Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Lief Erikson]

Jerseydevil, did you read the article you posted?

From the article
Rawhide is an amazing material. I even created a blade from it with a serrated edge and used it to cut a tomato. It can be used in the construction of shields, armor, boats, masks, drums, and all manner of things (not forgetting that it can also be tanned and made into leather), and as a binding is very strong and useful in both construction and repair.

However, most fascinating from an archaeological perspective is that it is virtually invisible in the archaeological record. Not only time and decay play a role here in consideration of human artifacts. Rawhide is so irresistible to dogs that anything discarded (and some things no doubt even before they were willingly discarded) would have been made short work of by camp or wild dogs.

But even if rawhide artifacts shone forth from the archaeological record as brightly as stone, I doubt, based on the results of this experiment, that we would find skin pots that had been used for cooking over a fire. Neandertals and other hunter-gatherers had better things to do with their time.

Further information from the article
The pots were suspended over a fire from a tripod constructed of bamboo. While Auel's Neandertals wouldn't have had access to this material, it is strong and readily available when scavenging around a garden centre, since such poles are used as supports for plants. The circular thongs on the pot were attached to leather thongs which in turn were attached to a wire ring with a hook on it (another material Neandertals wouldn't have had access to, but since the home of my sister and her partner is on the site of the garden centre, coat hangers were easy to scavenge as well).

You see, your article was describing Neanderthal cooking techniques, and the precision and difficulty of such achievement. Maybe they were and maybe they weren't as intelligent as humans, but plainly they were fairly close to us, to have such developed methods of cooking, construction of tools and making of recipes. They weren't too far from our brains, as your article shows.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I gave you a lot of evidence from "The Case for Christ" on this subject, much of which is as yet unanswered. If you don't believe the Bible is correct, and there is strong evidence saying it is, then the onus is on you to offer a more likely explanation for the evidence.

What evidence? What evidence is there of miracles? of heaven, hell or the resurrection of chirst? Please tell me what proof there is. IT IS A BELIEF.

And remember that the explanation has to be MORE LIKELY. You are not allowed to use the argument that any spiritual experience or miracle is unlikely, and anything is more likely than that, for that argument is fundamentally flawed, as has been demonstrated many times.

More likely than what? Than cows flying? The prospect of miracles is no more likely than the belief that Poseidon caused tidal waves, or that Mercury was the messenger of the gods.

It stems from the belief in Atheism.

No it stems from my lack of belief in a mythical being. The Greeks believe in Zeus too - to them they were just as real as your god. What proof do you have that they do not exist or that your soul does not get "stored" in a cow prior to reincarnation - like the Hindu's believe. Can you disprove any of the other religions?

So please answer those posts, while not using that argument. The prophesies, the witnesses, and corroborative evidence, all needs to be answered and explained.

What witnesses nad corraborated evidence? You know how many people mass to a window pane and believe that it's the vision of Mary or Jesus? Give me a break.

Meanwhile, so do all the Christian experiences with Christ, and the fact that he manipulates their circumstances so completely. Just today, for example, I shot up a prayer asking the Lord for a sign of his power to make abrupt changes in physical things, as well as things in the spiritual realm. Of course, I have observed him make and fulfill multiple prophesies to me personally, and I have huge evidence in my 200 or so page spiritual journal, but I wanted a sign of his miraculous power.

As soon as the car stopped and my Grandma and I stepped out, she started talking to me about God's power over physical things as well as spiritual things, and how she had received healing for my sister, and she knew my sister would be healed of her spine curvature. I have yet to see whether that comes about, but the immediate answer to prayer is merely one of dozens and dozens of such experiences.

That proves nothing. I assume that you and your family is extremely religious that that is MOSTLY what you talk about. A lot of times I'll look at the phone and think about someone and in 5 seconds the person calls. It could be ESP - it could be coincidence. I'm not going to put my life on the line saying it's ESP - because chances are - I probably think about many people 50,000 times during the course of the day - and one of those times it's going to end up being while I'm looking at the phone, thinking about the person and they're in the process of calling me.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Yep. Sorry to disappoint you, but it dates back to 10,000 BC.

I wonder if there's anything left of Noah's vintage....

