Although you are correct that the Piltdown Man was a hoax played on the scientific community, you might want to check some actual scientific sources on the others.
Some may consider this a nit-picky sort of thing, but you really shouldn’t lump ‘scientists’ together like that. I think what you really mean is ‘human paleontologists’ (referring to paleontologists who study human evolution, not paleontologists who are human) or ‘anthropologists.’ Not all scientists have an informed opinion on the matter, nor do they all have in-depth knowledge of the material to which you refer (most, likely, do not).
The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition. 1982, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
It’s a pet peeve of mine. To copy from someone else’s work without permission is theft. And even if Jack Chick gave you permission, to present his words as your own is lying. Please correct this as soon as possible.
Mauve Dog and Phobos: I notice he conveniently left out the Cardiff Giant. 
I’m curious- what do you think, Joel, now that you have seen the evidence for creationist dishonesty?
I’d ask CollegeStudent, too, but he’d probably just tell me that Jesus is the strong nuclear force.
-Ben
Damn, and just a few months ago I corrected all the one-liner descriptions from that Chick tract. It takes longer to correct false information than to spew out the falsehoods in the first place. I seem to remember reading something somewhere that said that bearing false witness was a bad thing.
Lucy was no more a chimp than she was fully human, but her species is clearly intermediate between the two living types.
“Heidelberg Man” appears to be the type specimen of archaic Homo sapiens, and his jaw was shaped just like a modern human although it was about twice as heavy.
The specimen of Homo erectus known as “Peking Man” was lost during World War II. So? Many other specimens in better condition have been recovered from all over Asia, including others from the same deposit.
Two or three of the many Neandertalers found were aged individuals showing the signs of bone disease. Other individuals include children, and as the only significant difference between Neandertalers and us was in the skull (Neandertalers had that brow ridge and a larger brain) it is hard to see how arthritis could account for the characteritic cranial structure.
CroMagnons were, of course, modern Homo saps. The tern describes a cultural stage, not a species.
Nebraska Man was never described in the scientific literature; the scientist who first reported finding a tooth from an “antropoid ape” in American deposits realized his mistake before publication.
I haven’t been able to track down the “New Guinea Man”, unless it is a garbled half-memory of the Tasaday tribe the so-called “Stone Age” people fopund in the Phillipines in the Sixties or Seventies.
Any errors are entirely my own, I am writing this post from memory and yo know how us old people get…
Source: Big Daddy? Copyright 1985 Jack Chick.
http://www.chick.com
So, because some creationists are dishonest, they all are? Is that what you’re implying?
Personally, I haven’t run into too much creationist work that isn’t one of three things:
- dishonest.
- uninformed/incorrect.
- maliciously uninformative (similar to #1).
Which is not to ssy that it’s not out there–but the standard basis for creationism generally falls into at least one of those categories. When I see something that I can’t show to be one of those, I may reconsider my stance.
Don’t forget the ‘Solid Muldoon’!
Real pieces of work, those…
I seriously hope that this doesn’t go on to the extent you claim that it does, because, to be honest, that would be extreamly upsetting to me. If it is true that this is the standard for creationism, then it (obviously) hurts the cause far more than it helps. I’ve been re-evaluating a lot of my belief’s lately, and the last thing I need is to find out that my belief that all living creatures were created as is by God, is based in dishonesty, disinformation, incorrectness, and is maliciously uninformative.
IF I were to find that this is the case, I would be CRUSHED. I would accept it, I wouldn’t be too hapy about it, but I would accept it.
Actually, Joel, it is not your belief that is the problem, it is the methods that creationists, by and large, use to attempt to make their point. I believe that is what Myrr21 was getting at. You are free to believe whatever you like; however, if you wish to try to sway others, you will need to be a bit more scrupulous in your tactics than the bulk of creationists out there. If nothing else, it will at least gain you some respect.
Upon re-reading your latest post, I realize I may have responded a bit too quickly. If your belief stems from your readings of creationist literature, then, as a result of the tactics used within such literature, you may well have been misled. And that would indeed be unfortunate. If, however, your belief relies more on your own personal feelings about God, the Bible, and the validity of the latter in explaining the natural world, well, refer to my previous post
Hit the nail on the head; I won’t challenge someone’s belief if their going to say that they are accepting it on faith (I’ll think they’re dead wrong, but that’s different). But when you try to pass off your ignorance of science and proper methodology as fact, that’s where you start to have a problem. The thing is, most creationist literature is created by people who who have the latter intention in mind. People who simply want to go on believing what they wish because the Bible tells them so don’t publish stuff.
