[_ Old Earth _] Alleged Homo Neladi

[Barbarian]

I agree, lots of things are not mentioned that are true. What Gould beleived was in error. He's a man. One who rejected Genesis in its pure form ... The fossil record of horses shows nothing of macro evolution.

Even honest YE creationists like Kurt Wise admit that the horse series is "powerful evidence for macroevoution."

 

[Paloma]

Lol. You take the entire article out of context. You do exactly what you condem. Your right within your construct, but he rejects your construct.

 

[Barbarian]

He says that the fossil record is powerful evidence for macroevolution. But he also says that he rejects any evidence that contradicts his understanding of Genesis. Specifically, he cites the hominid series as part of that powerful evidence.

He's honest about it. Few creationists are.

The point is, he says the abundance of fossil intermediates above the level of species is evidence for punctuated equilibrium. But as you have seen, the very detailed series of horse transitionals show that there are cases of gradual evolution as well.

 

[Paloma]

He says that the fossil record is powerful evidence for macroevolution. But he also says that he rejects any evidence that contradicts his understanding of Genesis. Specifically, he cites the hominid series as part of that powerful evidence.

He's honest about it. Few creationists are.

The point is, he says the abundance of fossil intermediates above the level of species is evidence for punctuated equilibrium. But as you have seen, the very detailed series of horse transitionals show that there are cases of gradual evolution as well.

He was perfectly honest. Did you even read the article? Your comments tell me no. Many if not most Creationists are honest. Have all evolutionists been honest? You are not informed barbarian, yet talk like you are. His whole point is we disagree with your construct. Within your construct your right, but your construct is wrong. That's what he said.

Here's another creationist being honest.

 

[Barbarian]

He was perfectly honest. Did you even read the article?

I've read it several times. His argument is that the evidence strongly supports macroevolution, but he prefers his understanding of scripture.

You are not informed barbarian, yet talk like you are.

I don't know everything, but I know what Kurt Wise believes, and what he says.

His whole point is we disagree with your construct.

He rejects what he describes as strong evidence. He prefers his "understanding" of scripture.

Within your construct your right, but your construct is wrong.

It comes down to evidence. The only way to reject it is to argue for a modern revision of Genesis. Which is what he does.

 

[Paloma]

I've read it several times. His argument is that the evidence strongly supports macroevolution, but he prefers his understanding of scripture.



I don't know everything, but I know what Kurt Wise believes, and what he says.



He rejects what he describes as strong evidence. He prefers his "understanding" of scripture.



It comes down to evidence. The only way to reject it is to argue for a modern revision of Genesis. Which is what he does.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Read the article again. You miss his thrust entirely. How is this possible?
I challenge you all to read it. I find it quite incredible that you chastize those who take out of context sentences, yet you starkly do the same? What gives ?

 

[Barbarian]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Read the article again. You miss his thrust entirely. How is this possible?

You just don't want to accept what he says. Perhaps you haven't read it all. As I told you he says that there is powerful evidence for macroevolution, but he prefers his understanding of scripture.

Here's the Abstract:
ABSTRACT
There is fossil evidence interpreted as transitional forms which can be understood to strongly support macroevolutionary theory. Creationist palaeontology is an immature field, the resources of creationists are severely limited, and the ‘transitional form’ issue has a low priority in the creation model. It is thus premature to engage in a rigorous evaluation of transitional form claims. It is suggested that creationists not divert resources or concern in the direction of ‘transitional form’ arguments. As a creationist response to evolutionary claims of transitional forms is developed, a new vocabulary should be adopted. It is suggested that distinctions be made among morphological, stratigraphic and stratomorphic intermediates, and among inter-specific, species, higher-taxon and series stratomorphic intermediates. Even at this early stage of development and with such significant challenges as the early whale series, the creation model appears to have potential fordeveloping a creationist explanation of stratomorphic intermediates which is superior to that of evolutionary theory.

Here's his conclusion:

CONCLUSION
Substantial supporting evidence of macroevolutionary theory can be found in the fossil record of stratomorphic intermediates. Additionally, the creation model is not well enough developed at present to properly evaluate this evidence or to develop an adequate alternative scenario or explanation. However, in the light of the creation model’s incomplete development, its non-inconsiderable success at explaining that record is exciting and promising indeed.There is little doubt in this author’s mind that with the maturity of the creation model will come an explanation ofstratomorphic intermediates superior to that of macroevolutionary theory

As you see, he repeats his assertion that transitional fossils (he prefers to call them "stratomorphic intermediates") are strong evidence for macroevolution. He hopes and believes that eventually creationism will make more sense than evolution in explaining them. He freely admits that is not the case now, but believes it will be in the future. And he's frank in his reasons; his understanding of scripture counts for more than the evidence.

