplemented with insects, birds, lizards and even the flesh of monkeys. The article attempted to further link this fossil to humans by stating that it probably walked upright. Never mind the fact that no bones were found below the head! For all we know, it could have had the body of a centaur, but that would hardly stop an overzealous scientist (or reporter) from trying to add a little meat to these skimpy bones. Could it not simply be a primate similar to today's Bonobo? For those not keeping track of their primates, Bonobos (sp. Pan paniscus) are chimpanzee-like creatures found only in the rain forests of Zaire. Their frame is slighter than that of a chimpanzee's and their face does not protrude as much. They also walked upright about 5 percent of the time. Sound familiar?
Whether it is tooth enamel, length of canines or the ability to walk upright, none of these factors makes this recent discovery any more our ancestral candidate than it does a modern-day Bonobo.
So why does every new fossil discovery seem to get crammed into some evolutionary scenario? Isn't it possible to simply find new, yet extinct, species? The answer, of course, is yes; but there is great pressure to prove evolution.
That leads us to perhaps the most troubling and perplexing aspect of this latest evolutionary hoopla. While on one hand sighting the evolutionary importance of this latest discovery, a preponderance of these articles leave the notion that somehow missing links are not all that important any more.
According to Harvard anthropologist Dan Lieberman, missing links are pretty much myths. That might be a convenient conclusion for those who have been unable to prove evolution via the fossil record. Unfortunately for them, links are absolutely essential to evolution. It is impossible for anything to evolve into another without a linear progression of these such links.
The prevailing evolutionary view of minute changes, over millions of years, is wholly inadequate for the explanation of such a critical piece of basic locomotion as the ball-and-socket joint. Until such questions can be resolved, superficial similarities between various species are not going to prove anything. No matter how bad someone wants to see it.
Farmer is a professional artist living in Houston. He can can be contacted via his Web site, www.theglobalzoo.com
This is about the 3rd time I answer that charge made against Christianity. Islam encourages killing, Christianity discourages it. Just like all the laws against murder do not stop murder, all the religious injunctions against killing do not stop it completely either. All that laws and religions can do is encourage or discourage certain activities. Islam encourages killing, Christianity discourages it. Atheists encourage mass murder, Christianity discourages it. Our own troops have been guilty of atrocities even though they are severely discouraged from it. What this means is that the atrocities of American troops have been far fewer than those of other troops, not that they have been nonexistent. You cannot change human nature, you can only nudge it in the right direction.
It may never be known how many millions were killed during the Spanish conquest of the western hemisphere. The native populations of many caribbean islands were eliminated. Slavery (agricultural and mining) was the way things were done, and indians died very soon after being put to such labor. Africans were imported as slave labor in part because they survived the work better, and in part because it was "more humane" to enslave them rather than the rapidly dying indians. All those picturesque old spanish missions in California and all over the west were the centers of vast slave plantations, operated by the Church. When the US purchased Florida from Spain in 1820, there were no indians left alive in the entire peninsula, all had been worked to death, killed by disease, or rounded up and sent elsewhere as slave labor.
And this is the record only of Spain, in the Americas. There is also Portugal in Brazil, and other European nations in Africa. I don't want to open the can of worms that is England's still-continuing problems in Ireland. And then there is mother Russia (pre-marxism) and her endless expansion into southern asia and eastward to the Pacific. Does anyone know how many asians died as Christian Russia expanded?
This is not a condemnation of Christianity. It's a commentary on man's nature. And it's evidence that religion really doesn't alter man's nature. We are what we are, regardless of the prattling of preachers.
Please don't get me started on this topic. Some of the greatest brutality exercised against fellow humans was done in the name of Jesus. For a small sample, please refer to Doctor Stochastic's excellent posts within this very thread: Post 1008 and Post 1009
Yep. His train of thought is like a stopped up toilet.
I already answered the above indirectly. Religion does not change human nature. All it does is nudge people one way or the other. Christianity influences people against murder. Atheism and Islam influence them towards murder.
"Kill them all, God will know His own." -- the Abbot of Citeaux outside the walls of Beziers.
To: RightWingNilla:Can you believe this? I'm truly stunned. The outrageousness of such a statement raises the creationist tactic of shameless brazenness to a whole new order of magnitude.Asked and answered more than once already. You seem to have the dishonest habit of repeating the same stuff that has been refuted a few hundred posts before as if it had been completely ignored.
1094 posted on 8/11/02 1:04 AM Eastern by gore3000
You're right, I'm not reading a lot of blue these days. For anyone who hasn't seen it, there's quite a case study in psychopathology there.
But I've seen it. Breathtaking hypocrisy, yes.
I speak as a Christian fundamentalist - that is, a person who believes the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.
Indeed, there were many atrocities committed in the name of Christ. In my opinion, these were caused by people not knowing or believing the teachings of Christ - people who could falsely rationalize that others were subhuman - animals - either by race, customs, or the deeds of their ancestors.
Paradoxically, that kind of thinking exists today among the very ignorant as well as the very educated. On the one hand, the CI/Aryan types and on the other, the anti-Semitic intellectual agnostics. I do not take it lightly that the hate always seem to center first on the Jewish people.
IMHO, the more people are discouraged from embracing the teachings of Christ, the more likely these atrocities will happen again.
I urge you to examine the numbers on these exhaustive tables Democide - along with the sources. It puts the entire issue in much better perspective to all such atrocities and will substantiate that the greatest horror was brought by atheistic political regimes.
Great site, Alamo-Girl. But I keep bringing up the track record of Imperial Spain because they were possibly the most religious nation of their time -- and the most genocidal. Priests accompanied the exploration and colonization missions. I'm not making a cause-and-effect claim here. All I'm saying is that religion is no guarantee against beastial conduct.
Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---the anatomy of TYRANNY...
Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/America---the post-modern age of switch-flip-spin-DEFORMITY-cancer...Atheist secular materialists through ATHEISM/evolution CHANGED-REMOVED the foundations...demolished the wall(separation of state/religion)--trampled the TRUTH-GOD...built a satanic temple/SWAMP-MALARIA/RELIGION(cult of darwin-marx-satan) over them---made these absolutes subordinate--relative and calling/CHANGING all the... residuals---technology/science === TO evolution via schlock/sMUCK science...to substantiate/justify their efforts--claims...social engineering***('test' for office/vetting)--PC--atheism...anti-God/Truth RELIGION(USSC monopoly)--and declared a crusade/WAR--JIHAD--INTOLERANCE/TYRANNY(breaking the establishment clause)...against God--man--society/SCIENCE!!
***...new!
All I'm saying is that religion is no guarantee against beastial conduct.
I agree with you that religion is no guarantee. I believe this is so because denominations generally add their own set of values and interpretation to the Word.
Some religions put their own teachings (traditions) on par with (or ahead of) the Word and thus, a religious leader instructing a soldier to kill would be in the soldier's eyes the same thing as if Christ himself told him to do so.
This is in direct contradiction to the Word:
In the example, if the soldier knew and believed the teachings of Christ, he would likely have refused to his own peril.
IMHO, the more people know and believe the teachings of Christ the less likely they will be do any kind of harm to another person.
No, what it shows is your utter dishonesty. The very post your are responding to ( Post #1094 ) reposts where RWN's exact statement had been previously answered and Post# 1100 gives another example.
You are a shameless liar.
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.