Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[tooldtocare]

https://tinyurl.com/y8wxvm9y

[tooldtocare]

Man/women has always been as we are today. I do not believe in "evolution" as it is depicted in the link below

https://tinyurl.com/y8wxvm9y

Do you? (:-

[Michael2012]

Michael asked:

Anyway, when do scientist or science take one as a miracle?

Most of us consider the initial creation as a miracle, for example.   And the world is also a miracle in the way it works according to His will.   

Michael asked:

Now, may I ask you, do you believe creation to be a miracle or not?

It's a common issue for nonbelievers, who can't distinguish between the creation ex nihilo, and the creation God did from things He already created.   Hence, living things came from the earth, not ex nihilo.   You and I, as far as our physical bodies, were created naturally, but our souls were given directly by God.

Michael asked:

Do you not say that evolution is a creation process?

It absolutely is.   God uses nature for most things He does in this world.    Nature is also a miracle, although we often forget that it is.

So you believe that the "initial"creation is a miracle work of God. You even say and believe that the world is also a miracle in the way it works according to the will of God. And you even say and believe that our souls were given directly by God, which I suppose you believe is miraculous. And you believe nature is also a miracle.

That being, then why do you scientist then try to explain the miracles, that is, nature and the world, and the "initial" creation? Do you think you scientist can? If not, then why, when all that will come of such work will then all be but speculations and guesses, if not lies as they will obviously be false from the very start?     

And regarding man, when man has a soul, which I suppose you believe its creation is a miracle, why do you scientist try to explain what man is, where he came from, what is his physical nature, his behavior, his faculties, when the scientists can't explain the soul and the spirit, which forms part of the whole of man?   

[tooldtocare]

And regarding man, when man has a soul, which I suppose you believe its creation is a miracle, why do you scientist try to explain what man is, where he came from, what is his physical nature, his behavior, his faculties, when the scientists can't explain the soul and the spirit, which forms part of the whole of man?   

"miracle" is a manmade word. It is a word of "fiction" & has its place but in the real world "miracles" do not exist.

at lest in my view (:-

[The Barbarian]

So you believe that the "initial"creation is a miracle work of God.

What makes you think it's not?

You even say and believe that the world is also a miracle in the way it works according to the will of God.

Do you not understand that we would not even exist if God took His mind from us?

And you even say and believe that our souls were given directly by God, which I suppose you believe is miraculous.

If you think that your soul is a mere epiphenomenon of your nervous system, I'd have to say you were completely wrong.

And you believe nature is also a miracle.

It is.  What we call "nature" is this place God created with particular rules by which everything works.  But it's still His creation.

That being, then why do you scientist then try to explain the miracles, that is, nature and the world, and the "initial" creation?

It's very simple.  Science can't address the miraculous.   But scientists can.   If this puzzles you, we need to talk about that, first.

And regarding man, when man has a soul, which I suppose you believe its creation is a miracle, why do you scientist try to explain what man is, where he came from, what is his physical nature, his behavior, his faculties, when the scientists can't explain the soul and the spirit, which forms part of the whole of man?   

Science is limited to the natural universe.   So science can study man as a physical phenomenon.   But that part of us that is supernatural is forever beyond science.

Again, if this puzzles you, you're stuck in an ontological dead end.   Should we discuss this further?

[Michael2012]

That being, then why do you scientist then try to explain the miracles, that is, nature and the world, and the "initial" creation?

It's very simple.  Science can't address the miraculous.   But scientists can.   If this puzzles you, we need to talk about that, first.

No, that is not what puzzles me, that scientists can address the miraculous. For why can't they, yet not scientifically. What puzzles me is why scientists, through the method of science, try to explain that which you say are miracles of God, that of nature, the world, the "initial" creation, when miracles are beyond the reach of science. Isn't it Obviously an exercise in futility? And evidently it is, for after thousands of years and up to present, no scientist can scientifically explain the origin of all things, more so, life.

And regarding man, when man has a soul, which I suppose you believe its creation is a miracle, why do you scientist try to explain what man is, where he came from, what is his physical nature, his behavior, his faculties, when the scientists can't explain the soul and the spirit, which forms part of the whole of man?   

Science is limited to the natural universe.   So science can study man as a physical phenomenon.   But that part of us that is supernatural is forever beyond science.

Again, if this puzzles you, you're stuck in an ontological dead end.   Should we discuss this further?

Yes, you can say that with regards the physical part of man. My point is that, science can't really know what man is, and therefore can't explain what man is. However, do scientist not try, by scientific methods, to explain man's behavior, thinking, desires, emotions, etc, things that are spiritual more than are physical?

The deeper matter of this, is that, man, through science, tries to deal with the effects of sin and death that affects the whole of creation because of the fall of Adam. Among many things is the search for the means of how to cure human body diseases. So man through science went on to find out what is the human body and how it functions. This is not at all wrong in my view, but it is, when with such knowledge, man begins to forget about God, or and begins to put his faith more in the science of man rather than in the power of the Creator, who sustains all things and sovereign over all things, even diseases.

