Scientific and Religious Perspectives on Creationism / Evolution

[youngyew]

Originally Posted by azlanhussain

Evolutionist: ?You know, my whole family was once ape-like creatures. My ancestors were small chimp-like animals called autralopithecines, which have been found as fossils.?

Wise man: ?But there are no fossils to prove that australopithecines evolved into humans.?

Evolutionist: ?Well, they told me they were my ancestors.?

What a joke..

The lame strawmen in the conversation is indeed a joke.

Originally Posted by azlanhussain

The fact is:

Evolutionists have done some extraordinary waving of magic wands to make evidence against their theory disappear.

For example, a well-preserved arm-bone fossil found in 1965 at Kanapoi, north Kenya, was found to be indistinguishable from a modern human?s arm-bone. But because it was regarded as being from a time before humans had evolved, it was suggested that it must be from an ape. This went against all the scientific evidence.

If the Kanapoi fossil had been given human status, as it obviously should have been, it would have contradicted the theory of human evolution?because it would show that humans had been around before their alleged ape-like ancestors had evolved into them!

Human did not evolved from ape..

I am not familiar with this Kanapoi fossil issue. Would love to find out more when I have time.

[azlanhussain]

Few more that we should think of:

Question: ‘Why do evolutionists call the very robust Australian fossils Homo sapiens when they themselves state that they are almost identical to the Java Homo erectus material?’

Answer: ‘Those robust Australian fossils (the Kow Swamp material, the Cossack skull, the Willandra Lakes WHL 50 skull, etc.), by their dating methods, are just thousands of years old. Homo erectus wasn’t supposed to be living so recently. Hence, the evolutionist must call them Homo sapiens to preserve his theory.’


Question: ‘Why are the skull KNM-ER 1470, the leg bones KNM-ER 148 I, and the skull KNM-ER 1590, found by Richard Leakey in East Africa, assigned to Homo habilis when the skull sizes, skull shapes, and the very modern leg bones would allow assignment to some form of Homo sapiens?’

Answer: ‘Those fossils are dated at almost two million years. The evolutionist cannot allow modern humans to be living in that evolutionary time frame—no matter what the fossils look like.’


Question: ‘Why is the elbow bone from Kanapoi, KP 271, found in East Africa in 1964, called Australopithecus africanus when the computer analysis conducted by evolutionists declares it to be virtually identical to modern humans?’

Answer: ‘Because the fossil is dated at 4.4 million years! It would suggest that true humans are older than their evolu-tionary ancestors. No evolutionist worth his salt can follow the facts when they lead in that direction.’


Surf around and you will find more facts that contradicting to what Evolutionists had claimed..

[youngyew]

UPDATE: Found a discussion about that Kanapoi humerus:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs...aly.html#kp271

Anyway, if you surf around www.talkorigins.org, you will be able to find a point-by-point refutation to everything stated in www.anwersingenesis.org (which I believe is where you copied the Q&A from).

Of course one can choose to categorically believe in the opinion of a whole website and disregard the others; but I would strongly recommend everyone to actually read up on the issue widely and objectively and make up your mind. You can't just take whatever answersingenesis.org or harunyahya.com say and thought "evolution is wrong" - the same way as I can't just quote www.talkorigins.org and close my ears to any criticism henceforth. To quote just one website (a decidedly biased one not to mention) and enshrine it as the truth does not a truth make.

[Shoblast]

isn't this atlas thing written by a guy who published a picture book with a fishing lure to disprove evolution?

let me amend that.

The Atlast of Creation is written by an idiot, who, trying to prove that insects did not change form, compared a fossil to a fishing lure (with the hook visible), saying that there is no difference.

[chongkeat]

Lets not close our mind to what we believe. Lets think of it rationally.

I agree, which is why I'm now reading up on this.

Gonna be posting later...

For example, a well-preserved arm-bone fossil found in 1965 at Kanapoi, north Kenya, was found to be indistinguishable from a modern human’s arm-bone. But because it was regarded as being from a time before humans had evolved, it was suggested that it must be from an ape. This went against all the scientific evidence.

Here's an answer, I hope: (Just a little Ctrl+C of the site given by youngyew)

Lague and Jungers (1996) conducted an extensive study of the lower humeri of apes, humans, and hominid fossils. They used multivariate analysis, a technique which is highly praised by creationists when it delivers results favorable to them. Lague and Jungers' results show convincingly that KP 271 lies well outside the range of human specimens. Instead, it clusters with a group of other hominid fossils so strongly that the probability that it belongs to the human sample, rather than fossil hominid group, is less than one thousandth (0.001). They conclude:

"The specimen is therefore reasonably attributable to A. anamensis (Leakey et al. 1995), although the results of this study indicate that the Kanapoi specimen is not much more "human-like" than any of the other australopithecine fossils, despite prior conclusions to the contrary" (Lague and Jungers 1996)

[azlanhussain]

Originally Posted by youngyew

UPDATE: Found a discussion about that Kanapoi humerus:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs...aly.html#kp271

Anyway, if you surf around www.talkorigins.org, you will be able to find a point-by-point refutation to everything stated in www.anwersingenesis.org (which I believe is where you copied the Q&A from).

