Posted on 02/02/2005 6:19:41 PM PST by curiosity
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Some scientists may have originally concluded that Neanderthals were homo sapiens, but we now know that they're different from our species.
That's how science works- as new evidence comes to light, old conclusions get re-examined.
I have decided to stick my nose in this.
I like what Miller has to say, generally, but I disagree with his conclusion that God and Evolution are compatible. His position is the classic one of trying to straddle a fence. A peacemaker of sorts, but the reality is that he's due for a major hurt.
He uses the argument of the priest and the professor. The priest says only God could make a flower. The professor explains how a flower is formed. By Miller's own logic now the priest looks "ignorant", "foolish" (it really doesn't matter what the word is) - he is wrong and will eventually have to backpeddle.
Following this line, sooner or later, the only place for God to stand is at the beginning, i.e. the Big Bang. But Miller's logic holds here too. Should astrophysicists find a convincing physical explanation for the Big Bang, then God is gone.
I used to hope that the universe was "closed", and Bang after Bang would occur. That was evading the question of where God should rightly be placed, but it made me feel more comfortable. But now it looks like the universe is "open" and those nagging questions about the appropriate place for God are back.
(Still hoping that there is enough undiscovered dark matter to close the universe, though).
(Creationists still often cite that, although the standard mantra is that Archy is somehow indistinguishable from the robin in your back yard.)
Do you need it explained to you that if your story is "It's a bird! Just a bird!" then you undercut yourself if you turn around and say "It's just a dinosaur with feathers chiseled into the rock?" After all, in your version of events a bird is a bird and a dinosaur is a dinosaur and never the twain have met.
Wonderful! You can always ask how many AGES did Christ stay in the tomb before He arose. They always respond 3 days!
Are you referring to the loss of the stinging barb on the Manta Ray? Which of course is again, loss of functionality. Or the curving of the fins, which only shows sorting within genetic potential.
He, he, he
Wishful thinking cannot alter reality. Sooner or later it will bite you on the butt.
There is no reason to believe it's a design deficiency.
There are two possibilities:
There is no possible mess about which you cannot say the above. Thus, this is useless non-information.
Nope. I'm referring to their warm-bloodedness and mammal-like brains.
"The Genesis text must be taken as symbolic in many cases."
I think this is the crux of the fight over evolution right there. There is a distinct clash of mindsets between those who believe the bible is the inerrant and literal word of god and those who believe it is symbolic, especially Genesis. Many subscribe to the former point of view, while many others find it patently ludicrous. I do not think there is any way that a literalist reading of the bible as an inerrant source can be made consistent with the current (or any) scientific understanding of the world. And so, if any scientific theory conflicts with such a literal reading of the bible, it must be wrong, even if that means going through some pretty bizarre contortions, to contend for example, that the earth is only 10,000 years old.
You may wanna try reading the article again (or reading Miller's book). You take the position Miller is arguing against to be Miller's own view.
Miller agrees that God created the flower and makes it bloom. What he disagrees with is the priest's claim that scientific ignorance of the mechanism is evidence for this. It is according to the priest's logic that God would disappear as creator with an explanation of the Big Bang, not Miller's.
And you have evidence that Manta's were originally cold blooded and did not have mammal-like brains?
Or are you simply ASSUMING that Manta's must have evolved from a completely different cold blooded fish. "Because Manta's exist, therefore they must have evolved." "Because Manta's have some similarities to Sharks they must have a common (yet unidentified) ancestor."
The only problem with that is that the fossil record indicates sharks have always been sharks and rays have always been rays.
"This idea of ‘parallel evolution’ is often invoked by evolutionists to explain amazing similarities which, for other reasons, could not have come about through sharing a common ancestor. The obvious explanation for such similarities, design by the same Designer, is ‘not allowed.’ However, it is difficult enough to accept that, through blind chance filtered by selection (ultimately in a chance succession of environments), a species could develop specialized features such as a skeleton of cartilage and the ability for young to hatch from eggs inside the female’s body. The concept that such features could independently evolve in species with no connection to each other—again relying on blind chance—is not only illogical, but without evidence. " From the link below...
There is no possible scenario about which you cannot hypothesize, one thing evolved from another thing.
This is equally useless non-information.
What is useful is knowledge of DNA structure and similarities and differences among animals, methods by which DNA can be changed, etc. But that knowledge can be obtained whether it's the Creationist studying the designer's design. Or whether it's the evolutionist seeking to prove one animal evolved from the other.
If you have strong faith, it doesn't matter what makes you comfortable. Interpreting the Bible in a nonsensical way, as literalists do, gives them comfort that God did it the way they feel good about.
The sad thing is creation is not in the ToE, so it doesn't matter.
Danny, there are more than two possibilities.
This is the fallacy of False Dilemma, giving two options when there are more than two.
No, MY versionis that is is a funny bird looking ancient animal, might have been a reptile, but it sure didnt fly, and it aint a transitional form, and you have no PROOF to say it is.
Only an opinion.
The only proof you have is a dead animal buried in rock layers laid down by water...just like Noah's flood would present...if it was buried during the flood.
They are not different, they are just like us.
Dress up a Neanderthal or a Cro-Magnon in a suit with a shave and you cant tell he is some predessor, he just looks different.
Dress up LUCY in a dress, and you have a monkey in a dress.
HUGE difference.
Their bone structure is quite different. Neanderthals have thicker, stronger bones, a somewhat sloping brow and shorter limbs. Based on analysis of the connection points on their bones, the average Neanderthal would have been somewhat stronger than the average human. They are not "just like us."
Dress up a Neanderthal or a Cro-Magnon in a suit with a shave and you cant tell he is some predessor, he just looks different.
The statement was that you could give a Neanderthal a shave and a suit and put them on the subway in New York and he wouldn't be too out of place. This statement was sort of tongue-in-cheek, since there are plenty of stranger looking people on NYC's subways.
That being said, a Neanderthal wandering around today would be quite distinctive and would attract attention. And he would most certainly have his choice of seats at even the roughest bar around.
You are correct. My dilemma, nenetheless, still stands.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.