A Question For My Evolutionist Friends

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by Bustem' Down

I'm suspicious of this one. There is no known anthropological record of Neanderthals interbreeding with Homo Sapien or Homo Erectus, if that were even biologically possible and since that species died out I see no reason why the language would persist. also, since Neaderthal lived before written history and had no written language, how would anyone even be able to suspect that Basque is a decendant of it?

The attributes of the Basque language (Euskera) isnt in dispute just the origin of it. The possibility that the Basque interbred with Neanderthals isnt new or original do a Google search on it.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Bustem' Down

Since Neaderthal lived before written history and had no written language, how would anyone even be able to suspect that Basque is a decendant of it?

You ask very good questions!

[TimAllen]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

The attributes of the Basque language (Euskera) isnt in dispute just the origin of it. The possibility that the Basque interbred with Neanderthals isnt new or original do a Google search on it.

How could neanderthals have existed as research puts it "The Neanderthals are thought to have already been there for about 150,000 years, but seem to have died out by about 30,000 years ago, presumably out-competed by the modern humans during a period of cold weather."

In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth! He then created man this all happened about 6000 years ago or so. Before God created Man there was no one!

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by TimAllen

How could neanderthals have existed as research puts it "The Neanderthals are thought to have already been there for about 150,000 years, but seem to have died out by about 30,000 years ago, presumably out-competed by the modern humans during a period of cold weather."

In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth! He then created man this all happened about 6000 years ago or so. Before God created Man there was no one!

Because the Basques "originated" about 40,000 years ago (so there was 10,000 years they co-mingled)

What God created the civilizations that existed before 6,000 years ago?

[Bustem' Down]

Originally Posted by TimAllen

How could neanderthals have existed as research puts it "The Neanderthals are thought to have already been there for about 150,000 years, but seem to have died out by about 30,000 years ago, presumably out-competed by the modern humans during a period of cold weather."

In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth! He then created man this all happened about 6000 years ago or so. Before God created Man there was no one!

That's actually a non issue since the current topic is not the creation story, but the origins of the Basque culture. Neaderthals are very real, whether God created the Earth or not, thier remains and fossils are there. I guess from a theological standpoint, a more accurate question would be are they Human or not? Neaderthal, Homo Erectus, Java Man, etc. are all different species of Man and not the same as Homo Sapien so God could have created all of them as the Bible states he created animals first, and then Man (Homo Sapien) last. I'll admit, science is not without flaws, things past have been done wrong and since corrected. Caucasians, Africans, and Asiatic peoples were originally classified as three distinct subspecies basically through the ignorance of the culture of the past. My question is why do people hold so dearly to the earth being only about 6,000 years old. There is not one place in the Bible that dates when the Earth was created. There is no timeline on how long Adam and Eve spent in the Garden, so who is coming up with this magic number?

[Tonio]

Originally Posted by This_person

In that it is completely inexplicable. Now you don't see it, now you do. Something more significant than a chemical reaction HAD to account for it, in my opinion.

What you mean by "significant"?

When one is faced with an unexplained event, saying something like "Oh, it must have been the work of gods" is a non-answer. That is like attempting to solve an algebra equation by making up values for X and Y.

Originally Posted by This_person

We were created with free will, not a subservience to a religion.

Some schools of Christian thought reject free will in favor of predestination. Both positions almost certainly rest on assumptions, although the latter seems to involve a few more. My point is that anyone can present any claim about the nature of supernatural beings and there is no way to test such claims.

Originally Posted by This_person

While you may think the assumption baseless, the people who believe it thiynk it's not. I think you find it baseless because there's not yet been a provable essance to it - like science's views on the origins of life.

The assumption is baseless because the proponents started with another assumption - the existence of a single god - and attempted to marshal evidence to support that assumption. That stands the scientific method on its head. What ID does is stack assumption onto assumption like a Jenga game. The strongest explanations are the ones that involve as few assumptions as possible.

Originally Posted by This_person

I agree, it's not proof of either side (any of the religions nor science). It just continues to find scientific evidence in support of what was said thousands of years ago about the origins of the planet, lending credence to other claims.

First, the scientific theories about the universe's origin have some resemblance to many religion's myths. Genesis has no valid claim of specialness. Second, no modern scholars claim that the Trojan War grew from a dispute over which goddess was the fairest, even though there is evidence for the war itself. There's no reason to treat the Bible any differently. With any historical and cultural artifact, separating the supernatural claims from the historical claims is a necessity. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition.