[4WD]

However, do scientist not try, by scientific methods, to explain man's behavior, thinking, desires, emotions, etc, things that are spiritual more than are physical?

What makes you think that those things are "spiritual more than are physical"?  Please explain.

The deeper matter of this, is that, man, through science, tries to deal with the effects of sin and death that affects the whole of creation because of the fall of Adam.

How does man do that?  How does sin and death affect the whole of creation because of the fall of Adam?  How exactly would the whole of creation be different from what it is now?  Please explain.  And please be specific and cite your evidence or proof.

Among many things is the search for the means of how to cure human body diseases. So man through science went on to find out what is the human body and how it functions. This is not at all wrong in my view, but it is, when with such knowledge, man begins to forget about God, or and begins to put his faith more in the science of man rather than in the power of the Creator, who sustains all things and sovereign over all things, even diseases.

How would you propose to treat any disease, say cancer, from your knowledge and faith in the power of the Creator?  Again, please be specific since apparently you are being critical of what is being done from the point of view of science.

Also, remembering your long harangues about faith, what exactly do you mean when you say "man begins to put his faith more in science...."?

[Michael2012]

However, do scientist not try, by scientific methods, to explain man's behavior, thinking, desires, emotions, etc, things that are spiritual more than are physical?

What makes you think that those things are "spiritual more than are physical"?  Please explain.

I was referring to the spiritual senses and experience of man, which is expressed through the physical part of man. Things such as love, hate, sadness, happiness, understanding, among others. That even while these things are expressed in the physical, they are really matters of the spirit than are of the physical part of man.

The deeper matter of this, is that, man, through science, tries to deal with the effects of sin and death that affects the whole of creation because of the fall of Adam.

How does man do that?  How does sin and death affect the whole of creation because of the fall of Adam?  How exactly would the whole of creation be different from what it is now?  Please explain.  And please be specific and cite your evidence or proof.

You are aware of my understanding of what scriptures says about the result of Adam's sin. Must I expound on this here when we have gone through that several times in different threads and we are clearly not in agreement and remain to be so? It would just be a vain repetition of ourselves here and still will not have a common understanding. Let me just give you an example. Before the fall of Adam, man was given by God every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed for food, and to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, God have given every green herb for food. But because Adam sinned, such order changed. See what man now eats, and what other living creatures  eats, which in the original order, they only have what God gave them as food. And whatever that comes in the body, so it affects the body, some good, some bad, for the body. Those bad I suspect are which that brings illness and disease to the body. And that, because of the fall of Adam.

Among many things is the search for the means of how to cure human body diseases. So man through science went on to find out what is the human body and how it functions. This is not at all wrong in my view, but it is, when with such knowledge, man begins to forget about God, or and begins to put his faith more in the science of man rather than in the power of the Creator, who sustains all things and sovereign over all things, even diseases.

How would you propose to treat any disease, say cancer, from your knowledge and faith in the power of the Creator?  Again, please be specific since apparently you are being critical of what is being done from the point of view of science.

Also, remembering your long harangues about faith, what exactly do you mean when you say "man begins to put his faith more in science...."?

Man can learn from scriptures what God gave man for food in the beginning. I believe that if we just put such knowledge into practice, we will perhaps not fall ill and most likely will not catch any disease. And should we get sick, we can go to God and pray that He heals us by His power or lead us how we can get healing.

Now, should we get some disease, it is most likely because of the pollution everywhere that man have caused, in the food we eat and in the air we breath, and the destruction of the earthly environment we live in.  And as new pollutants come about, new kinds of diseases emerge, and obviously no cure is known to man. But instead of going to God for deliverance through faith, man tries to solve the problem and do some experiments here and there, to device what they think is a cure. This is what I mean when I said "man begins to forget about God, or and begins to put his faith more in the science of man rather than in the power of the Creator".

And I guess you know that, that is not at all what God wants man to do in the midst of all these. What God wants is for us to go to Him and ask for His mercy and grace, that He heals us and deliver us from whatever it is we are suffering on this earth. God wants us to put our faith in Him, not in anything nor in anyone else.
   

[The Barbarian]

No, that is not what puzzles me, that scientists can address the miraculous. For why can't they, yet not scientifically. What puzzles me is why scientists, through the method of science, try to explain that which you say are miracles of God, that of nature, the world, the "initial" creation, when miracles are beyond the reach of science.

If they do, they aren't very good scientists.   All the scientists I know, readily point out what I've shown you; science is limited to the physical universe.

Yes, you can say that with regards the physical part of man. My point is that, science can't really know what man is

It can see what man is.   It just can't see everything man is.  But of course scientists can.

However, do scientist not try, by scientific methods, to explain man's behavior, thinking, desires, emotions, etc, things that are spiritual more than are physical?

What makes you think that these are more spiritual than physical?

