[_ Old Earth _] The Evolution of Human Beings

[Rollo Tamasi]

Your underlying assumption is that this text is to be interpreted literally. There are millions of Christians who take issue with that.

Is it possible your understanding of this text is wrong?


Being a Christian myself I know it's not that simple, my own mind must be engaged to consider what the text means. I have to consider the original author and intent of the message as well as to whom it is written, in additional to other factors such as genre, etc. The correct interpretation isn't just downloaded into our brains, or else it would be really odd how so many different Christians can come to so many different conclusions about the meaning of a text.


I am saying that I disagree with your understanding of the Bible, and my understanding does not conflict with the findings of modern science.


What we're talking about now is Epistemology, and we have a difference in that regard. I think that if we claim to know something, then I should have sufficient justification for that claim. For instance, why do I believe in Jesus, but not in Allah.. why not just believe in Allah on the basis of "faith?" Why not accept the Book of Mormon on faith? The truth of the matter is that you apply certain critical methods to other belief systems that you do not apply to your own, and shrouding one's position in faith basically means it's not subject to contradiction or falsification.

How then would you respond to people of differing faiths? If there were not some measure by which truth and falsehood could be distinguished? I do not believe in God simply as a leap of faith, I trust in God because I am convinced that he exists and came to earth as a man who died for my sins and rose from the dead.

Scrutiny and skepticism is found in Scripture in several places, such as the Boreans, or testing prophecy, or testing the spirits, even Jesus not rebuking Thomas for needing to see the scars. God is not afraid of being investigated, and if he is, then he probably isn't God.

The original text was written to the Jewish people.
Why would God deceive them?
He wrote them something he wanted them to understand.

On the other hand, the enemy has spent the ages trying to get people to believe a lie.
We should beware the lie.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

The original text was written to the Jewish people.
Why would God deceive them?
He wrote them something he wanted them to understand.

We don't have writings from the very first Jews to whom this would have been written. Remember Moses was writing this for the generation of Israelites who had survived those who wandered in the desert. He wrote it so that they would understand the Covenant story of God with Israel, and that is how I understand Genesis, it is centered around Israel.

On the other hand, the enemy has spent the ages trying to get people to believe a lie.
We should beware the lie.

Yet how do you distinguish the truth from a lie if you just accept things on blind faith? Why don't you accept the Qu'ran on blind faith or the Book of Mormon.

You're not addressing my central concern with your Epistemology. How do you distinguish what is true versus what is not true? Does the Bible get special treatment as you have accepted it as true for a long time? If we apply your reasoning to any other proposition there is no reason for rejection of those belief systems.

Perhaps you can elaborate on this?

 

[Edward]

...

Let's compare to a human and chimp skull...

As you can see, the braincase is even larger on the Chimpanzee, but distinct similarities can be seen from the front of the face such as the brow ridge...

You do know that in humans, the brow ridge continues to grow throughout the entire life of the human, right? So a lot of these pics of old skulls with very pronounced brow ridges would be entirely accurate even for homo sapiens nowadays...that is, if we still lived to 8 or 900 years old like they did back then.

The brow ridge, though it looks mighty different would not indicate in any way a relativism to chimps but rather that we don't live as long anymore. :wink

 

[Doulos Iesou]

You do know that in humans, the brow ridge continues to grow throughout the entire life of the human, right?

Can you provide evidence of so distinct a change in the brow ridge?

Also, while the brow may grow slightly larger, the braincase does not shrink. The braincase volume is from 320 cm³ to 380 cm³ for the Sahelanthropus tchadensis, while a human's braincase is 1350 cm³.

The braincase for this fossil is a low end size for a chimpanzee. The braincase size for closer related hominids are sometimes much smaller than ours despite the further resemblance.

So a lot of these pics of old skulls with very pronounced brow ridges would be entirely accurate even for homo sapiens nowadays...that is, if we still lived to 8 or 900 years old like they did back then.

This skull is 7 million years old, are you saying that these primates lived 900 years old back then?

If you disagree with the dating method, then I suggest you point out the error in the scientist's calculations.

