• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

[_ Old Earth _] Have evolutionists figured out...

Orion said:
Why I find it hard is because we are so far removed from normal primates that "just evolution" doesn't really seem to be enough to account for it. Granted, there are many primitive human cultures in the world, but if you take one of their babies and bring it to the United States, give it a proper education, they probably will seem about as American as the next person, given they apply themselves. Even the smartest primate baby will still be just a primate even with exhausting training, and will only have a few learned tricks.
The ones you should compare humans to are some of our dead ancestors like the neanderthal. Homo Sapiens Sapiens spread across the world and competed with neanderthal for food and resources. The Neanderthals lost out and disappeared. However, our older chimp like ancestors stayed in the trees and there was no competition for food. So you see a family tree far removed. But you would have to go back 35,000 years to make such a comparison.

The timescales are amazing. We have a hard time understanding 35,000 years. And then to try to understand the 250,000 years when modern humans emerged. And then to think of the timescale of 60 millions years to understand how primates change.

But on the local scale, we can see small evolutionary differences in humans. For example, skin color, fat storage and whether ear wax is wet or dry are some differences that occured as humanity spread out.

I think if you can really appreciate how much time passed, you can appreciate the small changes in evolution adding up.
 
I have a question to Quath. Do forgive me if i am wrong but you give me the impression you are an atheist.

Is it true that Darwin was in the view that black people had not formed properly and they would soon be extinct?
 
truth_will_prevail said:
I have a question to Quath. Do forgive me if i am wrong but you give me the impression you are an atheist.

Is it true that Darwin was in the view that black people had not formed properly and they would soon be extinct?
Yeah, I am a born again atheist. :)

As far as I know, Darwin had the opposite view. He believed the mental capabilities of all races were viretually the same and there are greater variances in a race than between the races. He did not see races as distinct and saw culture as the major differences in the races.

Darwin was racist by today's standards though, but was a liberal in that time. He was against slavery and cruel treatment of people. However, he was much less racist than the people of the past. And he was much less racist than what most religions preach(ed).

However, it wouldn't matter if he was a pedophile, mass murdering, country singing, fecalphilliac. His theory stands on its own merit.
 
Orion said:
As I see it, . . . that is a LOT of mutations, regardless of number of years it took place. Whether it actually happened or not, I find it to be fantastic at best.

Well an argument from incredulity is not really a valid criticism. Considering that the rate of mutation depend on a number of factors and the evolution of a species also depends upon the rate of environmental change as well.

And as for our similar genes, facial, bone structure, organs, etc. I would see that as just the fact that many species have those similar characteristics.

Right, so human beings are not actually related, they just have similar characteristics...

98% of genetic code, I'm not sure what that means as far as non-evolutionists are concerned. I'm not a Bible literalist and I'm not sure how they answer that question. I don't have any good answer for it. Other than, because we were patterned similarly to primates, DNA would play a role in similar features.

Again, this applies to human relationships too. Each individual human is about .01% similar genetically. Each Chimpanzee is about 98% similar genetically from a human. Each Gorilla is about 90-93% similar genetically with a human.

How does that not indicate common ancestry, given the fact that our fossil records also corroborate a branching out?

I'm curious, do those 2%, that don't match, have anything to do with brain size/intelligence? Have they separated those 2% as to what characteristics they influence?

I would say that our differences add up into that 2%. It depends on how you gauge intelligence, since the standard would obviously be "humans", and humans are always that intelligent.
 
Darwin, like almost all people of European cultures, thought that Europeans were superior to other people. He was thought to be a radical liberal in his time only because he thought that all people, including blacks were entitled to freedom, dignity, and the fruits of their labor. He pretty much agreed with Lincoln on this, who also though that whites were superior to other people.

This at a time when most (but not all) creationists were advocates of slavery, puts it in context.

Modern evolutionists are not racists, because biology teaches us that there are no biological human races.
 
I think this story will go perfect with this thread.

Ota Benga

After Darwin claimed in The Origin of Species that human beings had developed from a common ancestor they shared with monkeys, the search for fossils to support this scenario began. But some evolutionists believed that "half-monkey half-man" creatures might be found not only in the fossil record, but also living in various parts of the world. At the beginning of the 20th century the searches for the "missing link" were the cause of many acts of savagery. One of these was the story of the pigmy Ota Benga.

Ota Benga was captured in the Congo by an evolutionist researcher called Samuel Verner in 1904. This native, whose name meant "friend" in his own language, was married and the father of two children. But he was chained like an animal, put in a cage, and sent to the U.S.A. There, the evolutionary scientists put him in a cage with various species of monkey at the St. Louis World Fair and exhibited him as "the nearest link to man." Two years later they took him to Bronx Zoo in New York and displayed him with a few chimpanzees, a gorilla called Dinah and an orang-utan called Dohung as "man's oldest ancestors." The evolutionist director of the zoo, Dr. William T. Horniday, gave long talks about the pride it gave him to have the "missing link," and visitors treated Ota Benga in his cage just like an animal. An edition of the New York Times printed at the time described the visitors' attitudes:
There were 40,000 visitors to the park on Sunday. Nearly every man woman and child of this crowd made for the monkey house to see the star attraction in the park-the wild man from Africa. They chased him about the grounds all day, howling, jeering, and yelling. Some of them poked him in the ribs, other tripped him up, all laughed at him.37
The 17 September 1906 edition of the New York Journal said that this was being done to prove evolution, but attacked it as a great injustice and cruelty in these words:
These men, without thought and intelligence have been exhibiting in a cage of monkeys, a small human dwarf from Africa. Their idea, probably, was to inculcate some profound lesson in evolution.