The deeper matter of this, is that, man, through science, tries to deal with the effects of sin and death that affects the whole of creation because of the fall of Adam. Among many things is the search for the means of how to cure human body diseases. So man through science went on to find out what is the human body and how it functions. This is not at all wrong in my view, but it is, when with such knowledge, man begins to forget about God, or and begins to put his faith more in the science of man rather than in the power of the Creator, who sustains all things and sovereign over all things, even diseases.

I don't know of any scientists who do this.

[Michael2012]

No, that is not what puzzles me, that scientists can address the miraculous. For why can't they, yet not scientifically. What puzzles me is why scientists, through the method of science, try to explain that which you say are miracles of God, that of nature, the world, the "initial" creation, when miracles are beyond the reach of science.

If they do, they aren't very good scientists.   All the scientists I know, readily point out what I've shown you; science is limited to the physical universe.

When an "unbeliever", even a "believer" for that matter,  is immersed in living in sin, what do we observe? We observe that, the more he don't realize that he is living in sin and finds himself getting farther and farther away from God. The same with an "unbeliever" scientist. The more he is immersed into science, into say trying to find out how things came to be or how life came to be, the more he don't realize that he is so into science, and finds himself farther and farther away from the Creator, the one who has complete, correct, and perfect knowledge of how things came to be, how they work and what their purpose is. And the more he is into that, the more he falls into the pit of deception, thinking that he can know what God knows or that he can know the mind of God, by science. He is ever wanting to be wise, under the guise for his good intention for all humanity and the world. And so, the atheist scientist or the "unbeliever" scientist says "there is no God", in effect denying the Christ, and further says "do this and do that, do not do this and do not do that" because this is what we discovered and learned by science, else you will find yourself in trouble. And sadly, many "unbeliever" people believe them and so they live their lives based on that. And even more sad, even some "believers" fall into this deception that they actually live the same way the "unbeliever" lives in this regard, more than by the way that they have learned from God.         

If at all, and which should be, I strongly think, that science is limited to the physical universe, scientists should stop trying to go beyond the limits of science, the limits which they themselves say and claim of science, by trying for example to find out by science, where matter came from, and how it came to be, for this is the miracle of creation. Or for example, by trying to find out by science, where life came from, and how it came to be, for this is the miracle of life.

And this they say is all done for what?

To the "unbeliever" scientists I say "Do not be deceived and rather seek God!"

To the "believer" scientists,  I say "Be ever on your guard not to be swayed and not be deceived that you will some day know and explain where matter came from, and how it came to be, or where life came from, and how it came to be, for these are miracles of God. And if you find yourself living by science instead of living by faith in God, wake up and get back to the life of faith and get back to your first love!"     

[4WD]

Spoken, most assuredly, as one who has not a clue of what science is and what it is all about.  It is truly sad when one can read the Bible and not realize what he is reading.  It is just as sad when one can look at the universe and not realize what he is looking at; such is the theological anti-science bigot.

[The Barbarian]

When an "unbeliever", even a "believer" for that matter,  is immersed in living in sin, what do we observe? We observe that, the more he don't realize that he is living in sin and finds himself getting farther and farther away from God.

It wasn't my intention to make that kind of accusation.   While your beliefs about this issue are incorrect, it won't remove you from God unless you insist Christians have to believe as you do about it.

The same with an "unbeliever" scientist.

Too bad for them, then.  However, all the "unbeliever" scientists I know, also say that science can't say whether or not the physical world is all there is.   

If at all, and which should be, I strongly think, that science is limited to the physical universe, scientists should stop trying to go beyond the limits of science, the limits which they themselves say and claim of science, by trying for example to find out by science, where matter came from, and how it came to be, for this is the miracle of creation. Or for example, by trying to find out by science, where life came from, and how it came to be, for this is the miracle of life.

Evolution is not about the origin of life, so it's not part of this discussion.   However, the work scientists have done on the origins of life (which God says came about by natural means) has so far confirmed His word.   The evidence so far indicates that life did arise from the Earth, as God says in Genesis.

This has nothing to do with your salvation.   Don't let it lead you down the road away from Him, just because of the way evolution works.

[Michael2012]

If at all, and which should be, I strongly think, that science is limited to the physical universe, scientists should stop trying to go beyond the limits of science, the limits which they themselves say and claim of science, by trying for example to find out by science, where matter came from, and how it came to be, for this is the miracle of creation. Or for example, by trying to find out by science, where life came from, and how it came to be, for this is the miracle of life.

Evolution is not about the origin of life, so it's not part of this discussion.   However, the work scientists have done on the origins of life (which God says came about by natural means) has so far confirmed His word.   The evidence so far indicates that life did arise from the Earth, as God says in Genesis.

Perhaps it is not, but then again it may be for some "unbeliever" scientists. And here you somehow hold the idea of "origin of life", though perhaps in a different sense. A sense that somehow brings confusion to the believer. For "origin" pertains to the main source and to the giver or maker/creator. The works of scientists about evolution of life, of the world, or anything for that matter, in my understanding, in the sense of "origin" that you here make me understand, is then nothing more about theories of causes and effects, and not at all about the source and author of such.       