Again, his frank admission:
It is a Very Good Evolutionary Argument
Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated equilibrium theory. Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species asBaragwanathia27(between rhyniophytes and lycopods),Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates),Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals,and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35the whale series, 36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus
primate series, 38 and the hominid series. 39

Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for
macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

I challenge you to read all of it. If you look at it all, his admission that fossil transitionals are strong evidence for evolution is completely compatible with his hopes that creationism might someday find a better explanation.

That is consistent with his statement that his religious beliefs are more persuasive to him than the evidence.

 

[logical bob]

I challenge you to read all of it. If you look at it all, his admission that fossil transitionals are strong evidence for evolution is completely compatible with his hopes that creationism might someday find a better explanation.

That is consistent with his statement that his religious beliefs are more persuasive to him than the evidence.

That's certainly far more upfront and honest than a lot of people who produce creationist material. Yet it leaves me a little puzzled... why state that he hopes that evidence will arrive in the future (and presumably he invests effort in looking for that evidence) and at the same time state that he won't be persuaded by evidence? Why should he expect other people to be influenced by evidence that doesn't matter to him?

 

[Paloma]

That's certainly far more upfront and honest than a lot of people who produce creationist material. Yet it leaves me a little puzzled... why state that he hopes that evidence will arrive in the future (and presumably he invests effort in looking for that evidence) and at the same time state that he won't be persuaded by evidence? Why should he expect other people to be influenced by evidence that doesn't matter to him?

If the whole article is read, its quite clear what he is saying. There is no confusion. Cherry picking sentences to make a case is wrong.

 

[Barbarian]

I've shown you the abstract and the conclusion as well as Wise's direct claim that fossil transitionals are strong evidence for macroevolution. His honest admission is tempered by his belief that someday a better explanation can be made by creationists.

That's what he says. Read the entire article. It's all there.

 

[turnorburn]

All the evidence we need is in Genesis something the devil has been trying to destroy since that day in the garden when he said: "hath God said"

He's been using it to further mans downward spiral by incorporating into doctrines that are far afield from Gods purposes and design.. Evolution leads to more ungodliness in the form of humanism communism and atheism..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Evolution leads to more ungodliness in the form of humanism communism and atheism..

Odd then, that Stalin outlawed Darwin, and killed or imprisoned Darwinian scientists. Soviet Biology is still recovering from that disaster. Stalin correctly argued that Darwinian evolution was contrary to Marxist beliefs.

 

[Paloma]

http://creation.com/what-happened-when-joseph-stalin-read-charles-darwin

This was interesting. Here's a connection between Darwin, Stalin and atheism. Makes perfect sense.

Spot on Tob!

What happened when Stalin read Darwin?
Editor’s note: As Creation magazine has been continuously published since 1978, we are publishing some of the articles from the archives for historical interest, such as this. For teaching and sharing purposes, readers are advised to supplement these historic articles with more up-to-date ones available by searching creation.com.
Russian dictator and revolutionist, Joseph Stalin (1879–1953), is regarded as one of the most notable men in Russian history. He was also one of the most influential in world affairs in the periods immediately before and after the Second World War.

But early in his life Stalin experienced a dramatic change of career. While studying at the Tiflis Theological Seminary, he began to read the works of Charles Darwin. He developed a critical mind and revolutionary bent. One of his friends later said in a book—which was published in Moscow while Stalin was still in power—that when Stalin began to read Darwin he became an atheist.

At the age of 19, in 1898, Stalin was expelled from the theological seminary because of his revolutionary connections. His newly acquired philosophy did enormous damage in the years that followed. But he gained political prominence. All the major policies of the Soviet State after 1928 were formulated by Stalin.

He established a terrorist police State, and in the mid- 1930s instituted the notorious trials in which most of the surviving Bolshevik leaders were found guilty of treachery and executed.

One of Stalin’s most notable characteristics, according to many of his biographers, was his approval of the cult of ‘Stalinist adoration’. Instances of this idolatry included the official dedication of cities to him (such as Stalingrad, Staliniri and Stalinogorsk), and the ceremonial homage given to him in virtually all public speeches and in print.

In February, 1956, three years after Stalin’s death, Communist Party leader Nikita Khrushchev charged Stalin with perpetrating ‘mass arrests and deportations of many thousands of people, execution without trial and without normal investigation.’

