Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
31 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,827 Year: 16,863/19,786 Month: 988/2,598 Week: 234/251 Day: 5/58 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Creationism Explains Hominid Fossil Skulls (FINAL STATEMENTS ONLY)
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 2886 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 16 of 137 (599623)
01-09-2011 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ICANT
01-09-2011 12:45 AM


documentary hypothesis and belief
ICANT, the documentary hypothesis as it applies to the two separate creation stories in Genesis is perhaps the most controversial element of the theory, and it seems to be a big reason to conclude one of two things: 1) that both accounts are merely Jewish myth, with no reflection on creation or origins as they actually happened, or 2) that the documentary hypothesis is nothing but garbage, which is the stance taken by so many creationists.

The evidence for the documentary hypothesis seems to be very firm, with the two accounts of creation being one of many "doublets" throughout the first five books of the Old Testament. Each "doublet" is marked by a different phrase for God, be it YHWH, Elohim, or YHWH Elohim. Genesis 1 is from the "P" source, and Genesis 2:4 and onward is from the "J" source.

Since the two traditions were seemingly developed apart from each, it would be reasonable to conclude that such knowledge did not have a common source, and their two sources are explained as roughly the same set of sources as so many other hundreds of tribal creation myths--creative storytelling imaginations.

Do you suppose there is anything wrong with such an explanation?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ICANT, posted 01-09-2011 12:45 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by ICANT, posted 01-09-2011 4:00 PM ApostateAbe has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6188
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 17 of 137 (599645)
01-09-2011 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by ApostateAbe
01-09-2011 12:42 PM


Re: documentary hypothesis and belief
Hi Abe,

ApostateAbe writes:

Do you suppose there is anything wrong with such an explanation?

Its just as good an explanation as the one given for the origin of the universe and the origin of life. We know they happened because we are here in the universe.

Is it a good explanation for the Bible? no.

It is a great explanation for those who do not believe in God and His Word.

Either the Bible is the Word of God presented in mens words or it is not God's Word.

Has man rearranged the texts of the Bible? I believe they have just as the documentary hypothesis is another attempt to discredit the Bible as the Word of God.

Do I believe the truth is still there? Yes, it is just harder to find and if you don't have the Holy Spirit to lead you in all truth you will not find it.

There was no one to write down the account of creation in the beginning but the Bible has recorded in it a lot of information that is agreeable with what we observe that took place in times we have no written history for other than the Bible.

So unless God told or either showed Moses what happened in the beginning during his 40 days on the mountain with Him how would anyone know information that has been confirmed in these latter times?

According to Genesis there should be fossils of mankind and animals that existed before the events recorded in Genesis 1:2-2:3. Those fossils exist.

According to Genesis we are told of at least one extinction event that has taken place in the past. We find many more than that.

It takes 100 tons of decayed matter to produce 1 gallon of gasoline Since there are trillions of gallons of gasoline in the earth that means that this vegetation and life forms had to exist and then be covered by a lot of material that turned into rock. It is covered in some places by 5 miles of rock. Where did all that rock come from?

BTW I am a literalist when it comes to God's Word.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-09-2011 12:42 PM ApostateAbe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-09-2011 4:26 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 28 by arachnophilia, posted 01-10-2011 12:01 AM ICANT has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6188
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 18 of 137 (599651)
01-09-2011 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr Adequate
01-09-2011 3:18 AM


Re: Genesis species
Hi Dr,

Dr Adequate writes:

Which of the skulls belong to which of the two races, and which are just apes?

I have no idea what body those skulls belonged on. If they were attached to a body I could make a judgment.

Dr Adequate writes:

Oh, don't be silly.

You mean you don't believe that the very small, very hot, universe that existed at T=10-43 was the complete universe and everything in it.

Since there is no reason for that entity to exist it is either God or was created by God.

God said "I AM", which I understand to mean all that there is, was or ever will be.

So where amy I being silly?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-09-2011 3:18 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by anglagard, posted 01-09-2011 4:34 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-09-2011 11:12 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

  
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 2886 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 19 of 137 (599653)
01-09-2011 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by ICANT
01-09-2011 4:00 PM


Re: documentary hypothesis and belief
ICANT, there really are a bunch of people out there who will believe whatever plausible idea that discredits and embarrasses Christianity the most. I try to be a little more disciplined with my explanations--I will believe the best explanations regardless of where that may lead--to either confirmation of Christianity, condemnation of Christianity, or something neutral. The method of finding the best explanation is something that I found within New Testament scholarship. It is called, "Argument to the Best Explanation." The explanation for evidence that scores best on the criteria of explanatory scope, explanatory power, plausibility, consistency and least ad hoc should be accepted as the best explanation.

