Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Sima cave people not exactly Neanderthals, researchers say

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From ScienceDaily:

“What makes the Sima de los Huesos site unique,” Arsuaga said, “is the extraordinary and unprecedented accumulation of hominin fossils there; nothing quite so big has ever been discovered for any extinct hominin species — including Neanderthals.”

“This site has been excavated continuously since 1984,” Martínez added. “After thirty years, we have recovered nearly 7,000 human fossils corresponding to all skeletal regions of at least 28 individuals. This extraordinary collection includes 17 fragmentary skulls, many of which are very complete.”

From this, they deduce that

“We think based on the morphology that the Sima people were part of the Neanderthal clade,” Arsuaga said, “although not necessarily direct ancestors to the classic Neanderthals.” They were part of an early European lineage that includes Neanderthals, but is more primitive than the later Pleistocene variety.

Critically, many of the Neandertal-derived features the researchers observed were related to mastication, or chewing. “It seems these modifications had to do with an intensive use of the frontal teeth,” Arsuaga said. “The incisors show a great wear as if they had been used as a ‘third hand,” typical of Neanderthals.”

The work of Arsuaga et al. suggests that facial modification was the first step in Neandertal evolution. This mosaic pattern fits the prediction of the accretion model.

This story is interesting from the perspective that it is written as if it were some kind of history when it is at most guesses based on fragments, and the next team reporting may well say something quite different.

Fascinating if you don’t take it too seriously.

Here’s a handy guide to the complexities surrounding human evolution: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (human evolution)

