How does this apply to you and your religion? Just curious.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/science.jsp?feature=ne_science2

I believe in God, but I can't believe in total creationism. I was wondering how this find applies to the Bible. This find truely supports Darwinism, not creationism.

God created evolution

Doesn't that contradict the Bible though? Are you saying the Bible is wrong?

I believe in creationism and evolution. I'm not sure I buy into Darwin's theory, but it's obvious that we as human beings are constantly evolving to adapt to our environment. We're much taller than we were just 100 years ago. I fully believe we were created from the beginning with relatively the same mental capacity as we have now, but when you start from square one, it takes time to learn and discover and generations to build upon all of that. :shrug:

Arent there Pygmies still living in that area?

And just how do they know its a fully grown skeletal structure and not just a child?

Also, I wonder how the scientists determine the brain size?

I'm just wondering. The Bible is a good source for moral teachings. I also believe it to be a good timeline for the hebrews, and early christianity, but I also believe that it has been distorted through time by people trying to capitalize on it, either for money, or power. If you look at evolution you can see how God would allow this. If you look at creationism your left with a lot of questions. Especially when we know there have been creatures that have lived before we ever made it on the scene.

UrbanPancake said:

Doesn't that contradict the Bible though? Are you saying the Bible is wrong?

Click to expand...

I don't have time right now to look up the passages that support my thinking. But somewhere in one of St Paul's letters, I believe, there are words to the effect that time doesn't pass for God in the same way it does for people. A million years it but a moment to God. So the words that say the world was created in 6 days is merely a means of conveying an abstract like 200 million years to people whose life span is a fraction of a fraction of that time. No one pretends to understand HOW God created the world, why couldn't he have used the process we have come to call "evolution?" Science actually supports the order in which the Bible states things were created.

The most difficult thing is..

Not enough space & time to explore the issue:

Let me go Socratic:

What was the dating method used? (unmentioned in two articles)
How can we explain "little people" evolving due to eating little elephants & using little tools?

What about the time frame? We have Homo Erectus (Pithcanthropis) at 800,000 BCE and these people evolve smaller?..in a relatively short period of time ( less than 90,000 BCE?) What enormous mutations were necessary for that????

Do we have that much variation within the Human Morphology today? Absolutely. African Pigmy? Do they need more time to "evolve?"

I hope that by asking pointed questions...(even asking about the motivations of the paleoanthropologists) one does not eagerly accept the initial reports of any "breakthrough."

A picture is worth a thousand words...add a stoop, furry appearance with a sloped face and what do you get? Instant hominid! Did the artist even do a facial reconstruction?...or just add details they want to portray as a "crucial link" in evolution?

I believe the fossils are valid...I believe the tools are legit,..I believe you have ample evidence of a gracile homo sapien sapien who descended from a limited (isolated)gene pool that carried a dominant dwarf gene.

I DO want to know more...not dismiss it...and listen to the interpretations. It is an amazing find.

Dymphna said:

I don't have time right now to look up the passages that support my thinking. But somewhere in one of St Paul's letters, I believe, there are words to the effect that time doesn't pass for God in the same way it does for people. A million years it but a moment to God. So the words that say the world was created in 6 days is merely a means of conveying an abstract like 200 million years to people whose life span is a fraction of a fraction of that time. No one pretends to understand HOW God created the world, why couldn't he have used the process we have come to call "evolution?" Science actually supports the order in which the Bible states things were created.

Click to expand...

That's why I said you can see God in evolution. But I can't believe that Adam and Eve lived with the Dinosaurs. They would have been eaten. You can't deny that there were creatures and species that have come before us, and became extinct before people were even on the scene. That's why I don't buy this Adam and Eve crap. The writers of the bible adapted this story to fit with a Persian myth that existed at the time when the Hebrews were forced to live in Babylon.

And just how do they know its a fully grown skeletal structure and not just a child?

Click to expand...

Some of the female skeletons found had pelvic fractures associated with multiple childbirths----which means they would have at least had to have been a few years past child bearing age.

Additionally age on humans can be estimated (rather accurately, even) by analyzing dental remains, and by studying the major weight bearing joints (such as the knees and hips). The amount of wear and tear builds up over time and use, which is probably what led the scientists who made the age estimates to decide as they did.

I think it's amazing though. I wouldn't be surprised if there are other species of humanoids that they haven't been discovered yet.

UrbanPancake said:

I'm just wondering. The Bible is a good source for moral teachings. I also believe it to be a good timeline for the hebrews, and early christianity, but I also believe that it has been distorted through time by people trying to capitalize on it, either for money, or power. If you look at evolution you can see how God would allow this. If you look at creationism your left with a lot of questions. Especially when we know there have been creatures that have lived before we ever made it on the scene.

Click to expand...

I don't think this find contradicts Creationism at all. We know different people have developed differently based on geographic location. Asians are different than Europeans, who are different than Africans.

The theory of Evolution has too many holes in it, beginning with the missing link. Darwin speculated that we evolved from animals and claimed that this would be proven by the discovery of fossils - this has yet to be shown, which is why it's dubbed "missing." Because of these leaps taken by evolutionists, I personally believe that it takes more faith to accept the Theory of Evolution as fact than the Biblical account of creation.

As for the accuracy of the Bible, it's probably one of the best documented books out there. I've read that you could destroy every copy of the Bible in existence today, yet still be able to recreate it using original manuscripts of the texts, down to the last word. There are more sources confirming the Biblical accounts than any other book of its period. This is in addition to all the archealogical evidence supporting Biblical accounts.

No doubt people over the years have distorted its teachings with their interpretations, but that doesn't discredit the Bible's accuracy.

Normal Guy said:

I don't think this find contradicts Creationism at all. We know different people have developed differently based on geographic location. Asians are different than Europeans, who are different than Africans.
The theory of Evolution has too many holes in it, beginning with the missing link.

Click to expand...

I do not see how the variations that currently exist support your assertion. These dramatically different fossils and the thousands of humanoid fossils that have been found are more than enough of a "missing link". Which link would you prefer instead? Australopithecus robustus? Australopithecus afarensis? It should be noted that these new fossils are believed to be cousins on the evolutionary line, not ancestors.

I personally believe that it takes more faith to accept the Theory of Evolution as fact than the Biblical account of creation.

Click to expand...

Faith is defined as acceptance without objective evidence. It is a personal, internal process. Evolution is a science, and a highly established one. It forms the cornerstone of modern biology. You can disbelieve if you want, just as I can disbelieve the theories of electromagnetics. My disbelief will not cause my television to stop working, though.

No doubt people over the years have distorted its teachings with their interpretations, but that doesn't discredit the Bible's accuracy.

Click to expand...

The fact that the Bible is supported by archeology is limited. We are aware, for example, of numerous details about Biblical cities. That we know information about these cities and that documents survived from those times supports some of the historical biblical accounts as happening in a literal historical setting, but not all. Noah's flood is right out. A worldwide deluge on the scale of Noah's flood is impossible for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the lack of available water.

I fail to understand why evolution evokes such fear and kneejerk reactionism in people. The theories behind the documented phenomena of evolution are sound, supported and documented. Although there are still unknowns and mysteries, the same can be said for all modern sciences. We still, for example, do not understand gravity very well. The weaknesses in areas of the body of a theory do not discredit the observed events. Objects fall to the earth = gravity. The moon orbits the eart = gravity. Populations of animals change genetically over generations = evolution. Hundreds of millions of years of changing fossils = evolution.

Thank Darwin, I'm glad I'm not the only who is isn't scared of Nature and Science. I think the awesom power of Nature in it self is beautiful, I don't understand why we have to compile untruths in a book to explain why things exist. These "stories" don't explain half of what scientist have discovered in the last two centuries. The Bible is very inacurrate in it's attempt to explain why people, and all living things exist. It is also very inaccurrate in it's attempt to explain why the earth and the sun exist. I find that the relationships that naturally occur in space, nature, and beyond are more interesting and fascinating then the "truths" in the Bible. Like I have said in past posts the Bible is a great book of stories, just like other childrens fairytale books. You can still believe in God, but to believe everything in the Bible is selling yourself short. You can't hide behind the Bible's fictitious accounts of actual events and take them literally at face value. The sooner that people accept science and embrace the enlightenment of knowledge the sooner we as a soceity can start exploring deeper within ourselves and answering the questions that deeply moves us as human beings. I find religion to be a barrier of knowledge instead of the forbear of individual thought processes and true insight into the Why, What, Where, How, and Who questions.

I personally believe in the scripture and creation as given in the book of Genesis. I believe that if even one word of the Bible (in the original languages) is not trustworthy, then none of it is trustworthy including salvation.

I cannot prove creation nor can anyone prove evolution. Evolution is a matter of faith as is belief in the Bible. Consider how often "modern" science has been wrong; earth was the center of the universe, earth was flat, everything was made of three elements - earth, wind, and fire. People miss that evolution is still a theory. A theory is not a fact but a proposed, unproven idea. When a theory is proven, it is no longer called a theory.

I raise this issue. As I understand it, all the dating methods are based on assumptions of radioactive elements being at certain levels and known decay rates or half-life. The math formulas that are used have "fudge factors" in them that are valid within given ranges. It is usual that "fudge factor" values would be chosen (since they cannot be determined) as the median value of the range. I have been told (cannot verify) that the values for these "fudge factors" have been chosen at the extreme of the range that would cause the resulting calculated date to be the oldest. For further consideration, all these methods were developed post WWII after open air detonation of atomic devices had forever changed the amount of radioactive material, carbon or otherwise, on the surface of the earth.

