New poll/Old poll
The new poll question is up:
What was the top news story this week?
Last week the answer on the question of the origin of human life getting the most votes was, “God created humans in present form within the past 10,000 years,” which, of course, was the correct answer…
If you voted, find your personal brightly colored flag on the map below. I’ve adjusted it to include Canada. I’ve also boxed a map of world votes in the upper right hand corner. Click to enlarge:
As always, please make comments to either the old or new poll here, not at the Vizu website.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Last week the answer on the question of the origin of human life getting the most votes was, “God created humans in present form within the past 10,000 years,” which, of course, was the correct answer
*blink*
Ummmm….aside from noting my shock that Jill freely admits to being a young-earth creationist, I’d like to mention that the poll actually reflects a majority of support for evolution (with a split on whether it was guided or not, of course).
Science does not show that humans have existed in their present for for MILLIONS of years.
Science does not show that humans have existed in their present for for MILLIONS of years.
That is very true. Science shows that humans evolved into their present form over millions of years.
Last week the answer on the question of the origin of human life getting the most votes was, “God created humans in present form within the past 10,000 years,” which, of course, was the correct answer:
I love you, Jill! I thank God for you all of the time!!!!
So did God put black people on Africa and White people on Europe or are you saying that only some humans were created from God? I don’t see how this can work.
I have to agree with Hieronymous on this one, the poll is a majority in support of evolution with different ideas on how it occurred. That poll response got a majority in a single category, but the idea of evolution got the overall majority of support.
I for one voted for evolution with guidance, had that option not been there I would have been forced to pick other or say God had no hand for the purpose of the poll.
“Lucy is dated to just less than 3.18 million years old.”
http://www.asu.edu/clas/iho/lucy.html#age
Or is Lucy not a real human? Why not? She has the same DNA as we do.
Wait, no, the first human DNA was found:
“The oldest DNA we have from a human ancestor is from a Neanderthal that takes us back to about 100,000 years.”
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_firsthuman/chat.html
Basically we say fetuses are human because of their DNA, that’s why you don’t believe in abortion. But this person has human DNA and is 100,000 years old.
JLM, haha… :)
Hiero, you’re shocked at my beliefs about creation? I’m shocked you’re shocked.
But about the “young earth,” the Bible says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form and void.”
We do not know when “in the beginning” was. So God could have created the formless and void earth millions or gazillion years ago.
But according to the Bible’s timeline, God fashioned the earth and its inhabitants about 6,000 years ago.
And He did it in 6 literal days: “And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day,” etc., a 24-hour time period. I don’t understand why people have a problem believing He was capable of that.
BTW, there has been no human fossil found older than 6k years. Strange if you’ve an evolution proponent.
Jess, no the story does not call the Neanderthal human. It calls the Neanderthal a “human ancestor,” and its dating is wrong.
Really Jill? Where did you read that? I found some different information but I don’t know, I’m no expert. Also like I was saying, so if the Earth only began in 4,000 BC what about the dinosaurs and the Ice Age and how did people multiply and expand their living area so quickly?
Where in the Bible does it say the Earth is only 6,000 years old? And maybe God did create the Earth in 6 days, and the billions of years the Earth spent evolving was time Adam and Eve spent in the Garden of Eden. It was paradise, so they wouldn’t get old and die. I know the Bible says Adam was like 900+ years maybe they meant 900 million?
“I don’t understand why people have a problem believing He was capable of that.”
We’re not saying “He” isn’t “capable.” We’re saying it makes no sense. It’s contradicted by what we know about our earth and our evolution. And, it’s unsupported by anything other than a poorly written mythology book. I’ve been trying recently to be more tolerant and understanding of those that pick this myth, or other myths, but holy cow batman, this particular idea is beyond comprehension. Some dude thousand of years ago writes it up and you believe it? You believe because the dude that wrote it up says it’s God’s word? What evidence is there that this book is God’s word except the book itself?
Please note, I’m not saying here that there is no god. I’m not saying here Jesus didn’t exist. I’m not even saying Jesus isn’t the son of God. All I’m saying is why the heck would you believe the claims in this old book? Is there any evidence that God said anywhere else to anyone else that the Bible is his word?
http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
Can I just say this is the best gosh darn way to get kids to read the Bible? I read the whole Bible over again, srsly : )
Jess,
Read this. At the most, it will take you 10 minutes. It’s worth the read!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible
BTW, there has been no human fossil found older than 6k years. Strange if you’ve an evolution proponent.
I’m not sure which poorly researched creationist site you found that particular factoid on, but you’re wrong. I’ll leave it up to you to do the google search for “homo sapiens fossils”.
Jill, I suppose the reason I’m shocked is that you are/were a nurse. I presumed that you had some background in basic biology.
Heiro,
Please read the link in my 10:33 post, too.
JLM – Answers in Genesis is not a science site. It is a creationist propoganda site, and its material has been soundly debunked in many forums. It’s an echo chamber for people who, for whatever reason, have trouble reconciling real science with their faith.
Only 38% of Jill’s readers agree with her creationist beliefs. Interesting.
JLM, I don’t know how fast you read but yeah that is going to take me way over 10 minutes, lol. I can’t read it right now I’m at home with my family for the long weekend and you’ll be pleased to know I promised to go to church with my Mom if she goes. I will read it later though, and if I see you on here I’ll tell you what I think ; )
“I’m not sure which poorly researched creationist site you found that particular factoid on, but you’re wrong. I’ll leave it up to you to do the google search for “homo sapiens fossils”.”
@Hieronymous: You know science is full of liars right?
Hieronymous (and Rae, too!),
Did you even read the link? If so, please tell me where they are wrong.
Thank you, and I appreciate your insight on the link I provided.
Only 38% of Jill’s readers agree with her creationist beliefs. Interesting.
Which, btw…was the MAJORITY in this poll.
No, JLM, it wasn’t the “majority”. At best, it was a plurality. The majority of the poll respondents favored evolution.
26.8% – Deity-guided evolution
plus
27.3% – Non-deity-guided evolution
equals
54.1% agreement with evolution of one flavor or the other.
I think that 54.1% could safely be considered a majority.
@JLM: To be honest, I don’t really care whether God created us 10,000 years ago or whether we evolved over the course of millions of years. In the long run, as I’ve said a zillion times, it’s not really that important.
As a scientist (as I am in the field of microbiology) I accept evolution to be a valid mode of our “creation”. But I only say this because it’s just for school, otherwise, I wouldn’t give two cents worth of thought to the topic.
…and I hate these stupid evolution v. creationism opinion polls anyway. It’s ridiculous, as if science is decided by opinion.
the answer on the question of the origin of human life getting the most votes was, “God created humans in present form within the past 10,000 years,” which, of course, was the correct answer
:: laughing ::
What proof does anyone have that the Bible is true anyway besides that they believe in it?
Only 38% of Jill’s readers agree with her creationist beliefs. Interesting.
Which, btw…was the MAJORITY in this poll.
I was just going to add that it was not, in fact, the majority, but a PLURALITY, but someone else beat me to it.
Anon & Heiro….
I was wrong! Thank you for pointing out my ignorance on this one!!! (I learn something every day!!!)
Okay, I have a question. If humans were only created 6,000 years ago or whatever, how do you explain all the fossils we’ve found with human DNA that date back hundreds of thousands if not millions of years ago?
Who were those people (or animals)?
Danielle,
Read this. At the most, it will take you 10 minutes. It’s worth the read!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible
I was talking to my uncle about this and he raised an interesting point. Who says that a day to God is a day to us mere humans? Maybe what was a day to God when He created the heavens and the earth was the equivalent to many many years to us now. God created animals on the fifth day, so it is entirely possible that the Bible and science are complimentary: plants came before animals and animals before humans. And since God is so vast and time is relative, the “fifth day” could have been billions of years on earth.
Oh, also, I have a question about this new poll, Jill. Do you mean what do we personally think was the biggest piece of news this week or what did we see most news coverage on?
Leah, too logical. Read what Jill said again:
“And He did it in 6 literal days: “And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day,” etc., a 24-hour time period. I don’t understand why people have a problem believing He was capable of that.”
When a scientist
Plus, there are other ways of dating things. The rock sediment it is found in, for one. If all life was created at the same time, when it died, it should be in roughly the same rock layers. But it’s not. We’ve found people and animals and plants and such buried in rock layers too far down to have existed only 6,000 years ago.
More proof of the flood, Danielle!
Then… how did the fossils arrange themselves so conveniently, with the least evolved on the lowest rock layers and the more advanced further on up? Why don’t we find fossils of all developments in one layer?
“Here’s good example. Go into any basic college geology course and the first thing they throw at their students is a “geologic column,” an “evolutionary geologic column” or time scale. They teamed up with evolutionary biologists and have divided the structure of the surface of the earth into various strata which they associate a particular time period with. That time period is dependent on the fossils found in that one strata. If near the bottom they have found a very simple life form, they maintain that that is the oldest rock on the earth, it’s the farthest down from the top, and consequently, the very earliest of life forms are found in this layer.