"Having demonstrated that the two prerequisites necessary to apply the radioactive decay dating method are met in the studied area, we measured authigenic 10Be/9Be ratio of 32 samples from the TM 254 and TM 266 sections. By using the previously discussed initial ratio and the recently reevaluated 10Be half-life of (1.36 ± 0.07) × 106 years (33), these ratios yielded ages ranging from 5.39 ± 0.92 to 8.67 ± 1.11 Ma. Weighted mean 10Be ages were then calculated by using an inverse-variance weighted mean. Associated uncertainties are fully discussed in Materials and Methods. More specifically, the TM 254 lacustrine facies yielded a weighted mean authigenic 10Be/9Be age of 6.26 ± 0.41 Ma (Table 2 and Fig. 1). The section of the A.U. above the ash tuff layer at TM 254 yielded a weighted mean authigenic 10Be/9Be age of 6.88 ± 0.40 Ma, whereas the section of this layer below the ash tuff layer yielded a weighted mean authigenic10Be/9Be age of 7.24 ± 0.38 Ma. In section TM 266, ages calculated for the two levels bracketing theSahelanthropus tchadensis cranium level were 6.83 ± 0.45 Ma for the overlying level and 7.12 ± 0.31 Ma for the underlying level.

Because these data demonstrate that the deposition of the A.U. from which Toumaï was unearthed is synchronous and geologically instantaneous (considering the uncertainties associated to the dating methods) in both TM 266 and TM 254, all of the 28 samples from the A.U. were used to determine the inverse-variance weighted mean age of this sedimentary unit, the associated mean square of weighted deviates being 0.36 (see Materials and Methods). This yields an age of 7.04 ± 0.18 Ma for Sahelanthropus tchadensis."
Source: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/9/3226.full

The brow ridge, though it looks mighty different would not indicate in any way a relativism to chimps but rather that we don't live as long anymore. :wink

This is a good attempt at creating a scientific theory, as you had a hypothesis that could be held against the evidence we have, but it simply does not fit all the observable data as the changes between these transitional hominids are too drastic to characterize them as humans, even very old humans.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

We don't have writings from the very first Jews to whom this would have been written. Remember Moses was writing this for the generation of Israelites who had survived those who wandered in the desert. He wrote it so that they would understand the Covenant story of God with Israel, and that is how I understand Genesis, it is centered around Israel.


Yet how do you distinguish the truth from a lie if you just accept things on blind faith? Why don't you accept the Qu'ran on blind faith or the Book of Mormon.

You're not addressing my central concern with your Epistemology. How do you distinguish what is true versus what is not true? Does the Bible get special treatment as you have accepted it as true for a long time? If we apply your reasoning to any other proposition there is no reason for rejection of those belief systems.

Perhaps you can elaborate on this?

John 14:6;
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".
Now if you believe this to be true, then you believe it by faith, because you cannot prove it.
Yes, my believing what Jesus says here is blind faith.

How do you pick and choose what to believe and what not to believe?
If some scientist comes along and says, "I can prove that Jesus is not the only way to the Father", would you change your belief?
Your answer should be "no", because that would make Jesus a liar.

And God tells us that he made man on the 6th day, and named him Adam.
If there were a group of men before Adam, then that would make God a liar.

As I said before, "beware the lie"!

 

[Doulos Iesou]

John 14:6;
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".
Now if you believe this to be true, then you believe it by faith, because you cannot prove it.
Yes, my believing what Jesus says here is blind faith.

You're saying that you can not provide justification for belief in Jesus over Allah? I can do that, which is why I believe in Jesus.

How do you pick and choose what to believe and what not to believe?

Based on whether or not I have sufficient justification for believing such, hence there are certain things that I have more confidence in because I have more justification.

If some scientist comes along and says, "I can prove that Jesus is not the only way to the Father", would you change your belief?

I would wonder what a scientist is doing making such a strange assertion about a theological matter that has nothing to do with how the natural universe works. I don't just listen to scientists on blind faith.

Your answer should be "no", because that would make Jesus a liar.

I don't presuppose Jesus was telling the truth, I only came to that conclusion later.

And God tells us that he made man on the 6th day, and named him Adam.
If there were a group of men before Adam, then that would make God a liar.

There you go again with your assumptions.

As I said before, "beware the lie"!

