1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Evolution vs Creationism?

Discussion in 'The OT' started by bogi, Apr 24, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Apr 26, 2002 #41 of 163
    TNGTony

    TNGTony Hall Of Fame

    5,345
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Thanks Rich. I've been looking for references to this article that weren't from sites like http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/4232cen_s1997.asp[/url]

    As you see, that site has a clear-cut agenda and all the references in it point back to itself! :)

    Unfortunately Medline costs $150 to search they database so I'll pass on that. I'll keep looking for other articles.

    Thanks again.

    See ya
    Tony
     
  2. Apr 26, 2002 #42 of 163
    Rage

    Rage Fromer Member

    1,113
    0
    Aug 19, 2001
    Admin:

    Something weird has happened. I posted a reply to Tony and the post is now before his.
     
  3. Apr 26, 2002 #43 of 163
    Mark Lamutt

    Mark Lamutt Your Neighborhood Liasion

    12,527
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Hmm...I'm showing that you made your post 4 minutes before Tony made his last one. Are you sure you posted after he did?
     
  4. Apr 26, 2002 #44 of 163
    ken4kne

    ken4kne Legend

    117
    0
    Apr 19, 2002
    Tony, I've been busy. I haven't forgotten you.

    Just a bit of whimsy but I have a love for ancient literature. There was a study done by someone that (don't ask Tony :lol:) analysed a lot of the ancient literature out there that contained references to dragons. They postulated that these could well have been dinosaurs. I'm not trying to give legs to Rage's Loch Ness monster (which I'm not sure isn't a possibility) but it does make your imagination race.
     
  5. Apr 27, 2002 #45 of 163
    RJS1111111

    RJS1111111 Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    592
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    It's always amusing to hear true believers in evolution assert that there is plenty of evidence for evolution, and never actually get around to present any hard evidence whatsoever. It always makes the argument for evolution sound very weak to me.

    Then there is the further assertion that there is plenty of evidence against a young earth, but none is ever cited!

    I'd advise anyone with an open, inquiring, scientific mind to study the best arguments for both evolution and creation. Your conclusion should be just as valid as anyone else's.

    There was a religious orthodoxy of origins (creationism) which held sway for well over a millenium. There is now a materialistic orthodoxy of origins (evolutionism) which has held sway now for over a century, in spite of the continued lack of hard evidence.

    Only the starting assumptions about what "must" be true have changed. Science has declined into a terrible state of stagnation and decay as a result. We now seem to be capable only of focusing our technology on the exploitation of humanity, rather than its ennoblement and enlightenment. :shrug:
     
  6. Apr 27, 2002 #46 of 163
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Lack of hard evidence? How far back do you want to go? Do you need to have proof of a round earth? That the sun does not revolve around the earth? Just as these formally "solid" facts of science are now held in little regard, and heaven has not fallen, it is possible to believe in an old earth/universe and God will still exist. Fundamentalism does not have a lock on faith.
     
  7. Apr 27, 2002 #47 of 163
    bryan27

    bryan27 DBSTalk E* Spot Beam Guru

    443
    0
    Apr 1, 2002
    The ancient Incas had a concept that the universe was millions of years old, and the ancient people of India believed it was billions. Even duing the time of the library in Alexandria the people in the Middle East believed in an old Earth and had evidence that the world was round. However, this information was kept from the people duing the Dark Ages. Had the Dark Ages never occured can you imagine where we would be today if this information was not repressed.

    All major religions today save right-wing Christians believe in an Old Earth.
     
  8. Apr 27, 2002 #48 of 163
    RJS1111111

    RJS1111111 Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    592
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Horse-puckey. Cite your evidence. Otherwise, don't waste my time.
     
  9. Apr 27, 2002 #49 of 163
    Chris Freeland

    Chris Freeland Hall Of Fame

    1,660
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Right on brother, I can not hold my tong any longer. These two guys have bean going on and on with this baloney and no real facts to back them selves up. The ironic thing is that these two claim to be men of God, one a Rabbi and one a Protestant pastor, however they seam to place more trust into what man claims to be true rather then the word of God. Mans knowledge is constantly changing, the word of God has not changed.
     
  10. Apr 27, 2002 #50 of 163
    bryan27

    bryan27 DBSTalk E* Spot Beam Guru

    443
    0
    Apr 1, 2002
    If you would bother to to see what other religions teach you would know these things since you want evidence I shall give it!

    -------------------------------------------------- THE JEWISH VIEW OF AN OLD EARTH
    --------------------------------------------------
    Torah and Nature Published by Ohr Somayach

    Paleontologists assert that dinosaurs lived hundreds of millions of years ago, while the Jewish calendar sets the age of the universe at under 6000 years plus six creation days.

    Dinosaurs aren't a matter of belief. The fossils really exist; How one interprets these fossils is a different matter.