Then, as they find in higher strata
But the Bible says nothing of 24 hours.
Leah,
It’s so ironic you bring that point up! My mother and I were discussing that exact thing the other day! It is a very logical point to make I think..and it makes more sense to me than the literal 6 days explanation.
ok, so we’re all agreed. Anyone who insists on the literal six day creation myth is crazy as a loon.
But the Bible says nothing of 24 hours.
Posted by: Leah at April 19, 2008 2:19 PM
Sure, but the Bible is very clear that we’re talking about day and night. I don’t think it’s logical to assume daylight stretched on for thousands of years followed by thousands of years of night.
Simplest question of all, Darwinist proponents: How did nonlife morph into life? How did life spark from a rock?
Leah,
As Jill stated up above,
Genesis 1:4-5
4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning
Simplest question of all, Darwinist proponents: How did nonlife morph into life? How did life spark from a rock?
Ten bucks says they say, “well God did THAT!”
“Simplest question of all, Darwinist proponents: How did nonlife morph into life? How did life spark from a rock?”
Uh…nobody knows. We haven’t figured that little bit yet. I have my own thoughts on the subject (theistic evolution).
There have been experiments in which amino acids and DNA/RNA have been created out of “non-living” compounds. Amino acids and DNA/RNA *are* the building blocks of life. Without them, we would have no life.
I could look up the studies for you on the topic if you’d like.
JLM, I’m really intrigued by your assertions but I’d have to ask that you link me to a more credible website. I’m not a science expert so I’d like to rely on experts, if you know what I mean. It says Les Feldick is an Oklahoma rancher. In my book, that doesn’t really qualify you to speak about geology, biology, physics, etc. Not that I don’t think he could be right, but I don’t know enough about science to check every one of his assertions with a credible scientist.
Sorry.
What would creationists do if scientists recreated the exact conditions necessary and made life come from “non-life”?
Simplest question of all, Darwinist proponents: How did nonlife morph into life? How did life spark from a rock?
Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 19, 2008 2:39 PM
The theory of evolution doesn’t address the origins of life, Jill. I don’t know why you assume that it does.
The theory of evolution, which began with Darwin’s understanding of natural selection, addresses the origins of biological diversity on our planet, not the origins of our original common ancestors.
Danielle,
That’s ok. I don’t know enough about science either. However, I haven’t found any links that DO show that fossils were found in that order everywhere around the earth, though!
On another thread, I provided a LONG list of scientists that question evolution. Needless to say, the entire list of hundreds of scientists disagreeing wasn’t good enough in believers of evolution to even consider them as “real scientists”! If you would like for me to post it again, I will! Maybe you can look into some of their research??? Just a thought. let me know!
The theory of evolution, which began with Darwin’s understanding of natural selection, addresses the origins of biological diversity on our planet, not the origins of our original common ancestors.
Hieronymous,
Isn’t it’s starting point, though, the first single-celled organism?
Sure, but the Bible is very clear that we’re talking about day and night. I don’t think it’s logical to assume daylight stretched on for thousands of years followed by thousands of years of night
But… I don’t understand why you have a problem believing He is capable of it!
Leah, 3:00 p.m.
GOOD POINT!!!
Sure, but the Bible is very clear that we’re talking about day and night. I don’t think it’s logical to assume daylight stretched on for thousands of years followed by thousands of years of night
But… I don’t understand why you have a problem believing He is capable of it!
Posted by: Leah at April 19, 2008 3:00 PM
But…I don’t understand why you have a problem believing that He is capable of doing it instantaneously by simply saying it! (And God said….)
Isn’t it’s starting point, though, the first single-celled organism?
Posted by: JLM at April 19, 2008 2:58 PM
From what I understand, the process of evolution began with the first self-replicating RNA molecules.
Jill, you wrote: “Simplest question of all, Darwinist proponents: How did nonlife morph into life?”
Answer: “By means of chemical reactions we have not yet identified.”
This is an adequate explanation and it is a weaker hypothesis than any hypothesis which invokes God. All hypotheses which invoke God are infinitely strong hypotheses because the concept of God is a concept of an infinitely strong, infinitely intelligent and therefore infinitely complex, Being. The principle known as Occam’s Razor requires us to go with the weakest and simplist hypothesis which answers the question. Therefore it requires us to accept “not-yet-identified chemical reactions” over “God made it” because “God made it” is a stronger and more complex hypothesis.
In any event, as several posters have pointed out, your question is outside the scope of evolutionary biology (which some people mistakenly call “Darwinism”).
Hieronymous,
Thank you. I reasearched “theory of evolution” and found that there are other sciences that deal with origin of life. Correct me if I found a “bad source”, but it states:
“Studies of the origin of the first life form, of the origin of the earth, and the origin of the universe itself do not form part of the theory of evolution. Such studies are pursued within different scientific disciplines.
Some proponents of other belief systems often use the term “evolution” to refer to change in:
Plant and animal species,
The earth itself,
Individual stars,
Individual galaxies,
etc.
Strictly speaking, evolution belongs only in biology.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_state.htm
It just seems to me that in order to believe the theory of evolution, you would HAVE to go back in “way back machine” to how that first life form came about.
Sure, but the Bible is very clear that we’re talking about day and night. I don’t think it’s logical to assume daylight stretched on for thousands of years followed by thousands of years of night
But… I don’t understand why you have a problem believing He is capable of it!
Posted by: Leah at April 19, 2008 3:00 PM
I think you misunderstood, Leah. I didn’t say he coudln’t do it I said it was pretty explicit in the Bible that it was done in 6 days.
I mean in all likelihood it wasn’t done in 6 days and whoever wrote the Bible was writing a parable about creation. that’s what makes the most sense to me, personally.
Hier, you wrote: “From what I understand, the process of evolution began with the first self-replicating RNA molecules. ”
That is a fashionable hypothesis because RNA is the simplest molecule we know of that can self-replicate, but has not been proved that RNA was the first biomolecule. It is still very much a matter of speculation.
Simplest question of all, Darwinist proponents: How did nonlife morph into life? How did life spark from a rock?
Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 19, 2008 2:39 PM
I’m comfortable saying I don’t know. Simplest question to all you religious people: Who created God, and why?
But…I don’t understand why you have a problem believing that He is capable of doing it instantaneously by simply saying it! (And God said….)
Sure, it could happen. God is God, after all. But evidence points to the contrary. So why can’t you acknowledge the possibility that you’re wrong? I offer a feasible alternative.
And God said?? Really? You do realize that man wrote the Bible, don’t you?
I think you misunderstood, Leah. I didn’t say he coudln’t do it I said it was pretty explicit in the Bible that it was done in 6 days.
I mean in all likelihood it wasn’t done in 6 days and whoever wrote the Bible was writing a parable about creation. that’s what makes the most sense to me, personally.
Danielle, I wasn’t exactly targeting that at you–it was more of a general statement, but your comment seemed to be something appropriate to respond to in that way. My comment stands.
In general, I agree with you. The Bible is full of parables. Basically, my point is that the Bible and science don’t necessarily contradict each other.
And God said?? Really? You do realize that man wrote the Bible, don’t you?
No, I don’t. Man’s HAND wrote the bible, but God TOLD him what to write. They are God’s words, not man’s.
I also believe that God reveals Himself to us in His creations. I believe that the Lycoris squamigera (resurrection lily) (Also called the Miracle Lily) is proof that God’s creations can be instantaneous.
“Who created God, and why?”
This is answered in the doctrine of God’s aseity. God is a necessary being, and hence self-existent. God is eternal; he always has been and always will be. This is consistent with the biblical understanding of God as seen in Exodus 3:14 where God tells Moses that his name is I AM WHO AM. God IS. He is pure being.
JLM, you wrote: “No, I don’t. Man’s HAND wrote the bible, but God TOLD him what to write. They are God’s words, not man’s.”
With a goo goo goo and a gah gah gah.
You believe this because you have been programmed to believe it, not because you have any evidence for it.
Leah, 3:33 p.m. I agree!
This is answered in the doctrine of God’s aseity. God is a necessary being, and hence self-existent. God is eternal; he always has been and always will be. This is consistent with the biblical understanding of God as seen in Exodus 3:14 where God tells Moses that his name is I AM WHO AM. God IS. He is pure being.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 19, 2008 3:45 PM
I’m going to float right into what you’ll likely consider heresy here, but in my less-atheist/more-deist moments, I’m kind of on board with this idea (only not exactly). I don’t think of God as pure “being” but pure law.