Why do you guys have to label all of us who disagree with you as either non-Christians, or that we somehow make God a liar? How about you accept the fact that we disagree about the understanding of Scripture on this non-essential issue and move on. It really gets under our skin.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

All your statements are weak and you don't see it.
They are not worth answering.
Nothing I could say would Glorify God to you.
If I get under anyone's skin, it's because they cannot answer about God.
I'll ask you again, how do you glorify God with all you are saying?

 

[Barbarian]

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

God wants you to open your eyes and learn from His creation. He made it, as He made scripture, accessible to you. Learn and have the humility to let Him do it His way.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

All your statements are weak and you don't see it.

That's a nice assertion. Insult a man for offering his opinion to the questions you offer.

They are not worth answering.

You're the one who asked for evidence, and after I did you didn't have anything really to say except to demean me as a Christian.

Nothing I could say would Glorify God to you.

I disagree with you on this present matter, doesn't mean we don't agree on many other things.

I'll ask you again, how do you glorify God with all you are saying?

I already answered this question.

Though why would I post, since "all my statements are weak, and they are not worth answering."

You don't address my central questions nor acknowledge your preconceived assumptions. I really don't see the value in continuing this dialogue at this point.

 

[Edward]

Can you provide evidence of so distinct a change in the brow ridge?

Also, while the brow may grow slightly larger, the braincase does not shrink. The braincase volume is from 320 cm³ to 380 cm³ for the Sahelanthropus tchadensis, while a human's braincase is 1350 cm³.

The braincase for this fossil is a low end size for a chimpanzee. The braincase size for closer related hominids are sometimes much smaller than ours despite the further resemblance.


This skull is 7 million years old, are you saying that these primates lived 900 years old back then?

If you disagree with the dating method, then I suggest you point out the error in the scientist's calculations.

"Having demonstrated that the two prerequisites necessary to apply the radioactive decay dating method are met in the studied area, we measured authigenic 10Be/9Be ratio of 32 samples from the TM 254 and TM 266 sections. By using the previously discussed initial ratio and the recently reevaluated 10Be half-life of (1.36 ± 0.07) × 106 years (33), these ratios yielded ages ranging from 5.39 ± 0.92 to 8.67 ± 1.11 Ma. Weighted mean 10Be ages were then calculated by using an inverse-variance weighted mean. Associated uncertainties are fully discussed in Materials and Methods. More specifically, the TM 254 lacustrine facies yielded a weighted mean authigenic 10Be/9Be age of 6.26 ± 0.41 Ma (Table 2 and Fig. 1). The section of the A.U. above the ash tuff layer at TM 254 yielded a weighted mean authigenic 10Be/9Be age of 6.88 ± 0.40 Ma, whereas the section of this layer below the ash tuff layer yielded a weighted mean authigenic10Be/9Be age of 7.24 ± 0.38 Ma. In section TM 266, ages calculated for the two levels bracketing theSahelanthropus tchadensis cranium level were 6.83 ± 0.45 Ma for the overlying level and 7.12 ± 0.31 Ma for the underlying level.

Because these data demonstrate that the deposition of the A.U. from which Toumaï was unearthed is synchronous and geologically instantaneous (considering the uncertainties associated to the dating methods) in both TM 266 and TM 254, all of the 28 samples from the A.U. were used to determine the inverse-variance weighted mean age of this sedimentary unit, the associated mean square of weighted deviates being 0.36 (see Materials and Methods). This yields an age of 7.04 ± 0.18 Ma for Sahelanthropus tchadensis."
Source: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/9/3226.full


This is a good attempt at creating a scientific theory, as you had a hypothesis that could be held against the evidence we have, but it simply does not fit all the observable data as the changes between these transitional hominids are too drastic to characterize them as humans, even very old humans.

Yeah, here's a link to a search engine so you can read about the brows that continue to grow throughout a humans life. I don't know what you're willing to accept as evidence so I'll let you pick one. It shouldn't be hard to find, it's a scientific fact.

I am not saying that primates lived 900 years back then, I'm saying that humans lived that long back then, based on scripture. Maybe primates did live longer back then, everything probably did being as the oxygen content of the atmosphere was richer...