Joel:
You seem like an honest person trying to learn. You seem open to what we have to say here, unlike some other people. As such, please allow me to offer sopmee words of advice.
The Bible can be a wonderful book filled with amazing words which give a great moral handbook. Or, it can be used by the likes of the KKK to justify racial hatred. Or everything in between.
As you no doubt know, the Bible can and is interpreted many different ways by many different people. That’s the great thing about literature of any kind.
What you are doing is common, but I think I can help. First of all, I think you are nervous that if you were to say that one part of the Bible were not to be believed, that the whole Bible comes into question.
This is patently false.
First of all, even if one were to believe the entire book was a giant metaphor and collection of parables with no basis in factual history, who cares? Not God, nor Jesus! (That is to say, this is not a salvation issue).
After all, if I tell my child who had done something bad a story about a kid who was bad and reaped some dastardly punishment because of it, it does not matter if the kid in my story was his brother, a kid next door or a kid who never existed! If my kid doesn’t do something bad again, who cares? The point was made.
Now, I am not going to suggest that parts of the Bible are “wrong” (that is, not just a metaphor but a falsehood in general), because I know your belief system will not allow this and that is not my intention anyway.
HOWEVER… IF (only “if”) there was a part of the Bible which was flat-out wrong - no matter how it was taken - that would not invalidate the rest of the book. If I had a typo above (and I no doubt do…), does that mean that EVERY word is misspelled? (I’m not THAT bad a typist…)
Taking what I said above, you can see that one can look at Genesis as a metaphor, a tale designed to tell primitive peoples the glory of God. You can also see the flood as a metaphor of a vengeful God wiping away sin - take a course in comparative religion and you will see that many religions from many cultures have a flood myth. The symbolism is obvious - water is a clensing agent to every culture, and it gives us life, but can also take it away. It is the most bountiful resource on this planet. Even animals know this, let alone the many societies that have sprung up in our history.
Back to Genesis, please take a look at this link:
http://www.bcbsr.com/survey/genint.html
This is from a Christian website and it shows various interpretations of Genesis which are neither inconsistant with your faith, or scientific discovery.
In fact, the Roman Catholic Church, which worldwide is the largest Christian sect by far, has pointed out that there is no reason not to reconcile science with their religion.
This leads me to the second issue. In your zeal to want everything to be literally true in the Bible, you turn to other men instead of God to rule over you. How so? Well, you wind up putting your faith in so-called “Creation Scientists” by listening to what THEY have to say.
Trust me, Joel - These people are not your friend, and unless you think God needs to be lied for (I don’t think He does), they are not God’s friends either.
As has been well documented, at best these people are misinformed about science and their results show this. At worst, they flat-out lie and have been caught doing so time and time again.
Name a creationist, and his methods and/or results can easily put him into doubt. Name something they expound upon and it is always either misinformation unintentional or not, misdiagnoseses unintentional or not, or unprovable and unlikely hypothesies without a shred of evidence to back them up.
I am all for you having your faith, Joel. And I am all for people using the Bible as their spiritual guide (the world would be a much better place if more Christians actually acted like Christ).
But you don’t need to believe that everything in the book is literal, and you definitely don’t want to put your faith in the Pharisees of the world.
Good luck to you in your journey.
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four months, 5 hours, 41 minutes and 3 seconds.
4889 cigarettes not smoked, saving $611.18.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 2 days, 23 hours, 25 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey!*[/sub]
I realize this is a little behind, but I just returned from some unfortunate family business.
IzzyR
Don’t sweat it. At least you are talking to me.
This is exactly the source of my confusion. Maybe you can explain to me what point you are striving to make, or perhaps you are simply asking questions with no particular point in mind.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. But neither is an omnipotent creator obliged to make things as they are. Species could have been fashioned with no evidence of relatedness. Since all the evidence supports the theory of common descent, either this is part of the natural operation of the world, or a creator is playing a practical joke.