But we Christians know the origin of life and who the author of life is, that is, God. However these scientists don't know that. For us who knows, I believe that all things have its source from God, as His words in scriptures says. The  scriptures itself are to us the proof and the evidence to the truth of God and what He have done. When I received the gospel and had faith in Jesus Christ, it was because of an inner spiritual conviction that fell upon me, and nothing that was of the physical world. And I believe it is that for all who came to believe in Christ. So, having started with the Spirit, must the believer now go to the physical things and not to spiritual things for confirmation or for encouragement or for the strengthening of his faith in God? That would not be wise at all, isn't it?

Of the physical creation of God, this is what scriptures have in Romans 1:

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse

Paul wrote this at the time when science is yet perhaps at its very infancy, if at all man have known of science. And Paul so writes this in the context of his times and with reference to the past generations of men in general. So, we understand this scriptures as speaking of what men, without need of science, see in the created world around him, which Paul said the invisible attributes of God, even His eternal power and Godhead, are clearly seen.

Having said that, I understand the "unbeliever" or atheist scientists as probably one who failed to see, or perhaps have seen, yet does not simply accept and reject the idea of a Creator. And so he moves on with science with this thought, and so goes with all that he does. However, I wonder why the "believer" scientists now brings up the matter of evolution, which he says is limited to the physical, and tries to find its place in the spiritual things of God written in scriptures. That is obviously going beyond the boundaries of science that you say. That should not be I would say. And amazingly, it does not end there, as scientists go even to the extreme of attempting to find out, where matter came from, and how it came to be, and where life came from, and how it came to be. And to think, that scientists have come up with theories to this effect, to the extent that it implies the suggestion that there is no God, there is no Creator.

Tell me, being a scientist, why do scientists, through science put a lot of effort, time, and money, trying to: find out about things beyond earth, onto mars, and even to as far as they can to the outer world; find out where matter came from, and how it came to be, and where life came from, and how it came to be? What is the purpose of all of these? And as a professed Christian scientist, do you support and agree to all of these?

This has nothing to do with your salvation.   Don't let it lead you down the road away from Him, just because of the way evolution works.

I agree, we Christians should not be led away by the knowledge of science nor any knowledge for that matter.

This matter may well be said as having nothing to do with our salvation, but if one take a good look at it, it has something to do with our living by faith, which should be in God. We must be influenced by the word of God and live according to it, and be careful not to be influenced by anything, such as science, not realizing that our living by faith in God is slowly stolen away from the child of God.

As young Christian students, we were perhaps taught in school about scientific theories such as that of evolution, the big bang, and others. And as the years went by, it became evident that new theories, if not a change, come up. And we are pretty sure that in the future, new theories will again come up. So, I find it wise to not so much get seriously into science as scientific knowledge is bound to change after all. But God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. And so, we should live with that.                 

[4WD]

Michael, see my reply #1095 above.

[Amo]

https://web.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/data4.html

A SCIENTIFIC EXAMINATION


PHYSICS. A scientific examination of the universe reveals no evolution whatsoever. An examination of the laws of physics reveals that evolution cannot exist. An examination of the energy laws reveals that only devolution, the exact opposite of evolution, exclusively exists. An examination of the biosphere reveals that only life begets life and only with less vitality. The individual complex organism has the least number and severity of genetic disorders at conception and the most the instant before death. The individual is the model of its population because a medical scientific examination of genetic disorders in a population reveals the same pattern. Furthermore, extinction is permanent for the individual and its population again confirming the exclusive rule of devolution.

THE NON VIABLE WORLD. A scientific examination of the non viable world reveals the same principles. Nothing evolves, everything devolves. Every object had to be created and it was at its structural and functional best when brand-new. It progressively devolved to extinction and eventually a pile of chemicals. The chemicals could never assemble themselves into the object. Any assembly had to be done by engineering, that is, by planning, organizing, coordinating, commanding, and controlling. Once anything is created, it cannot change into something else. Though made of the same chemicals, a train cannot evolve to a ship. "That original organic soup" cannot evolve to the structural complexity of even one protein.

THE LIVING WORLD. In the world of living organisms, the biosphere, there is balance and interdependence beyond the intelligence of humans to fully understand. We do know that we cannot synthetically manufacture our air, water, soil, and foods and live for any extended period of time. Disruption of the biosphere definitely will cause our permanent extinction and possibly that of all life forms. If organisms could change to other life forms, then there would be chaos, no balance, and mass extinction. Organisms must be fixed for mutual survival and trillions of observations by billions of people over thousands of years attest that all life forms are indeed fixed. Nothing evolves into anything else. "Early bacteria" evolving to amoebas, a frog changing to a prince, the dead wood of a marionette changing to a boy are childish fantasies from ancient vitalism superstitions and fairy tales, not science.