and

The Little Lady of Flores spoke from the grave. But said what, exactly?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
My guess is that Jimpithecus is no longer looking at this thread since he got attacked by an atheist and then did not answer questions by the ID people. But if he is reading this, I have a question for him:
How can you support BioLogos when one of its leading scientists willfully distorts what ID proposes? I am talking about Dennis Venema who is a Fellow of Biology for The BioLogos Foundation who has mischaracterized ID researchers and what they believe. Maybe it is because you have listened to a distortion of ID claims and not the actual claims. Venema who claims to be a Christian, acts in a very unchristian way.
jerry
June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
Joe:
Umm sheer dumb luck is not a mechanism.
For many people, it is.Mung
June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
jlafan2001 wrote: "It was the internet that made me lose my faith, not helped it. It it wasn’t for the internet, I would be ignornat of all the evidence for evoltuion" Astounding. The evidence for evolution was widely disseminated long before there was any internet -- in *books*. And even since the internet, there are still hundreds of new books about the evidence for evolution being written every year. So by admitting that if it weren't for the internet, he wouldn't have known about the evidence for evolution, jlafan is admitting that he doesn't read books. That would explain much: the horrible spelling, the historical errors ("nomads" wrote the Bible?), the virtually complete lack of knowledge in every subject pertaining to evolution, the complete lack of understanding of what ID is about, and the nearly complete lack of understanding of what Christian faith is about. This ignorance is just what we would expect of someone who doesn't read books about history, science, or theology. But to the vice of ignorance, jlafan has now added another: rudeness. He calls a trained paleontologist "stupid." So jlafan is both a bore and a boor.Timaeus
June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
Hi JLAfan. I did not say the Internet would convert every seeker of truth to theism. Perhaps you are not a scientist but when I was in my scientific training, finding answers for things people much smarter and more advanced in their scientific careers than me were dogmatically teaching was tougher than it is now. You say Christianity is dying but I do not believe theism is dying - in fact the opposite. Those things you mention do not hold up in the same way ool for, far from it. So what if the earth can firm naturalistically (if it really can). Where did the materials come from? Same with stars. What about plants? Show me proof that plant growth arose naturalistically? That is evolution which I am contending. Nothing you say there makes sense and you forget that life and self-conscioisness are the special things I am referring to that I maintain naturalism cannot explain. I never said naturalistic methods cannot explain anything! This argument of yours makes no sense and fails to even acknowledge let alone understand the point I am making.Dr JDD
June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
JLA, the Bible is drenched in Evolution. From Darwin practically plagiarizing the "Go forth and multiply" to the ultimate Evo state of Afterlife. Evolution should be assumed to be Theistic, but it does not hurt to state the obvious by saying Theistic Evolution.ppolish
June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
Evolution is a verb, JLA. Theist Evolution is a grammar thing. I think the being in human being is a verb too, but that is a different thread. Why no dog beings or monkey beings:)ppolish
June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
What is this alleged evidence, JLAfan2001? I was once an evolutionist and I lost that faith once I started looking closely at the evidence, so I am curious.
Science has found naturalistic mechansims to the formation of the earth,
Umm sheer dumb luck is not a mechanism.Joe
June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
Dr JDD It was the internet that made me lose my faith, not helped it. It it wasn't for the internet, I would be ignornat of all the evidence for evoltuion as many creationists turned evolutionists would have been. The internet is actually aiding in the death of christianity. Tell me, Dr JDD. Why would OoL bring your faith to a halt if there was a naturalistic account for it but nothing else would? Science has found naturalistic mechansims to the formation of the earth, of stars, plant growth, chemical compositions, origins of emotions, mental states, atoms, gravity, earthquakes, the weather, evolution etc and none of that has shaken your faith. But evolution via the Ool problem solved and that would deconvert you. This doesn't makes sense. You may say it's because of the high probablity of the Ool but what about the probablity of hydrogen and oxygen forming water? Or planst using quantum mechanics for photosynthesis? or the higss boson providing other particles mass? Or neural correlates with mental states? Do these have lower probablities than the Ool? Why would this one thing cause your faith to falter but no other natural mechanism would? If god guides the Ool and evolution, does he guide chemistry or cosmology or botany or genetics too? I have never heard of a theistic chemist or theistic botanist or theistic cosmologist or theistic physisist. But we love to posit theistic evolution. Seems crazy to me.JLAfan2001
June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
Hi Dionisio, As per Stephen I was going to post much the same - I know with some people I am fighting a lost cause. But as this is the internet with many more viewers than posters I see it as an opportunity to highlight what I believe to be an erroneous approach and logic to the situation. That may help just 1 person come closer to finding truth and if even just 1 then it is worth it (even if it isn't the person I am addressing on this thread!). You know, we are in such a privileged position these days with the internet and sites like these. When I first got into science and started being challenged by such questions, my knoweldge was much more limited (student!), the internet was not as widespread as it is now and information was harder to get hold of. I did not have money to buy books and they were often out of date. For such a person, it can be really tough if you are also convicted of a particular faith that the naturalists will mock you of. It is easy to sway on that faith. Today, we are privileged as we can expose the hand-waving nonsense and highlight the erroneous logic with vast sources of information and tie together the latest research to make more sense of it all. For those seeking, there are easier ways to find. I think if many hardcore atheistic evolutionary biologists had their way, you would need to pass a test saying "I affirm naturalistic evolution" before having access to any peer-reviewed article on the web. Thankfully, that is not the case! I also appreciate your gracious attitude in response to Stephen's post. It again highlights a positive aspect of those persuaded by such a faith as ours - namely that we can largely accept correction and admit where we get things wrong. Sadly, I fail to see that much in the naturalist camp especially with such a debate as there could not possibly be a single inch given to those darn creationists and IDiots!Dr JDD
June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
StephenA I enjoyed reading your post # 56. As an addendum to my post # 84, we should be very alert to discern the sincere seeker from the mockers that are only interested in ridiculing others. However, sometimes it's very difficult to tell one from the other. But you're right about the unknown readers out there. Perhaps that alone justifies the time consumed on the discussions. Because we care about them, even though they don't know it. Again, thank you for the constructive correction. I accept it. Rev. 22:21Dionisio
June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
StephenA
I realize that you are talking about Dr JDD’s response to JLAFan rather than my own, but I don’t think either of us are completely wasting our time. This is the internet and there are always lurkers watching. Besides, speaking for myself, I can see myself in JLAFan’s position if I had not found the evidence and arguments I did when I started questioning what I had been taught.
I think I understand your very persuasive arguments. Apparently you have convinced me that I misused some concepts in my comment. Thank you for taking the time to bring this up to my attention.Dionisio
June 26, 2014
June
06
Jun
26
26
2014
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
Coercion is the inevitable, last resort of faulty science, corrupted religion, and failed politics. They each start their decline with dishonesty and indoctrination, expand with social pressure and propaganda, continue with threats and intimidation, dominate with expulsion or incarceration, and end with misery, poverty, and mass murder. The lament of tyrants is "But it's for a good cause and we just know that we're right. If you people would have just cooperated better, everything would have worked out." If there were any lessons to be learned from a social disaster, a third of the current generation will be in denial, another third will blame it on something, and the following generation will have forgotten what happened and are soon ready and willing for their own fleecing once again. -QQuerius
June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT
Dionisio:
And now you spend your precious time on trying to discuss with someone who apparently does not have any motivation to hear your arguments? My friend, in my book that’s called ‘waste of time’ or ‘squandered time’ because the sincere inquirers sound different, because they humbly seek true knowledge. I have argued here in this site and in other locations, but only in extremely rare occasions I have enjoyed such discussions.
I realize that you are talking about Dr JDD's response to JLAFan rather than my own, but I don't think either of us are completely wasting our time. This is the internet and there are always lurkers watching. Besides, speaking for myself, I can see myself in JLAFan's position if I had not found the evidence and arguments I did when I started questioning what I had been taught.StephenA
June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT
StephenA as to "I may as well start believing 2+2=5" believe it or not, some atheists even believe that: Lawrence Krauss Denies Classical Logic and Says 2+2=5! - video (poor sound quality) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu5hOZwLZykbornagain77
June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
StephenA This long post amounts to nothing more than “god-of-the-gaps” or the argument from incredulity.
You clearly didn't grasp the maths if that's what you think it was. It's not 'I can't see how it could have happened' it's 'It is mathematically impossible for it to have happened'.
We have found meteorites that contain amino acids. Thes were produced naturally. Why is it so hard to believe that these acids could have formed in the early earth and even evolved due to some appropiate condition?
Did you miss the part of my argument where I assumed that every atom in the universe was a protein made up of 200 amino acids? And that they were shifting (evolving) into a different protein made up of 200 amino acids every second? It wasn't even close to enough.
Is this really harder to believe than god poofed it?
Yes. You are asking me to disregard mathematical logic. If I start doing that, I may as well start believing 2+2=5.StephenA
June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
Acartia_bogart, although you accuse Theists of living in a land of make believe, comparing Theistic beliefs to
Zeus, Odin, the tooth fairy, Santa Clause or Leprechauns
The fact of the matter is that materialism/naturalism is the worldview that is mired in unrestrained imagination. I been asking atheists for empirical evidence that Darwinian evolution is true for years and I have not seen any evidence that unguided Darwinian processes can create a single protein,
"Charles Darwin said (paraphrase), 'If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' Well that condition has been met time and time again. Basically every gene, every protein fold. There is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in a gradualist way. It's a mirage. None of it happens that way." - Doug Axe PhD. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5347797/
much less have I seen any empirical evidence that unguided Darwinian processes are capable of rearranging trillions of cells, with a billion proteins each, into another organism. In fact, according to the empirical evidence, the only thing Darwinian processes are good at is destroying functional information, not creating it:
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/
Dr. Behe has searched high and low, and every where in between, for empirical evidence for Darwinian claims, and has found that,,,
"Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination" Dr. Michael Behe - 29:24 mark of following video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=s6XAXjiyRfM#t=1762s
Dr. Behe goes on to state:
EVOLUTIONARY JUST-SO STORIES Excerpt: Biologist Michael Behe observes: “Some evolutionary biologists--like Richard Dawkins--have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish” (Darwin’s Black Box).,,, http://www.wayoflife.org/database/evolutionary_just_so_stories.html
That a theory would be defended tooth and nail without any empirical support is simply insane And yet here you sit AB day after day defending the Darwinian fairy tale as if it had a leg to stand on. AB, you also referred to the 'God of the Gaps' argument that atheists are so fond of using.
God is not a “God of the gaps”, he is God of the whole show. John Lennox
Let me try to enlighten you a little further AB, as hard as it may be for you to accept, it is Atheistic Naturalism that has had to retreat further and further into 'randomness of the gaps' arguments as science has progressed. Here are a few examples showing that steady retreat:
1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted time-space energy-matter always existed. Whereas Theism predicted time-space energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago. 2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence. 3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is a ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. - 4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) - 5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (M. Denton).- 6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (Gonzalez). - 7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geo-chemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photo-synthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. - 8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) - 9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. - 10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. - 11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)– 12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. - 13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) - 14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening. 15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’ (cannot be created or destroyed) ‘non-local’, beyond space-time matter-energy, quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale.
As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy, from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. - In fact it is even very good at pointing us to Christianity as true:
General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy & The Shroud Of Turin - (video) http://vimeo.com/34084462
Verse and music:
Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, and let us reason together,",,, Open Up The Heavens - Meredith Andrews https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=x4DMrFxDD0g#t=68
bornagain77
June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
a_b, get serious please. Fossil evidence for tooth fairy & Santa? Course not. http://www.sci-news.com/genetics/science-y-chromosomal-adam-01709.htmlppolish
June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT
Jerry: "There is nothing in science that disputes the existence of an historical Adam. If God created Adam, then He could also have created the subsequent gene pool from which humans flow." There is also nothing in science that disputes Zeus, Odin, the tooth fairy, Santa Clause or Leprechauns. All ID does is identify things that science hasn't explained (or may never explain) and concludes that this is evidence of god....sorry.... a non Devine designer.Acartia_bogart
June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
Dr JDD
The point is it doesn’t matter if you can have all the building blocks formed – lipids, nucleic acids, amino acids…there is still absolutely no observable support of these components, by naturalistic means assembling into an ordered structure to form a self-replicating, self-sustaining & self-repairing machine. Humans cannot even do that themselves through their own design. It has never ever been shown to occur in nature, by natural means. You can have all the amino acids in the world and that makes no difference.
I could not have said it better than you wrote it. Thanks. If someday I could figure out how to create, not a living system, but just a software system that accurately simulates in all details the interrelated processes and mechanisms behind the cell fate determination in the first few days of human embryonic development, then all the top universities in the world will bestow on me their highest honorary degrees, while all the electronic and electrical engineers, along with computer scientists from the whole world, will come to my town, camp in front of my house, sing songs to me, bow their heads when I appear on my front door or a window, and will beg me to show them at least a small portion of the code that does such a marvelous thing, then I will consider sharing it with the rest of them, but suddenly, completely unexpectedly, the alarm clock will wake me up and the dream will be over. That's the closest we have been able to get to that knowledge so far. And now you spend your precious time on trying to discuss with someone who apparently does not have any motivation to hear your arguments? My friend, in my book that's called 'waste of time' or 'squandered time' because the sincere inquirers sound different, because they humbly seek true knowledge. I have argued here in this site and in other locations, but only in extremely rare occasions I have enjoyed such discussions. We are in the midst of a heated confrontation between two opposite irreconcilable worldview positions. No scientific discussions are possible, unless the two involved sides are truly eager to understand each other's point of view, even without agreeing, in order to find the truth. Yes, there are many mysteries around us, but the greatest mystery of all is that we are alive, discussing, loving, crying, laughing, and wondering how all this is possible. For many years I had no coherent answer to any fundamental question. But then mysteriously things started to change radically. How sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me. I once was lost, but now I'm found; was blind but now I see. My chains are gone, I've been set free. My God, my Savior has ransomed me, and like a flood His mercy rains unending love, amazing grace. I have good news for those who want to argue with you and me: God loves them too. I know it, because He loves me, despite the obvious fact that I don't deserve it. I pray for their reconciliation with their Creator, before it's too late. May God bless you. PS. Still I don't know the answers to many questions, but I know the One who knows it all, and that's enough for me. He has given us this possibility to discover some of the wonders of His creation. He is revealing more to us through the research of many hard working scientists around the world. That's why we look forward, with much anticipation, to reading new reports from the labs. These seem very exciting times for those of us who like science. Sing hallelujah! Rejoice! Kind regards.Dionisio
June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
JLA, are you so far gone that you now deny Jesus lived and was crucified? BTW, "Bronze Age Nomads" are modern Humans. Very recent brothers & sisters. Jesus walked this Earth very recently. 2000 years is squat.ppolish
June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
This long post amounts to nothing more than “god-of-the-gaps” or the argument from incredulity. We have found meteorites that contain amino acids. Thes were produced naturally. Why is it so hard to believe that these acids could have formed in the early earth and even evolved due to some appropiate condition? Is this really harder to believe than god poofed it?
You have failed to understand the post, and God of the gaps. You cannot take one crucial bit of evolution, show how it is impossible (not unknown - but impossible given the model) then claim that is god of the gaps argument. The true meaning of god of the gaps is critiquing those who fill the gaps science has not discovered. A mathematical model that assesses the current evolutionary theory and shows it is not possible within the natural laws of the universe is not a "gap in scientific knowledge" (i.e. we don't know how it happened), it is a complete rebuttal of the possibility through naturalistic means. That is certainly not god of the gaps at all, unless you are simply moving the goalposts to an irrational level. So what if you found amino acids on meteorites? It means nothing. What was the chirality of these? Were they all L-handed? Amino acids could surely have formed given the right conditions, what on earth does that prove? Again, you have mis-understood the post. I could throw some cement around and some might land in the vague shape of a brick. Does that mean if I throw around cement enough I will have a fully formed, habital house? The point is it doesn't matter if you can have all the building blocks formed - lipids, nucleic acids, amino acids...there is still absolutely no observable support of these components, by naturalistic means assembling into an ordered structure to form a self-replicating, self-sustaining & self-repairing machine. Humans cannot even do that themselves through their own design. It has never ever been shown to occur in nature, by natural means. You can have all the amino acids in the world and that makes no difference. So if we fail on abiogenesis then it really does not matter how much proof there seems for evolution, you have to entertain the idea that something intelligent designed and created life. Otherwise it is pure blind faith my friend. Contingency demands a force outside of the system (universe) for the flow of energy in the system and a transcendent God is the only current plausible mechanism for that. So yes it is much harder to believe that nature poofed it. Ironically though, I actually agree with much of what you say about theistic evolution. Personally if I could embrace evolution as a mechanism for life with UCD and there was what I believed sufficient evidence for it, I would be an atheist. If nature can do it, we must ambrace atheism as it is a valid hypothesis.Dr JDD
June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
Angry Darwinist/atheist JLAfan2001 preaching his religion:
Do you see why christians are stupid? Can’t you see that this book is making you stupid? The science has disproved it. Do the intellectual thing and walk away from your faith. It’s wrong. There is only so much mental gymnastics one can do before he accpets that it’s all BS.
There are a lot of mistakes, misconceptions and blatant lies in Wikipedia. Does this mean that we should declare that Wikipedia is all BS? Sometime within the next few months, I will be releasing a speech learning/recognition program called Rebel Speech. What makes Rebel Speech unique and revolutionary is not so much that it can learn to recognise speech in any language just by listening, not unlike humans. The surprising thing is that I arrived at the design of Rebel Speech's perceptual learning mechanism by decoding a number of metaphorical passages in the Bible that describe how the brain works. Rebel Speech will make the blood of atheists boil in their arteries and veins. It will be fun to watch. Wait for it.Mapou
June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
Jimpithicus. You would be hard pressed to find anyone here that denies evolution, the term is broad and has many meanings, but what we and I say that loosely, reject is Darwinian blind unguided luck nonsense..... Darwin got it wrong but because it makes atheists have a religion it still lives....Andre
June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
Like making others stupid?JLAfan2001
June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
Back to calling people stupid, I see. Well, I have better things to do with my time.Jimpithecus
June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
Jerry "So if BioLogos does not believe in an historical Adam, they must be a non Christian religious organization because Adam is a non-negotiable part of Christianity." Sure, it is. Aren't you listening. It's all metaphor, parables and allegory. The jewsih people didn't know there science well and the text shows that but that would be detrimental to christianity. Biologos position is to rewrite the texts to suit their beliefs undoing centuries of church doctrine. I would like to see if god gave them permission to do that. Biologos should changer the name to BaLoney cause they aren't fooling anyone but themselves.JLAfan2001
June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
In other words, the bible was written by bronze age nomads who didn't know anything about science and got it all wrong. You think I should trust it as the word of god and not ignorant desert dwellers, is that it? Todd wood suffers from fideism. I made it known that this is what christianity does to people. He knows the truth but refuses to accept it because his god tells him to. Jesus references Adam, Noah, Moses, Jonah all of which there is no evidence that they existed. How can Jesus be the son of god knowing that there was no literal adam? Oh, I forgot. He was using metaphors and parables, right? See, it saves everything. If Paul was wrong on his theology of adam then the book of romans should be stripped from the bible as it is obviously wrong. this is just more proof that the bible was written by superstitious men. Do you see why christians are stupid? Can't you see that this book is making you stupid? The science has disproved it. Do the intellectual thing and walk away from your faith. It's wrong. There is only so much mental gymnastics one can do before he accpets that it's all BS.JLAfan2001
June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
There is nothing in science that disputes the existence of an historical Adam. If God created Adam, then He could also have created the subsequent gene pool from which humans flow. That is unless one does not believe in God. So the reasoning goes I do not believe in God, therefore there could not have been any Adam based on known genetic processes (Adam is an absurdity even if know genetics processes could explain a first human.). Also, but if one believes in God and God does not interact with the world, then a human such as Adam is not possible. This is only a non Christian view of the world since Christianity is based on God interacting with the world. (similarly not Judaism or Islam) But if one believes in God and God does interact with the world (e.g. Christianity, Judaism and Islam ), then a human such as Adam is easily explained. So if BioLogos does not believe in an historical Adam, they must be a non Christian religious organization because Adam is a non-negotiable part of Christianity.jerry
June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
JimpithecusJLAfan2001
June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
Sorry, I wandered away for a bit--job, wife, kids, that sort of thing. I did not forget about post 44. Here is my short reply. 1). The book of Genesis is to be taken as historical. Insomuch as it can be taken scientifically at all, it reflects an understanding of science that is nearly 3500 years old and is, therefore, useless in interpreting the physical universe around us. Even after the time of Christ, Paul understood there to be a tripartite universe and it is reflected in his writing (thank you Dennis Lamoreux). To take the book of Genesis as science textbook does violation to the original intent of it and reduces it to a flat, lifeless text. It also leads to (dare I say it?) a view of the universe that borders on cultish. God's word and his creation can't disagree. While it is quite true that there are many, many things we don't know about the universe, there are quite a many things that we do know and some of which slap us in the face. The age of the universe is one of these things. That creatures do evolve and have evolved is another. I have been studying the field of evolutionary biology as it pertains to human origins for thirty years. There is little to no doubt in my mind or the minds of those who are familiar with the data that evolution is perfectly adequate to explain it. Even creationists like Todd Wood know this. That he refuses to accept it is a result of his acceptance of the literal biblical hermeneutic. 2)When viewed in this way, the account is not clearly "wrong." It is simply being misread by young earth creationists. Biblical scholars have, I will admit, struggled with this set of scriptures for hundreds of years and there are different models of interpretation. The Young earth creation position is, in fact, very recent and very few young earth creationists know from whence it comes. 3). Good question. There is one school of thought that argues that the entire "primeval history" as the first eleven chapters of Genesis are called, was tacked on to the Bible during the captivity, around 600 B.C. This would explain why there are no references to these events in the rest of the OT prior to this captivity (Isaiah 54 is probably a late addition, as well) and why most of the references are in the NT. The other issues with the Pentateuch involve the merging of two different copies after they were written down (Masoretic and Samaritan). Why should you believe it? Depends entirely on whether or not you think Jesus Christ was who He said He was. If He was, you should believe it. If you don't, then don't. I would, at least, encourage you to take a look at FF Bruce's The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? It is a short read but informative. 4). I reconcile the lack of a historical Adam with Romans with the understanding that Paul had been handed the Pentateuch, which, to the people of that time period, was the explanation for everything. It was no different than him believing that there was water above the sky (why else would it be blue?) and hell was straight down. Science only disproves the Bible if you interpet the Bible as a science textbook. It was never intended for that. Read this to get a better understanding of what was likely intended. I have no illusions that these answers will be acceptable. I do not think that any answers that I provide will be. As you wrote, you are very angry. I do not think I can penetrate that. I only submit that we, who write for BioLogos, are sincere and try, within the power that we have, to be honest. We know that the science is out there, and, if you interpret the science in an honest fashion, it necessitates a rethink of how Genesis must have been intended.Jimpithecus
June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply