New Discovery Puts Neanderthal Man Myth To Rest

In creationism, variants within a kind is predicted in nature and when it comes to Neanderthal man, if confirms that very expectation. While some may hold to evolutionary theory as a “developing field. It will be different tomorrow” but with vast mounting evidence to the contrary, the perception in evolutionary circles to overturn what they had missed labeled as sub-human and developed a story that included very little intelligence and grunts for communication.

Prior to the latest discovery which will be addressed, these are the following evidences which demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Neanderthal Man was human after all.

A) Research has shown that stone tool technologies invented by modern humans from the past were no more efficient than the ones produced by Neanderthal man.

B) Broad use of land resources with scheduling resource use by the seasons.

C) Neandertal’s genome showed modern humans and Neanderthals have very little differences. “…new research published online May 6 (2010) in the journal Science reveals that we differ hardly at all.”

D) Europeans and Asians share about 1% to 4% of their nuclear DNA with Neanderthals, indicating that there was substantial interbreeding that went on between modern man and Neanderthals.  This is very important evidence which blows away the story used within evolution because when a species can interbreed then they are the same species!

E) A research team back in 2008, had examined shells that were used as containers to mix and store pigments. Black sticks of the pigment manganese, which may have been used as body paint by Neanderthals, have previously been discovered in Africa. The discovery lead researchers to think that Neanderthal man is not “so-dimwitted” as previously suggested.

Then comes the latest discovery on how Neanderthal man lived…

“The world’s oldest works of art have been found in a cave on Spain’s Costa del Sol, scientists believe. Six paintings of seals are at least 42,000 years old and are the only known artistic images created by Neanderthal man, experts claim. Professor Jose Luis Sanchidrian, from the University of Cordoba, described the discovery as ‘an academic bombshell’, as all previous art work has been attributed to Homo sapiens.”

Are evolutionary scientists now ready to move on from the story concocted over the years with all this hard evidence to the contrary or are they still desperate in using Neanderthal man as a link to modern humans? Once they move on or if they move on, stories from media outlets like the Huffington Post will follow.

The more that is discovered about Neanderthal man, the harder it will be for them to hang on to a group of people who they thought were “so-dimwitted” who disappeared because of competition with modern human (when in fact there is little difference), although there is another proposal that climate change was responsible and one camp believes food went scarce while others believe Neanderthals didn’t have a modern human brain in order to survive the change in weather which is the old line of thinking in the story of evolution.

“The traditional story in textbooks doesn’t fit well with what we know about hunter-gatherers. For the most part, they don’t like to go far from home. It’s dangerous,” Barton said…Other than the fact that they disappeared, there is no evidence that Neanderthals were any less fit as hunter-gatherers of the late Pleistocene than any other human ancestor living at that time. It looks like they were as capable as anyone else,” Barton said.”

Their disappearance is based on much speculation and there is a good chance we may not know what exactly happened to them in the past, but one thing is for sure, there is no doubt that Neanderthals were human beings like the rest of us from intelligence to genome to tool technologies to behavior and now artistry which all confirms the creationist account that there are only variants within a kind which includes humans!

Advertisements

43 thoughts on “New Discovery Puts Neanderthal Man Myth To Rest

  1. This article is very interesting, what exactly was the original published position of “intermediate link ers” maybe current textbooks have not corrected this like other debunked claims that will continue to be cited to the masses as evidences for years after they are proven false. I came across a couple references in the past to extreme violence . ie murder and cannabalism and immorality have you read any reports that try to interpret or claim this manner of behavior for these people?

  2. In creationism, variants within a kind is predicted in nature…

    False. Creationism predicts nothing of the sort. Show us where the Bible, or aqny logical inference therefrom, predicts that “created kinds” will mutate into anything approaching different species or subspecies.

    This “prediction” is a grudging admission that at least some evolution does occur. And this admission was made only after the laughter had grown so intense that creationists were forced to temper their absolute denial of evolution.

    .

    Similarly, fundamentalists clung to the biblical flat earth through the 1920s. Prominent fundamentalist leader Ben Boliva proclaimed in a famous 1915 sermon—

    I believe that the earth is a stationary plane, that it rests upon water, and that there is no such thing as the earth moving, no such thing as the earth’s axis or the earth’s orbit. It is a lot of silly rot, born in the egotistical brain of infidels…. Neither do I believe there is any such thing as the law of gravitation. I believe that is a lot of rot, too. There is no such thing! I get my astronomy from the Bible.

    Even today there are enough wingnuts among fundamentalists to hold a “First Catholic Conference on Geocentrism” at Notre Dame University in 2010.

  3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Discovery Puts Neanderthal Man Myth To Rest

    The only “myth” being put to rest here is the cardboard cutout that creationists keep trying to prop up as the way science views Neandertals.

    Michael’s attempt to show how “human” Neandertals may have been is a fool’s errand. What anthropologists classify them as is up to the anthropologists, based upon certain characteristics that they determine to be significant. Like all literalists, Michael exalts the words over the substance. (That’s why they are called “literali9sts.”)

    The fact remains that Neandertals remain evolutionary cousins to us Cro Magnons, and that the genetic spluit between us occurred between 400,000 and 750,000 years ago.[1]

    What did you hope to prove with this post? That scenarists are sometimes wrong? Well, the only people who are always right are creationists, and that is because they always select and rearrange facts to support their views.

    This is not science; it’s apologetics.

    =================

    [1] Which is way beyond the allowable time frame of creationism in any case. Even the most recent Neandertal fossils are beyond it.

  4. In Evolutionism, variants of a kind are assumed necessary and predicted but not found. In the other philosophical worldview side of interpretation known as creationism, variation that remains inside of the large parameters of “kinds” or genus ie hominid does not conflict with a created original ancestor in this case of modern man/Neanderthal man both hominids with not only same morphological and genetic patterns ie.interbreeding as reported but also now as reported behavior like art. I understood it this way that this worldview predicted that the replication constraint was not proven as broken in regards to behaviour or the un-human mixed kind behavior of the human Neanderthal, man-half ape kind of way that many from the other side hypothesized and predicted. You can’t expect that a history of life’s origin provides in writing all the limits or possibilities of it’s biologic function. There is enough information in a few sentences though to be very high in semantic density that can be interpreted to predict these kinds of discoveries as uncomfortable as they may be for the planet of the apes. In Darwins day people saw the insurmountable problems associated with this leap of ape to men souls and it has not even begun to be solved by finding either clearly defined fossil apes or clearly defined fossil humans, not only in morphology but in behaviour. The C-14 rates being lower or fluctuating would give inflated or reduced dates therefore not really critical for skeptics of carbon dating. An interesting side note is the Neanderthals potential by having (larger brains) , being potentially physically dexterous, stronger, and living potentially far longer. A potential devolution of mental capacity and physical in this case compared to modern humans development.

  5. In Darwins day people saw the insurmountable problems associated with this leap of ape to men souls and it has not even begun to be solved by finding either clearly defined fossil apes or clearly defined fossil humans, not only in morphology but in behaviour.

    Richard, what planet have you been living on for the past 200 years? Or have you been reading Michael’s home-schooling books?

    For example—

    In Evolutionism, variants of a kind are assumed necessary and predicted but not found.

    First, there is no such thing as “evolutionism;” there is only “evolution.” If you are claiming that evolutionary biologists have never found variations, then you have missed out on genetics since long before the day of Gregor Mendel.

  6. No creationist has ever offered an operative definition of “kind” or “variant.” Therefore, your statement is meaningless.

    A favorite creationist dodge is to use terms that are vague, undefined, or equivocated. When scientists argue againast a creationist position, this imprecision allows them to wiggle out by claiming that the scientist has misinterpreted the terms, or dioes not understand them.

  7. There are definitions out there but the best one to refer you to would be the definition that you have for species since it is likely very similar to what was originally created and intended. So can species have variations yes. Can species be be defined in two genus at once no. This is a common understanding and in fact the word in the greek Old Testament for kind is Genus and the Latin version is Species. There are not two realities only one with many differing worldviews. It is impossible to know how many originally, other than the ecological references identifying a few of each habitable zone. Who can know how many variations of species were present in one genus at a later date.

  8. There are definitions out there

    Wrong. There are no accepted definitions of a biblical “kind.” If you think otherwise, please point to a source of an operative definition—that is, one which will allow us to tell one kind from a different kind.

    If you define it as a species, then what I said previously still holds. “Variants” would be genetically different members of a species, which have been studied since before Mendel.

    Can species be be defined in two genus at once no. This is a common understanding and in fact the word in the greek Old Testament for kind is Genus and the Latin version is Species.

    The reason one species cannot be in two genera is that the definition precludes it—not because of any physical characteristic, but because a genus is defined as a group of related species.

    You should read up on your Latin and Greek. Genus is not the Greek word for “kind.” “Genus” is not a Greek word at all—it is Latin, just like “species.” And the original meanings are not close to each other—“family” and “face” respectively. For example Julius Caesar’s genus or family was “Julius” (His given name was “Gaius,” and his nickname was “Caesar,” because of his curly hair.”)

    It is impossible to know how many originally, other than the ecological references identifying a few of each habitable zone. Who can know how many variations of species were present in one genus at a later date.

    A genus is a category defined by human taxonomists as a group of species that seem to be closely related. Nature does not recognize genera as being separate from each other. Thus your speculation about how many species are in a genus has no physical meaning.

    .

    Richard, you have no idea what you are talking about. Go read a fifth-form biology text first. Creationism may worship ignorance, but science is based upon accumulated knowledge.

  9. There is a reason for Michael to write this article whether you understand that is what is important. My attempts to help you are sadly failing and I sincerely apologize for my ignorance.to aid you in this regard. The idea of Genesis is simply replication accordingly as they have been created to reproduce. This is not a deep scientific operational definition but it is a definition that has a lot of implications. And as I said before it is similarily close enough for the accepted simplest meaning of species which is being able to simply reproduce. The Neanderthals apparently did this with modern human beings ancestors and this is one of the facts presented in the article above. That should suffice for a definition of kind. I brought up the word genus because of the hominid connection between Neanderthals and Sapiens and thinking of this apparently they were “sapiens” too according to the article above. These are an example of different species that reproduce but they are in the same Genus. So then I thought out loud to your confusion that there is no way of knowing really whether our ideas of genus will overlap with kind, especially if interbreeding is eliminated due to some genetic seperation.and things have evolved as rapidly as we think they have, speaking for myself and others here, not you. You are right that nature knows no definitions that is our God given domain isn’t it. Adam is the one who first named the animals Gen 2:19, Actually you should check up on the definition of genus it is a cognate to greek genos in every dictionary I have searched. As for latin species it is a clear crossover for the ancient translator Jerome for genos and that was my point, kin or kind was taken from there as a principal meaning and has stuck because of the KJV and has always been associated biblically in this way to created reproducable creatures, that was my point.

  10. Richard, both your science and your theology are so incoherent that further discussion seems of no use.

    I will note, however, that you completely misapprehend the import of Genesis. It was written to distinguish the fundamentally different nature of the Hebrew deity from that of the Babylonian gods. Briefly, the pagans conceived gods representing the sea, storms, grain, the earth, the sky, and so on. Genesis, on the other hand, portrays one God for the entire universe, and that these other phenomena are entirely natural, and not endowed with supernatural powers to any extent.[1]

    But the Hebrews, as all ancient peoples, did not make declarative theological statements as we would. Instead, the wrote narratives (“stories”) that embodied the point they were trying to make.