FANTASIES. If someone said he had bought a brand-new car the night before and in the morning found it rusted and rotted to a pile of powder, then we would note that his story described correctly the direction of the laws of physics but rust and rot do not occur that fast. Scientists note that such a tall tale is a fantasy. Contrarily, if he says that a pile of sand and iron ore evolved into a brand-new car, then we recognize this as an inverted fantasy because it is the exact opposite of the way reality works. So, the evolution story of evolving chemicals to people is not merely a fantasy, it is an inverted fantasy. It is not the cow-jumped-over-the-moon kind of tall tale because cows can jump a low fence. It is the grass-ate-the-cow kind of tall tale, the inverted, upside-down kind of fantasy.

SUMMARY.In summary, evolution does not exist, never has and never will, because it is an inverted fantasy. Biology exclusively specifies fixed organisms in a balanced and
interdependent biosphere in which all life forms are at their best when brand-new and thereafter proceed to permanent extinction as individuals and populations. This suggests the creation of the biosphere as a complex, genetically perfect, global organism by means of the laws of engineering.

As ants cannot comprehend the civil engineering of New York City, so human intelligence
aggregated cannot comprehend the mega macro and nano biological engineering of the biosphere. To attach the origin and diversity of life to the universe's brainless phantom, evolution, is the ultimate intellectual insult. That the public schools and universities of the United States of America should be engaged in such a travesty, not only violates the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, but it degrades the realistic thinking ability of science students to below no science education whatsoever. Teaching the exact opposite of reality, like a photographic negative, promotes psychosis, not education.
For the scientific evidence for the above summary, see the book, The Rise and Fall of
Evolution, A Scientific Examination, and the peer reviewed and other articles.

[Alan]

Very nice for the United States of America, you do realize there are 194 more countries in this world right? The fact that secular scientists in China, Brazil, and the US come to the same scientific conclusion as evolutionary creationist scientists everywhere is very telling of the facts, and the truth. 

[4WD]

"Early bacteria" evolving to amoebas, a frog changing to a prince, the dead wood of a marionette changing to a boy are childish fantasies from ancient vitalism superstitions and fairy tales, not science.

This is precisely the kind of abject stupidity with which you argue.  It destroys your position.  It is the worst kind of a strawman, namely a really stupid strawman. Why?  Because it lays out clearly what you know and understand about the subject, namely, nothing  --  as the Barbarian has pointed out so many times already.

[Amo]

This is precisely the kind of abject stupidity with which you argue.  It destroys your position.  It is the worst kind of a strawman, namely a really stupid strawman. Why?  Because it lays out clearly what you know and understand about the subject, namely, nothing  --  as the Barbarian has pointed out so many times already.

It is a simple illustration, demonstrating that the person who wrote it feels pretty much the same about you, as you just wrote about them above.

[Amo]

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2228

More Problems for Alleged Human Evolution

by    Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Most of us remember seeing the drawings in science textbooks. The evolution of man depicted in its various "well-documented" stages, from ape-like ancestor to modern Homo sapiens. This "ape-like-ancestor-to-man," gradual progression entrenched in science textbooks for the past four-five decades, posted in museums of natural history and force-fed to several generations, is currently coming under heavy attack—and not just from creationists.

In 2000, renowned paleontologist Meave Leakey and her co-workers discovered two fossils in Kenya. The team reported on the fossil finds in the August issue of Nature magazine (448[7145]:688-691). The fossils Leakey found were of alleged human ancestors named Homo erectus and Homo habilis. It was supposed by many in the scientific community that Homo habilis was the human ancestor that evolved into Homo erectus which evolved into humans. Leakey, et al., reported, however, that the skull they found of Homo erectus was in walking distance to an upper jawbone of Homo habilis (Borenstein, 2007). Thus, the new find suggests to the scientific community that Homo habilis did not evolve into Homo erectus, eliminating another key character from the evolution-of-man progressionary chart.

What reactions has this new find evoked? Borenstein wrote that it "pokes holes in the chief theory of man's early evolution—that one species evolved from another" (2007). Fred Spoor, a co-author of the Nature article, said the new fossils paint a "chaotic kind of looking evolutionary tree rather than this heroic march that you see with the cartoons of an early ancestor evolving into some intermediate and eventually unto us" (as quoted in Borenstein, 2007). Borenstein also interviewed Bill Kimbel, science director of the institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University. Kimbel noted that the old idea of human evolution "is just too simple and keeps getting revised." He noted that the evolutionary scientific community "used to think Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthals. But now we know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals" (2007).

It is obvious to the unbiased observer that something is dreadfully wrong with alleged human evolution. We are supposed to believe that humans evolved over millions of years from knuckle-walking, ape-like creatures into upright, intelligent, talking humans. When we ask for proof of this idea, we are told that the fossil record verifies the various stages of this evolution, and the evolutionary community is gracious enough to provide cartoon-like illustrations depicting the stages that are supposedly documented by the fossil evidence. Yet, when we begin to analyze the data behind the picture, we are told, "Oh, we're not sure that ape-like creature had anything to do with human evolution." Or we are told, "Right, well those two lived at the same time so the one could not have evolved into the other."