The documentary hypothesis explains the differences in the names of "God" between the doublets and triplets in Genesis and the other Pentateuch texts. The redactor (who combined the texts) wanted to preserve the contents of the previous texts (scripture is sacred), and the previous texts each had different titles for "God." It isn't just a way to discredit the Bible, but it really seems to be the best way to make sense of it. Do you have an explanation for why "God" is used in Genesis 1:1-2:3 but "LORD God" is used in Genesis 2:4 and onward? If your explanation exceeds the documentary hypothesis in the criteria, then such an explanation wins.

Edited by ApostateAbe, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ICANT, posted 01-09-2011 4:00 PM ICANT has not yet responded

anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 20 of 137 (599656)
01-09-2011 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by ICANT
01-09-2011 4:16 PM


Re: Genesis species
ICANT writes:

I have no idea what body those skulls belonged on. If they were attached to a body I could make a judgment.

There are several complete skeletons of Neanderthals and Homo Erectus. In fact I personally saw the original partial skeleton of Lucy aka Australopithecus Afarensis at the Museum of Natural History in Houston.

Perhaps you need to be aware that Google has not only a web search function but also image and video search as well.

Edited by anglagard, : replace africanus with Australopithecus, knew something was funny, got the species and genus confused


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ICANT, posted 01-09-2011 4:16 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-09-2011 4:54 PM anglagard has not yet responded
 Message 22 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-09-2011 5:14 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 2886 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 21 of 137 (599660)
01-09-2011 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by anglagard
01-09-2011 4:34 PM


Re: Genesis species
Here is the nearly-complete skeleton of Turkana Boy, so a judgment can be made about whether he descended from the humans created according to Genesis 1:27 or whether he descended from Adam and Eve as told in to Genesis 2.

Source


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by anglagard, posted 01-09-2011 4:34 PM anglagard has not yet responded

ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 2886 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 22 of 137 (599664)
01-09-2011 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by anglagard
01-09-2011 4:34 PM


Re: Genesis species
Here is the full skeleton of Lucy (Australopithicus afarensis).

I am not sure if it was Turkana Boy or Lucy who more closely match the humans who were closest in design to "in the image of God he created them," but they must been the ones who were killed in Noah's flood. There is a line of ancestral descent from Adam to Noah, and Noah's ancestry is linked to Abraham, Jesus and presumably the entire world population.

Anyway, if Lucy was the one who is closer in descent to the image of God, then this is a rough reconstruction of what God looks like:

But, if Turkana Boy was the one closer in descent to the image of God, then this is a rough reconstruction of what God looks like:

I like the looks of Turkana Boy better, but, if he was sorta created in the image of God according to Genesis 1:27, then I am thinking it is difficult to explain Lucy.

Edited by ApostateAbe, : Update image of Turkana Boy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by anglagard, posted 01-09-2011 4:34 PM anglagard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by ICANT, posted 01-09-2011 10:14 PM ApostateAbe has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6188
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 23 of 137 (599699)
01-09-2011 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by ApostateAbe
01-09-2011 5:14 PM


Re: Genesis species
Hi Abe,

ApostateAbe writes:

Here is the full skeleton of Lucy (Australopithicus afarensis).

Isn't that the reconstructed skeleton of Lucy?

That doesn't look like the complete skeleton of Lucy we find Here.

ApostateAbe writes:

But, if Turkana Boy was the one closer in descent to the image of God, then this is a rough reconstruction of what God looks like:

Lucy dates to 3.5 million years ago.
Turkana Boy dates to 1.5 million years ago.

The man created in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27 dates to 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-09-2011 5:14 PM ApostateAbe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 01-09-2011 10:25 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 25 by Coyote, posted 01-09-2011 10:45 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 27 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-09-2011 11:21 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 33 by jar, posted 01-10-2011 2:26 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31276
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 24 of 137 (599700)
01-09-2011 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by ICANT
01-09-2011 10:14 PM


Genesis species must be daid daid daid
The man created in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27 dates to 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.

It's pretty clear then that that critter went extinct and has left no evidence that has been found yet.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ICANT, posted 01-09-2011 10:14 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 364 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 25 of 137 (599701)
01-09-2011 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by ICANT
01-09-2011 10:14 PM


Reconstructed skeleton
Isn't that the reconstructed skeleton of Lucy?

That doesn't look like the complete skeleton of Lucy we find Here.

The bones that are brown are represented by the Lucy skeleton. The white parts are recreations.

Reconstructions are done in a number of ways:

First, any bone that is present on one side, such as the left, can be mirrored to the opposite side.

Second, it is common to use reconstruction formulas to work from what you have to what you are missing. You won't expect an individual who is, say, 5' 0" to have the femur length of an individual who is 6' 6". Likewise, you won't expect an individual of light stature (and hence weight) to have the joint dimensions of an individual of twice that weight. So, if you have some of the weight bearing joints you can estimate the weight, and that gives you a good estimate of the area of weight bearing joints which you might not have.