Of course one can choose to categorically believe in the opinion of a whole website and disregard the others; but I would strongly recommend everyone to actually read up on the issue widely and objectively and make up your mind. You can't just take whatever answersingenesis.org or harunyahya.com say and thought "evolution is wrong" - the same way as I can't just quote www.talkorigins.org and close my ears to any criticism henceforth. To quote just one website (a decidedly biased one not to mention) and enshrine it as the truth does not a truth make.

Good source.. will read it in details and post my comments later.

BTW does that proves that we came from ape ?

[luke]

If I believe that evolution is a God's way of creating creatures, which side am I in?

You see, evolutionists believe in all creatures sharing the same ancestor, with each of them evolved, naturally without no intelligent intervention, through multiple stages at some points in history. OTOH, creationists believe in all creatures being intelligently created by a supernatural entity. I wonder if there is another group of people that believes in both evolution and creation.

Even in daily lives, there are human technologies that took multiple steps of changes and improvements to get to where they are now. Human created them, but they evolved from time to time by mean of human revising them. Why can't we apply the same concept with creation and evolution? Why must it be one way or the other?

[qedx]

Originally Posted by luke

Why can't we apply the same concept with creation and evolution? Why must it be one way or the other?

Because this invisible modifier/innovator is redundant. Evolution does not need this invisible guide person. Physics and chemistry got it started and biology ran away with it.

Because many people who supposedly believe in both evolution and creationism somehow draw a magical line at the evolution of human beings. This is a cop-out in my opinion. Why set aside a "special" place for humanity, away from the other animals? What is your stand on this?

[luke]

Originally Posted by qedx

Because this invisible modifier/innovator is redundant. Evolution does not need this invisible guide person. Physics and chemistry got it started and biology ran away with it.

That's precisely evolutionist thinking. These people are so vehement about natural selection that they totally reject the slightest idea of scientifically-unprovable power to take part in the process. Again, I would ask, why such a strong rejection?

Sometimes it makes me wonder if all this evolution aka darwinism theory is a stealthy conspiracy to reject all divinity-based religions. They specifically assert "no, no God in this. it's all natural". And the gullible religious people took the bait and started the creationism faction which totally rejects the idea of creatures evolving from one form to another. All the while, the region in between the two extremes is so deserted as if the idea is not hot enough for debates. Call it "a coward way out" or "an illusion" or whatever, but the path I'm taking is at least one step further away from this endless fruitless disputes. Sure, creationists and evolutionists alike, debate all the way as much as you want, for I am supporting both of your beliefs, well, at least some portion of each.

Originally Posted by qedx

Because many people who supposedly believe in both evolution and creationism somehow draw a magical line at the evolution of human beings. This is a cop-out in my opinion. Why set aside a "special" place for humanity, away from the other animals? What is your stand on this?

I wrote "all creatures" didn't I? When did I set aside humanity as special? Don't lump me together with extremist creationists as I believe in both evolution and creation as combined factors in existence of creatures.

[Shoblast]

That's precisely evolutionist thinking. These people are so vehement about natural selection that they totally reject the slightest idea of scientifically-unprovable power to take part in the process. Again, I would ask, why such a strong rejection?

Because it is superfluous. This is science. It is a scientific theory used to explain the world. You do not include divinity in science, it will completely mess up the whole field. If you include unscientifically proven entities into a scientific theory, where would we be?

Imagine me explaining how water evaporates. "The water molecules get their energy from their surroundings, until one of them achieves enough energy to break off from the main aggregation and escapes into the atmosphere". Then i add "But we must remember, that water and energy alone is although enough, there is actually also an invisible flying pixie elephant helping it out. You can't see it, but it is there. you must have faith."

Its a cop out, a submissive nod to other forces that seek to subvert and add in unnecessary elements into a field of study.

You can document humans improving their methods in a pseudo natural selection way, but there is no documentation of any other outside influence biological evolution (barring the past 2-3 thousand years).

Walking away supporting both from each camps does not make you the most correct. It just means you just had your pie and ate it, ignoring the glaring imcompatibilities between both sides. It also indicates that you aren't well learned in the subject and merely wish to have this issue resolved comfortably within your own mind, nevermind the context or truth of it.

I know you don't like Dawkins, but i'm going to quote him again anyway. "When two opposing points of view are being equally strongly expressed, the truth does not necessarily lie in the middle. One side can simply be wrong."