Khrushchev also stated that during Stalin’s reign 70 per cent of the members and candidates of the party central committee in 1934 were subsequently arrested and shot. Most of these, claimed Khrushchev, were simply ‘innocent communists’.

Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ ideas thus powerfully shaped Stalin’s approach to society. Oppression, self glorification, atheism and murder resulted from Stalin’s rejection of his Creator after reading and believing the evolutionary ideas of Darwin. And the most tragic aspect of all? That while Stalin was turning his back on his Creator, he was building his philosophy on a lie.

References

1. Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1969, pp. 353-4. (cf Sir Arthur Keith’s observation of Hitler: ‘The German Fuhrer … consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution’ (Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics, Putnam’s, New York, 1949, p. 230).)
2. E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1940, p. 8 (quoted in Davidheiser).
3. Conway Zirkle, Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959, p. 24. Funk and Wagnalls Standard Reference Encyclopedia, Standard Reference Library, Inc., New York, vol. 22, pp. 8205-7.
4. New Age Encyclopaedia, D.A. Girling (ed.), Bay Books, Sydney, vol. 27, pp. 99-100. Who Did What, Gallery Books, New York, 1985, p. 228.

God did it in six days and rested on the seventh. A good model to follow as individuals but corporately, CMI provides new articles 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. Will you consider a small gift to support this site? Support this site

 

[Paloma]

Or this one to!

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/darwinism_and_s2067361.html

>>>>snip<<<<<
Well, let's consider Stalin. Biographically speaking, reading Darwin's Origin was seminal in Stalin's own march toward a godless communism. In Landmarks in the Life of Stalin (1940), Yaroslavsky writes about the influence Darwin had on young Joseph Stalin. Francis B. Randall, in Stalin's Russia: An Historical Reconsideration (1965), goes even farther, saying, "He remained all his life an admirer of Darwin, whose theories had been so exciting and controversial in Stalin's youth." Darwin had taught him that all things move progressively in an evolutionary determinism.

The conclusion is good too.

~Paloma

 

[Paloma]

E

Odd then, that Stalin outlawed Darwin, and killed or imprisoned Darwinian scientists. Soviet Biology is still recovering from that disaster. Stalin correctly argued that Darwinian evolution was contrary to Marxist beliefs.

Her bar, is this what you mean when you say "outlawed Darwin"?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko

Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (Russian: Трофи́м Дени́сович Лысе́нко, Ukrainian: Трохи́м Дени́сович Лисе́нко; 29 September [O.S. 17 September] 1898 – 20 November 1976) was a Soviet biologist and agronomist. Lysenko rejected Mendelian genetics in favor of pseudoscientific[1][2][3] ideas termed Lysenkoism.

His experimental research in improved crop yields earned the support of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, especially following the famine and loss of productivity resulting from forced collectivization in several regions of the Soviet Union in the early 1930s. In 1940, he became director of the Institute of Genetics within the USSR's Academy of Sciences, and Lysenko's anti-Mendelian doctrines were further secured in Soviet science and education by the exercise of political influence and power. Scientific dissent from Lysenko's theories of environmentally acquired inheritance was formally outlawed in 1948.

Though Lysenko remained at his post in the Institute of Genetics until 1965,[4]his influence on Soviet agricultural practice had declined by the 1950s.

 

[Barbarian]

Yep. If you were a Darwinian, you shut up or you were fired and likely sent to a labor camp. Lysenkos's crackpot ideas of "variation" caused huge crop failures, and set Soviet biology back for decades. In spite of this fact, it's kind of a cottage industry for crackpots to invent Darwinian connections to Stalin:
"But early in his life Stalin experienced a dramatic change of career. While studying at the Tiflis Theological Seminary, he began to read the works of Charles Darwin. He developed a critical mind and revolutionary bent. One of his friends later said in a book—which was published in Moscow while Stalin was still in power—that when Stalin began to read Darwin he became an atheist."

Aside from the fact that Stalin outlawed Darwinian biology, there is also the fact that Darwin's book The Descent of Man specifically condemns the Marxist idea of a few being sacrificed for the "good of the many." And he condemns it as contrary to the evolutionary processes that led to humanity. If Stalin had followed Darwin's ideas, there would have been no purges, no manufactured famines. BTW, if Stalin had read and believed Darwin, he never would have become an atheist. Darwin attributed the origin of life to God.