Darwin had questions about his own theory. It has been reported (I don't think proven) that he refuted his own theory before he died, but whether he did or did not is irrelevant. He did question the evolution of the eye and the evolution of creatures that require male and female to reproduce. There were others, but these two raise serious doubts of evolution in my mind. Darwin asked why an eye would develop if there were no previous need for an eye; other creatures had and do get along quite well without the ability to see. Sexual reproduction is even harder to answer for anyone that is truthful in their deliberation. Why would sexual reproduction evolve? How would it evolve? It would require the male and female to evolve at the same time and in the same location. I don't offer these examples as proof against evolution; they are just for consideration. It is evidence that if you just accept evolution, you accept it on faith in evolution, not proof of evolution.

I do not expect this post to convince anyone that the Bible is the divine Word of God as I believe. I have posted that that is not my job, but I hope that this has given you "food for thought".

2ndAmendment said:

I personally believe in the scripture and creation as given in the book of Genesis. I believe that if even one word of the Bible (in the original languages) is not trustworthy, then none of it is trustworthy including salvation.

I cannot prove creation nor can anyone prove evolution. Evolution is a matter of faith as is belief in the Bible. Consider how often "modern" science has been wrong; earth was the center of the universe, earth was flat, everything was made of three elements - earth, wind, and fire. People miss that evolution is still a theory. A theory is not a fact but a proposed, unproven idea. When a theory is proven, it is no longer called a theory.

Click to expand...

You know who supported these untruth's? The Church. They put people in jail if they questioned about the Earth being round, and the earth not being the center of the universe. The Church prevents us from becoming knowledgable because it always proves them to be wrong about creation and other whimsical fairytales. Evolution may be a theory, but the evidence stacks up to support it. There is nothing that supports that Adam and Eve were the first humans. If they were the first then why are people so many different colors and why don't we all have blue eyes and what not. That's because evolution exists, and we have evolved according to the evironment that we lived in. Maybe the Bible should state Creationism as a theory? I mean it hasn't been proven right?

Hey, if you guys are determined to believe in the Theory of Evolution that's fine...you are obviously free to do so, but why must you attack me for my belief in Creationism? I am not responding to this article out of fear as you suggest, simply responding to UP's question of how it affects my faith. The answer was: It doesn't.

Populations of animals change genetically over generations = evolution. Hundreds of millions of years of changing fossils = evolution.

Click to expand...

A species may change over time to reflect the traits of its members that survive. For example, humans have generally gotten taller. If you breed sheep with spots you get more sheep with spots. But one species has never, ever been transformed into another. Or to put it in more scientific terms, microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution. Your attempt to claim macro, from micro is not supported by fact/evidence.

Just because you don't believe in God, doesn't mean He doesn't exist, and didn't create the world.

Maybe the Bible should state Creationism as a theory? I mean it hasn't been proven right?

Click to expand...

I got a good chuckle out of this. Why would God need to state that the Creation was a theory, when He is the Creator? Afterall, the Bible is His inspired written word.

I know you don't believe that, and you feel it's a collection of fairy tales. But that would be the answer to your question.

UrbanPancake said:

You know who supported these untruth's? The Church. They put people in jail if they questioned about the Earth being round, and the earth not being the center of the universe. The Church prevents us from becoming knowledgable because it always proves them to be wrong about creation and other whimsical fairytales. Evolution may be a theory, but the evidence stacks up to support it. There is nothing that supports that Adam and Eve were the first humans. If they were the first then why are people so many different colors and why don't we all have blue eyes and what not. That's because evolution exists, and we have evolved according to the evironment that we lived in. Maybe the Bible should state Creationism as a theory? I mean it hasn't been proven right?

Click to expand...

I am going to seriously attempt to make this the last time I ever replys to one of your posts. They are generally inane and I have better things to do with my time than write back and forth to inane people.

Religions have done many things that are not of or from God. The Bible tells of the scribes and the pharisees of Christ's time and even the false prophets of the Old Testament. They said and did things that were not of God. Ever read this?

Matthew 21:12-17
12Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,'[5] but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'[6] "
14The blind and the lame came to him at the temple, and he healed them. 15But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple area, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they were indignant.
16"Do you hear what these children are saying?" they asked him.
"Yes," replied Jesus, "have you never read,
" 'From the lips of children and infants
you have ordained praise'[7] ?"
17And he left them and went out of the city to Bethany, where he spent the night.

Click to expand...

Jesus was not happy with many of the religious leaders of His day. I am certain He is not happy with the organizations that call themselves churches that endorse homosexual behavior and reward other sins as well. God will judge them in His time.

Have you ever seen children from the same parents have different color hair or eyes? I have. Same parents but a different trait surfaced in one child as opposed to another.

The Bible was written by men directed by God. It is inerrant. What it says are not theories but fact. Man, in his arrogance, trying to justify his sins asserts that there is no God. Just because you do not believe in God does not mean He does not exist.

God has given you free will to believe His word or not. You don't. I do. Time will tell who erred. If I do; no big deal. If you do, a very big deal.

Here is another one for you indicating how Jesus felt about most of the religious leaders of His day.

Matthew 23:12-14
12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Click to expand...