If you wish to postulate that a deity set everything in motion at the beginning of time (i.e. the Big Bang) and let events happen naturally from there, you’ll get no argument from me. Evidently, many scientists share this view. It is only when someone challenges the interpretation of the evidence, or denies that it even exists, do I wish to engage in a debate.
On the point about the similarities in the junk DNA, you replied:
I prefer to speak in terms of evidence, not proof. The entire body of science is a working assumption that is subject to future revision. Conveniently dismissing evidence on the grounds that it might later be proved incorrect would not work in a court of law, nor will it help to advance our understanding of the world.
I resubmit that pseudogene similarities are further evidence in support of evolution. This evidence is not easily reconciled with a creationist viewpoint. If organisms didn’t share a common ancestor, why would they share sequences in the unnecessary DNA? In order to challenge this, please come with something stronger than “well, the junk DNA might be revised in the future, so we shouldn’t use it”.
Indeed, evolution does seem to fit all the facts. These “facts” include the fossil record, protein homology, genetic similarities (both functional and non-functional), geographic distribution of species, age of the earth, observed speciation, evolution of drug and pesticide resistance, vestigial structures and imperfect design. Doubtless there are many others.
Each individual must make their own determination how conclusive it is. But a significant majority of the scientific community has decided in favor of evolution, and I would hate to be in opposition to their combined intellectual prowess with little more than an ancient book of poetry.
Evolution is no more tentative than gravity, geology, astronomy, chemistry, or relativity. Each of these disciplines uses the same methods to achieve their results. Yet evolutionary theory is the only one that is repeatedly challenged by those who mistakenly feel it somehow conflicts with their religious beliefs.
I would like to ask one important question to all who don’t feel evolution is on a firm scientific basis. Specifically, I am thinking of IzzyR, CollegeStudent, and Joel, but any others are welcome to reply. Could you specify what evidence, if any, would convince you that evolution is the correct explanatory theory for the natural world?
Satan – That was very nicely put, if you don’t mind me saying.
JonF
“That appears to me to be an unnecessary complication, unless it is proposed just to try to incorporate the Biblical account.”
Jon, the above is the passage I was referring to when I said your response was a little disappointing. To recall the context: I suggested that there was at least the possibility of a “third way” here (between the two polarised positions and based on Cro-Magnon co-existing with Neanderthals). I posted because there seemed to be an unusual aggression in the debate - unusual for scientists, that is - and it surprised me that in over 250 posts to this thread, either scientists or those of religious bent proposed a pretty obvious middle, or ‘third’, way. I didn’t understand what seemed to be unnecessarily aggressive, dismissive responses when not all the doors seemed to be closed. It just seemed an unscientific reaction.
Having said that, I held off responding as people started to mention how Creationist’s are misinforming children within the school system. That, I didn’t know. If that was happening here, I think I’d feel slightly radicalised and I’m not even a scientist. So, I guess I’m saying I can understand the inclination to not so readily entertain the notion of a compromise when so much B/S is influencing the kids. I also (see below) understand that to entertain such a proposition ** could be viewed** as undermining Scientific Method itself…
Mauve Dog Thank you for a clear explanation of the full context. It clarified for me (if I got it right) that the real issue for scientists is that Creationist’s invoke distorted science to aid their cause and to such an extent that the core of science itself, Scientific Method, would be nullified if they were correct. Further;
“In effect, yes, requiring proof from creationists does load the dice in our (the ‘evolutionists’) favor. But this is only because they (the ‘creationists’) are trying to play a game wherein they are not familiar with the rules. One cannot reasonably expect to debunk a scientific claim without using science! Just as one cannot debunk a religious view without invoking religion. Confuse the two, and you get nowhere.”
Seems to about sum up where much of the agitation between the two parties originates. Thanks, MD
Whether or not you have faith, it seems to me that this distortion is unjustifiable when used to influence young minds. It’s not very far removed from drug peddling, IMHO. I’m just relieved we don’t have this on anything approaching an institutionalised scale here.
However, possibility of the “third way” appears to remain a theoretical option. I agree it’s highly implausible but it does have the capacity for accommodating both sides of the issue without necessarily requiring either understood science or faith to be compromised primarily because, as I understand it, there is currently no known way to determine the origins of Neanderthal man.