 

[Edward]

Ok Doulos, since we're discussing evidence in this thread, what do you have for evidence that man came from the sea instead of the dust of the ground?
If Genesis 1-2 is not to be taken literally, but figuratively...then what is the message of said passages, if it's not just a historical account of creation?

You missed one Doulos...

 

[Gary]

For your viewing pleasure.

 

[Edward]

"What the "record" shows is nearly a century of fudging and finagling by scientists attempting to force various fossil morsels and fragments to conform with Darwin's notions, all to no avail. Today the millions of fossils stand as a very visible, ever present reminders of the paltriness of the arguments and the overall shabbiness of the theory that marches under the banner of evolution."

Jeremy Rifkin.

Also, while the brow may grow slightly larger, the braincase does not shrink. The braincase volume is from 320 cm³ to 380 cm³ for the Sahelanthropus tchadensis, while a human's braincase is 1350 cm³.

The braincase for this fossil is a low end size for a chimpanzee. The braincase size for closer related hominids are sometimes much smaller than ours despite the further resemblance.

Sorry I glanced over this, but should address it. Um, wow Doulos, that's quite a difference. What are you saying, that it being so different, is from a different species? Maybe it was. Maybe primates did live longer also back then, I think everything lived longer back then in pre flood conditions. It's not beyond comprehension that primates could also have brows which continued to grow as they aged also. But it still wouldn't make them human.

 

[Barbarian]

What the "record" shows is nearly a century of fudging and finagling by scientists attempting to force various fossil morsels and fragments to conform with Darwin's notions, all to no avail. Today the millions of fossils stand as a very visible, ever present reminders of the paltriness of the arguments and the overall shabbiness of the theory that marches under the banner of evolution.

Let's test Jeremy's beliefs. Show me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and we'll see if there's a transitional fossil. Pick several cases if you like.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

For your viewing pleasure.

Can you offer something else other than long Creationist propaganda on youtube? No one is going to watch this.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

"What the "record" shows is nearly a century of fudging and finagling by scientists attempting to force various fossil morsels and fragments to conform with Darwin's notions, all to no avail. Today the millions of fossils stand as a very visible, ever present reminders of the paltriness of the arguments and the overall shabbiness of the theory that marches under the banner of evolution."

Jeremy Rifkin.

Nothing like when an economist makes empty assertions about things he understands nothing about. lol

How about some evidence on the matter, rather than the opinion from an economist in the early 1980s.

Here is a quote from the largest Paleontology organization, you know, people who specialize with studying fossils unlike that economist you quoted.

"Evolution is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory. Evolution is a fact in the sense that life has changed through time. In nature today, the characteristics of species are changing, and new species are arising. The fossil record is the primary factual evidence for evolution in times past, and evolution is well documented by further evidence from other scientific disciplines, including comparative anatomy, biogeography, genetics, molecular biology, and studies of viral and bacterial diseases.

Evolution is also a theory — an explanation for the observed changes in life through Earth history that has been tested numerous times and repeatedly confirmed. Evolution is an elegant theory that explains the history of life through geologic time; the diversity of living organisms, including their genetic, molecular, and physical similarities and differences; and the geographic distribution of organisms. Evolutionary principles are the foundation of all basic and applied biology and paleontology, from biodiversity studies to studies on the control of emerging diseases.

Because evolution is fundamental to understanding both living and extinct organisms, it must be taught in public school science classes. In contrast, creationism is religion rather than science, as ruled in recent court cases, because it invokes supernatural explanations that cannot be tested. Consequently, creationism in any form (including "scientific creationism," "creation science," and "intelligent design" must be excluded from public school science classes. Because science involves testing hypotheses, scientific explanations are restricted to natural causes.

This difference between science and religion does not mean that the two fields are incompatible. Many scientists who study evolution are religious, and many religious denominations have issued statements supporting evolution. Science and religion address different questions and employ different ways of knowing.

The evolution paradigm has withstood nearly 150 years of scrutiny. Although the existence of evolution has been confirmed many times, as a science evolutionary theory must continue to be open to testing. At this time, however, more fruitful inquiries address the tempo and mode of evolution, various processes involved in evolution, and driving factors for evolution. Through such inquiry, the unifying theory of evolution will become an even more powerful explanation for the history of life on Earth."