You're welcome re Case for Christ (good book, innit?), and I"ll pop over to the Offshoot thread for a quick peek before I sign off...

Well, I got halfway thru page 6 here, but I really must sign off now - gnite all! And good luck on the SAT's, Lief! I knew you were homeschooled, but I thought your parents would give you a bit of a summer vacation I think you'll blow those tests away, no problem. If you have the time, drop me a PM when the tests are scheduled, and I'd be very glad to pray for you

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And happy 4th to you, too, JD! I always enjoy the good info you have in your posts on American policy and history.

Yeah. It's rather weird, after being so much on his side in the Iraq case, to be arguing with him a lot over Christianity.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And no one ever commented on if they thought I was pretty or not ....

Ehem . . . best not to speak about that . (j/k)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Jerseydevil, did you read the article you posted?


You see, your article was describing Neanderthal cooking techniques, and the precision and difficulty of such achievement. Maybe they were and maybe they weren't as intelligent as humans, but plainly they were fairly close to us, to have such developed methods of cooking, construction of tools and making of recipes. They weren't too far from our brains, as your article shows.

yes - but they were VERY limited in many ways. They could not expand past a certain point and that's what you are asking them to do. For instande - they could make spears - but they could not make a bow and arrow.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
[Ehem . . . best not to speak about that . (j/k)

*hee hee* I'm just giving him a hard time

[Lief Erikson]

Originally written by jerseydevil
yes - but they were VERY limited in many ways. They could not expand past a certain point and that's what you are asking them to do. For instande - they could make spears - but they could not make a bow and arrow.

I seem to remember someone saying . . .
If you read that article - don't forget that that was one of those "nothing" inventions that man had to do to get to where we are today.

The invention wasn't any more "simple" in my opinion, than the bow and arrow. The bow and arrow requires knowledge of the suppleness of branches, of various things- but I think the Neanderthal could have discovered it. Here it seems to be entirely a matter of opinion, though. The Neanderthal plainly were capable of making pretty clever inventions, of doing work in making pots, cooking meat, making recipes, setting up cooking fires, etc. What makes you think that that's less hard than making a bow and arrow? True, the second might require a little more imagination, but that isn't any strong evidence that the Neanderthal had a "brain limit".

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
As far as the first sentence of mine you quoted, I was describing where this element of the creationist model came from. As far as the rest of the quote, I would certainly say that science supports genetic burden, wouldn't you? The theory of evolution also contains elements that are posed, not proved, then evidence is examined to see if supports what has been posed.

Evolution does not have to fit a prewritten guide book that people are afraid to change. That is where the problem comes in. Now you guys are trying to explain how man could live for 350 years. Let's just say that disease was weak and be done with it. All creationist really try to do is fit the theories in so the bible stays intact - to hell with science and discovery and learning.

And happy 4th to you, too, JD! I always enjoy the good info you have in your posts on American policy and history. But your compliment is kinda "damning by faint praise" , altho I don't think you meant it to come off that way (at least I HOPE you didn't...) Do you LIKE me, or just NOT DISLIKE me? Not that it matters in scientific discussions, but I just wondered .... I like you and think of you as one of my Entmoot friends, altho we certainly seem to misunderstand each other alot. I'll always be extremely grateful for your very kind offer to show my in-laws around NY when they were there on a stop-over. I'm so sorry my father-in-law got sick and they couldn't meet you - I would have enjoyed meeting you by proxy

No - I like you and I was looking forward to showing your parents-in-laws around. I just said dislike because I was beginning to think that you thought I either hated you or disliked you. And I would have preferred to show them around NJ - but I do understand the desire to go see Ground Zero. I would have taken them by ferry though from Liberty State Park in Jersey City.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
They were developed all over the world. Painting style and the paints themselves, if the radiocarbon dates are correct (which there is strong evidence that they are not), would show that for 25,000 years there was no change in painting ability. So if you want to use paint as an example of man's ingenuity . . . (forgive me )

You cannot carbon date paint.

Those were some of the earliest forms of humanoids.

No they weren't. (Early hominids would include all of the Australopithecine branches, as well as Homo habilis.) Given the new Homo sapiens idaltu finds, it seems they're not even directly related to Homo sapiens either.

Judging by the awesome ingenuity humans have displayed over the past 5,000 years, and the skill and precision with which they operated 2,000,000 years ago, it is difficult to believe that those few discoveries were all that was made.

Be careful of the terminology that you are using here. "Human" generally is used to refer to Homo sapiens branch only, which has only been around for the last 200,000 years or so.

A couple of things: for technology to spread prolifically, you need trade and exchange. These two processes were not optimised during earlier periods because of the isolation factor. This is why: from the neolithic age onward, you get an increasing exponential growth towards greater degrees of technological development. Secondly: there are many technologies which can not survive the archaeological record. Language is one. There are indicators that we can look at: brain endocasts, spinal cord size indicated in vertebrae, hyoid bones, etc, but there is no, 'aha, this mammal spoke' bone. By all indications, language probably eventuated with Homo erectus, and became more developed through the Neader and sapiens.

You have shown yourself that 2 million years ago, men were just about as intelligent as we are now.

This is completely erroneous. Homo sapiens didn't even exist at that time. And NO, the hominids were definately NOT as intelligent as the anatomically modern man.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
They're brains were severly limited as indicated by the sloping foreheads. Neaderthals were no where near as intelligent as modern humans.

I'm sorry, but this is not necessarily true. Granted, their heads were different shapes from ours - lower, and more elongated - but they had a bigger brain capacity (1650cc vs 1500 for sapiens.) Also, their tool technology was more intricate to begin with. That the Neander is consistently portrayed as brutish and dumb is a HUGE problem in anthropology, because all accounts say otherwise.

[Lief Erikson]

Read my posts on pages 75-79, I think. That's about as far as I skimmed. The Jewish leaders of the time wrote that Jesus did magic, instead of denying any miraculous events (even though they were against him). The Biblical witnesses died for what they believed, and what they upheld to the death was a rigorous law of integrity and virtue. This demonstrates in part what their own characters were, and greatly enhances their reliability. Then of course we have the epistles that were written during the lifespans of the witnesses, and which referred people to talk to them about their own experiences.

I could go on and on . . . like RÃ*an, I felt the urge to respond . So review my posts. Or, far better than that, you could read "The Case for Christ" yourself. But Jerseydevil, I fear that you are blinded by an incredibly strong bias, without even being willing to accept the remotest possibility that anything we present, be it factual or not, is true.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
The invention wasn't any more "simple" in my opinion, than the bow and arrow. The bow and arrow requires knowledge of the suppleness of branches, of various things- but I think the Neanderthal could have discovered it. Here it seems to be entirely a matter of opinion, though. The Neanderthal plainly were capable of making pretty clever inventions, of doing work in making pots, cooking meat, making recipes, setting up cooking fires, etc. What makes you think that that's less hard than making a bow and arrow? True, the second might require a little more imagination, but that isn't any strong evidence that the Neanderthal had a "brain limit".

Yes there is evidence that the Neaderthal had a brain limit. Also - there is a big difference between making a bow and arrow and cooking utensils. There is a lot of reasoning that has to go into making that. They have to understand that if they attach a "string" to two ends of a stick and make it taught that they can pull back on a "spear" and have it fly great distances. They would have to visualise this and have an understanding of basic flight. They would also need to then understand that the weight can affect the distance it will travel and the bend of the "spear" would affect it's direction. There is so much logic to go into the making of a bow and arrow - it is mind buggling some of the things that early man was able to think of. It is much too easy to take early discoveries for granted.

I am a computer programmer - I have to break large ideas into their respective parts. Looking at the bow and arrow or any other invention is no different. Just look at all the stuff it takes you to get a drink of soda. You have to know how to walk, how to grasp a glass, how to open the bottle, how to pour the drink without spilling. Then each of those steps have steps inside them. You would have to learn how to walk, how balance, how to change direction, etc. You would have to know the characteristics of the bottle - is it twist off or pop-tab? If your mind does not have the cabaility to look at all these things you will never be able to get a glass of soda.

Now if you tried getting a drink of soda while on roller blades - even though it is very simiar - you would have to learn quite a few knew things and make adjustments - particularly with your balance. If the soda bottle was now pop-cap - you would also have to figure out that. In other words, you would have to look at the world in a whole knew way - because you are no longer planted firmly on the ground and now the soda bottle has a completely new lid type. The key here is being able to look at the world in a KNEW way. If you tried moving and pouring a glass of soda while on roller blades the same as if you were walking - you'd fall flat on your face and spill it everywhere.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sheeana
I'm sorry, but this is not necessarily true. Granted, their heads were different shapes from ours - lower, and more elongated - but they had a bigger brain capacity (1650cc vs 1500 for sapiens.) Also, their tool technology was more intricate to begin with. That the Neander is consistently portrayed as brutish and dumb is a HUGE problem in anthropology, because all accounts say otherwise.

There was a recent show - Walking With Cavemen which indicated that early man (I had thought they said neanderthal) had a limited brain capacity which prevented it from making more advances. I am aware they were not brutish. Their brain was larger - but not necessarily in the right regions to allow for advanced inventions and reasoning.

[Sheeana]

Yes, we actually covered some segments of that documentary in class - mainly the erectus program (I hope I'm thinking of the right show!) However, the neander portrayal was viewed as a little problematic. As I said in my previous post, they weren't as limited as previously thought. It's probable that they had speech, that they had complicated, more gracile stone tools, they have the earliest recorded burials with ochre and flowers, which indicates reverence for the dead, as well as perhaps an belief in the afterlife, and so on. Endocasts of their braincases don't indicate any particular lack of brain development in the appropriate areas, but I will state that I am by no means a neander expert, having concentrated more on the earlier hominids.

Edit: Nope, it's not the show we covered.

[Lief Erikson]

This argument is growing to focus more upon trivial points.

You cannot carbon date paint.

Radiocarbon differences are observed that date the paintings. Whether or not you can date paint, specifically, I know that it is through radiocarbon differences that we know the differences in dating between the different paintings.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those were some of the earliest forms of humanoids.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

No they weren't. (Early hominids would include all of the Australopithecine branches, as well as Homo habilis.) Given the new Homo sapiens idaltu finds, it seems they're not even directly related to Homo sapiens either.

Fine . . . but not vital to my point.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judging by the awesome ingenuity humans have displayed over the past 5,000 years, and the skill and precision with which they operated 2,000,000 years ago, it is difficult to believe that those few discoveries were all that was made.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Be careful of the terminology that you are using here. "Human" generally is used to refer to Homo sapiens branch only, which has only been around for the last 200,000 years or so.

Not necessarily true. In "The World Book," even the earlier people are spoken of as "human".

A couple of things: for technology to spread prolifically, you need trade and exchange. These two processes were not optimised during earlier periods because of the isolation factor. This is why: from the neolithic age onward, you get an increasing exponential growth towards greater degrees of technological development. Secondly: there are many technologies which can not survive the archaeological record. Language is one. There are indicators that we can look at: brain endocasts, spinal cord size indicated in vertebrae, hyoid bones, etc, but there is no, 'aha, this mammal spoke' bone. By all indications, language probably eventuated with Homo erectus, and became more developed through the Neader and sapiens.

I spoke further on those things in previous posts.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have shown yourself that 2 million years ago, men were just about as intelligent as we are now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is completely erroneous. Homo sapiens didn't even exist at that time. And NO, the hominids were definately NOT as intelligent as the anatomically modern man.

Have you read Jerseydevil's article? It is about Neanderthals, but do you think Neanderthals were more intelligent than early humanoids of the time?

[Lief Erikson]

I have to go to bed now. I have a school day tomorrow, and it's getting really late here. Goodnight, all. I'll talk to you again, hopefully, in about a week.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Read my posts on pages 75-79, I think. That's about as far as I skimmed. The Jewish leaders of the time wrote that Jesus did magic, instead of denying any miraculous events (even though they were against him). The Biblical witnesses died for what they believed, and what they upheld to the death was a rigorous law of integrity and virtue. This demonstrates in part what their own characters were, and greatly enhances their reliability.

How does this enhance their reliability? YOu know how many people in cults have died for their beliefs? Do you remember that cult in San Diego where everyone died for their beliefs? So do you believe them and think they're reliable witnesses?

Then of course we have the epistles that were written during the lifespans of the witnesses, and which referred people to talk to them about their own experiences.

I can go anywhere where the vision of Mary or Jesus has appeared on a window or on a sidewalk - or any number of places and there will be a hundred people who swear it is a miraculous vision. I can also then find 100 people who will swear that it is a smudge. Chances are - it's a smudge - but people feel this need to believe in something greater than themselves and the world. Some grand meaning to life with a creator and a very simple story.

I could go on and on . . . like RÃ*an, I felt the urge to respond . So review my posts. Or, far better than that, you could read "The Case for Christ" yourself. But Jerseydevil, I fear that you are blinded by an incredibly strong bias, without even being willing to accept the remotest possibility that anything we present, be it factual or not, is true.

No - I'm just not going to blindly follow what has been recorded 2000 years ago as pure fact. Saying that jesus performed magic or miracles - is not I believe it is you who has become blinded by the need to believe. To me I don't personally care one way or the other if there is a god. It really has no bearing on my life - nor do I feel it has a bearing on the "afterlife".

By the way Lief - you and Sam both talk as if I know nothing about the bible and that I have always been an atheist. As I explained before - I'm an atheist because I took a critical eye to the bible and said "Does any of this make sense?" And to me - it doesn't. It looks like chidren's tales to try making people behave and have something to look forward to after death. There are 50,000 stories just like Noah or Jonah or Moses - it doesn't mean they have anything to do with a supreme being.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Not necessarily true. In "The World Book," even the earlier people are spoken of as "human".

Dictionary definition coming through:

hu·man __ (_P_)__Pronunciation Key__(hymn)
n.
A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

And note: I said, "generally." If you want to refer to earlier ancestors to distinguish from sapiens, it is best to use hominid, or something similar.

Have you read Jerseydevil's article? It is about Neanderthals, but do you think Neanderthals were more intelligent than early humanoids of the time?

No I haven't.

Neanders haven't been around all that long either. I'm not sure on my dates (not my field of specialisation) but I'm pretty sure it's from around 250,000 - 28,000 BP.

How do you mean more intelligent than the early humanoids? (Sorry, if I'm being dense today... blame the cold weather. )

[Sheeana]

Btw: Jon, not to be nitpicky, but it is generally believed that the leisure time from Hunter-Gatherer to modern human has DECREASED rather than increased. Although you make a good point about short life-spans.

[Jonathan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Evolution is a THEORY, not a science! Sciences are things like biology, physics, chemistry, geology, etc. - and evolutionists try to use scientific info gathered by biologists, physicists, chemists, geologists, etc., to support their THEORY. I think evolutionists often misuse the data (i.e., make invalid "logical assumptions" or extrapolations"), but that's another topic....

But evolution is NOT a science in itself.

I think the problem lies with the dual use of the word "science" and "engineer", like "domestic engineer" (what I do now , as opposed to my 10 years in the field of radar, where I was a more traditional engineer). Now evolutionists and creationists USE scientific methods and scientific data, but BOTH of their theories necessarily contain logical inferences, because we're talking about things in the past, that are NOT observable anymore!

A theory can be science. The theory if evolution IS science.
Science is the systematic search for knowledge that can be observed OR FOUND by anyone.
There are fossils and other evidence of evolution with knowledge that can be controlled by anyone (with adequate expertise of course, but everyone has the right to get that kind of education if they want).
Now the evidence of evolution has been compiled into the Theory of Evolution. That is, lots of scientific facts have been put together to create a theory. That IS science.

Just a remark. A hundred years ago there was not as much facts as there are today and the Theory was nothing more than a theory. Today, with lots of new facts, the Theory is more than just a theory since it's accepted by most of the scientific world.

Another example of theories that are science is the astronomer's theories of how new stars are created. Scientific facts have been considered and many scientific theories have been born.

Originally posted by Sheeana
Btw: Jon, not to be nitpicky, but it is generally believed that the leisure time from Hunter-Gatherer to modern human has DECREASED rather than increased. Although you make a good point about short life-spans.

Yeah, I'm sure you're right. But nowadays we have full-time employed scientists and inventors who don't use their leisure time to discover new things

And RÃ*an and Lief; You think 10 000 BC is recent? I believe the Earth is millions of years old, and even I don't think 10 000 BC is 'recent'