1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Early Humans

Discussion in 'Science' started by UTEOTW, Aug 9, 2005.

Top Posters
  1. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    It looks like another AIG "explanation" has gone out the window.

    A few years ago, a new fossil ape, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, was found in Chad. As with all fossil apes that they cannot stretch the truth to make a "fully modern human" out of, they deny that it has ANY relationship to humans. Here, let them tell it.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1012toumai.asp

    Well, as it turns out, there have been aditional finds that expand the knowledge of this creature. And it turns out that these new finds reinforce the idea that this is a human ancestor more recent than the human/chimp split.

    Brunet et al, New material of the earliest hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad, Nature 434, 752-755 (7 April 2005)

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15815627&dopt=Citation

    So now I must extend the challenge to AIG to publically display this new information on their website, publicizing these new findings with the same zeal that they publicized the disagreements when there was only a single specimen. Of course this will never happen. Not with out a distorting spin.
     
    #1 UTEOTW, Aug 9, 2005
  2. Travelsong

    Travelsong Guest

    You don't believe the Bible!
     
    #2 Travelsong, Aug 9, 2005
  3. jcrawford

    jcrawford New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    You don't expect a creationist organization to publicize findings that support neo-Darwinist racial theories about the first African people originating from some ancestors of African apes, do you?

    It's bad enough when neo-Darwinist theorists propose African Eve models, but when they try to associate her particular tribe in Africa with ancestors of apes, their peculiar form of scientific racism is obvious to all members of the human race.
     
    #3 jcrawford, Aug 9, 2005
  4. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "You don't expect a [young earth] creationist organization to publicize findings that support neo-Darwinist racial [sic] theories about the first African people originating from some ancestors of African apes, do you?"

    I expect them, at best, to keep quiet. How many people who read at AIG do you think would actually be reading about real science? If they just keep quiet, their followers will likely never stumble upon the truth by themselves.

    At worst, I expect them to misrepresent and distort the truth. That's not hard to find on AIG, either.

    So, no, I do not expect them to reveal real science which weakens their case.
     
    #4 UTEOTW, Aug 9, 2005
  5. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    The same issue of Nature some some additional confirmation.

    Zollikofer et al, Virtual cranial reconstruction of Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Nature 434, 755-759 (7 April 2005).

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15815628&dopt=Citation
     
    #5 UTEOTW, Aug 9, 2005
  6. jcrawford

    jcrawford New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's just more "scientific" evidence in support of neo-Darwinst racial theories about the original African people originating from the same common hominid ancestors of sub-human African apes.

    What's the point of providing so-called "scientific evidence" in support of racist theories?
     
    #6 jcrawford, Aug 10, 2005
  7. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is your characterization of these scientific theories as racist, not that of anyone else. And the point of the evidence is to help decide whether or not the theories are true, regardless of the alledged racist contamination.
     
    #7 Paul of Eugene, Aug 16, 2005
  8. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can attest to this firsthand. I recently went to go see a stage play called "Creation" at a local large church. The show was done in the interpretive style (similar to the way Circque Du Soliel shows are done). I thought the show was absolutely wonderfully done. AiG posted a review which was not only inaccurate, but completely misrepresenting on the show, and in some cases, plain false (even implying that the show is darwinistic, which I can tell you, it was not). The reviewer clearly had no understanding of theater, or classic theatrical tools such as the Greek chorus or interpretive dance. Either that or the reviewer had an agenda prior to reviewing the show.
     
    #8 Johnv, Aug 16, 2005
  9. jcrawford

    jcrawford New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am merely basing my observations of racism in neo-Darwinst theories of human evolution on Lubenow's brilliant analysis and thesis concerning the human fossil record.

    The "evidence" is just being used in support of such racial theories because all evidence which doesn't is summarily rejected.

    In order to "decide" whether neo-Darwinist racial theories are "true" or not, one has to be familiar with Lubenow's well documented thesis.
     
    #9 jcrawford, Aug 16, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...