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Sorry I glanced over this, but should address it. Um, wow Doulos, that's quite a difference. What are you saying, that it being so different, is from a different species? Maybe it was. Maybe primates did live longer also back then, I think everything lived longer back then in pre flood conditions. It's not beyond comprehension that primates could also have brows which continued to grow as they aged also. But it still wouldn't make them human.

No one said they were humans, and humans are primates too. Nothing from the fossils indicate some kind of advanced age, especially as we start finding more complete fossils we discover much more about the age of the hominid at which they died.

This is a supposition though, and doesn't actually stand on any kind of studies or evidence. It is something you want to be true, yet you can't verify it, though your mind will try to fit it into your worldview, yet it doesn't quite fit unless key elements are ignored.

The fact that the closer hominids such as the Homo erectus even still have a much smaller brain than ours, yet they would have looked much more like us. Exposed dark skin as they lived in Africa. Tall to also help with the heat dispersion, and bipedal as they were no longer tree dwellers but nomadic hunters and gathers that made crude stone axes (this was the extent of their ingenuity).

 

[Gary]

Failed Evolutionary Pre-human Candidates

 

[Gary]

Failed Evolutionary Pre-Human Candidates: The Tuang Child

 

[Edward]

Nothing like when an economist makes empty assertions about things he understands nothing about. lol

How about some evidence on the matter, rather than the opinion from an economist in the early 1980s.

Here is a quote from the largest Paleontology organization, you know, people who specialize with studying fossils unlike that economist you quoted.

"Evolution is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory. Evolution is a fact in the sense that life has changed through time. In nature today, the characteristics of species are changing, and new species are arising. The fossil record is the primary factual evidence for evolution in times past, and evolution is well documented by further evidence from other scientific disciplines, including comparative anatomy, biogeography, genetics, molecular biology, and studies of viral and bacterial diseases.

Evolution is also a theory — an explanation for the observed changes in life through Earth history that has been tested numerous times and repeatedly confirmed. Evolution is an elegant theory that explains the history of life through geologic time; the diversity of living organisms, including their genetic, molecular, and physical similarities and differences; and the geographic distribution of organisms. Evolutionary principles are the foundation of all basic and applied biology and paleontology, from biodiversity studies to studies on the control of emerging diseases.

Because evolution is fundamental to understanding both living and extinct organisms, it must be taught in public school science classes. In contrast, creationism is religion rather than science, as ruled in recent court cases, because it invokes supernatural explanations that cannot be tested. Consequently, creationism in any form (including "scientific creationism," "creation science," and "intelligent design" must be excluded from public school science classes. Because science involves testing hypotheses, scientific explanations are restricted to natural causes.

This difference between science and religion does not mean that the two fields are incompatible. Many scientists who study evolution are religious, and many religious denominations have issued statements supporting evolution. Science and religion address different questions and employ different ways of knowing.

The evolution paradigm has withstood nearly 150 years of scrutiny. Although the existence of evolution has been confirmed many times, as a science evolutionary theory must continue to be open to testing. At this time, however, more fruitful inquiries address the tempo and mode of evolution, various processes involved in evolution, and driving factors for evolution. Through such inquiry, the unifying theory of evolution will become an even more powerful explanation for the history of life on Earth."

See, that's the thing about trying to explain a deception to be the truth. It takes a long diatribe of let's pour over the details and look at a bunch of bones and 500 pages or so i can show you where this is the truth and that scripture is wrong...

The creation account is what? 2 chapters in Genesis. That's the truth, plain and simple, and there is no 500 pages of diatribe that's going to convince me otherwise. I don't want to look at giraffes, I don't want to discuss bats, I'll stick to scripture. Evolution is gasping it's last breaths and is on it's way out. Even atheists scientists have books out that say, I'm not Christian, and there's no way evolution is true or would work. You guys can choose to believe it if you want to, but I feel sorry for you if you believe that tripe. They put one over on you. Real Christians have no problem comprehending that it's a lie plain and simple. In today's world, it does not stand up to scrutiny. Maybe it did in 1850, but not now brothers and sisters.