On the other hand:

Even more problematic for the claim that “Darwinism” was critical and instrumental in the development of eugenics is the uncomfortable fact that eugenics was also openly embraced by opponents of evolution (the first eugenics sterilization laws in the world were passed in 1907 Indiana, hardly a hotbed of “Darwinists”). The most notable of these anti-evolution eugenics supporters was probably William J. Tinkle, geneticist and prominent Creationist. Tinkle taught at religious LaVerne College and Taylor University, and participated in the activities of the Deluge Society, the first “Creation Science” organization. He then joined forces with the “young lions” of Creationism, Henry Morris, Duane Gish and Walter Lammerts, and with them he was one of the 10 Founding Fathers of the Creation Research Society, which later became the Institute for Creation Research.


Tinkle opposed evolution and Darwinian theory, but was an enthusiastic proponent of eugenics, and published several articles on the subject. In his 1939 textbook “Fundamentals of Zoology” he devotes a section to “The Need of Human Betterment”, where he laments the existence of “defective families” who “give birth to offspring like themselves” , producing “persons of low mentality, paupers and criminals in much greater ratio than the general population” [8, p. 130]. Negative eugenics via institutionalization seems to have been his preferred eugenic solution:
"It is an excellent plan to keep defective people in institutions for here they are not permitted to marry and bear children".[8, p. 131]
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/05/dr_west_meet_dr.html

There are darker things than that at the roots of YE creationism, but that will wait for another time.

 

[Paloma]

Lol, bar...so one fellow supposedly was a "enthusiastic proponent of eugenics"...whatever that means, and the whole Creationist movement is smeared... Nice logic ...

Just because Stalin sided with Lysenko on this particular issue does not mean that he was not influenced by Darwin.

Please, let me know all the bad things from people who think God created the world just as scripture states... I am all ears.

 

[Paloma]

E


Her bar, is this what you mean when you say "outlawed Darwin"?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko

Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (Russian: Трофи́м Дени́сович Лысе́нко, Ukrainian: Трохи́м Дени́сович Лисе́нко; 29 September [O.S. 17 September] 1898 – 20 November 1976) was a Soviet biologist and agronomist. Lysenko rejected Mendelian genetics in favor of pseudoscientific[1][2][3] ideas termed Lysenkoism.

His experimental research in improved crop yields earned the support of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, especially following the famine and loss of productivity resulting from forced collectivization in several regions of the Soviet Union in the early 1930s. In 1940, he became director of the Institute of Genetics within the USSR's Academy of Sciences, and Lysenko's anti-Mendelian doctrines were further secured in Soviet science and education by the exercise of political influence and power. Scientific dissent from Lysenko's theories of environmentally acquired inheritance was formally outlawed in 1948.

Though Lysenko remained at his post in the Institute of Genetics until 1965,[4]his influence on Soviet agricultural practice had declined by the 1950s.

Just because Stalin supported Lysenko, and his craziness, does not mean he (Stalin) was not influenced by Darwin by in large."Evolution" clearly leads the mind to the edge. If lived to its logical conclusion, EV leads to an abyss of darkness. God did not use "Evolution" in a "molecules to man" way.... He built each type with a genetic ability to change depending stressors. You guys are misinterpreting this micro as macro EV , while is it nothing more than God santioned/designed change.

 

[Barbarian]

Lol, bar...so one fellow supposedly was a "enthusiastic proponent of eugenics"...whatever that means, and the whole Creationist movement is smeared... Nice logic ...

He was one of the founders of the largest YE creationist group. And his fellow founder, Henry Morris, as late as the 1990s, was proclaiming the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people.

Just because Stalin sided with Lysenko on this particular issue does not mean that he was not influenced by Darwin.

So far, we know that he outlawed Darwin in the Soviet Union. And we have Darwin assailing collectivist arguments in The Descent of Man. And we have a few unsubstantiated accusations that Stalin was influenced by Darwin. So not much for your argument.

Please, let me know all the bad things from people who think God created the world just as scripture states...

None of the people mentioned above (with the possible exception of Darwin) thought that God created the world just as scripture states.

 

[turnorburn]

He was one of the founders of the largest YE creationist group. And his fellow founder, Henry Morris, as late as the 1990s, was proclaiming the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people.



So far, we know that he outlawed Darwin in the Soviet Union. And we have Darwin assailing collectivist arguments in The Descent of Man. And we have a few unsubstantiated accusations that Stalin was influenced by Darwin. So not much for your argument.



None of the people mentioned above (with the possible exception of Darwin) thought that God created the world just as scripture states.

There's where your wrong every born again bible believing Christian knows God created the world just as scripture states, why don't you?

tob