Creation vs. Evolution

[1Mind1Spirit]

Origin of Species was published on 24 November 1859

Piltdown Man was fabricated in 1912

Nebraska man was fabricated in 1922

Taung fossil was discovered in 1924 but mostly rejected until the 1940s.

Ramapithecus fossil mistake was in 1932

What this means is, having no human fossils to formulate a theory of human evolution to begin with, the how of evolution (natural selection) was conceived before the fact of human evolution had been established.

Are you ready to concede these facts?

And as we will see, it has never been confirmed by the fossil record, but perhaps you think you can "prove" other wise with more than just ad hominem arguments.

--Dave

Yeppers! :cigar::carryon::aimiel:

 

[6days]

Golly, thanks. On the other hand if Dave has all this information which will turn current scientific thought on human evolution on its head there is a simple way to do that----publish in the scientific literature.

Jukia... Dave has been talking about things published in the scientific literature.
Would you like some references so you can read about Piltdown Man? Neandertals?

 

[MichaelCadry]

I don't think you're right about that. What is being suggested is that Neanderthals have at some point interbreed with homo sapiens and that many of us do have some of their DNA. But to suggest that we are actually the same species rather than a close one is not what the fossil record seems to show, that there are just too many fundamental differences along with all the similarities.

However I realise that you are probably unwilling to agree that that is what the evidence shows but I'd suggest that that was only because of the rather difficult doctrinal problems you'd be left with were you to do so. Not that the differences don't exist, but mainly that you and YECdom probably don't want to even try to contemplate that there might have been more than one version of man, particularly to yourselves.

Some might have had bigger brains but "comparable" is as good a word as any imo.

I'd agree that the concept of what constitutes a species is not always exact, but science seems free to conclude from evidence that Neanderthals were heading down a different evolutionary path because science does not have to restrict itself to a literal interpretation of what was written in some ancient scripture.

Evidentially we are nevertheless close cousins regardless of creationists not particularly liking the idea.


Bald assertion, but if that's what you must believe then be my guest believe away. If you must adhere literally to an ancient scripture, then you can do nothing else apparently, because you won't allow it to ever be wrong or allegorical, whatever the evidence suggests.

"Evolutionists" don't adhere to a literal Genesis of course, but unlike you they don't have to pre-conclude that anything other than what your ancient scripture says is automatically wrong whatever the evidence might show.
However I don't believe that there are any such thing as "evolutionists", beyond the creationists' mind-set anyway.
People who tend to believe that the ToE is virtually true fact are not proposing it as an alternative to Biblical creation, it's just something that makes rational sense of the natural evidence more generally, while nothing has come along, least of all creationist assertions, to falsify it or that there is a better natural explanation of the evidence.

Dear Alwight,

I know I shouldn't post here anymore, but Neanderthal man was formed by the Lord God, just as homo sapiens. But he was formed before homo sapiens. Neanderthal man had his time on earth and was found wanting. He was eradicated, just like the dinosaurs. He was replaced by an advancement. Not evolved from anyone. God destroyed the Neanderthal race and formed a more advanced race. I had to butt in here, because you are both way off. Homo sapiens did not evolve from anyone. You all have to realize that God is the one in charge of which kind of man exist at which time and also which animals exist at which time. This is His Playpen!!

God's Best For You!! Miss You All Tons, But What Can I Do?

Michael

 

[noguru]

Jukia... Dave has been talking about things published in the scientific literature.

Yes, but inaccurately.

Would you like some references so you can read about Piltdown Man? Neandertals?

Nope, been there done that. And so has the rest of the scientific community. Do you really think you and Dave have caught something others have missed, if so can you explain that concisely as well as the logical impact on the single common ancestor model?

 

[Jukia]

Jukia... Dave has been talking about things published in the scientific literature.
Would you like some references so you can read about Piltdown Man? Neandertals?

At the moment I would like to see some scientific literature that discusses where Neanderthals fit in terms of Noah's Flood. 1Mind seems to have trouble understanding that.

Does the literature suggest where Neanderthals fit?

 

[alwight]

Dear Alwight,

I know I shouldn't post here anymore, but Neanderthal man was formed by the Lord God, just as homo sapiens. But he was formed before homo sapiens. Neanderthal man had his time on earth and was found wanting. He was eradicated, just like the dinosaurs. He was replaced by an advancement. Not evolved from anyone. God destroyed the Neanderthal race and formed a more advanced race. I had to butt in here, because you are both way off. Homo sapiens did not evolve from anyone. You all have to realize that God is the one in charge of which kind of man exist at which time and also which animals exist at which time. This is His Playpen!!

God's Best For You!! Miss You All Tons, But What Can I Do?

Michael

My response is in my PM Michael.

 

[DFT_Dave]

You'll need to add to it, since it is a terribly paltry list.

And I don't agree that evolution is a philosophy or that creationism is a science. Evolution is solely an evidence supported theory, while creationism is a bible inspired religion.

Darwin and Neanderthal

"Charles Darwin never mentions the 1856 fossil discovery in the Neander Valley limestone quarry located in Germany in The Origin of Species in 1859 nor in any of the six subsequent editions. Even in The Descent of Man, Darwin did not endorse the Neanderthals as a potential ancestral transitional link to humans.

In fact, the discovery was a problem since the Neanderthal skulls are larger than human skulls. Darwin had argued that the advancement of evolution proceeded through “slight, successive changes”.

The Neanderthal fossils created a dilemma for Darwin, how could a larger brain precede a smaller brain? Darwin cautiously noted, that “it must be admitted that some skulls of very high antiquity, such as the famous one of Neanderthal, are well developed and capacious [large]”. For Darwin, the Neanderthal skulls were too large to have preceded humans."

Seems for Darwin size mattered.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I think you need to look up what a red herring is - it involves leading off down a distracting route, whereas I commented directly on what was presented.

And the list IS short. I can't comment much on what hasn't been presented by Dave, can I? The list is short and it doesn't undermine the modern synthesis of evolution, while Dave does not seem constitutionally capable of a sustained decent attack on evolution, since he has a very marginal understanding of how science works or what 'scientific' actually means (just like you. Yes, an ad hom, but you seem immune to actual arguments despite how silly it makes you).

Just what does the modern synthesis of theory of evolution with Mendelian genetics have to do with fossil evidence?

The list is not done.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Golly, thanks. On the other hand if Dave has all this information which will turn current scientific thought on human evolution on its head there is a simple way to do that----publish in the scientific literature.

Man up, fight it out with the big boys. Unless of course he is afraid of the grand scientific god-hating conspiracy. Get Kenny Ham to support Dave's research. C'mon, show us non-believers.

Why publish anything? We are reading the scientific literature on the subject of human evolution and, as we are beginning to see, there has yet to be a fossil that proves human evolution. This seems strange coming from the boys who say they have "empirical evidence" to back their claim.

--Dave

 

[noguru]

Why publish anything? We are reading the scientific literature on the subject of human evolution and, as we are beginning to see, there has yet to be a fossil that proves human evolution. This seems strange coming from the boys who say they have "empirical evidence" to back their claim.

--Dave

So you honestly think you are more thorough and rigorous than the professional scientific community?

 

[6days]

… if Dave has all this information which will turn current scientific thought on human evolution on its head…

™
... Dave has been talking about things published in the scientific literature.

At the moment I would like to see some scientific literature that discusses where Neanderthals fit in terms of Noah's Flood.

OK, so you really weren't interested in seeing things in scientific literature re things Dave was discussing? That was what you asked for....

The flood is a separate topic. It doesn't have anything to do with the frauds and shoddy conclusions evolutionists have made on various ape and human fossils.

However...since you are interested in perspective on the Biblical model; Neandertals are almost certainly one of many distinct people groups which developed post flood. Neandertals likely had a few mutations which gave them slightly different physical traits. Neandertals are not unlike distinct people groups which exist today... And not unlike other people groups which have gone extinct.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Java Man

"Dubois' find was a very incomplete specimen, consisting of a skullcap, a femur, and a few teeth. There is some dissent as to whether all these bones represent the same species."--Wiki

"Discovered by Eugene Dubois in 1891 near Trinil in Java. Its age is uncertain, but thought to be about 700,000 years. This find consisted of a flat, very thick skullcap, a few teeth, and a thigh bone found about 12 meters away (Theunissen, 1989). The brain size is about 940 cc. Trinkaus and Shipman (1992) state that most scientists now believe the femur is that of a modern human, but few of the other references mention this."--talkorigins.org

"While searching for fossils in Java, physician Eugène Dubois uncovered the tophalf of an early human skull in 1891. This skull, Trinil 2, is long, with a flat forehead and distinct browridges and a sagittal keel, though many of its features have been worn flat with age. Dubois named a new species, Pithecanthropus erectus after this specimen in 1894, but Ernst Mayr reassigned Trinil 2 to Homo erectus in the 1950s."--Smithsonian

That the teeth, skull cap, and femur are all from the same individual is very doubtful. Turkana Boy will later "change" everything previously thought about homo erectus and Java man.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

So you honestly think you are more thorough and rigorous than the professional scientific community?

Saying the scientific community that believes in evolution is "professional" and the scientific community that believes in creationism is "unprofessional" is begging the question--you know, a fallacy.

--Dave

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

OK, so you really weren't interested in seeing things in scientific literature re things Dave was discussing? That was what you asked for....

The flood is a separate topic. It doesn't have anything to do with the frauds and shoddy conclusions evolutionists have made on various ape and human fossils.

However...since you are interested in perspective on the Biblical model; Neandertals are almost certainly one of many distinct people groups which developed post flood. Neandertals likely had a few mutations which gave them slightly different physical traits. Neandertals are not unlike distinct people groups which exist today... And not unlike other people groups which have gone extinct.

And from the way evolutionists doctor them up, extinction likely occurred due to an invading army.
They look too retarded to be useful slaves, and too ugly to breed.

 

[noguru]

Saying the scientific community that believes in evolution is "professional" and the scientific community that believes in creationism is "unprofessional" is begging the question--you know, a fallacy.

--Dave

No, its not.

How many scientific disciplines do you have to undermine to keep trying to push your interpretation of Genesis through science?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Origin of Species Published on 24 November 1859

1. Neanderthal discovered in 1829 was considered human by Darwin

2. Java man discovered in 1891 doubtful from the same individual and species

2. Piltdown man was fabricated in 1912

3. Nebraska man was fabricated in 1922

4. Taung fossil was discovered in 1924 but mostly rejected until the 1940s.

5. Ramapithecus fossil mistake was in 1932

So far, at least 70 to 80 years after Darwin published his book, there was no evidence of human evolution from the fossil record. Java man is "one skull" cap, along with another one found later of the same type in the same area, that were as insufficient as was Taung child in proving humans had evolved.

The mistakes/corrections made in the attempt to prove the evolution of man from the fossil record.

1. Having to little information

--Nebraska man
--Ramapithecus
--Taung child
--Java man​

2. Deliberate misconstruction

--Piltdown man
--Neanderthal​

3. Misdating

--Skull 1470​

--Dave

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

No, its not.

How many scientific disciplines do you have to undermine to keep trying to push your interpretation of Genesis through science?

Dont know about Dave, but the first and foremost discipline not to undermine is common sense.

I have not seen Dave do it yet.

You on the other hand..............

 

[DFT_Dave]

No, its not.

How many scientific disciplines do you have to undermine to keep trying to push your interpretation of Genesis through science?

I only need to know how to read, be honest, and understand logical fallacies in order to see that the theory of man has been falsified by the fossil record.

--Dave

 

[alwight]

The Neanderthal fossils created a dilemma for Darwin, how could a larger brain precede a smaller brain? Darwin cautiously noted, that “it must be admitted that some skulls of very high antiquity, such as the famous one of Neanderthal, are well developed and capacious [large]”. For Darwin, the Neanderthal skulls were too large to have preceded humans."

Seems for Darwin size mattered.

--Dave

Your problem Dave is that since we know these days that Neanderthals probably did have a different and often larger brain, of a different shape and after birth development, then it is simply indicative of them being a different species. All answered rather well by Darwin's theory about the origin of species even though he wouldn't really have known too much about Neanderthals when it was published.
Dolphin brains are comparable to both ours and Neanderthal's in size, so exactly how much size matters rather than what and how specific brains have evolved to do specifically what, is still moot.

If as it seems Neanderthals are indeed a different species to us was "Adam" simply an earlier common ancestor and thus not exactly the same as either homo sapiens or Neanderthals?
Is your theology flexible and accurate enough Dave to cover this?
I doubt it btw, which is why your problem seems to only involve finding areas of doubt and/or supposed conspiracy as perhaps little more than a smokescreen away from what is the more likely truth.

 

[6days]

Your problem Dave is that since we know these days that Neanderthals probably did have a different and often larger brain, of a different shape and after birth development, then it is simply indicative of them being a different species.

Funny...
Evolutionists have been proven wrong on everything they once believed about Neandertals. Yet you still clinging to your hopes.
Neandertals are our ancestors..science confirms it. Neandertals are descendants of Adam and Eve. Gods Word confirms it.