Next, scientists have a lot of other similar fossils to work from, and these are fossils that creationists have never heard of--being small finds which not reach the headlines. But that they are things creationists have never heard of doesn't mean that they don't exist, and that they don't contribute information used in these reconstructions.

Finally, experts who are doing these reconstructions have often spent forty or more years studying bones of all kinds, as well as these particular fossils. They know things!

In other words, scientists who study these things have a pretty good idea of what the missing parts of a substantial skeleton might look like.

Why don't you leave the details of these reconstructions to the experts? You obviously have nothing to contribute to the discussion except a sullen disbelief in all things scientific that may happen to contradict your particular beliefs.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ICANT, posted 01-09-2011 10:14 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2011 3:22 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 26 of 137 (599704)
01-09-2011 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by ICANT
01-09-2011 4:16 PM


Re: Genesis species
You mean you don't believe that the very small, very hot, universe that existed at T=10-43 was the complete universe and everything in it.

If I meant that, don't you suppose I'd have said something remotely like that?

Since there is no reason for that entity to exist it is either God or was created by God.

Oh, don't be silly.

God said "I AM", which I understand to mean all that there is, was or ever will be.

You're a pantheist now?

So where amy I being silly?

You're ignoring the fact that the word "God" has a meaning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ICANT, posted 01-09-2011 4:16 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 2886 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


Message 27 of 137 (599705)
01-09-2011 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by ICANT
01-09-2011 10:14 PM


Re: Genesis species
ICANT, do you really think that Lucy existed 3.5 million years ago, Turkana Boy existed 1.5 million years ago, and God created man 6,000 to 10,000 years ago? I am trying to understand your position. Where do you place Lucy and Turkana Boy in the history of life?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ICANT, posted 01-09-2011 10:14 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2011 10:46 AM ApostateAbe has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 236 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 28 of 137 (599707)
01-10-2011 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by ICANT
01-09-2011 4:00 PM


Re: documentary hypothesis and belief
ICANT writes:

Has man rearranged the texts of the Bible? I believe they have just as the documentary hypothesis is another attempt to discredit the Bible as the Word of God.

this is nonsense and self-contradictory.

According to Genesis there should be fossils of mankind and animals that existed before the events recorded in Genesis 1:2-2:3. Those fossils exist.

genesis 1:1-1:3 forms a complete sentence. genesis 1:1 is a dependent clause. you cannot simply insert a gap here, since the primary action takes places in verse 3. we've been over this. please actually learn some hebrew grammar instead of just pretending that you know what you're talking about.

BTW I am a literalist when it comes to God's Word.

like hell you are. you distort it at every step, appealing to hebrew when you're really misreading the KJV, and then running away when someone calls you on your BS.

Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ICANT, posted 01-09-2011 4:00 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2011 1:25 PM arachnophilia has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6188
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 29 of 137 (599731)
01-10-2011 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by ApostateAbe
01-09-2011 11:21 PM


Re: Genesis species
Hi Abe,

ApostateAbe writes:

ICANT, do you really think that Lucy existed 3.5 million years ago, Turkana Boy existed 1.5 million years ago, and God created man 6,000 to 10,000 years ago? I am trying to understand your position. Where do you place Lucy and Turkana Boy in the history of life?

I have no problem with Lucy dating to 3.5 million years or Turkana Boy dating 1.5 million years ago.

According to Genesis there has been at least 2 different times that mankind has inhabited the earth. Jewish folklor has it that there has been many worlds inhabited in the past.

Lucy and Turkana Boy would be placed sometime after Genesis 1:1 and it's history that is recorded in Genesis 2:4-4:24 and the events recorded in Genesis 1:2-2:3.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-09-2011 11:21 PM ApostateAbe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-10-2011 11:07 AM ICANT has responded

  
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 2886 days)
Posts: 175
From: Klamath Falls, OR
Joined: 02-02-2005


(1)
Message 30 of 137 (599738)
01-10-2011 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by ICANT
01-10-2011 10:46 AM


Re: Genesis species
ICANT, very well. I take it your model is somewhat like that of Hugh Ross, where each "day" can be interpreted as a very long time, and I take it you are still not sure about whether Lucy and Turkana Boy should be considered human or ape.

Before, I mentioned five criteria for determining the best explanation. One of them was explanatory power, and it is a very important one. It is the principle that the explanation must narrowly expect the evidence. It is most well-known as prediction within science.

The theory of evolution expects that there should be intermediate forms between humans and lower primates. That is what the whole series of fossils represent, including Lucy, Turkana Boy and all the fossils listed in the OP. These were most certainly not predicted by anyone who explained life with creation by God.

Your model can accommodate the evidence. With enough imagination, so can strict mainline young-Earth creationism, because they have speculation of the power of God to change the evidence according to his mysterious will. That isn't the test of a good model, however. The model with the most probability has all of the criteria.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2011 10:46 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2011 2:57 PM ApostateAbe has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019