In my imaginings about the nature of the universe, I think that to the extent that there is some being/thing/entity holding it all together (let’s call it God for sake of convenience), God is most likely expressed as law. Which, btw, is one of the reasons I could never believe in a literal reading of Genesis. I figure that if this entity exists, it isn’t a big ole anthropomorphic being that concerns itself with our day-to-day lives. Rather, God is the fundamental structure of the universe, and even God can’t violate his own natural law, because God is law, and violating it would be a negation of itself.
In my view, if scientists ever stumble upon a workable “theory of everything” they will have found God.
You believe this because you have been programmed to believe it, not because you have any evidence for it.
Nope! I believe it because of my faith in God. I don’t need proof!
Leah,
If I remember correctly, you are a big fan of Islam, or practice that religion, right? Do you think that Jesus was just a literal prophet and not the Son of God…the Messiah – also?
Because if we’re talking about bible interpretations here, we’re on two seperate planets!!!
Hey Hieronymous. What you described seems to me to be a little closer to something called pantheism than deism, though it isn’t quite pantheism. Now, these doctrines of God that philosophers or theologians often talk about are derived (or at least argued) from arguments about the existence of God. So, for example, you may have heard of the cosmological argument which, in a very very brief nutshell says 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2) The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause, and we call that cause God. It’s a valid syllogism, no doubts there. The only thing in question are the premises, but that’s not what were discussing here. From this argument, it follows that God would be a personal being since only a personal being could create something out of nothing. By personal, I mean in opposition to just a force of nature or simply laws. So this is a very brief sketch of why one might consider God personal.
Bobby,
I’m impressed!
Nothing about me to be impressed with. I steal every sentence write from William Lane Craig, including this sentence.
If I remember correctly, you are a big fan of Islam, or practice that religion, right? Do you think that Jesus was just a literal prophet and not the Son of God…the Messiah – also?
Does Islam say this?
Elizabeth,
Islam says that Jesus was a prophet and not the Son of God, or God. They believe that Jesus was a real human, a prophet, but do not believe that he was crucified as the Son of God.
Elizabeth-
Islam counts Jesus among the various prophets, as are the Jewish prophets. They believe, in essence, that Jews and Christians unintentionally had gone astray, but what from I understand that’s in a very tiny nutshell, bit of a complex issue.
Yes Elizabeth. According to Islam, Jesus was one of the greatest prophets, yet not the son of God. They believe in the swoon theory, that Jesus was not crucified yet someone else who looked like him was crucified and people thought it was him. Christianity and Islam, in just this aspect, contradict each other.
You’re right Bobby, it is more like pantheism (now that I’ve looked it up!). Now I’m going to go read some stuff about Baruch Spinoza….
Thanks!
Wow, we were all on top of that one! Nice group effort.
Glad to help, Hieronymous.
Haha that’s for sure! Thanks for the responses guys!
JLM, you wrote: “Nope! I believe it because of my faith in God. I don’t need proof!”
And where did your faith come from? Only two ways:
1. You were raised in it (programmed for it)
or
2. You converted to it (self-programming).
Either way, you have faith because you were programmed to it, not because it reflects anything real.
JLM, you wrote: “Nope! I believe it because of my faith in God. I don’t need proof!”
And where did your faith come from? Only two ways:
1. You were raised in it (programmed for it)
or
2. You converted to it (self-programming).
Either way, you have faith because you were programmed to it, not because it reflects anything real.
Well, anon, you’re sortof right here. I was indeed “programmed” (or created) that way, but not like you think. I was chosen by God to be adopted into His family BEFORE I was even born! Praise the Lord!
Ephesians 1:4-6
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
I guess you CAN say my faith was programmed into me!!!!
But…I don’t understand why you have a problem believing that He is capable of doing it instantaneously by simply saying it! (And God said….)
Posted by: JLM at April 19, 2008 3:13 PM
Good point. That is my biggest problem with this idea of God creating the world through a process of evolution. Most theistic evolution proponents have no problem believing that God meant something different than what He said, but it is so hard for them to imagine God actually doing what He clearly said He did say. That bothers me on so many levels. That is exactly my problem with theistic evolution.
JLM,you wrote: “I believe it because of my faith in God. I don’t need proof!”
In other words, you don’t care that it’s all in your mind and might have nothing to do with the true facts.
Then you have no business trying to force it on other people. A lot of people with terrific faith are flat wrong about what they believe and there’s no objective reason for anyone to think you are not one of them.
In other words, you don’t care that it’s all in your mind and might have nothing to do with the true facts.
Last time I checked, it was still a theory. Facts can look good on the outside, but I’m still banking on God’s word for truth. It’s not in my mind, it’s in my heart and is all I live for.
Then you have no business trying to force it on other people. .
Stating my opinions are forcing them on other people???? A bit delusional, don’t you think?
A lot of people with terrific faith are flat wrong about what they believe and there’s no objective reason for anyone to think you are not one of them
SoMG,
So be it then. I’m comfortable where I’m at and realize that I’m in the minority. You, as an abortionist on this site, should certainly understand that!
JLM,you wrote: “I believe it because of my faith in God. I don’t need proof!”
In other words, you don’t care that it’s all in your mind and might have nothing to do with the true facts.
SOMG, you and others cling to evolution although it has never been proven. Creationists simply have the guts to admit their stance takes faith as well.
Maybe the world began 115 years ago? Were any of you alive 115 years ago? No. This discussion is over.
I think it has been proven. Unless you believe that the people who examine fossils for a living are lying to us (also the biochemists and the genetics people).
“I think it has been proven. Unless you believe that the people who examine fossils for a living are lying to us (also the biochemists and the genetics people).”
They weren’t alive 115 years ago either.
Jess, I was answering Bethany. I think evolution (defined as the combination of random mutation and natural selection) is proven fact.
I suppose that means that I have faith in the integrity of the folks who examine fossils for a living (and the biochemists and genetics people).
Thank you, SOMG @7:17 PM!! That’s all I needed someone to say. Thank you, that is it. That is the ONLY thing I’ve ever wanted to get out of an evolution/creation debate. See, I am not really as interested in converting anyone from evolutionism to creationism as in just in having someone admit and recognize it takes a certain amount of faith to believe that those scientists have integrity and wouldn’t lie to you about evolution, just as it takes my faith that my God tells has integrity and wouldn’t lie about creation, to believe in creationism. You are the only one so far that has admitted this to me.
“recognize it takes a certain amount of faith to believe that those scientists have integrity and wouldn’t lie to you about evolution”
and also faith that they are doing quality work and not making mistakes, ehh?
Well Bethany, I think my faith is a lot more reasonable than your faith. The entire scientific community (or nearly) lying at once? A conspiracy fantasy? The only thing I can think of that’s easier to disbelieve than that is an all-powerful superbeing bothering to communicate with mankind.
Bobby B., you wrote: “faith that they are doing quality work and not making mistakes, ehh?”
They certainly ARE making mistakes but the scientific community is a self-correcting institution. Mistakes–hypotheses that turn out to be wrong–are more common in science than proven facts. They get corrected or refined out of the theory over time.
That is why science is so much more reliable than religion when it comes to describing nature. The science keeps changing until it gets it right.
Science does not claim perfection for itself.
Bobby, precisely.
That is why science is so much more reliable than religion when it comes to describing nature. The science keeps changing until it gets it right.
Science keeps changing to prove what God has already done. God got it right the first time!
SoMG,
Thank you for a polite debate. This one was really nice!
On another note, while you’re actually communicating with me, you never answered the question I asked you a while back about the baby/fetus/zygote’s (whatever you wish to call it) eyes. Can you please answer that for me?
JLM, you wrote:”Science keeps changing to prove what God has already done. ”
Sometimes it disproves what people of faith think God has done.
What was the question about the fetus’ eyes?
JLM, I don’t think what you have in mind will matter much to SoMG. In fact, he very well could agree with what you have to say. He believes in the humanity of the unborn (and personhood) every bit as much as we do, but believes that the women’s bodily autonomy trumps the right to life of the fetus. Is that a fair assessment, SoMG?
SoMG,
The question was this:
Was there ever a time where your eyes met the eyes of the baby/fetus/zygote’s (whatever you wish to call it) eyes, either during or after it was aborted, and if so did you ever feel anything?
Oops. K, I was thinking you were going someplace else with the question, JLM. Ignore what I wrote above, hehe…
Sometimes it disproves what people of faith think God has done.
anon,
like…????
Good point. That is my biggest problem with this idea of God creating the world through a process of evolution. Most theistic evolution proponents have no problem believing that God meant something different than what He said, but it is so hard for them to imagine God actually doing what He clearly said He did say. That bothers me on so many levels. That is exactly my problem with theistic evolution.