    This is what Genesis 1 is—a fictionalized narrat5ive whose only purpose is to drive home a theological concept. To draw the contrast with the pagans even more sharply, it is modeled on the Babylonian story of Gilgamesh. Today, we would call it a parody of Gilgamesh.

    Genesis 2 differs. In fact, some of the literal details conflict with Genesis 1. This second chapter was written by a different group, not the Babylonian exiles. And it deals with another subject—the essence of human nature. The soul, if you will. (My own, utterly unsupported, view is that Genesis 2 portrays the birth of recursivity in the human brain—which allows the mind to contemplate itself, a capability that no other species seems to possess.)

    To consider Genesis in modern terms as anyb sort of historical or scientific narrative is to commit the historical fallacy of whiggism.

    .

    For an overview of this subject, see Hyers, The Meaning of Creation (John Knox Press 1984). The author summarizes some of his points in an on-line article. Hyers was head of the religion department at Gustavus Adolphus College, and holds ThM. and PhD degrees from Princeton Theological Seminary. (Incidentally, a cousin of mine used to be a professor of theology at Princeton.)

    ====================

    [1] One might even argue that this enabled the concept of modern science. If the universe is natural, then it obeys laws, and is not subject tot the arbitrary whims of the gods. Therefore, it can be studied, explained, and predicted. And, most importantly, controlled.

  11. Richard, let’s make it easy: you don’t present a scientifically valid view. If you dispute, then you will need to defend your view in a scientifically rigorous manner. Otherwise, you forfeit and my point stands without substantive challenge.

  12. richard,

    You say, “There is a reason for Michael to write this article whether you understand that is what is important. My attempts to help you are sadly failing and I sincerely apologize for my ignorance.to aid you in this regard.”

    There is an old expression, “nobody is perfect”…Indeed, I like bringing out important aspects and allow the readers to conceptualize them. The story about Neanderthal man is not operational science, it’s an interpretation of the past using either evolutionary assumptions or creationism. Because of the old-earth assumption along with evolution, Neanderthals were considered to be“mentally deficient”and sub-human. So the expectation for evolution about Neanderthal man was completely falsified.

    Back in 2007, In the DNA of Neanderthals, a “language gene” was discovered till now, had been found only in modern humans! Even evolutionists believe in miracles without operational science, because DNA assumed to be that old (up to 400,000 years old), preserved enough for observation is quite a miracle in itself. The DNA blew evolutionary expectations out of the water…

    In London’s Telegraph in 2007…“It is not a compliment to be called a Neanderthal, but we are finding that the Neanderthal DNA looks much more like contemporary humans than chimps…By looking at their DNA, we have found that from the point of view of this gene, there is no reason they would not have spoken like we do.”

    More evidence that Neanderthals were fully human! :)

  13. @Micheal

    More evidence that Neanderthals were fully human! :)

    That is YOUR strawman, Michael. Nobody says Neanderthals were not fully human. They were. They just are not the same species of human.

  14. Because of the old-earth assumption along with evolution, Neanderthals were considered to be“mentally deficient”and sub-human.

    Not by any professional anthropologists in the last half century. You’re basing your entire article on a view of anthropology that is at the very least a century old, if not older. And strangely enough, the conclusion that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that evolution has occurred did not change in the intervening years, but was actually strengthened. So obviously these two conclusions have nothing to do with how Neandertals were viewed by professional anthropologists.

  15. I asked this the first time I ever saw this board, and Michael never responded. I would be sincerely interested in a response now: have you ever read a scientific paper directly, unmediated by the misinformation from a creationist website? Have you even read any science popularizations written by actual scientists, rather than creationists? I ask because your view of evolution consistently seems at least a hundred years out of date. As long as you persist in attacking this antiquated view of evolution, you’re never going to convince anyone who knows the subject even moderately well.

  16. As long as you persist in attacking this antiquated view of evolution, you’re never going to convince anyone who knows the subject even moderately well.

    Michael’s problems run much deeper than an antiquated view of evolution.

    Basically, he can’t get his head around what science is, how it operates, and why people engage in it. You can tell by many of the things he says that his understanding of science itself is severely flawed.

    Although he will deny it, Michael thinks of science as a branch of apologetics. That what scientists do all day is to sit around and come up with “stories” (viz, “theories”) that they can agree on and push onto the public. Once they agree on a story, their only purpose is to defend it against attacks.[1] (Note that conspiracy theories are never far from Michael’s mind as to scientists’ purposes.)

    This attitude is reflected in the way Michael presents the findings he reads about in his sources. Michael does not read them in order to understand their new knowledge; he reads them to find key words that support what he already believes (and disregards or distorts any unavoidable contrary results). This is why he prefers the more sensationalist rags, such as New Scientist which carried an article on the discovery of widespread ancient horizontal gene transfer titled “Was Darwin Wrong?”

    Michael also thinks of scientific theories as nothing more than speculation based upon arguments from authority. Again, he will deny this bald statement, but he truly conceives of, e.g., relativity as a Revelation from the Prophet Einstein, rather than as a framework that appears to encompass a set of related facts. Indeed, he believes that the entire purpose of science is only to collect facts, and that any inferences therefrom as to past events can be no more than guesswork.

    This attitude underlies Michael’s quoting of old results that fit his viewpoint. Darwin was a scientific authority. Prophets are infallible. Therefore, anything Darwin may have been incorrect about demolishes all of his theories.[2] This is why creationists love to read about unexpected new evidence that modifies a theory.

    Sometimes his efforts become downright silly. As when he was attempting to show that Thomas Jefferson was a closet creationist. Meh.

    .

    One frustrating aspect is Michael’s utter inability even to understand any viewpoint but his own. It’s not that he thinks evolution is wrong—he can’t even conceive how it could have happened. For example, for him animal breeding (artificial selection) is entirely different from natural selection. Why? Because an “intelligence” is doing the breeding. It is inconceivable to him—not only wrong, but inconceivable—that a natural phenomenon all by itself could evolve animals in the wild.[3] Once I asked whether he thinks that honeybees exhibit intelligence when they breed apple trees to produce more sugars. No answer so far.

    =======================

    [1] It is always entertaining to watch Micheal selectively swallow some scientific findings without question, while rejecting others as speculation, regardless of the relative evidence. The really funny bits occur when these two are incompatible with each other—such as his argument that Neanderthals were human because they interbred with modern humans 400,000 years ago, without realizing that 400,000 years is way beyond the possible age of the earth, according to creationism.

    [2] This is why creationists love to proclaim unexpected new evidence that modifies a theory. See? The God Science is not to be trusted after all.

    [3] Like all creationists, Michael believes everything is caused by an external agent. I sometimes think that he believes God intervenes directly yo assemble every human being from its fertilized egg—how could the egg do it all by itself?? In her book on complex systems, Sunny Auyang has an interesting observation about “:downward causation,” wherein an emergent phenomenon allows the system as such to affect the individual units that constitute the system:

    Downward causation is often accused of being mystical. It is not if it is clearly articulated. There are two dimensions in the interpretation of downward causation. The first regards the effects of the system on the behaviors of its constituents, the second the source of the system’s causal efficacy. Mysticism results if the causal efficacy is credited to independent sources such as vitalism or psychic energy that are totally detached from the forces among the constituents and stand above them. Such attribution is not necessary. For us, the system has no independent fund of causal power, although it is described in independent concepts.

  17. I have a fair theory as to why the aren’t “Neanderthals” living today. Only Noah’s family was on the ark, so only their gene’s would have passed on to our generations. Man was probably ALOT more varied BEFORE the flood; for all we know, there could have been humans with tails and the only reason we don’t is because Noah, his wife, his sons, and his sons’ wives didn’t! However, this is just one example, and I am NOT saying people use to have tails, just that it’s possible. We do have tail bones, after all.

  18. “have you ever read a scientific paper directly, unmediated by the misinformation from a creationist website? Have you even read any science popularizations written by actual scientists, rather than creationists?”

    Well, I can’t exactly answer for HIM and I’m only 15, but I’d be more than willing to answer any logical and unprejudiced questions you might have about Creationism. Many of you seem to only be on here to pick a fight, so I’d like to add a few puzzling questions of my own.

    How did a bunch of chemicals and elements automatically turn into the complex mediator we’ve deemed DNA, and if it “evolved,” how? Cells can’t exist, let alone reproduce, without DNA, and there’s no point in there being DNA without cells to use it.

    How did heavy-boned, scaled, toothed dinosaurs become hollow-boned, feathered, beaked birds, which are uniquely designed(/ developed, if you so wish) to fly? Why and how would something that survived well enough on the ground turn into something that specialized in flying, especially when one considers just how many components have to be there in just the right way in order for a bird to even get in the air? One small wound in just the right place and that bird will start plummeting.

    And finally, as far as I’ve read, none of you who are critisizing Michael of being unthorough have bothered to ask about the findings of amino acids in supposedly million-year-old fossils, so…
    How could there be amino acids in a creature that’s supposedly been dead for a million or more years?

  19. Hi Emily,

    Thanks for the comment! You say, “And finally, as far as I’ve read, none of you who are critisizing Michael of being unthorough have bothered to ask about the findings of amino acids in supposedly million-year-old fossils, so…How could there be amino acids in a creature that’s supposedly been dead for a million or more years?”

    That is an outstanding observation! It is the reason why evolution is not good for science. It defies logic and then invokes a story calling it factual. Evolutionary ‘theory’ created this story about Neanderthal man with many details on how intelligent he was, how he communicated, how he lived and as it turned out, they were wrong! So much for ‘details.’ When a framework is flawed, and you insert a lot of guesswork for details, this what happens.

    As far as details on just the basics, Paul Davies an Evolutionist/Atheist professor at the Australian Center for Astrobiology says in regards to spontaneous generation… ‘Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.’

    “Science was at one time defined by its method. Carefully controlled experiments, provisional conclusions, and considered debate once defined the field. But those days have passed. Today, science is defined by public policy statements, consensus, and a set of metaphysical assumptions that cannot be directly tested. Students are told that science is in conflict with “faith” or, worse yet, that faith operates in a different “magisterial” [sic]with no real application to the world we inhabit.” –Norbert Smith, author of Sacred Cows in Science: No Objectivity Allowed

  20. I have a fair theory as to why the aren’t “Neanderthals” living today. Only Noah’s family was on the ark, so only their gene’s would have passed on to our generations. Man was probably ALOT more varied BEFORE the flood; for all we know, there could have been humans with tails and the only reason we don’t is because Noah, his wife, his sons, and his sons’ wives didn’t!

    Emily, you have an interesting hypothesis. I am surprised that creationists have never—to my knowledge at least—used it before.

    Now to support it with some actual evidence. If such a human variation existed before the Flood, others must also have existed. After all, only Noah’s family survived. There should be fossils of these human variations. In fact, they should be much more numerous that Noah-like fossils from the same time period. How about the Denisovans?

    Also, a theory must account for all the evidence, not just some of it. Neanderthals died out at least 30,000 years ago, long before the creation of the universe. And they did, on at least two occasions interbreed with our type of humans in two specific geographic areas.

    If your theory is more than just an idle speculation, then there are ways you could research it. Good luck.

  21. Well, I can’t exactly answer for HIM and I’m only 15, but I’d be more than willing to answer any logical and unprejudiced questions you might have about Creationism. Many of you seem to only be on here to pick a fight, so I’d like to add a few puzzling questions of my own.

    We’re not picking fights, Emily. We try to point out Michael’s lies about science, which are frequent and pervasive.. Michael has zero qualifications to discuss any aspect of science, and he makes many stupid errors. Such s calling zinc a “complex chemical compound,” and copper a “soft tissue.” He lies about the nature of evolution. He says that evolution must produce change, so that ancient species could not show up in the present—such as coelacanths.or spiders. He denies evolution on the basis of authority, rather than evidence. Such as by trying to show that Thomas Jefferson was a creationist.

    In short, he has not the slightest idea what he is talking about. Eelco is a professional astronomer. I have worked with research scientists for almost a half century, in fields from anthropology to zoology.

    .

    But the greatest harm that Michael does to science is to destroy the incentive to investigate this wonderful world that God has created for us. If the answer to every question is “God did it,” there are no further explanations. Where did DNA come from? If God whooped it up as a parlor trick, then that’s the end. But if it came about naturally, then we can investigate it, and hopefully find out some very useful things. For example scientists studying the origins of DNA have recently come upon ways to incorporate DNA into non-biological structures for other purposes. Scientists studying the evolution of taste buds have invented a new class of “flavor modulators” that can substitute for natural products. And so on.

    Michael, and creationists in general, misunderstand the meaning of Genesis 1. It makes a theological point, not a historical one.[1] God tells us that, contrary to the contemporaneous pagan beliefs, water, fire and winds are not deities—They are natural phenomena that can be investigated and understood. In a way, Genesis provides a basis for modern science.

    Not even biblical literalists thought that Genesis is a historical narrative, until the rise of Fundamentalism after World War I. Fundamentalism arose as a reaction against science and theology that was more and more difficult to understand by non-experts.[2] It was founded upon ignorance, in other words. And ignorance is still its only argument.

    ================

    [1] Hyers, The Meaning of Creation (John Knox Press 1984)

    [2] Numbers, The Creationists (Harvard University Press Expanded Ed. 2006)

  22. Michael says:

    As far as details on just the basics, Paul Davies an Evolutionist/Atheist professor at the Australian Center for Astrobiology says in regards to spontaneous generation… ‘Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.’

    Emily, there it is in a nutshell, from Michael’s own lips. The only argument for creationism is that no one knows how the first cell arose, an appeal to ignorance.

    And,m if no one knows, then no one should try to find out how the first cell arose. Does that sound right? Do you think Paul Davies is not engaged in research to find out how the first cell arose3

    I don’t think so either.

  23. Well, I can’t exactly answer for HIM and I’m only 15, but I’d be more than willing to answer any logical and unprejudiced questions you might have about Creationism

    OK. All the animals in the world were all at the same place on the earth when the Ark landed. The question is— How did it happen than some of the heaviest animals were able to swim across thousands of miles of ocean to homes in Australia and the Americas? Why did marsupials made it to Australia, but not a single mammal? Why did all the turkeys take off from the ark and land in North America, leaving none behind at all? Why are there no frogs or toads on oceanic islands? (Until humans brought them there, of course.) Why are there no polar bears at the south pole, and no penguins at the north pole? How did they all decide to go in opposite directions? Why are zebras, wildebeest and giraffes all in Africa, and none in the Americas?

    WARNING: “God thought it was a good idea at the time” is not a valid answer.

  24. To Olorin,

    Simple, after the turmoil of the Flood(during which Pangea broke,there were volcanic eruptions, and, I think, an amount of earth’s water supply might have been trapped undergound), the oceans were warm and evaporating quickly, causing ice sheets to cover the oceans.(In other words, there was a short “ice age” with warm waters) As populations grew, animals were forced to search for more food, and as temperatures and climates changed, they were forced to go seperate ways in search of ideal conditions.

    So, they didn’t swim across, they walked across the ice. There may have been turkeys elsewhere at first, but they might have died out as prey, because of lack of food or hostile conditions. Frogs and toads… probably climate conditions. Polar bears and penguins might have been drawn to different food sources, the penguins’ fish in the south and the polar bears’ in the north. The zebras, wildebeest, and giraffes probably didn’t want to go with out food for long, which would have been required to walk across the ice. As for why there aren’t mammals in Australia, luck of the draw. Basically, they were driven by needs and wants to differnt areas.

  25. As populations grew, animals were forced to search for more food, and as temperatures and climates changed, they were forced to go seperate [sic] ways in search of ideal conditions.

    Then why do “invasive” species” flourish better in their new homes than where they
    originated? Rabbits in Australia, Kudzu in southern US. Asian carp in the Great Lakes. Sparrows.

    Mammals live in all climates of the earth, and employ almost every food sources. Yet one entire continent had no mammals at all. Frogs find homes everywhere there are insects; they inhabit almost every ecology. Except oceanic islands—islands having all kinds of different climates, from tropical to arctic.

    I’d have to ask for any mechanism that would draw entire species—and in fact entire classes of animals having very different biologies—in one direction rather than another. I’d have to ask for evidence that ice covered enough of the earth’s surface to allow them to travel in this way. I’d have to ask how tropical animals survived traveling thousands of miles over sheets of ice. I’d have to ask what mechanism drove all polar bears and all penguins in different directions to the same climate 10,000 miles apart, with no remnants art the other location. And the 800-poung gorilla (so to speak) is how both arctic polar bears and tropical komodo dragons survived on the Ark—which presumably did not have separate climate-controlled decks.

    Evolution, of course, explains the biogeography problem very well. For example, if only marsupials ended up in Australia, it must have become separated before the time eutherian mammals evolved. From other fossils, we can estimate this time. From geologic evidence, we know when South America Antarctica, and Australia detached from each other. So we carry out an experiment and dig for fossils in Antarctica. What was found was the same type of marsupial fossils in both Antarctica and Australia.

    The geographical origins of species long been cataloged in this way. Then along came Vavilov’s law, which argues from evolution that the genetic diversity of a species is greatest in the area where it originated. This law has been thorough tested with known cases, and its predictions have been confirmed many times. (Creationism, on the other hand would predict that genetic diversity is a minimum where a species arose, since every member arose from the same individuals on the ark.)

    .

    You may notice that I have mentioned predictions. The ultimate purpose of a scientific theory is to predict future events, to guide our actions. You use this principle every time you cross the street on a green light—you predict that cars coming the other direction will stop. (Well, you will do this when you get your driver’s license.) What you base these predictions on is evidence. What you do not do is to cross the street on the basis of what the Bible says about traffic.

    My real objection to creationism is that it explains nothing, predicts nothing, and therefore is feckless in telling us about the world that we live in. I can only surmise that creationists believe that God does not want us to understand his creation, that we should be satisfied with, “I did it. So there!”

    You may make up all the idle tales you like about how tropical kangaroos got together and all decided to freeze on a block of ice going to Australia. Some day even you will laugh at that.

    And then what? Will your entire faith disappear? As did Laurie Lebo’s after sitting through the Intelligent Design trail as a fundamentalist reporter? Or Abbie Smith, the atheist blogger, when she went to graduate school in biology?

    Christian scientists accept evolution. Evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala is a Catholic priest. Ken Miller, the lead scientist in the Dover ID court trial. Francis Crick. On and and. You might ads yourself why they believe there is no conflict between their faith and evolution. You might ask yourself why even biblical literalists ahd no problem with evolution until after World War I.

  26. Emily, you have evinced more curiosity about these questions than most young adults. Yet you seem to have very little knowledge of the subject matter you discuss. Here are some references that I think will help.

    +++ Bowles & Morus, Making Modern Science (University of Chicago Press 2005) is written by two of the leading historians of science, and is generally acknowledged as the best recent book of its class. (In addition Morus is the world’s leading expert on the relation between science and religion.) It is written as a first-year undergraduate textbook, and steers clear of jargon and obscure references.

    The major advantage of this book for your purposes is that it is divided into two sections. The section on “historical episodes” addresses major discoveries, and their impact upon science as a whole. Episodes include chemical bonding, conservation of energy, age of the earth, genetics, and evolution. The second section concerns “themes” that run throughout the history of science. Chapters include the relation of science to religion, technology, medicine, and gender.

    +++ Dear, The Intelligibility ofr Nature (University of Chicago Press 2005) is subtitled “How science makes sense of the world.” It deals with how science is organized, the different types of scientific explanation, the nature of scientific evidence, and other aspects. The subject matter includes quantum theory, Victorian mechanics, relativity, and evolution, among others.

    +++ Hyers, The Meaning of Creation (John Knox Press 1984) explores the theology of Genesis, with particular application to science. Obviously, Genesis was meant to tell us something. To paraphrase a popular saying: If Genesis is the answer, what was the question? The purpose of Genesis is to to relate the nature of our God, and of his relation to the world and to us.

    Genesis I focuses on the external world, telling us that ther pagan concepts of water, wind, and other natural phenomena arer not divine but rather are inert creations of the one God. That is, they are not the arbitrary whims of unpredictable entities, but may be understood and predicted. Genesis I was never thought of as a historical narrative—in fact, history as such was not invented until centuries after it was written. Genesis II, written by a different set of authors, concerns human nature and our relationship to God. Creationists ignore it, although it is the more important chapter—it expresses our relationship to God, and is therefore the ultimate basis for all Judeo-Christian faith.

    But its use as a historical narrative would have been seen as hopelessly naive by all Christians, until the rise of Fundamentalism in the 1920s.[1]

    +++ Shubin, Your Inner Fish (Random House 2008) is a short introduction into the evolution of major parts of the human body, written for lay audiences by the discoverer of Tiktaalik, the first known amphibian 175Mya. Chapter subjects include hands, teeth, overall body plans (hox genes), vision, and hearing. Shubin outlines the genetic and structural steps in the evolution of these features. Although it does not go into details ofr all the evidence, it is a good overview and written in an engaging style.

    +++ Carroll, The Making of the Fittest (W.W. Norton 2006) concerns “DNA and the ultimate forensic record of evolution.” Sean Carroll, probably the world’s leading expert in evolutionary development (“evo-devo”)[2] writes for the interested layperson. Short (287pp) and engaging; exudes a sense of wonder and excitement for advancing knowledge.[3]

    ============

    [1] The acknowledged authority on the history of creationism is Numbers, The Creationists (Expanded Ed., Harvard University Press 2006). It’s long (600pp), detailed, and extensively footnoted. Informative, but not a casual read.

    [2] His book Endless Forms Most Beautiful (WW Norton 2005) concerns evo-devo specifically—how evolutionary mechanisms can be discovered from observations of embryonic development. Read that one next.

    [3] Coyne, Why Evolution Is True ( Viking 2009) is more comprehensive than Fittest. However, it is written in a somewhat rhetorical style that may antagonize some readers unnecessarily.

  27. Olorin,

    When I first got on here, I thought I had made it pretty clear that I am NOT an expert. I would like to add to that that I never intend to become one; that my parents happen to be pastors, so I highly, HIGHLY dobt that I will EV-ER give up my faith OR beleive in evolution; and that if you’re going to criticize MY knowledge of evolution, I’d like to ask you if you’ve ever really tried to learn or even considered what makes so many people beleive that Jesus was, is, and always will be the Christ? Why have you given up your open-minded ways and let doubt into your heart? I know you think you have a good reason for avoiding these questions of yours, but I need to tell you to just ASK!

    I AM a christian, and I WILL stand up for what I believe in. I have seen and experienced things that would scare quite a few of you out of your wits. I have been possessed, I have banished demons, and I know what I believe in.

    …and you won’t change my mind.

  28. Emily, it is puzzling why you think I am not a Christian., Is the Lutheran church outside the pale in your view?

    Scientists in general have fewer Christians than the general population, but a recent survey showed that 40% of evolutionary biologists are practicing Christians. In fact, Francisco Ayala, the famous evolutionary biologist who is a leader in debunking creationism, is a Catholic Priest, and the winner of the annual Templeton Prize—$1.5M for efforts to promote religion and spirituality. (The first winner was Mother Teresa.)

    As early as the fourth Century, St Augustine warned against using the Bible to interpret the physical world. Origen agreed. Abelard of Bath, the 12th Century priest who founded modern science, argued that physical causes must be found in the physical world. Even biblical literalists accepted evolution until after World War I. (You could look it up. But you won’t.)

    :Personally, the more I learn about science, the more amazed I am with the glory of God. How everything fits together and operates according to laws. Creating the universe arbitrarily by fiat is a cheap parlor trick, unworthy of the God I worship.

    Emily, you say you are full of faith. You’re not full of faith, you’re full of fear.

  29. And you’re not???

    My career has been in science for almost 50 years. The past few years in biology. The more I know about it, the more I am convinced of the evidence for evolution. This is not a “belief”—it has nothing to do with faith..

    You ought to try a little knowledge. Or at least l a little curiosity. I’m curious about my faith, so I read up on it, attend lectures, take courses, engage in discussions at church. You seem to be afraid of knowledge—that it could destroy your faith.

    “It is bad not to know. It is worse not to wish to know.” — Bantu proverb.

    kairos kai irene

  30. Hey Emily,

    Your doing a great job! It is great to see young people so interested in this subject! When one has no argument, they go after the messenger. I like to tease him from time to time, but never go after him like he does goes after David Coppedge. Olorin has been wrong before about neanderthal man arguing that this group of people were a different species and other former evolutionary beliefs yet they interbred with modern man which wasn’t expected. They have overturned (falsified evolutionary expectations) a lot in the past few years what was generally believed about Neanderthal for many years but in did confirm creationism.

  31. Emily, the problem I have with Michael is not his religion, but that he lies about science in order to promote it. I don’t think vewry much of a faith that depends upon falsehoods.

    For example—

    They have overturned (falsified evolutionary expectations) a lot in the past few years what was generally believed about Neanderthal for many years but in [sic] did confirm creationism

    The theory of evolution has been modified many times—Darwin, for example, had a completely wrong idea of how traits are inherited.

    Yet not a single one of those modifications confirmed biblical creation in any way, shape or form. Michael cannot produce a single example of a scientific confirmation of special creation, a single scraps of physical evidence for it.. The reputation of creationists for honesty is so bad that scientists dismiss them as “Liars fur Jesus.”

    Emily, since you probably have not yet had much exposure to the rules of scientific reasoning, here is Michael’s fallacy. Michael claims that if Fact A cannot be conclusively proven, then Fact B must be correct. In this case, Fact A is Darwinian evolution, and fact B is biblical six-day creation. But the rule applies no matter what the content of the statement. Try substituting “the moon is made of green cheese” for Fact A, and “the moon is an ice-cream cone” for Fact B. At a certain point, the fallacy becomes too obvious for anyone to miss. It’s called a “false dichotomy.”.

    Michael has no qualifications whatever to discuss anything concerning science. However he is very much aware of this fallacy. What conclusion should we then draw when he continues to employ it, as in his statement above? Can you think of an explanation other than “lying”?

  32. Olorin,

    You say you have only a few years of biology that isn’t much more than what Emily has. Science began as we know it today with Sir Francis Bacon in 1620, who wrote a book called, “Novum Organum” where he defines two principles known as “empirical” which means hard data gathered through observation, experience or experiments. The second principle Bacon defines is known as “inductive reasoning” which means that a conclusion could come out false even though all other aspects are true. These two principles are now the standard in the scientific method as we know it today.

    You say, “Michael’s fallacy. Michael claims that if Fact A cannot be conclusively proven, then Fact B must be correct. In this case, Fact A is Darwinian evolution, and fact B is biblical six-day creation.”

    You repeat this for every creationist, but it is not entirely true. First I will use a theory and then demonstrate using A cannot do it, then B will. By the way, this example is not evolution. Geocentrism was an ancient belief held by many which included some observational data that tried to explain the earth was the center of the universe. But then certain falsifications with it’s predictions began to mount such as planets moving backwards, there was a lot of complexity. As as result, it became a major challenge to revise in order to fit all the data within the predictions of this model. But eventually Heliocentrism which contained simplicity in its predictions, replaced it. Evolution is like Geocentrism. Both theories became complex due to falsifications. A build up in complexity in a theory doesn’t verify it!

    Now in the case of Neanderthal man. The creationist model predicts variants within a kind, this includes humans too. What you just said about A and B doesn’t apply here. There is no argument here on what Neanderthal man cannot do thus verifies creationism, on the contrary, it is what he can do, and the DNA evidence. Fish and birds cannot interbred, they are not the same species but Neanderthal man was able to breed with modern man which makes them the same species. Evolution has been the one arguing what Neanderthal man can’t do in order to try and prove he wasn’t fully human, for years they didn’t believe Neanderthal man could make tools, could draw artwork, create grave sites for the dead, and so on. They considered him dumb with grunts for communication for many years up until the last 3 or 4 years.

  33. The second principle Bacon defines is known as “inductive reasoning” which means that a conclusion could come out false even though all other aspects are true.

    This is palpably false. Either an abyssal ignorance, or a deliberate lie. Which would you prefer, Michael?

    (a) Bacon was not the definer of inductive reasoning.
    (b) What you describe above does not fit the definition of inductive reasoning.
    (c) If the other aspects of a logical syllogism are true, then the conclusion cannot be false.

    Three falsehoods in one short statement. Probably a record, even for Michael.

  34. Now in the case of Neanderthal man. The creationist model predicts variants within a kind, this includes humans too.

    1. Creationists never predicted that kind of variation, until variation became irrefutable. Variation was predicted first by Evolutionary theory.

    2. The “Creationist model” does not give a mechanism as to what stops small change from adding up into more change.

  35. You repeat this for every creationist, but it is not entirely true. First I will use a theory and then demonstrate using A cannot do it, then B will.

    Yes, it is true. You’re wrong.

    Your example is irrelevant.

    Why would a falsification of geocentrism imply that heliocentrism is true?

    Geocentrism began to pile up anomalies.[1] Tycho Brahe explained those anomalies with a planetary model in which Mercury and Venus revolve around the sun, and the moon and other planets revolve around the earth. This is an alternative to geocentrism, but it is not heliocentrism. Heliocentrism had to show positive evidence to overcome Brahe’s theory as well as to overcome stationary-earth theory.

    Your example fails, Michael. Heliocentrism cannot be established by falsifying geocentrism.

    Just as special creation cannot be established by falsifying some aspect of evolution—or even by falsifying all of evolution. Creation can be established only by positive evidence for it. Which, so far at least, has failed to materialize.[2]

    ==============

    [1] Michael, you also exaggerate the role of the anomalies. When I did celestial navigation in the 1950s, I used Bowditch. This is an almanac based upon a Ptolemaic—that is, geocentric—model of the solar system. Today, GPS navigation is a lot easier—although it is in fact not more accurate than Ptolemy.

    [2] Although you do your best to create it out of thin air. There is only One who can do that, and He is way above your pay grade.

  36. Neanderthal man was able to breed with modern man which makes them the same species

    Yet another lie. Not mere ignorance, because Michael has been reminded of this may times in these pages.

    Donkeys and horses are not the same species. They interbreed to produce mules. Other animals are also capable of producing hybrids. Among plants, hybridization between different species is so common that no one even notices. What do you think a grapefruit is?

  37. Science began as we know it today with Sir Francis Bacon in 1620, who wrote a book called, “Novum Organum” where he defines two principles known as “empirical” which means hard data gathered through observation, experience or experiments.

    You are confusing science and religion again. Christianity began with Jesus Christ, and He gets to define it forever and aye. That Roger Bacon began modern science does not mean that he is the ruling authority today. For example, Bacon downplayed the role of theory-building, which today is the major aspect of nearly all sciences. Bacon was totally ignorant of the entire concept of statistical causation, which is the foundation of quantum mechanics, and was not accepted until after Willard Gibbs’ work..

    Besides, you left out an even older and more important principle of modern science: explanatory closure. This defines science as limiting natural phenomena to natural causes. Supernatural causation—God-did-it—has no place in science.[1] Creationism, of course, inherently violates this fundamental tenet.

    =============

    [1] Today, even the theologians have pretty much given up on supernatural causation as “primary” causes. It leads to too many paradoxes.

  38. Quoth Michael—

    You say you have only a few years of biology that isn’t much more than what Emily has.

    Yeah? Then ask her to describe the concept of QTL, and to define what is centimorgan is.

    On second thought, let’s ask Michael

  39. There is no argument here on what Neanderthal man cannot do thus verifies creationism, on the contrary, it is what he can do, and the DNA evidence.

    Can anyone make any sense out of this miserable attempt at an English sentence?

    It’s hard to argue with a formless goo.

  40. Oh Olorin, you wasted so much time and energy arguing with this pair and of what use was it? They are either silly time-wasting trolls or just really dumb, ignorant yokels. Unfortunately, there ARE a lot of really dumb, ignorant yokels in this world and for most of them there is no redemption from their stupid gene(s). Personally, I think this is all just one elaborate, somewhat cruel (given how invested you became in the “discussion”) troll job.

    But pat on your back for your expert knowledge in these matters and your clear, concise, and logically presented arguments which were countered every time with absurd inanity; you’ve certainly a lot of patience. The argument still isn’t worth it though. Who seriously subscribes to Creationism anymore? Really? People of any reason whatsoever will always find Creationism laughable.

    Nevertheless, trollery or not, I thank you all. I certainly got A LOT of laughs reading through this comments section: Emily’s responses in particular were a bundle of lols. She has GOT to be trolling; if not, she is one dumb, ignorant broad.

  41. Greetings Prokofievian,

    How’s it going in Delaware? Due to my shoulder injury I have been behind on my postings but will resume once again on a regular basis, soon! :) Your right the debate isn’t worth it, how can one explain dinosaur skin discovered in a fossil which is claimed to be millions of years old. Ever since T-Rex was discovered back in 2005 with blood vessels and proteins, scientists are now testing for soft tissue! This is why they are discovering more of it in very recent times otherwise they would not be finding it now. Because before that time, scientists conceptualized that it was impossible to find soft tissue in rock over millions of years. Well they are partly right, it is impossible for soft tissue to survive in rock for millions of years with environmental changes, and so on. The proposal of the earth being young is more logical to how skin and proteins are being discovered in fossils than claiming it’s millions of years old.

    Another thing evolutionists attempt to rationalize into their godless world…How can one explain errors in a genetic code in fruit flies produced in a lab cause that species to get less fit and more resisted to change? Does evolution theory predict change from one species to the next? That means species like fruit flies should not be resisting change after many generations! Evolution always looked better when you can’t test it, rather than testing it because the more you test it the more complicated it gets, and that my friend is not a factual theory…:)

    Neanderthal Man, for many years evolutionists painted this picture, taught it in the public schools despite the fact they had no real evidence just conjecture about this ancient tribe of people but they required a story on how modern man came to existence and that is what they came up with. When tested, the evidence shows a difference story than the one painted by evolutionists…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s