Originally Posted by This_person

I agree, it does not prove it. It merely suggests that these are not just "stories" out of people's need to be told stories, but there is some truth to them.

I agree that these weren't merely exercises in storytelling. The likely origin is that these arose out of a desire to have explanations for natural events, before the development of the scientific method. This is even more obvious in the Greek and Norse myths.

[Tonio]

Originally Posted by Bustem' Down

Why can't people leave people to what they believe? I don't believe in God what so ever, but I don't try to make other believe that.

Excellent question. Despite the scientific points I've been making, I have little objection to the deist definition of a god as an unconscious first cause. My real issue is with the definition of a god as a moral agent, because that distorts the definition of morality into simple submission.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Tonio

What you mean by "significant"?

When one is faced with an unexplained event, saying something like "Oh, it must have been the work of gods" is a non-answer. That is like attempting to solve an algebra equation by making up values for X and Y.

You're putting things in opposite order. God provided the answer, not became the answer.

Some schools of Christian thought reject free will in favor of predestination. Both positions almost certainly rest on assumptions, although the latter seems to involve a few more. My point is that anyone can present any claim about the nature of supernatural beings and there is no way to test such claims.

We actually started this diversion with the worry that proving theistic claims would mean we have to follow a particular religion. I'm just saying we don't have to, just because we prove there is a God.

The assumption is baseless because the proponents started with another assumption - the existence of a single god - and attempted to marshal evidence to support that assumption. That stands the scientific method on its head.

But, isn't that basically what scientific testing does - take an unsubstantiated guess, and figure out a way to prove it, and perform tests that either tend to substantiate or disprove a postulation? In this case, the postulation is that there is an intelligence that designed everything we understand. Now, we just need to imagine and perform some tests which would tend to substantiate or disprove this.

What ID does is stack assumption onto assumption like a Jenga game. The strongest explanations are the ones that involve as few assumptions as possible.

And, that's why science has no answer - there are no reasonable assumptions to start from, and make claims about. So, the concept of lifelessness becoming life is ignored, and evolution is discussed as if it answers the question. It doesn't.

First, the scientific theories about the universe's origin have some resemblance to many religion's myths. Genesis has no valid claim of specialness.

Well, it kind of does. While the Sumarians had their Gilgamesh (sp?) with the same story 1,000 years earlier than Moses wrote it down, people know of Adam a lot more than Gilgamesh. And, the claims made many, many years ago are seeming to pan out as accurate (that's quite a feat for that long ago, don't you think?). So, it's a little special.

Second, no modern scholars claim that the Trojan War grew from a dispute over which goddess was the fairest, even though there is evidence for the war itself. There's no reason to treat the Bible any differently. With any historical and cultural artifact, separating the supernatural claims from the historical claims is a necessity. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition.

It's not all or nothing, I agree. And, that includes the supernatural claims. Some may be able to be believed as written.

I agree that these weren't merely exercises in storytelling. The likely origin is that these arose out of a desire to have explanations for natural events, before the development of the scientific method. This is even more obvious in the Greek and Norse myths.

I agree it's much more obvious in other religions and myths, as they aren't panning out as accurate.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Tonio

Excellent question. Despite the scientific points I've been making, I have little objection to the deist definition of a god as an unconscious first cause. My real issue is with the definition of a god as a moral agent, because that distorts the definition of morality into simple submission.

Why?

The submission would be because one agrees, or at least understands what's being taught.

God, in my view, teaches morals, and acts as final judge. However, there is such an enormous amount of grey area in moral questions, morals cannot be followed simply on a submissive basis. One must use their own thoughts and beliefs. God provides the outline to form those beliefs.

Religious people have no more right to judge than atheists on matters that are very grey like this. That's why God is the final judge - He knows where your heart is, not how well you can explain away your actions.

[Bustem' Down]

Originally Posted by Tonio

Excellent question. Despite the scientific points I've been making, I have little objection to the deist definition of a god as an unconscious first cause. My real issue is with the definition of a god as a moral agent, because that distorts the definition of morality into simple submission.

I both agree and disagree with that. While some religions past and present require submission, there are religions where that's not the case as evident with free will. I find that the submission has less to do with the deity andmore to do with the leaders of these churches. Per as an example, I wouldn't say that in the 1st Baptist church there is a required submission to God, but the Jim Jones cult, or that polygomist sect in Texas did require some kind of submission. There is a difference between obeying the laws of a god because you believe and want to, and being forced by a Human church leader to do so.