Well, it’s because it is kinda hard to ignore physical facts as truth as well, Bethany. And, if you’re like me, and don’t take the whole Bible literally, it’s a little hard to understand people who do this and just ignore all the physical evidence that is out there as well. It’s not that *I* think God meant something different than what He said. I mean couldn’t the whole creation in 6 days and resting on the 7th be a story with a message about how we should observe the Sabbath to rest and worship God? That’s always how I’ve seen it, not that the Earth was actually created in 6 days. Now I suppose God COULD have done this, but I am also not going to just ignore all the other evidence out there and say it’s untrue because it’s not in the Bible. That’s just ignoring facts and believing what I want to believe. That’s not logical…and well, I am a very logical person. Can’t help it, that’s just how God made me. :)
(You see…this is the problem with mixing science and theology…it gets all fuzzy and confusing, especially since science can’t prove God DOESN’T exist, and it doesn’t even try!)
Like showing that He did not make Earth the center of the solar system, for instance.
Bobby B, I would say “body-ownership” rather than “autonomy”, but other than that, yes that’s a pretty fair assessment.
JLM, the eye spots of an early-pregnancy fetus are on opposite sides of its head. So it would be difficult to look into both of them at the same time.
SoMG,
So, the answer is no? No later term one’s either?
Like showing that He did not make Earth the center of the solar system, for instance.
Anon,
I wasn’t familiar with that, so I looked it up.
I’m not Catholic, but I really don’t know if I would have bought into their interpretations of the verses below if I lived in that time!
“At one time Catholics claimed that the Bible declared that the Earth was at the center of our Solar System and universe (the position of the Roman Catholic Church through the 16th century). The Roman Catholic Church cited scripture to “prove” that the Earth was the center of the Solar System and universe. We (Christians) look back at these scriptural “proofs” as merely interpretations of scripture that were not valid. In fact, the Bible says that the earth is controlled by the heavens and not the other way around:”
Job 38:33
Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?
(NIV version for easier reading):
Do you know the laws of the heavens?
Can you set up God’s [a] dominion over the earth?
[a] Or his ; or their
http://www.biblegateway.com
I’m glad that science showed them that the interpretation of that verse was incorrect!
JLM, I don’t do late-term abortions. (Not many people do.)
Oh, does SoMG performs abortions? Is that correct? I don’t know how I missed that…
@Bobby: Are you able to chat on AIM?
SoMG,
Not late term, later term abortions.
Anyway, is the answer no? Your eyes never met theirs????
SoMG,
I’m looking at pics from the website below. The first one is at six weeks, (I love that picture!!!) and I can clearly see it’s eyes. I believe this site is unbiased, as it seems to do abortions as well. The picture at seven weeks also shows the eyes very well. Do you not do abortions at six or seven weeks?
http://www.wpclinic.org/parenting/fetal-development/first-trimester/
If I’m being pushy and you don’t want to answer, just let me know. I understand “it’s none of your business!”
:)
I was wrong (again!) The website is biased. I saw Abortion at the top of the page, and assumed that was one of their services. However, after looking at the pics again, I found this disclaimer at the bottom: “WPC does not perform or refer for pregnancy terminations”. Good for them!
I hope their pictures are accurate!!!!
JLM,
I checked out those pictures and they were AMAZING!!! It makes me go back to my fond pregnancy memories and how cool it was to have another person in my body. Although..the 2nd to last photo, that baby looks SO cramped in there!
Elizabeth,
I thought the same exact thing about that little cramped guy!!! Poor thing still had a while to go! No wonder they cry when they come out…it’s like sleeping in a wierd position then standing upright….OUCH!
Lol JLM that’s exactly what I thought! Mine was always moving in there…no wonder they get the cord around there neck all the time!
Elizabeth,
Yep…that cord sure is a health hazard!!!
Tell me about it..my baby’s was in a knot and around her throat a couple of times! Thank God for c-sections or she would have had problems!
I’m still a bit thrown off by the fact that 38% of the people who responded think 1) there is a god, 2) he created the earth, animals and the people, and 3) he did it within the last 10,000 years. At least one of you even thinks that a very big boat carried two of *every* species to safety after 40 days of rain. I need to back off before I say something that might get me banned. I’m going to take a week or two off and think about things. See you in May.
Hal:
It’s the wording of the question, maybe? The other answers made it sound like man has been around millions of years. Now if the last two had been worded “life evolved over millions of years…instead of man…..that would have probably produced different results, right?
Hal:
Also, on the evolution poll, there’s no available response of: “I don’t know, or it doesn’t matter”, for those who would otherwise guess.
They believe in the swoon theory, that Jesus was not crucified yet someone else who looked like him was crucified and people thought it was him. Christianity and Islam, in just this aspect, contradict each other.
Actually, Bobby, that is not true. What they believe is that Jesus himself was indeed crucified and that those who wanted him dead would not be pacified until they believed he was. So God made Jesus to appear as one dead and three days later, what Christians refer to as the Resurrection occurred–which the Muslims say is simply God making Jesus appear alive again.
From the Qur’an: And when you (almost) killed a man [definitively refers to Jesus], then you disagreed about it. And Allah was to bring forth that which you were going to hide [meaning the Jews wanted to kill Jesus but God ordained that he should not die] So We said: Smite him with it partially. Thus Allah brings the dead to life, and He shows you His signs that you may understand. 2:72-73
And a bit less abstractly: And for their saying: We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah, and they killed him not, nor did they cause his death on the cross, but he was made to appear to them as such. And certainly those who differ therein are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge about it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for certain: Nay Allah exalted him in His presence. And Allah is ever Mighty and Wise. 4:157-158
It’s a very interesting concept. And if you keep an open mind about how the Bible was written–by man, that is, to whom Jesus would appear dead (after all, it is commonly accepted at least that the Gospels were written my men), they don’t exactly contradict each other.
Especially when you take into consideration the flaw of men and their observations. Interestingly, there are certain things in the Bible that may even support this theory. For instance, Jesus was only on the cross a few short hours and death by crucifixion is usually lengthy (Mark 15:25; John 19:14). The two men crucified with Jesus were still alive when Jesus was taken down. When Jesus’ side was pierced, blood rushed out, which doesn’t happen if you’re dead. Most interestingly, I found, was that even Pilate did not believe that Jesus had died in such a short amount of time (Mark 15:44).
I’m not trying to discredit Christianity, I just find it all incredibly interesting: science and religion, Christianity and Islam: all these things that people are so certain contradict each other, while in reality–so long as you can open your mind to possibilities beyond the strict and literal word of holy texts–may actually compliment one another.
Interesting.
Well, I am no expert in Islam, but at least according to wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Jesus'_death there seems to be some controversy as to the Islamic view of Jesus’ death, although it is wiki. And I did mix up the meaning of the swoon theory with the substitution theory. Unfortunately, there is no final authority in Islam, so it’s hard to say how the texts and hadith should be interpreted, or what even constitutes as hadith for that matter.
I’m not trying to discredit Christianity, I just find it all incredibly interesting: science and religion, Christianity and Islam: all these things that people are so certain contradict each other, while in reality–so long as you can open your mind to possibilities beyond the strict and literal word of holy texts–may actually compliment one another.
I find in incredibly interesting as well! However, I strongly disagree that opening your mind to possibilities beyond the word of the bible, when these possibilities contradict the Word of God, that it is extremely dangerous!
Titus 1:14-16
14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
Especially when you take into consideration the flaw of men and their observations. Interestingly, there are certain things in the Bible that may even support this theory. For instance, Jesus was only on the cross a few short hours and death by crucifixion is usually lengthy (Mark 15:25; John 19:14). The two men crucified with Jesus were still alive when Jesus was taken down. When Jesus’ side was pierced, blood rushed out, which doesn’t happen if you’re dead. Most interestingly, I found, was that even Pilate did not believe that Jesus had died in such a short amount of time (Mark 15:44).
Leah,
You are correct that a crucifixtion usually takes more time! It was the most agaonizing and igominious death that could be devised. Nails were driven througth the hands and feet, and the victim was left hanging there in agony, suffering starvation, insufferable thirst, and exruciating convulsions of pain. The cause of death was not loss of blood, but heart failure. Death ususally followed in two to six days. In Jesus’ case it was over in six hours, when Jesus declared that “It is finished” and willfully gave up His spirit.
(Halley’s Bible Handbook, page 618)
John 19:33-34
33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
But as you can see, there is no contradiction here of observation from the men who were inspired by God to write the bible. The death on the cross was heart failure, not loss of blood. Jesus WILFULLY gave up His Spirit.
John 19:30
30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
Muslims do deny that Jesus Christ is the Son of God:
The Women
[4:171] O people of the scripture, do not transgress the limits of your religion, and do not say about GOD except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was a messenger of GOD, and His word that He had sent to Mary, and a revelation from Him. Therefore, you shall believe in GOD and His messengers. You shall not say, “Trinity.” You shall refrain from this for your own good. GOD is only one god. Be He glorified; He is much too glorious to have a son. To Him belongs everything in the heavens and everything on earth. GOD suffices as Lord and Master.