What, then, are we told to do with this ever-shifting, elusive human family tree that is continuously rearranged and redefined? We are simply told to trust that humans really did evolve and not worry over the "details" of how it happened. Susan Anton, another co-author of the Leakey report, said that she expects "anti-evolutionists" will use the new information to attack evolution, but she says that would be a mistake. "This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points. This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous [sic] self-testing process" (as quoted in Borenstein, 2007).

Consider Anton's statement. We are told that humans evolved from ape-like creatures, given as evidence a series of alleged ancestors, then told that they are not really ancestors at all, but that we should still believe in human evolution. The truth of the matter is, humans did not evolve from lower mammals, and the "evidence" that is constantly being "refined" is so tenuous that a measly skull and jawbone can rewrite an entire family tree that evolutionary scientists have spent millions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of work-hours, and half a century concocting. The material in the science textbooks of 50 years ago is useless and obsolete, yet at the time of its printing it was touted as irrefutable evidence for human evolution. The material in the textbook tomorrow will be in the same lamentable shape in another 40 years. Thus, we have a perpetual, vicious cycle in which the idea of human evolution is based on material that is constantly being refuted, but the most recent is said finally to be "it." When will the evolutionary community cast an honest look back at the sordid history of their beloved theory of human evolution and recognize the cyclic of dishonest in which they are trapped? As one critical writer noted: "These people do not know who begat whom, and they can't tell dates with any credibility; they keep losing links into gaps and moving things around, yet they expect us to believe they are the Masters of Enlightenment when telling us where we came from" ("Homo habilis Contemporary...," 2007).

Ms. Anton is right about one thing, however. Unlike modern science, true religion is not continuously "refined on specific points" to completely alter the truthfulness of previous statements. On the contrary, "the word of the Lord endures forever" (1 Peter 1:25).

[4WD]

It is a simple illustration, demonstrating that the person who wrote it feels pretty much the same about you, as you just wrote about them above.

No it is not a simple illustration.   It is a mocking strawman.  It is a stupid strawman.  However, if it is a simple illustration of anything, it is the simple writer who wrote it.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Evolution is not about the origin of life, so it's not part of this discussion.   However, the work scientists have done on the origins of life (which God says came about by natural means) has so far confirmed His word.   The evidence so far indicates that life did arise from the Earth, as God says in Genesis.

Perhaps it is not,

Definitely is not.   Theories of the origin of life are called "abiogenesis."   Darwin made no claims about the origin of life, merely speculating that God just created the first living things.

but then again it may be for some "unbeliever" scientists.

That would be like saying some mathematicians don't think addition is a valid operation.   

And here you somehow hold the idea of "origin of life", though perhaps in a different sense.

Abiogenesis.   Life from non-life, as God says in Genesis.

A sense that somehow brings confusion to the believer. For "origin" pertains to the main source and to the giver or maker/creator.

If you don't use words as they are commonly undestood, you not communicate very well.  That's not what "origin" means.

But we Christians know the origin of life and who the author of life is, that is, God. However these scientists don't know that.

God created the world so that can understand how it works without knowing Him.   I can only accept that it was the best way.

So, having started with the Spirit, must the believer now go to the physical things and not to spiritual things for confirmation or for encouragement or for the strengthening of his faith in God? That would not be wise at all, isn't it?

If your drain is blocked, would you want your plumber to look at physical things or spiritual things to fix it?    Science is like plumbing.   

Of the physical creation of God, this is what scriptures have in Romans 1:

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse

Paul wrote this at the time when science is yet perhaps at its very infancy, if at all man have known of science. And Paul so writes this in the context of his times and with reference to the past generations of men in general. So, we understand this scriptures as speaking of what men, without need of science, see in the created world around him, which Paul said the invisible attributes of God, even His eternal power and Godhead, are clearly seen.

Paul was well-educated, and Hellenistic science was better-developed than you might think.  He was acknowledging that God's creation is a revelation in itself.

Having said that, I understand the "unbeliever" or atheist scientists as probably one who failed to see, or perhaps have seen, yet does not simply accept and reject the idea of a Creator. And so he moves on with science with this thought, and so goes with all that he does. However, I wonder why the "believer" scientists now brings up the matter of evolution, which he says is limited to the physical, and tries to find its place in the spiritual things of God written in scriptures. That is obviously going beyond the boundaries of science that you say.

Yes.  Science can't consider the supernatural.  But scientists can.

That should not be I would say. And amazingly, it does not end there, as scientists go even to the extreme of attempting to find out, where matter came from, and how it came to be, and where life came from, and how it came to be.

Perfectly reasonable objectives, since they are physical phenomena, and therefore open to science.

And to think, that scientists have come up with theories to this effect, to the extent that it implies the suggestion that there is no God, there is no Creator.

If your plumber can open your drain without considering the Creator, it does not mean there is no Creator.

Tell me, being a scientist, why do scientists, through science put a lot of effort, time, and money, trying to: find out about things beyond earth, onto mars, and even to as far as they can to the outer world; find out where matter came from, and how it came to be, and where life came from, and how it came to be? What is the purpose of all of these?

Occasionally, scientists will point out the many important discoveries that have led to progress in making our lives better, reducing suffering, and so on.   But that's not really why we do it.  The dirty little secret of science is that we do it because it's fun.   We were created with an urge to go find out, and scientists spend their lives doing that.   It happens to often result in useful things.   But that's not why we do it.

And as a professed Christian scientist, do you support and agree to all of these?

Yep.   I'm glad that what we do has so often made things better.   But it really wouldn't matter as far as motivation is concerned.   It's fun to explore His creation.  And so we do.

I agree, we Christians should not be led away by the knowledge of science nor any knowledge for that matter.

This matter may well be said as having nothing to do with our salvation, but if one take a good look at it, it has something to do with our living by faith, which should be in God. We must be influenced by the word of God and live according to it, and be careful not to be influenced by anything, such as science, not realizing that our living by faith in God is slowly stolen away from the child of God.

That could be anything.   I see many Christians of various political persuasions, abandoning their Christian principles to support ideas and candidates who are an affront to Christian belief.   I have seen faith used to support racism, envy, and all sorts of evils.    History is full of examples where leaders presented their evil ideas as Christian values.    Men are weak, and often build idols that get in the way of their path to God.   Science, like anything else, can become an idol.

But God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. And so, we should live with that.

Science is inductive.  That is, we watch examples, and infer the rules from them. So all truth in science is provisional.   On the other hand, God is eternal truth.

But we don't need eternal truths to get the plumbing working again.   Thanks for your thoughtful and insightful comments.

                 

[4WD]

But we don't need eternal truths to get the plumbing working again.   

Perhaps he uses an outside toilet and thinks that a flushing toilet inside a house is a bunch of foolishness not supported by the Scriptures.  And for that all plumbers are probably unbelievers.

[The Barbarian]

Most of us remember seeing the drawings in science textbooks. The evolution of man depicted in its various "well-documented" stages, from ape-like ancestor to modern Homo sapiens. This "ape-like-ancestor-to-man," gradual progression entrenched in science textbooks for the past four-five decades, posted in museums of natural history and force-fed to several generations, is currently coming under heavy attack—and not just from creationists.

I get to review textbooks from time to time.  I've never seen one that had the "monkey to man" diagram, except as a warning about foolish misconceptions about evolution.   Can you give us an example of a modern textbook that uses that as an illustration of evolution?   I can't find one, and no one seems to be able to show me one.

In 2000, renowned paleontologist Meave Leakey and her co-workers discovered two fossils in Kenya. The team reported on the fossil finds in the August issue of Nature magazine (448[7145]:688-691). The fossils Leakey found were of alleged human ancestors named Homo erectus and Homo habilis. It was supposed by many in the scientific community that Homo habilis was the human ancestor that evolved into Homo erectus which evolved into humans. Leakey, et al., reported, however, that the skull they found of Homo erectus was in walking distance to an upper jawbone of Homo habilis (Borenstein, 2007). Thus, the new find suggests to the scientific community that Homo habilis did not evolve into Homo erectus, eliminating another key character from the evolution-of-man progressionary chart.

This is like saying that if you're alive, your uncle has to be dead.   Many times, a new species evolves, and the old one lives on.    Would you like to see some examples?

[Ginger Rella]

I get to review textbooks from time to time.  I've never seen one that had the "monkey to man" diagram, except as a warning about foolish misconceptions about evolution.   Can you give us an example of a modern textbook that uses that as an illustration of evolution?   I can't find one, and no one seems to be able to show me one.

Not modern, but if you can obtain a textbook in the 4th grade  use around 1955/1956 you might.

That was when I was in 4th grade and very definitely had the monkey to modern man evolution picture, heading the chapter about evolution.

We never studied it in depth, but did have to read it.

I do remember wondering how that fitted with God creating Adam as a man , then Eve.

Now recently, in checking my DNA through 23 and me, I am told I have more Neanderthal varients then 91% of 23 and me customers.

In addition they say that I am 47% more likely to have red body or facial hair. And I am a true Ginger.

Most recently I read ....Genetic studies have shown that a protein–coupled receptor called MC1R holds the key for this mutation. A few alleles (Arg151Cys, Arg160Trp, Asp294His, and Arg142His) are recessive for the red hair phenotype. Similar studies have shown that some Neanderthals were redheads too, but this doesn't mean that redheads have Neanderthal ancestors — scientists believe the mutation emerged differently than in humans.
(from: https://www.zmescience.com/science/redheads-feel-more-pain-20092017/)

So........ for me, at least.... it would appear that my DNA dates back to Neanderthals.

And where exactly does this leave me in the line up from Adam.....?

[The Barbarian]

Not modern, but if you can obtain a textbook in the 4th grade  use around 1955/1956 you might.