As a matter of fact, the only result achieved has been to hold up to scorn the African race, which deserves at least sympathy and kindness from the whites of this country, after all the brutality it has suffered here…

It is shameful and disgusting that the misfortune, the physical deficiency, of a human being, created by the same Force that puts us all here and endowed with the same feelings and the same soul, should be locked in a cage with monkeys and be made a public mockery.38
The New York Daily Tribune also gave space to the subject of Ota Benga's being exhibited in the zoo for the purposes of demonstrating evolution. The Darwinist zoo director's defence was completely unscrupulous:
The exhibition of an African pygmy in the same cage with an orang outang at the New York Zoological Park last week stirred up considerable criticism. Some persons declared it was an attempt on the part of Director Hornaday to demonstrate a close relationship between Negroes and monkeys. Dr. Hornaday denied this. "If the little fellow is in a cage," said Dr. Hornaday, "it is because he is most comfortable there, and because we are at a loss to know what else to do with him. He is in no sense a prisoner, except that no one would say it was wise to allow him to wander around the city without some one having an eye on him."39
Ota Benga's being exhibited in the zoo with gorillas like an animal led to unease in various circles. A number of foundations applied to the authorities to have the practice stopped, stating that Ota Benga was a human being and that his being treated in that way was a great cruelty. One of these applications appeared in the New York Globe of 12 September 1906 in this way:
Editor of the Globe:

Sir - I lived in the south several years, and consequently am not overfond of negro, but believe him human. I think it a shame that the authorities of this great city should allow such a sight as that witnessed at the Bronx Park - a negro boy, on exhibition in a monkey cage...
This whole pygmy business needs investigation...
A.E.R.
New York, Sept. 12 40
Another application asking Ota Benga to be treated like a human was as follows:
Man and Monkey Show Disapproved by Clergy
The Rev. Dr. MacArthur Thinks the Exhibition Degrading
"The person responsible for this exhibition degrades himself as much as he does the African" said Dr. MacArthur "Instead of making a beast of this little fellow, he should be put in school for the development of such powers as God gave to him."
Dr. Gilbert said he had already decided that the exhibition was an outrage and that he and other pastors would join with Dr. MacArthur in seeing to it that the Bushman was released from the monkey cage and put elsewhere.41

The end result of all this inhuman treatment was Ota Benga's suicide. But here the problem was greater than that of one human being losing his life. This event was a clear example of the cruelty and savagery that Darwinist racism could mean in practice.

By Harun Yahya

From the book called 'The Disasters Darwinism Brought To Humanity'
 
While Darwin, like almost all whites of his time, thought that Europeans were superior to other races, he insisted (on religious grounds) that all humans were entitled to freedom.

It's sad that some ignored his ideas and mistreated this man. Creationists generally (but not always) supporting of slavery, and as late as the 1990s, a leading creationist authority was asserting that blacks were spiritually and intellectually inferior.

Evolutionists, of course, reject racism, because biology shows that there are no biological human races.

This is one of the important differences between evolutionists and creationists.
 
I am not sure what the point is either. Do you think that mistreatment of blacks invalidates the theory?
 
I don't see how. In the 1960s, the people who were saying that God made blacks inferior, were creationists.
 
And yet Hitler based some of his philosophy directly on Darwin's ideas.

the people who were saying that God made blacks inferior, were creationists.
Kind of goes without saying, doesn't it? I certainly don't think evolutionists would argue that God made blacks inferior. And certainly there are evolutionists who would believe that evolution made blacks inferior.

Racism has nothing to with belief in creation, it has to do with ignorance and hatred.
 
Free said:
And yet Hitler based some of his philosophy directly on Darwin's ideas.


Kind of goes without saying, doesn't it? I certainly don't think evolutionists would argue that God made blacks inferior. And certainly there are evolutionists who would believe that evolution made blacks inferior.

Racism has nothing to with belief in creation, it has to do with ignorance and hatred.

Amen. So not only is it an impossible and bizarre theory, it agrees with Joseph Goebbels calling the Jews no better than animals. In fact, evolutionists tell their children they are no better than animals either. All that shows is that the world is in a state of decay, not evolving into anything better. :roll:
 
Evolution has no foundations. Look at the previous example i gave you. This is one of many examples of cheapness. Look at the low level they went to. Don't forget that the 20th century is the bloodiest of all. This is because of Darwinism.

Check this short clip out. its 6 mins. 'thoughts on the science delusion.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... amza+yusuf
 
A person can take on any belief/religion/world view, what have you, and it will merely be a reflection of that persons character and identity. A misanthropic individual can believe in a benevolent deity. A kind hearted person can believe in an evil god. A humanistic human being can believe in a religious text that advocates genocide, murder, infanticide and all manner of murders and killings. An evolutionist can be racist and sexist as much as a creationist can.

Honestly, creationists, evolutionists, scientists, philosophers, politicians, religious leaders, artists, educators, physicians, whatever the case may be can have any given belief-and regardless of what that belief may otherwise dictate, still maintain their same identity, character and morality.

I'm not saying that really makes much sense, but evidently, it is the reality.
 
Heidi said:
Amen. So not only is it an impossible and bizarre theory, it agrees with Joseph Goebbels calling the Jews no better than animals. In fact, evolutionists tell their children they are no better than animals either. All that shows is that the world is in a state of decay, not evolving into anything better. :roll:

Heidi, why do you even post here? You don't seem interested in having a discussion and exchanging ideas. You only seem interested in spamgelizing your misinformation and ignorance.
 
truth_will_prevail said:
Evolution has no foundations. Look at the previous example i gave you. This is one of many examples of cheapness. Look at the low level they went to. Don't forget that the 20th century is the bloodiest of all. This is because of Darwinism.

Check this short clip out. its 6 mins. 'thoughts on the science delusion.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... amza+yusuf
:roll:

Oh my. How does the misuse of a scientific theory have anything to do with the truth or falsity of the theory itself?

Quite poisoning the well.

I'm sure you guys wouldn't appreciate comparisons of your ideas to the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades or any other person who murdered any number of people as it has no bearing on the truth or falsity of Christianity, nor does it actually reflect badly on Christianity itself, eh?
 
truth_will_prevail said:
Evolution has no foundations. Look at the previous example i gave you. This is one of many examples of cheapness. Look at the low level they went to. Don't forget that the 20th century is the bloodiest of all. This is because of Darwinism.
That is like saying that we should pretend fire doesn't exist because of arsonists. Science is just information. It not good nor evil, it is just a tool.

Hitler justified the killings with evolution and Christianity and misused both. While Hitler said he supported evolution, he really supported selective breeding which had already been known. While he said he supported Christianity, he acted like the Germans were the favored race instead of the Jews.

Featherbop made this point very well. Both creationists and evolutionists have misused and misunderstood their philosophies to justify horrible things. Hitler committing horrible deeds neither invalidates evolution nore Christianity.

Heidi said:
In fact, evolutionists tell their children they are no better than animals either. All that shows is that the world is in a state of decay, not evolving into anything better.
Heh, do you tell your children they are not the center of the universe? Does that mean we are in a state of decay?
 
Amen. So not only is it an impossible and bizarre theory, it agrees with Joseph Goebbels calling the Jews no better than animals.

In the 1960s, people who called themselves Christians, were calling blacks "subhumans." But then, on Hitler's soldiers? Belt buckles saying "Gott mit uns" (God is on our side)

In fact, evolutionists tell their children they are no better than animals either.

You must really, really hate, to make such a vicious lie against other. Goebbels could not top that one.

All that shows is that the world is in a state of decay, not evolving into anything better.

I don't think you're typical. Most people would never do something as hateful as that.
 
Okay, after a long weekend, I'm ready to continue the discussion.

Okay, which species is supposed to be our direct ancestor, before Homosapien?
 
Orion said:
Okay, which species is supposed to be our direct ancestor, before Homosapien?
Just one caveat: species is a man-made label. Nature is not always easy to divide up into species. For example, there are some salamanders such that A can mate with B, and B can mate with C, but A can not make with C. So it would seem that A & B are the same species. And you can say that B & C are the same species. However, it seems that A & C are not the same species.

The reason I bring that up is that human ancestry is full of "cousins" that may or may not be part of our "species."

Homo habilis - 2.4 to 1.5 million years ago (MYA) - Start of Hom species. We have more information before this, but sticking to homo species.

Homo ergaster - 1.9 to 1.25 MYA

Homo erectus - 1.25 to 0.3 MYA - Later part of Homo ergaster. May have had fire.

Homo heidelbergensis - 0.6 to 0.25 MYA

Homo neanderthalensis - 0.23 to 0.03 MYA - This appears to be a cousin, not an ancestor. Just included it because Neanderthals are pretty well known.

Homo sapiens - 0.25 to today - Us.

Homo erectus
 
Perhaps some really stupid questions.

Any chance that the few artifacts found for these stages that you just listed were (now bare with me) just a different type of primate that was created 6,000 years ago, with the rest of the animals, and mistaken for some "timeline of primate evolution"?

The reason why I ask is that the YEC and Genesis one state that all animals were created at the same time, roughly 6,000 - 10,000 years ago, depending on who you ask. Could these types of Hom just be primate groups that just didn't survive very long, and that the MYA figures are very exaggerated? A lot of these fossils they have for a specific Hom group seem very close to what you'd see with the modern gorilla.
 
Back
Top