Unfortunately for me, the argument is likely to be ill received by Creationist’s (as well), as faith in it requires accepting, at best, cross breeding (micro-evolution ?) with the Evolutionist’s Cro-Magnon or, at worst, the extinction of the Adam and Eve line.
But hey, if true, it would open up a whole new world of science.
Thanks for helping me understand the wider political impact.
Hardcore:
Actually, to be frank, evolution, up or down, is not an important part of my life, and for this reason I have never paid alot of attention to it. I am asking these questions here for the purpose of eliciting information about what would appear to straightforward matters from people who seem to be knowledgable about the subject. I don’t see myself as a participant in any sort of debate (though it is in GD), in which my objective is to win out over the other side. I am not intending to argue about anything past the point at which everyone’s position has been clarified.(Though I will not ignore those who have been kind enough to reply).
The theory of evolution would seem to require a smooth distribution, to account for the gradual change of one species to another. The response that I’ve received from others is that the fact that the fossil record does not show this is because circumstances favorable to preservation of fossils were not always present, so we were left with a series of snapshot photos of what is actually a more gradual change. This makes sense. But it also amounts to missing evidence.
This is circular reasoning. You cannot say that the creator would be playing a practical joke because “all the evidence supports” etc. when the suport is itself the fact that you don’t think a creator should have done this.
I would like to reiterate once again that it is not my intention to disprove evolution. I am discussing the extent to which the evidence can be considered to be overwhelmingly in favor of evolution. To this I resubmit that the idea that parts of the DNA are junk is subject to question. This is based on the fact that scientific understanding of the DNA field is relatively recent. And that assumptions of this type have historically been made and been wrong.
So the basis for your is your conviction that the bible is an ancient book of poetry. Therefore you are not inclined to give much credence to the possibility that evolution, the best that science has to offer, may be wrong. For those who consider the bible a more authoritative source than you consider it, the question is to what extent the evidence for evolution can be considered strong enough to disprove it. This explains the different perspectives that people take in looking at this issue, and the difficulties in debating it.
I believe there is a bait and switch sleight of hand used in these proclamations. Certain parts of evolutionary theory are established by the same scientific methods etc. But the historical questions of the past can never be shown as conclusively as the scientific laws of the present, which can be tested, observed and verified. Just looking at the arguments presented here verifies this. Some of the evidence seems to make some sense, some less so, but there is nothing along the lines, say, testing a chemical reaction.
You should, whatever you feel about evolution, allow people the freedom to decide for themselves what their religious beliefs are.
How would I expect to figure that out?
- Alot of the mutations or developments that increase survival of a species do so only incrementally. It seems likely that from the time that the first creature was born with this mutation until the time that the non-enhanced version disappeared completely would elapse an interval of hundreds or thousands of years, in many cases. In this interval, both versions should exist side by side, with the enhanced version steadily increasing it’s percentage of the population.
As an example, should a mountain goat suddenly be born with an altered hoof that increases it’s ability to leap around the mountains it will have a survival advantage. But until the time that this creature’s descendents outcompete the other goats, thousands of years could elapse, in which the local goat population would include both species.
How common is it to find examples of this sort in the world today? That is, populations containing two types of the same animal, with evolutionary theory predicting that one type is a later mutated and enhanced version, which will ultimately win out (even in the absence of environmental changes) due to its enhancements?
- If it were found that certain creatures have physical traits which minimize their personal discomfort or pain, but do nothing to enhance their survivorability, would this be difficult to explain with evolutionary methods? Not that I know of any - just wondering if this would be an avenue to explore.
When last I made an entry on this thread I mentioned the Chihuahua dog as proof for evolution only to be countered by “Micro Evolution”, at which point seeing a brick wall a steered away.
Here I am heading for the brick wall again, but I can’t help myself.
I think I have found another convincing animal that can certainly be considered proof of evolution. The rat. Yes the common rat, which live in the sewers and other dark places right in the center of human society. These creatures probably evolved from the door mouse. And no, a mouse and rat can not interbreed! So far no one has discovered fossilized rat and so far, any and all rat remains have only been discovered within man’s life historic existence and societies. So another creature bread by man’s existence, although unlike cat and dog, this creature was not intentionally bread.
If any one can prove this wrong I will immediately go to the nearest church and… Okay somebody would have to tell me what one does in a church, but I’ll do it!