That was when I was in 4th grade and very definitely had the monkey to modern man evolution picture, heading the chapter about evolution.

So far, no one can show me one.   And what school system teaches evolution in 4th grade?   That would be like teaching chemistry in 4th grade.   I don't think it was a textbook.

Now recently, in checking my DNA through 23 and me, I am told I have more Neanderthal varients then 91% of 23 and me customers.

In addition they say that I am 47% more likely to have red body or facial hair. And I am a true Ginger.

Most recently I read ....Genetic studies have shown that a protein–coupled receptor called MC1R holds the key for this mutation. A few alleles (Arg151Cys, Arg160Trp, Asp294His, and Arg142His) are recessive for the red hair phenotype. Similar studies have shown that some Neanderthals were redheads too, but this doesn't mean that redheads have Neanderthal ancestors — scientists believe the mutation emerged differently than in humans.

The conclusion is still a bit controversial, but it appears that northern Europeans do have a considerable amount of Neandertal DNA, and that gene is part of our inheritance.    My family has it, and we tend to be Neandertal-shaped, and stronger than most people.   Big noses, large heads, heavy, muscular frames; my daughter asked me about it when she was 10, after reading about Neandertals.    I had freckles and red hair as a child.

And where exactly does this leave me in the line up from Adam.....?

Humans and Neandertals are subspecies of H. sapiens, so Adam came somewhat before.     I don't see why it would matter to God if Adam was archaic H. sapiens, or H. erectus.

[AVZ]

So far, no one can show me one.   And what school system teaches evolution in 4th grade?   That would be like teaching chemistry in 4th grade.   I don't think it was a textbook.


The conclusion is still a bit controversial, but it appears that northern Europeans do have a considerable amount of Neandertal DNA, and that gene is part of our inheritance.    My family has it, and we tend to be Neandertal-shaped, and stronger than most people.   Big noses, large heads, heavy, muscular frames; my daughter asked me about it when she was 10, after reading about Neandertals.    I had freckles and red hair as a child.

Humans and Neandertals are subspecies of H. sapiens, so Adam came somewhat before.     I don't see why it would matter to God if Adam was archaic H. sapiens, or H. erectus.

So this is what Adam looked like?

[Ginger Rella]

So far, no one can show me one.   And what school system teaches evolution in 4th grade?   That would be like teaching chemistry in 4th grade.   I don't think it was a textbook.

Yes it was.

5th Ward School on East Maiden Street, (US route 40) Washington PA 15301

Though that school is no longer there.

What I do not remember, from near 6 decades ago is what the class was.... had to be history?  (Social studies?) or maybe an intro into science???

As I said, was not really taught but we were expected to read.

At no other time in any year did I see mention of it... but the pictures showed in the book, which were above the chapter title and shown only once..... are very much like those drawings if you google evolution .

I did try to see if I could find that online... the textbook... but could not.

[Alan]

The original cover of "Origin of Species" has been modified many times over the years.



Somehow we've ended up with this.





We certainly studied Darwinian theories in HS, but I don't recall if we used the text book, or subsequent editions as reference.


On a side note,  The Origin of Species was voted the most influential academic book ever written, it was hailed as "why academic books truly matter" and "a book that has changed the way we think about everything."

[Ginger Rella]

The original cover of "Origin of Species" has been modified many times over the years.



Somehow we've ended up with this.





We certainly studied Darwinian theories in HS, but I don't recall if we used the text book, or subsequent editions as reference.


On a side note,  The Origin of Species was voted the most influential academic book ever written, it was hailed as "why academic books truly matter" and "a book that has changed the way we think about everything."

Ah, I recognize some relatives 

And this looks a lot like what I remember from my text book.

[Ginger Rella]

So this is what Adam looked like?

Hmmm... by appearances one can understand whyEve wanted to give Adam the apple.... she was ready for a change when he would die.

[AVZ]

Hmmm... by appearances one can understand whyEve wanted to give Adam the apple.... she was ready for a change when he would die.

No wonder Adam accepted the fruit from Eve...he doesn't look very bright.
He still has that look on his face "Ok, what just happened to me?!?"

[Alan]

Also, a very cheesy mustache, I never trust guys with pseudo-staches. 

[Ginger Rella]

Also, a very cheesy mustache, I never trust guys with pseudo-staches.

Or "any" facial hair. 

[The Barbarian]

Darwin, if he saw the cover of that book, would have had a fit.

It's not the way evolution works, and his discoveries pretty much put an end to orthogenesis as a scientific theory.   I can understand it being in a history textbook; I once read a history textbook that said that people told Columbus that he would fall off the edge of the Earth if he sailed too far west.

There's a lot of errors like that in history textbooks.

[The Barbarian]

So this is what Adam looked like?

Who knows exactly which human was first given a living soul?    Do you think H. erectus was not good enough to be the first of our kind?

Why would God care?

Classic H. erectus (the one associated with fire and extensive tool use) probably looked more like this: