I was going to say I agreed with you, and to criticise something purporting to support Evolution being cast in such ridiculous tones. But it turns out that Evolution's Arrow is pseudoscientific bullcrap being put forward as a scientific theory. Just because it's got the word "Evolution" in it, does not mean that this John Stewart guy is actually talking about Evolution as it is understood by scientists. In fact, his thesis is that there is a direction for Evolution, that it is heading somewhere specific - which could well mean he has a religious undercurrent to his theory.Woody said:
Creation Museum Scheduled to open in 2007
- Thread starter Woody
- Start date
DeeCee said:
Sure... get ready... here it comes... 'God' did it.
Creationists,
We are very sorry that evolution doesn't leave any room for devine intervention, it was not our intention to challenge your closely held spiritual traditions. Unfortunately this just happened to be a side effect of finding out what really happened.
We are very sorry that evolution doesn't leave any room for devine intervention, it was not our intention to challenge your closely held spiritual traditions. Unfortunately this just happened to be a side effect of finding out what really happened.
C
charles cure
Guest
Woody said:
what point are you making there? that because they have a rudimentary depiction of human evolution that the whole museum is useless and that evolution isnt real? wow, youre a thinker arent you?
what exactly is it that bothers you about those statements? think of how evolution works - an organism adapts to environmental stimuli in order to survive and continue to proliferate. well, it is most definitely arguable that humans have trnascended that point. humans do not require the same level of adaptation to their environment because they have evolved far enough to be able to change the environment itself to suit their current needs. think of what happens when the environmental stimuli necessary to trigger genetic evolutionary adaptations are minimized. evolution slows radically. people control their environment to an extent that there are not significant consequtive die-offs that would bring a more advanced genetic model to the fore. so how will humans evolve from that point forward? you would think it would happen in one of two ways - 1. by making a conscious and collective decision to alter their environment in such a way and for a long enough period, that it brings about an evolutionary change. or 2. by making a conscious decision to bring about evolution by altering their own genetic structures through the use of advanced technology.
that seems to make sense to me and sounds like what could be described as "conscious evolution". do you disagree with that? do you have a reason why it couldnt happen? do you have an alternative that makes more sense than that?
all that aside, that is just conjecture and has no actual place in the scientific theory of evolution, which does not attempt to predict the future.
There are sooo many things wrong with that site.
Firstly they say:
Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.
Not so. In fact, even Darwin started with a Christian point of view, and many evolutionary scientists and philosophers that believe in evolution struggle to reconcile it with theology (a losing battle in my opinion).
Firstly they say:
Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.
Not so. In fact, even Darwin started with a Christian point of view, and many evolutionary scientists and philosophers that believe in evolution struggle to reconcile it with theology (a losing battle in my opinion).
Another; with regard to a missing link:
Not one has stood the test of honest, rigorous investigation, as all have turned out to be from either an extinct ape or an extinct human.
That is too funny. Humans are apes.
Not one has stood the test of honest, rigorous investigation, as all have turned out to be from either an extinct ape or an extinct human.
That is too funny. Humans are apes.
Charles Cure said:
Have you been to the Smithsonian? My brother went there -- and He is a dentist that believes evolution is true. He said the human progression was odviously flawed in his opinion, though he believes man evolved from animals. The jump between non-human and human was just too big. The head and body didn't match for man's predecessor. In his words, it was like somebody took the head of an ape and put it on the body of a man. The head was just too big.
You might ask what kind of an expert he is. Consider this -- he is a dentist. Dentists spend all their "quality cadaver time" in dental school dissecting the human head, whereas doctors spend the same time going over the entire body. Hence he was an ER surgeon for many head injuries from gunshot wounds and automobile accidents.
You can't change human nature. Human nature is self-centered. The mind says what is right but the body wants to do otherwise -- hence people smoke, are addicted to drugs and alchohol, do sexual activities they know are risky, etc. Carl Marx lost the battle to human nature. People can't sustain his ideals -- neither can they sustain "conscious evolution."
Have you been to the Smithsonian? My brother went there -- and He is a dentist that believes evolution is true. He said the human progression was odviously flawed in his opinion, though he believes man evolved from animals. The jump between non-human and human was just too big. The head and body didn't match for man's predecessor. In his words, it was like somebody took the head of an ape and put it on the body of a man. The head was just too big.
You might ask what kind of an expert he is. Consider this -- he is a dentist. Dentists spend all their "quality cadaver time" in dental school dissecting the human head, whereas doctors spend the same time going over the entire body. Hence he was an ER surgeon for many head injuries from gunshot wounds and automobile accidents.
You can't change human nature. Human nature is self-centered. The mind says what is right but the body wants to do otherwise -- hence people smoke, are addicted to drugs and alchohol, do sexual activities they know are risky, etc. Carl Marx lost the battle to human nature. People can't sustain his ideals -- neither can they sustain "conscious evolution."
Last edited:
Have you ever seen a bonono or chimp? All jokes aside, they do resemble humans in both looks and behavior to a remarkable degree.
Silas said:
It came from the Smithsonian web page.
AS an aside -- you won't find John Dillinger's penis at the Smithsonian as rumored. I know another guy that went there -- he asked to see it -- but no luck.
Last edited:
I guess we're pretty much disposing of the Smithsonian as a viable and trustworthy repository of all knowledge. Which believe me is no bad thing. For decades you had to come to England to see the original Wright Flyer, the first powered aeroplane that flew, because the Smithsonian never accepted the Wright Brothers' claim, preferring instead their own candidate (name escapes me) who only flew after he'd copied what Wilbur and Orville had done. That they now promote pseudoscience and have a poorly made Evolution exhibit comes as no surprise to me. I'm with you 100%, Woody, on the terrible New Agey style of reasoning demonstrated in that posted link. I'm with you 100% on how inaccurately the exhibit demonstrates development. But, you make a logical error to go from bad exposition to incorrect theory. Evolution does not stand or fall on how the Smithsonian wishes to demonstrate it.
P.S.
Erm, only if the Smithsonian has moved to Australia. What was it you were referring to as having come from the Smithsonian? I was talking about Evolution's Arrow, which is at tpg.com.au. I trust you were simply mistaken rather than trying to mislead, Woody...
Silas said,
Well said.
I say likewise -- faith will not stand or fall based on the way the new creation museum presents their case.
I'll probably go there, maybe get a few laughs, maybe see someone else's point of view, then reflect on it. I don't think anyone has a strong argument against an old earth, unless God recently created the earth to look old, and what would be the point of that?
Apparantly I was mistaken -- the link came from this site:
http://www.wilderdom.com/evolution/HumanEvolutionLinks.htm
They were making liberal use of the Smithsonian exhibit. My apologies.
Well said.
I say likewise -- faith will not stand or fall based on the way the new creation museum presents their case.
I'll probably go there, maybe get a few laughs, maybe see someone else's point of view, then reflect on it. I don't think anyone has a strong argument against an old earth, unless God recently created the earth to look old, and what would be the point of that?
Apparantly I was mistaken -- the link came from this site:
http://www.wilderdom.com/evolution/HumanEvolutionLinks.htm
They were making liberal use of the Smithsonian exhibit. My apologies.
Last edited:
C
charles cure
Guest
Woody said:
consider this. the progression from ape to man at the smithsonian has probably been there since the 1960's and is a simplification designed to demonstrate the rudiments of evolutionary theory. youre in a museum, not a laboratory. if you wanted to design an accurate banner with every step of the evolutionary process from ape to man covered, it would be like half a mile long. there are hundreds of little evolutionary alterations that took place over the centuries that could be included in it, and chances are, many of the steps in the process would be so similar in appearance that the illustrative effect of the banner would seem to lose its point. i still dont understand how the smithsonian museums outdated portrait of ape to man evolution is somehow detrimental to the theory.
well i agree that the first example is unlikely i think that any attempt to sustain a particular alteration to the environment on a worldwide scale in order to acheive a new evolution wont happen. for exactly the reasons you mentioned. however, if humans develop technology that allows us to alter our own genetic structures and evolve through technology, then it is definitely possible and probably for a sustained period of time.
Woody,
Are you a traditional christian, Woody?
Jan.
I'll probably go there, maybe get a few laughs, maybe see someone else's point of view, then reflect on it. I don't think anyone has a strong argument against an old earth, unless God recently created the earth to look old, and what would be the point of that?
Are you a traditional christian, Woody?
Jan.
Without DNA, it is almost impossible to determine if any one specimen is the fabled missing link because it might have diverged from the "missing link" species due to geographical separation or other factors, maintaining many of it's outward qualities. So, any of the "homo" species we find as fossils could be either a direct ancestor, or a divergent species that is closely related but remained a "dead end" evolutionarily speaking.
Hmmm... I wonder what you're getting at with that question, Jan?Jan Ardena said:
Also, I'm not certain that the answer of "yes" would necessarily give you the information you're after. If he was raised a Catholic or Episcopalian and has simply maintained this faith, he might say "yes". On the other hand, if he's a Born Again Evangelical, given their doctrine of "We are the only true Christians", he might still say "yes", but mean something different to what you did.
I'm not answering in your place or speaking for you, Woody, I just wondered what Jan's intentions were.
Traditional Christians tend to take the bible literally, and think the Earth is relatively young.