Here’s what my Lord says about that:
1 John 2:21-23
21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
Oh, Leah…I know this is fascinating to you, but it is sooooo dangerous for your eternal soul not to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He died for your sins and rose again the third day. Please do not make the eternally fatal mistake of believing otherwise.
:)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought victims of crucifixion typically asphyxiated.
Dan,
No, you’re not wrong. But heart failure and asphyxiation kindof tie in together. Either or, it’s not the theory that someone that is crucified bleeds to death. Here’s an article that can help…
Ultimately, the mechanism of death in crucifixion was suffocation. To breathe, the victim was forced to push up on his feet to allow for inflation of the lungs. As the body weakened and pain in the feet and legs became unbearable, the victim was forced to trade breathing for pain and exhaustion. Eventually, the victim would succumb in this way, becoming utterly exhausted or lapsing into unconsciousness so that he could no longer lift his body off the stipes and inflate his lungs. Due to the shallow breathing, the victim
Last week the answer on the question of the origin of human life getting the most votes was, “God created humans in present form within the past 10,000 years,” which, of course, was the correct answer…
Your poll results:
God created humans in present form: 38.3 + 7.7 = 46%
Humans evolved over millions of years: 26.8 + 27.3 = 54.1%
Looks to me like most of your readers accept evolution, which turns out to be the correct answer.
JLM, I wanted to give you this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM
I remember that you posted that Discovery Institute list of scientists who the DI claimed all rejected evolution. The guy who did the youtube video actually followed up on whether that was true by contacting all the scientists on the list who are either biologists or are in a related field. It’s interesting. It’s about 10 minutes long.
Hieronymous, 3:55 p.m.
I watched that video and it was VERY interesting and told me a lot! Thank you for posting it!
Elizabeth – it’s a little bit snarky, but his tone doesn’t really detract from his investigation. Good stuff!
I know, I really found it informative. Honestly, I have no problem with people who believe in Creationism/ID theories as they are faith-based. BUT, they are not SCIENTIFIC theories. In.any.way. Science in no way has undermined my belief in God or that he is the creator of all life. All science has done *for me* has broken down the physicality of life. It doesn’t talk about the spiritual because science can not meausre spirituality. Neither do mathematical theories…so I guess if you support math you are supporting evil then too.
Oh, the madness….
so I guess if you support math you are supporting evil then too
Get a grip, Elizabeth. I support science, I support math. OK??? Are you happy now????
I don’t support junk science. Period.
IMO (note: my OPINION!) Evolution is junk science.
I agree, JLM.
Lol, JLM, I have a grip…I think it’s you who needs to get a grip. Or are you disappointed that somebody debunked your whole 100 scientists idea?
You can think evolution is junk science all you want to…I don’t really care…but whether you like it or not…science.does.not.disprove.God.
I agree, Elizabeth! Science does not disprove God.
And evolution does not disprove God either, but evolution is not science, in my opinion. Evolution is a theory.
Definition of Theory:
hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena
Could not Intelligent Design fall into this category as well as evolution?
Intelligent design is indeed a tentative theory about the natural world, a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.
Lol, JLM, I have a grip…I think it’s you who needs to get a grip. Or are you disappointed that somebody debunked your whole 100 scientists idea?
I’m glad Heironymous did! I’m very disappointed when people flat out lie or deceive.
Here’s my “grip”, Elizabeth:
I’m in the minority about believing in Creationism.
I’m in the minority about believing solely in God’s Word.
I’m in the minority about believing that homosexuality is wrong.
I’m in the minority about believing that a person will not go to heaven simply because they are good.
I’m in the minority about believing in faith in Jesus Christ ALONE.
And I’m ok with all of that…You know why????
Matthew 7:13-15
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
You know what???? Seems like being the “minority” won’t be such a bad thing after all!
My “grip” is just fine!
What kind of theory is evolution Bethany? What area of study is it done in? When it is taught in school, what class is it taught in?
Did you read any of my posts about how I don’t have a problem with Creationism/ID? No? okay I’ll repeat myself JUST for your benefit. I have no problem with creationism/ID because they are religious theories. In religion/theology classes, I’m cool with talking about them. In SCIENCE class, let’s talk about SCIENCE okay?
Doesn’t matter, Elizabeth. A theory is still a theory is still a theory.
You can study the world, using Science, and it can lead you to believe in intelligent design. That is just as scientific as using science to lead you to believe in Evolution.
All I am asking is that you are not so quick to say that one theory is so much more scientific than another simply because you do not agree with the evidence leading to a different conclusion than what you believe it leads to9. I’m not asking you to change positions.
Did you read any of my posts about how I don’t have a problem with Creationism/ID? No? okay I’ll repeat myself JUST for your benefit. I have no problem with creationism/ID because they are religious theories. In religion/theology classes, I’m cool with talking about them. In SCIENCE class, let’s talk about SCIENCE okay
I think that you just might not realize how patronizing that sounds. I know you mean well.
Bobby: The final authority and only authority of Islam is the Qur’an. It states clearly in the Qur’an the Islamic take on the crucifixion and death. There should be no controversy (that is, of course, within Islam).
Also, found this in the Bible:
During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. (Hebrews 5:7)
JLM: I realize that your concern for my eternal soul is coming from a place in you that has only good intentions. Because of my love of Christianity and the powerful good–Good–that Jesus represented I do not take your words offensively. But be careful. Not everyone will realize that you are being caring and not self-righteous. You’re so sweet to be concerned.
In many respects, Jesus is my savior. I often read his words when I am stressed and I find particularly helpful his teachings on worrying (Matthew 6:25-27), though I have yet to actually master his suggestion. I think, as far as humans go, he was about as close to God as one can get.
Leah, don’t same Muslims consider various haiths to be directly from Mohamed, and thus just as binding as the Qur’an? I’m genuinely asking because I thought that was the case, but I don’t know for sure.
Bobby: This is true. However, the Qur’an states that it alone is Truth. Mohammad, like Jesus, was a prophet, so his teaching are to be regarded in the Islamic faith. However, you cannot take his word against that of the Qur’an.
Now, if you want my opinion, I think Mohammad was a very wise man. But unfortunately, many of the things he taught (he believed and preached on equal treatment for women) are discarded by (not all, of course) Muslims today. I also don’t think that the way he chose to spread Islam was very godly (by sword).
In other religious news, I had my biblical knowledge tested today by a five-year-old. Luckily, I know the story of Passover. But it was so funny, hearing these simple questions from a child. “Why did God do that?” was one thing he asked, which I found actually quite poignant. While God’s reasons can be assumed and hypothesized, who is man to say he knows why God does what He does.
Also funny was his simplistic take on the whole thing (“I mean, I know God is the good guy… so are the Jews the bad guys or the king?”–so cute!)
I think that you just might not realize how patronizing that sounds. I know you mean well.
Nope..I’m aware. I’m just tired of the condescending remarks about how recognizing evolution as a valid SCIENTIFIC theory is somehow “bad” for my eternal soul.
You can study the world, using Science, and it can lead you to believe in intelligent design. That is just as scientific as using science to lead you to believe in Evolution.
I’m sorry, but this statement makes no sense to me. I believe in intelligent design as a valid religious theory..and I believe in evolution as a valid scientific theory.
All I am asking is that you are not so quick to say that one theory is so much more scientific than another simply because you do not agree with the evidence leading to a different conclusion than what you believe it leads to. I’m not asking you to change positions.
I’m not saying one is more scientific than the other. I’m saying one is based off of science, and one is based off of faith/religion. Just because Creationism isn’t a scientific theory doesn’t make it bad…I have never thought that it did. I don’t think because something is scientific that it is somehow more legitimate than anything faith-based. If you can somehow explain Intelligent Design in a scientific way, as in that it can be measured by science, then I’m sure science would have no problem funding this research. I don’t think that TRUE science is in the business of disproving God. They just CAN’T prove His existence one way or the other. That is not synonymous with saying He doesn’t exist.
Intelligent Design is a VALID theory. A valid theological theory. Evolution is a VALID theory. A valid scientific theory.
I think I’m going to be not commenting on here for a while. I’m just feeling very much like if you’re not Christian, and you’re not a Republican, that you’re a pro-abort, or you’re not a legitimate pro-lifer. That’s not how I want to be represented in the pro-life movement. Even though I am Catholic and a Republican, I feel that this site is not really about being compassionate to other viewpoints if they don’t fit in this tiny box that you all think they should. I also don’t see how some of the issues that are in threads here even relate to abortion..it just seems to me to be an attack on anything that doesn’t fit in line with what many people here believe. And people aren’t even open to maybe realizing that there ARE other ideas out there that aren’t “evil” or “bad.” So…I think it’s time for me to take a break. Anybody who wants to chat with me in the meantime can look me up on facebook.
Darnit Elizabeth, don’t go away for good :-(
I like hearing your point of view. I think it’s unique and valuable. I don’t agree with it all or even most of the time, but I admire your courage and your passion. Just my two cents.
Aww, dont go Elizabeth :(
Elizabeth,
Sometimes taking a break is good, but please don’t be gone too long! We need you on the pro-life side and we would miss you!
I don’t get too involved in the evolution debate because people are so passionate and I’m not. If a discussion turns to religion, it’s bound to get contentious no matter what the topic, as you know.
I’m very encouraged after the Pope’s visit…did you watch any of the coverage? I’m amazed at his energy at 81 years old! Maybe he will be an inspiration for more people to get involved in pro-life activities!
Elizabeth, I am very sorry that is how you feel, and yet I have to be honest that I don’t completely understand why you feel this way.
We have never asked for anything except that you allow us to have our belief without ridicule.
People who believe in evolution seem to always be willing to mock and ridicule those who believe in creationism without blinking an eye.
I’m not saying that you do, but it is the general feeling around here, so obviously those of us who believe in Intelligent Design as a scientific truth are going to be on the defensive.
(by the way, I did learn about ID in my Science class, and it was from a scientific point of view as well as correlating with the Bible. This is one reason why I do not accept your idea that it cannot be taught in Science.)
I am sorry if you ever interpreted our point of view as bigotry against you. I can assure you it was not.
We have never said or even tried to imply that you are not a pro-lifer if you don’t believe in creationism, and we never said or even tried to imply that you had to believe anything that we’ve said.
I think you are a terrific pro-lifer, and many, MANY other people here who believe in evolution are terrific pro-lifers!
Please don’t leave simply because we have differing viewpoints on certain issues. This is a forum for debate, and I simply assumed that you wanted to debate this. I did not realize that you would take it personally. I would sincerely appreciate it if you would stay. I consider you to be an AWESOME pro-lifer.
ID is not a scientific theory.
One of the central postulates in science is the principle known as Occam’s Razor, which requires us to go with the simplest, weakest hypothesis which explains the available data.
ID, and any other hypothesis which invokes God, is an infinitely strong, infinitely complex hypothesis, because the concept of God is a concept of an infinitely strong, infinitely intelligent and therfore infinitely complex, being.
ID is therefore excluded by Occam’s Razor unless there is no other hypothesis which adequately explains the data.
By the way, evolution (defined as change through the combination of random mutation plus natural selection) is proven fact, or anyway as much proven fact as anything in science.
Bethany,
I thank you for the kind words. I think I may just need a little mental health break with school and all the debating going on here. I think I will come back after finals in May..I will be able to focus more and maybe not take things so personally here! You can email me anytime though to check up on me til then! (It’s only like 3 weeks guys! Don’t miss me too much! hehe)
I will definitely miss you! I hope you will drop in every once in a while in the next three weeks though! Good luck on your finals!
Last week the answer on the question of the origin of human life getting the most votes was, “God created humans in present form within the past 10,000 years,” which, of course, was the correct answer…
**************
No, its not. Because that isnt my view. There is no one ‘correct’ answer if you ask for someones opinion. And pretending the earth is only 10,000 years old is absurd and ridiculous and borderline insane.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0216_050216_omo.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/23/1064082997850.html
Scientists believe the jawbone of a caveman found in Romania is the oldest fossil of modern humans to be uncovered so far in Europe.
The jawbone, believed to be 34,000 to 36,000 years old, has reignited debate about whether our ancestors interbred with Neanderthals.
Other human bones, including a facial skeleton and partial brain case, were found in the same cave but have yet to be fully analysed.
Erik Trinkaus, of Washington University in St Louis, said the other bones were likely to be of the same age as the jawbone, and together they presented the first picture of what modern humans looked like when they spread into Europe.
Most of their features were similar to those of early humans whose fossils have been found at sites in Africa, the Middle East, and later in Europe. But other characteristics were more archaic, which fitted the idea that they had interbred with Neanderthals, a different species of homo sapiens then living in Europe.
“Not only is the face very large, but so are the jaws and teeth, particularly the wisdom teeth,” Professor Trinkaus said.
“In the human fossil record, you have to go back a half a million years to find a specimen that has bigger wisdom teeth.”
Early humans, or Cro-Magnon, and Neanderthals lived side by side in Europe for thousands of years, with the Neanderthals eventually dying out. Separate research challenges the idea that the reason our ancestors survived was that they were more cunning and skilled at hunting than their thick-browed neighbours.
Researchers examined more than 7200 bones and teeth from mammals recovered from a cave in south-western France that was inhabited by Neanderthals and then Cro-Magnon. Donald Grayson, also of Washington University, said this record covering 50,000 years showed the two had similar tastes for animals including reindeer, red deer and horses.
“We could detect no difference in diet, the animals they were hunting and the way they were hunting, aside from those caused by climate change,” he said.
“The idea that Neanderthals were big, dumb brutes is hard for some people to drop. Cro-Magnon created the first cave art, but late Neanderthals made body ornaments, so the depth of cognitive difference between the two is just not clear.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2978800.stm
Three fossilised skulls unearthed in Ethiopia are said by scientists to be among the most important discoveries ever made in the search for the origin of humans.
Herto skull: Dated at between 160,000 and 154,000 years old
The crania of two adults and a child, all dated to be around 160,000 years old, were pulled out of sediments near a village called Herto in the Afar region in the east of the country.
They are described as the oldest known fossils of modern humans, or Homo sapiens.
What excites scientists so much is that the specimens fit neatly with the genetic studies that have suggested this time and part of Africa for the emergence of mankind.
“All the genetics have pointed to a geologically recent origin for humans in Africa – and now we have the fossils,” said Professor Tim White, one of the co-leaders on the research team that found the skulls.
“These specimens are critical because they bridge the gap between the earlier more archaic forms in Africa and the fully modern humans that we see 100,000 years ago,” the University of California at Berkeley, US, paleoanthropologist told BBC News Online.
Out of Africa
The skulls are not an exact match to those of people living today; they are slightly larger, longer and have more pronounced brow ridges.
Herto discovery: The ancient people would have looked very like us
Enlarge Image
These minor but important differences have prompted the US/Ethiopian research team to assign the skulls to a new subspecies of humans called Homo sapiens idaltu (idaltu means “elder” in the local Afar language).
The Herto discoveries were hailed on Wednesday by those researchers who have championed the idea that all humans living today come from a population that emerged from Africa within the last 200,000 years.
The proponents of the so-called Out of Africa hypothesis think this late migration of humans supplanted all other human-like species alive around the world at the time – such as the Neanderthals in Europe.
If modern features already existed in Africa 160,000 years ago, they argued, we could not have descended from species like Neanderthals.
Sophisticated behaviour
“These skulls are fantastic evidence in support of the Out of Africa idea,” Professor Chris Stringer, from London’s Natural History Museum, told BBC News Online.
SEARCH FOR HUMAN ORIGINS
…this is definitively the answer to the question of whether Homo sapiens evolved from Africa
Dr Berhane Asfaw
Key questions about the skulls
The pride of Ethiopia
“These people were living in the right place and at the right time to be possibly the ancestors of all of us.”
The skulls were found in fragments, at a fossil-rich site first identified in 1997, in a dry and dusty valley.
Stone tools and the fossil skull of a butchered hippo were the first artefacts to be picked up. Buffalo fossils were later recovered indicating the ancient humans had a meat-rich diet.
The most complete of the adult skulls was seen protruding from the ancient sediment; it had been exposed by heavy rains and partially trampled by herds of cows.
The skull of the child – probably aged six or seven – had been shattered into more than 200 pieces and had to be painstakingly reconstructed.
All the skulls had cut marks indicating they had been de-fleshed in some kind of mortuary practice. The polishing on the skulls, however, suggests this was not simple cannibalism but more probably some kind of ritualistic behaviour.
This type of practice has been recorded in more modern societies, including some in New Guinea, in which the skulls of ancestors are preserved and worshipped.
The Herto skulls may therefore mark the earliest known example of conceptual thinking – the sophisticated behaviour that sets us apart from all other animals.
“This is very possibly the case,” Professor White said.
The Ethiopian discoveries are reported in the journal Nature.
http://www.abouthumanevolution.org/html/site/timestone15.htm
Saying there are no human remains older than 6000 years is absurd
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/o.html
Egyptian history
http://www.touregypt.net/ebph4.htm
https://ideotrope.org/index.pl?node_id=40287
150,000-30,000 | Archaic Homo sapiens, otherwise known as Neanderthals, appear in the fossil record, distinct from earlier protohumans. They occupied Europe, the Middle East, and parts of Asia. Differ from modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) in skeletal details and behavior. Recent genetic studies also indicate that modern humans are not descended from Neanderthals. They used crude stone tools and may have harnessed naturally occuring fire. They buried their dead and cared for their sick. Hands could not grip complicated tools, preventing them from engaging in fine motor skills, such as carving and painting. Cultural sharing between Neanderthals and modern humans or Homo erectus during time of overlap?
150,000-60,000 | Modern humans appear (sometimes called Homo sapiens sapiens), originally in Africa, probably east Africa. Same stone tools as Neanderthals. No art. Unimpressive hunting skills, killing easy-to-kill, not-at-all-dangerous animals. No fishing.
140,000 | Diaspora of Neanderthals and modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens)? First domestication of large mammal, the dog.
94,000-12,000 | Prehistoric ‘Hobbit’. A little over 3 feet tall, a distinct humanoid species, Homo floresiensis people flourished on Flores from 94,000 to 12,000 years ago, when a volcano killed them off. They apparently hunted dwarf elephants with spears.
80,000 | Oldest intentional burial by archaic Homo sapiens, in Africa.
70,000 | Catastrophic volcanic eruption; ‘volcanic winter’ tied to rapid genetic divergence in humans; kills most hominids?
60,000-40,000 | Genetic Adam (or “Y-chromosomal Adam”), the most recent common male ancestor of all living humans (from Y-chromosome dating). Why the different date from mtDNA analysis? A male bottleneck?
60,000-40,000 | Great Leap Forward (anthropological “big bang” of human expression) among Homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans). First standardized stone tools. First jewelry. First painting. Timing of innovation coincides with first appearance of modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens; Cause of innovation unknown, could be due to increase in brain size, some say vocal box became well developed. Most likely first took place among one group of humans in Africa.
60,000 | Diaspora of humans reaches China via Southeast Asia; dog and wolf become distinct.
50,000 | Human population: 1.2 million hunter-gatherers, H. sapiens sapiens.
50,000 | First human settlement in the Americas, according to evidence found at a South Carolina site. If true, beats the oldest accepted date by 35,000 years. Did they come by sea from Africa or Europe?
45,000 | Humans begin to enter southwestern Europe. Some 6 percent of Europeans are descended from the continent’s first founders, who entered Europe from the Near East (these people are modern Basque and Scandinavians). Skeletons are fully modern. Tools of bone: fishhooks, engraving tools, needles. Multi-piece tools. Harpoons, spear-throwers, bows and arrows to catch large, difficult animals. Nets, lines, and snares for fishing. First art: cave paintings, statues, and musical instruments.
40,000-35,000 | Within a few thousand years, Neanderthals disappear, likely due to modern humans (Cro-Magnon people) with superior weapons and culture. How? Superior technology and language skills used to infect, kill, or displace Neanderthals? No hybridization of humans and Neanderthals. Neanderthal brains bigger than Cro-Magnon brains, but did not save them.
=====> Homo sapiens sapiens, modern humans, from here on. All dates BC (equivalently BCE) from here on
the answer on the question of the origin of human life getting the most votes was, “God created humans in present form within the past 10,000 years,” which, of course, was the correct answer
:: laughing ::
Posted by: Doug at April 19, 2008 11:14 AM
*********************
I was too shocked to laugh. But in my opinion there is no excuse for willfull refusal to recognize scientific facts. As far as Im concerned, thats appalling.
Plus, there are other ways of dating things. The rock sediment it is found in, for one. If all life was created at the same time, when it died, it should be in roughly the same rock layers. But it’s not. We’ve found people and animals and plants and such buried in rock layers too far down to have existed only 6,000 years ago.
More proof of the flood, Danielle!
Posted by: JLM at April 19, 2008 1:28 PM
****************
No, its not.
And evolution does not disprove God either, but evolution is not science, in my opinion. Evolution is a theory.
Posted by: Bethany at April 20, 2008 6:07 PM
*****************
Bethany, its a scientific theory. And the word ‘theory’ used in that context does NOT mean the same thing ‘theory’ means in laymans terms. We also have the theory of gravity.
By the way, evolution (defined as change through the combination of random mutation plus natural selection) is proven fact, or anyway as much proven fact as anything in science.
Posted by: SoMG at April 21, 2008 8:53 AM
Is the impetus which began this random mutation a proven fact?
Did you see “Expelled”? Richard Dawkins admits he doesn’t know, see other postshere which expound on his theories…
The point of the movie is that even though ID is a valid hypothesis, it is being laughed at by the majority of Universities.
@TR: Thanks for that list at your 11:47AM post. :D
Janet, you wrote: “…ID is a valid hypothesis…”
If by ID you mean the hypothesis that things are the way they are because an infinitely intelligent, infinitely powerful Creator made them so, then no, this is not a valid SCIENTIFIC hypothesis, because it is invalidated by the Principle of Occam’s Razor as I explained before, and because there is no way to test it by experiments.
If on the other hand you mean by ID the hypothesis that the Bible is literally true, then you’re even worse off: this hypothesis is also excluded by Occam’s Razor AND it has been proven false by the scientific evidence that the creation of Mankind took longer than one day and by the scientific observation that snakes do not talk.
The attempt to make ID into a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis is what is being opposed by the (extremely large) majority of scientists. Not the simple belief in God by religious people but the attempt to base beliefs about nature on religion.
You wrote: “Is the impetus which began this random mutation a proven fact?”
It is proven fact that radiation causes randomly imperfect replication of DNA (mutation). Is that what you meant?
And no, I have not seen EXPELLED. I will wait until it comes to cable TV (which I bet will be very soon).
@TR: Thanks for that list at your 11:47AM post. :D
Posted by: Rae at April 21, 2008 12:48 PM
**********************
Youre welcome. Fascinating, isnt it? Ive always loved archaeology and anthropology but they were only part of the sociology department when I was going to school – you couldnt get a degree in either one then. But it pretty well disproves the insistance that there is no evidence of humans living before 6000 years ago.
You (Janet) wrote: “Richard Dawkins admits he doesn’t know, ”
That’s the point. ID proponents refuse to admit that they don’t know either. But the fact is, they don’t.
And no, I have not seen EXPELLED. I will wait until it comes to cable TV (which I bet will be very soon).
Posted by: SoMG at April 21, 2008 1:25 PM
***********
Netflix! :)
Janet: It’s precisely because Richard Dawkins admits he doesn’t know that he is right and you are wrong.
SoMG:
*See my posts on the “Expelled Opening Today” thread also for my comments on the movie.*
1. I’m not familiar with Occam’s Razor, I’m only an observer here, not a scientist.
2. I’m not a literal creationist. (I don’t have a strong opinion on this whole subject of “where we came from”, just commenting on the ideas put forth by the movie)
3. I’m trying not to look at this from a religious perspective, but I don’t think being open to the possibility of a God, in a scientific hypothesis is out of the question. Isn’t coming up with a hypothesis and then studying recording results what scientific method is about?
4. By impetus, I don’t mean randomly imperfect mutation. I mean “what got the ball rolling” at the beginning, which resulted in the complexity of our world that we know today? Randomness? Since this is an unknown, why not entertain the thought of an outside “designer”?
SoMG: I wish I could stay here all day, but I can’t. Most of your questions/ points are ones I’ve discussed over the course of this thread and others related to the movie this past weekend (by me and Hiero and others). Please take time to read my other posts, if you wish. Forgive for bowing out, but I have to do errands now and other mundane things…Have a good day.
SoMG: I wish I could stay here all day, but I can’t. Most of your questions/ points are ones I’ve discussed over the course of this thread and others related to the movie this past weekend (by me and Hiero and others). Please take time to read my other posts, if you wish. Forgive for bowing out, but I have to do errands now and other mundane things…Have a good day.
Posted by: Janet at April 21, 2008 1:48 PM
****************
Another cop out – just like your inept tapdance when I asked you to provide support for your comments about pornography being a nation wide crisis and insisting ‘any’ mental health professional would tell me so … suddenly you were full of righteous indignation and suddenly had other things to do to try to cover up the fact that you simply couldnt offer any support for your inventions.
I wonder if Jill is reading all the proof that ‘man’ is older than 6000 years old? or did she run away from it?
Janet, Occam’s Razor is the scientific principle which says that when rival hypotheses explain the experimental data adequately, then you go with the simplest and least powerful of those hypotheses. (You really didn’t know this? Where did you go to high school?)
Any hypothesis which invokes God is infinitely powerful and infinitely complex, and therefore may be accepted only if there is no weaker, simpler hypothesis which explains the measured data. But there is one (“By means of chemical reactions we have not yet identified”).
You wrote: “Since this [the origin of evolving life] is an unknown, why not entertain the thought of an outside “designer”?
There’s no reason not to entertain the “thought”, but there are very strong reasons against entertaining it as a scientific theory. Because there is no way to prove or disprove the existance of an outside “designer” by means of experiments.
Also, because if you imagine your designer to be infinitely powerful or infinitely complex, then Occam’s Razor says no.
TR – I don’t think she bothers to read the comments all that much past the first hour or so of posting, unless she feels the need to feed her sitemeter by inserting additional potentially inflammatory remarks. I’m just guessing though…
TR – I don’t think she bothers to read the comments all that much past the first hour or so of posting, unless she feels the need to feed her sitemeter by inserting additional potentially inflammatory remarks. I’m just guessing though…
Posted by: Hieronymous at April 21, 2008 3:29 PM
*****************
I suspect youre right. That comment really flabberghasted me.
Janet, Occam’s Razor is the scientific principle which says that when rival hypotheses explain the experimental data adequately, then you go with the simplest and least powerful of those hypotheses. (You really didn’t know this? Where did you go to high school?)
******************
IE – When you hear thundering hooves, think horses, not zebras!
“Another cop out – just like your inept tapdance when I asked you to provide support for your comments about pornography being a nation wide crisis and insisting ‘any’ mental health professional would tell me so … suddenly you were full of righteous indignation and suddenly had other things to do to try to cover up the fact that you simply couldnt offer any support for your inventions.”
@TexasRed: Um…there is a reason why there is no information on the negative (or positive for that matter) effects of pornography because I recall hearing in the 1970s that studies that involved having subjects watch pornography was inherently harmful and dangerous. No ethics board in the US will allow studies on the effects of pornography because it’s too “dangerous”.
I will go look up this information tonight when I get some time after class, and while there *have* been studies on the effects of pornography…they’ve never been done in the US. One off the top of my head is from China.
And to be honest, I don’t think Janet is copping out. She typically does a pretty good job at replying, and as she said, she’s not a scientist, so you can’t expect her to get everything right.
I agree, anthropology is pretty neat stuff, I wish I could take a few classes, as there’s this really cool Sex and Behavior class at my school in the anthropology department, but I think you have to take intro anthropology first. Sadness.
SoMG:3:27: “Any hypothesis which invokes God is infinitely powerful and infinitely complex, and therefore may be accepted only if there is no weaker, simpler hypothesis”…
God’s existence is a philosophical question not a scientific one, therefore Occam’s doesn’t apply here. I went to a Catholic high school so we didn’t apply Occam’s Razor to eliminate God from this discussion. Lol.:)
SoMG, you’ve been a good one to discuss this with, but if a certain unnamed person sticks around, I’m done. She insists on including herself and disrupting our discussion, with her obnoxious comments, blah, blah, blah…..
Rae: 4:31: @TexasRed: Um…there is a reason why there is no information on the negative (or positive for that matter) effects of pornography because I recall hearing in the 1970s that studies that involved having subjects watch pornography was inherently harmful and dangerous. No ethics board in the US will allow studies on the effects of pornography because it’s too “dangerous”.
Which is why I told TR, if she wants proof, to look it up herself. I googled porn – no thanks.
I will go look up this information tonight when I get some time after class, and while there *have* been studies on the effects of pornography…they’ve never been done in the US. One off the top of my head is from China.
Rae: Don’t give TR the benefit of the doubt by checking. She knows porn is harmful, she just wants to see if we are dumb enough to research it for her, so she can laugh. Even if you do, she’ll find a way to insult you before the night is over and proclaim herself the “winner”.
And to be honest, I don’t think Janet is copping out. She typically does a pretty good job at replying, and as she said, she’s not a scientist, so you can’t expect her to get everything right.
Thank you Rae. Now I have to go out for the night, if it’s OK with TR. LOL.
TR, PLEASE GIVE ME YOUR PERMISSION TO LEAVE THE BOARD FOR THE NIGHT. CAN I GO? HUH? CAN I? CAN I? HUH? PLEASE???
Janet,
I’ll fill in for you while you’re gone (LOL!)
No, its not.
Posted by: TexasRed at April 21, 2008 12:00 PM
Yes it is.
:)
Janet, you wrote: “God’s existence is a philosophical question not a scientific one, ”
Now if only we could get the proponents of ID to understand this.
SoMG:Janet, you wrote: “God’s existence is a philosophical question not a scientific one, “
Now if only we could get the proponents of ID to understand this.
I just found this with the help of a friend of mine. There’s more to Occam’s razor than meets the eye. It can still be used as an argument for God. There are objective and subjective razors, many applications:
(wikipedia):The history of theistic thought has produced many arguments attempting to show….- that the difficulties encountered by a theory without God are equal to or greater than those encountered by a theory postulating one.
Thus creating an argument for the existence of God.
Read wikipedias complete entry on Occam’s Razor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
Kiss – “Keep it simple stupid – is a variation of the idea”. Saying God is an intelligent designer who was the original creator of Life sounds much simpler to me than evolution without a God…but then I am not a scientist…..
JLM: Thanks for filling in, bit stay away from the porn questions. Ick! Gotta run. BYE!!!
Janet-
it’s simpler in how things happen, but if you use God you have to be able to explain Him, His abilities, His existence, etc, making it 1000000000000 times more complex than evolution
Janet-
it’s simpler in how things happen, but if you use God you have to be able to explain Him, His abilities, His existence, etc, making it 1000000000000 times more complex than evolution
Posted by: Dan at April 21, 2008 11:42 PM
I can’t do it myself, but there are philosophers who have already argued the existence of God, right? What’s so hard beyond that? He’s God after all.
Janet, you wrote: “Saying God is an intelligent designer who was the original creator of Life sounds much simpler to me than evolution without a God…”
Yes, but:
If God is infinitely intelligent then He must be infinitely complex. Not simple.
In any event, He is supposed to be infinitely strong. That means any hypothesis that invokes Him is also infinitely strong. And Occam’s Razor favors the weaker hypothesis.
Janet: Is the impetus which began this random mutation a proven fact?
Janet, good question. Sometimes what happens is that the DNA sequence gets a little messed up when a cell makes a copy before it divides.
Or, the DNA can be damaged by the environment – radiation can do it, nuclear, ultraviolet, other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, etc., and I think chemical damage can occur also.
All the above have been observed.
As for less random stuff and “natural selection,” there’s a good example with moths and the industrial revolution. Over the course of not so many years, soot in the air darkened tree bark, making the lighter moths stand out against the now-darker background, easier for predators to see. Lighter moths declined while darker ones increased.
The point of the movie is that even though ID is a valid hypothesis, it is being laughed at by the majority of Universities.
Janet, the majority of universities realize that there’s no evidence for it, “valid hypothesis” or not.
SoMG, 1:20: If God is infinitely intelligent then He must be infinitely complex. Not simple.
In any event, He is supposed to be infinitely strong. That means any hypothesis that invokes Him is also infinitely strong. And Occam’s Razor favors the weaker hypothesis.
I don’t pretend to be prepared or qualified to argue the simplicity or complexity of God, but I think it would be possible to argue both. I suppose we can hypothesize that His “mind” is complex. The “idea” of God is simple, in my opinion. There are many people who have zero formal education who can understand the concept of God, and claim to “know” Him. We say “GOD IS LOVE”. “God designed the world” So is God really so “complex”?
And to be honest, I don’t think Janet is copping out. She typically does a pretty good job at replying, and as she said, she’s not a scientist, so you can’t expect her to get everything right.
I agree, anthropology is pretty neat stuff, I wish I could take a few classes, as there’s this really cool Sex and Behavior class at my school in the anthropology department, but I think you have to take intro anthropology first. Sadness.
Posted by: Rae at April 21, 2008 4:31 PM
************
Yes, it was a cop out – you need to read her reply to my request for studies from a secular site published in credible journals to support her assertion.
Which is why I told TR, if she wants proof, to look it up herself. I googled porn – no thanks.
*************
How laughable – youre the one who made the assertion. Youre the one who cant back up what you said – your insistance that if I wanted ‘proof’ of the ‘damage’ porn is doing to the US then ‘all’ I had to do was ask any mental health care professional. And googling ‘porn’ is your idea of doing research?!? ROFLMAO!
Rae: Don’t give TR the benefit of the doubt by checking. She knows porn is harmful, she just wants to see if we are dumb enough to research it for her, so she can laugh. Even if you do, she’ll find a way to insult you before the night is over and proclaim herself the “winner”.
*************
Janet, if you had any integrity at all you would be ashamed of yourself. I asked you to provide proof for an assertion you made and you cant do it. And youre not honest enough to admit you cant do it. As for you delusion you can speak for me, thats one more reason you should be ashamed of yourself. you just lost any scrap of credibility you might have had in this or any other discussion. Your inability to support something you said is no ones fault but your own. You made something up, you tried to pretend you had evidence to back you up, and you got called on it – now youre trying to cover your backside. Its nothing more impressive than that.
I googled porn – no thanks.
I did too, Janet, and it said there were about 218,000,000 responses.
“Pork” only got 31,800,000…. sheesh.
Doug:12:39:
Pork? ha ha!
Doug 12:39: “Pork” only got 31,800,000…. sheesh.
Just for fun to compare the numbers, I googled “Jennifer Lopez
and there were 31,800,000 responses.
Same as “pork”! Go figure!
I think she just ate 200,000 pork chops.
I dont get this website