    It has been suggested that G-d placed fossils in the ground as a test of our faith. There are two main difficulties with this explanation.

    The first objection is that it's not a particularly good test. As we shall see, there is more than plenty of room for accepting the
    former existence of dinosaurs and the Divinity of Torah.

    The second objection is that, without being overly presumptuous about G-d's ways, everything that we know about Him tells us that He doesn't act that way. G-d does not create evidence against His Torah and ask us to blind ourselves to it with a leap of faith. Rather, He presents us with evidence for His existence, and preserves free will by implanting within us a powerful ability
    to ignore that which is inconvenient.

    This point is powerfully presented by Rav Elchanan Wasserman, zatzal. He raises the question of how a twelve year old girl or a thirteen year old boy can be commanded in the mitzvah of emunah, faith, which the brilliant Aristotle didn't even manage. His answer is that emunah just requires one to draw the logical conclusions from the evidence that surrounds us; if great minds slip up, that is because of personal agendas.

    Nature points towards G-d, not away from Him. We are told, "Lift your eyes upon high and perceive Who created these!"
    (Yeshayah 40:26); and that "The heavens speak of G-d's glory, and the sky tells of His handiwork!" (Tehillim 19:2).

    Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi, in his famous work the Kuzari (1:67), writes that "Heaven forbid that there should be anything in the Torah to contradict that which is manifest or proved." Likewise, Heaven forbid that there should be anything manifest or proved which would contradict anything in the Torah. If one is convinced that G-d wrote the Torah and created the world, then one should fear no scientific discovery. Conversely, if one is afraid of what the scientists will discover, then one is clearly not fully aware that everything discoverable was created by G-d.

    But doesn't the apparent age of the dinosaurs contradict the Torah? Well, to claim so, one would have to claim to understand what the Torah actually means with its account of Creation. But this raises many matters of interpretation; for example, how do you measure a "day" when the sun is only created on the fourth one? How do you determine the flow of time when it varies
    depending on how near you are to objects of large gravitational mass? Since we have so little understanding of these matters, how can dinosaurs frighten us?

    Far from being frightened by dinosaurs, Rabbi Yisrael Lifshitz, author of the Tiferet Yisrael commentary on the Mishna, received the news of fossil discoveries in the nineteenth century with delight. As he had undoubtedly expected, they confirmed everything that we knew all along. He writes:

    …As regards the past, Rabbi Abahu states at the beginning of Bereishet Rabbah that the words "and it was evening, and it was morning" (in the apparent absence of the sun) indicate that "there was a series of epochs before then; the Holy One created worlds and destroyed them, approving some and not others."

    The Kabbalists expanded upon this statement and revealed that this process is repeated seven times, each Shemita achieving greater perfection than the last…They also tell us that we are now in the midst of the fourth of these great cycles of perfection…[Editor's note: Interestingly, many paleontologists also consider there to have been four eras: the Precambrian, Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic.]

    We are enabled to appreciate to the full the wonderful accuracy of our Holy Torah when we see that this secret doctrine, handed down by word of mouth for so long, and revealed to us by the Sages of the Kabbalah many centuries ago, has been borne out in the clearest possible way by the science of our generation.

    The questing spirit of man, probing and delving into the recesses of the earth, in the Pyrenees, the Carpathians, the Rocky Mountains in America, and the Himalayas, has found them to be formed of mighty layers of rock lying upon one another in amazing and chaotic formations, explicable only in terms of revolutionary transformations of the earth's surface.

    Probing still further, deep below the earth's surface, geologists have found four distinct layers of rock, and between the layers fossilized remains of creatures. Those in the lower layers are of monstrous size and structure, while those in the higher layers are progressively smaller in size but incomparably more refined in structure and form.

    Furthermore, they found in Siberia in 1807, under the eternal ice of those regions, a monstrous type of elephant, some three or four times larger than those found today…

    Similarly, fossilized remains of sea creatures have been found within the recesses of the highest mountains, and scientists have calculated that of every 78 species found in the earth, 48 are species that are no longer found in our present epoch.

    We also know of the remains of an enormous creature found deep in the earth near Baltimore, seventeen feet long and eleven feet high. These have also been found in Europe, and have been given the name "mammoth." Another gigantic creature whose fossilized remains have been found is that which is called "Iguanadon," which stood fifteen feet high and measured ninety feet in length; from its internal structure, scientists have determined that it was herbivorous. Another creature is that which is called "Megalosaurus," which was slightly smaller than the Iguanodon, but which was meat-eating.

    From all this, we can see that all that the Kabbalists have told us for so many years about the repeated destruction and renewal of the earth has found clear confirmation in our time.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Basic Judaism Published by Bherman House

    The year number on the Jewish calendar represents the number of years since creation, calculated by
    adding up the ages of people in the Bible back to the time of creation. However, this does not necessarily mean that the universe has existed for only 5600 years as we understand years. Many
    Orthodox Jews will readily acknowledge that the first six "days" of creation are not necessarily
    24-hour days (indeed, a 24-hour day would be meaningless until the creation of the sun on the fourth "day").
    --------------------------------------------------

    You say you want more Okay here more!

    --------------------------------------------------
    Age of the Universe by Dr. Gerald Schroeder

    The question we're left with is, how long ago did the "beginning" occur? Was it, as the Bible might imply, 5700-plus years, or was it the 15 billions of years that's accepted by the scientific community?

    The first thing we have to understand is the origin of the Biblical calendar. The Jewish year is figured by adding up the generations since Adam. Additionally, there are six days leading up to the creation to Adam. These six days are significant as well.

    Of course, what the question would be is where we make the zero point. On Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year, we blow the Shofar three times during the Musaf service. Immediately upon blowing of the Shofar, the following sentence is said:

    "Hayom Harat Olam - today is the birthday of the world."

    This verse might imply that Rosh Hashana commemorates the creation of the universe. But it doesn't. Rosh Hashana does commemorate a creation, but not the creation of the universe. We blow the Shofar three times to commemorate the last of the three creations that occurs in the Six Days of Genesis. First, there's a creation of the entire universe and the laws of nature. Then on Day Five, there's a creation that brings us the Nefesh, the soul of animal life. Finally, at the end of Day Six, there's a further creation that brings us the Neshama, the soul of human life. Rosh Hashana
    commemorates not the first or second of the creations, but the creation of the Neshama, the soul of human life. Rosh Hashana falls right here. Which means that we start counting our 5700-plus
    years from the creation of the soul of Adam.

    We have a clock that begins with Adam, and the six days are separate from this clock. The Bible has two clocks.

    That might seem like a modern rationalization, if it were not for the fact that Talmudic commentaries 1500 years ago, bring this information down. In the Midrash (Vayikra Rabba 29:1), an expansion of the Talmud, all the Sages agree that Rosh Hashana commemorates the soul of Adam, and that the Six Days of Genesis are separate. Now 1500 years ago, when this information was first recorded, it wasn't because one of the Sages like Hillel was talking to his 10-year-old son who said, "Daddy, you can't
    believe it. We went to a museum today, and learned all about a billions-of-years-old universe," and Hillel says, "Oh, I better change the Bible, let's keep the six days separate." That wasn't what was
    happening.

    You have to put yourself in the mind frame of 1500 years ago, when people traveled by donkeys and we didn't have electricity or even zippers. Why were the Six Days taken out of the calendar? At the time, there was no need to make them separate.

    The reason they were taken out is because time is described differently in those Six Days of Genesis. "There was evening and morning" is an exotic, bizarre, unusual way of describing time.

    Once you come from Adam, the flow of time is totally in human terms. Adam and Eve live 130 years before having children! Seth lives 105 years before having children, etc. From Adam forward,
    the flow of time is totally human in concept. But prior to that time, it's an abstract concept: "Evening and morning." It's as if you're looking down on events from a viewpoint that is not intimately related to them.

    The Talmud (Chagiga, ch. 2) tells us that from the opening sentence of the Bible, through the beginning of Chapter Two, the entire text is given in parable form, a poem with a text and a subtext. Now, again, put yourself into the mindset of 1500 years ago, the time of the Talmud. Why would the Talmud think it was parable? You think that 1500 years ago they thought that G-d couldn't make it all in 6 days? It was a problem for them? We have a problem today with cosmology and scientific data. But 1500 years ago, what's the problem with 6 days? No problem.

    So when the Sages excluded these six days from the calendar, and said that the entire text is parable, it wasn't because they were trying to apologize away what they'd seen in the local museum. There was no local museum. No one was out there digging up ancient fossils. The fact is that a close reading of the text makes it clear that there's information hidden and folded into layers below the surface.

    The Talmud (Chagiga, ch. 2), in trying to understand the subtleties of Torah, analyzes the word "choshech." When the word "choshech" appears in Genesis 1:2, the Talmud explains that it
    means black fire, black energy, a kind of energy that is so powerful you can't even see it. Two verses later, in Genesis 1:4, the Talmud explains that the same word - "choshech" - means darkness, i.e. the absence of light.

    Other words as well are not to be understood by their common definitions. For example, "mayim" typically means water. But Maimonides says that in the original statements of creation, the
    word "mayim" may also mean the building blocks of the universe.

    A few years ago, I acquired a dinosaur fossil that was dated (by two radioactive decay chains) as 150 million years old. (If you visit me in Jerusalem, I'll be happy to show you the dinosaur fossil - the vertebra of a plesiosaurus.) So my 7-year-old daughter says, "Abba! Dinosaurs? How can there be dinosaurs 150 million years ago, when my Bible teacher says the world isn't even 6000 years old?" So I told her to look in Psalms 90:4. There, you'll find something quite amazing. King David says, "1000 years in Your (G-d's) sight are like a day that passes, a watch in the night." Perhaps time is different from the perspective of King David, than it is from the perspective of the Creator. Perhaps time is different.

    --------------------------------------------------
    I am tired of typing so you will just have to wait till tomorrow to see some things from other religions.
     
  11. Apr 27, 2002 #51 of 163
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Ok, real slow now, so even the fundamentalists can get it. 1000 years ago everyone in Europe "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe. The earth was flat. The sun, moon and stars all revolved around the flat earth. Everyone "knew" that the stars were tiny flames on a "dome" as described in Genesis 1. The religious leaders of the day were terribly threatened by people like Galileo, who asserted that the earth was not the center of the universe. That is was round, not flat, and that the earth revolved around the sun. The stars were suns themselves. They were threatened because they felt that it was very important that Man, God's crowning glory in all of creation, be at the center of the universe. If Man and the planet he dwealt on, were not at the center, then faith in God would somehow be shattered. Ok, we got over not being at the center of the universe, most of us anyway, at least until the mid to late 1800's when some theologians developed what they called the "fundamentals," things they felt you had to believe in order to be "saved." One of these was that creation took place in 6 24 hour periods of time. You know what, you don't have to believe in a flat earth to be a person of faith, or even a Christian. You don't even have to believe that God accomplished all of creation in 144 hours in order to be saved. You show me one place where Jesus said, "The kingdom of heaven is achieved by believing in a young earth." If you want to believe in a young earth, if your faith is so weak you have to believe in a young earth, be my guest. Just don't require my children to be taught such baloney, because my kids have got a faith that can handle a God who can take however long he or she wants to take to create this universe.
     
  12. Apr 27, 2002 #52 of 163
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Great post Bryan, I am glad you have more time to type than I do tonite.
     
  13. Apr 28, 2002 #53 of 163
    Chris Freeland

    Chris Freeland Hall Of Fame

    1,660
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    It is not scientific discovery that those of us who believe in a literal 6-day creation are afraid of. The big difference is in the interpretation of the scientific evidence that is out there. Those scientist that believe in a long evolutionary process tend to start out with the idea that there is no God and have there own pre-conceived notion of how things should be and if they discover something that contradicts one of their pre-conceived notions they throw it out. Why is this any better then the creation scientist viewpoint that starts out with the Biblical literal 6-day creation as they’re starting point? Country to what you and Bogi claim there are many scientific discoveries that can be explained quite logically from a creation science point of view, here is one good link www.answersingensis.org to one site. I do respect your view point I just do not agree with it, however I do have a lot of respect for the Jewish faith, after all Christianity had it’s beginnings Judaism. I do feel you are missing out on a beautiful relationship by not embarrassing Christ.:)
     
  14. Apr 28, 2002 #54 of 163
    Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,838
    186
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    Hypothesis:

    creation = evolution compressed
    evolution = creation expanded

    consider, disprove or accept. period.

    Nick :smoking:
     
  15. Apr 28, 2002 #55 of 163
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Chris, interesting site. I will look at it more when I have time, although it seems mostly concerned with selling me stuff. BTW, it helps if you spell Genesis correctly. www.answersingenesis.com works better. I really liked the "what more do I need when I have the Bible" page. Of course I don't need their suggestions, because my children all know that their faith does not depend on refuting and old earth viewpoint. They know that God created the universe, whether he took a second or a hundred billion years. They know that God is, was and ever shall be. That God is not limited by time as humans are, so a loving God tried to put creation into terms us poor humans could grasp, but that we don't need to be limited by the same lack of understanding that people five millenia were subject to, because a loving God gave us minds to grow and understand more and more as time went on. They have had the benefit of many fine teachers who were able to teach them evolution, and yet also communicated a love of God. They don't see the world in limitations of black and white, but they see the world with all the colors and shades of understanding that a marvelously creative God wanted to share with his creation. They aren't scared to take a leap of faith. They aren't threatened by narrowminded people, either those who are limited by not believing in God, or those who want to place limits on God, by only understanding God in certain strictly definded ways. In fact I have to admit that sometimes I marvel at how they are willing to take risks and stand up for what they believe. Their faith is strong. Must be their mother's influence. :lol:
     
  16. Apr 28, 2002 #56 of 163
    Chris Freeland

    Chris Freeland Hall Of Fame

    1,660
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Genesis does not teach anywhere that the earth was flat and that the earth revolves around the sun. Just because many believed this at one time does not mean that the book of Genesis teaches this. Your claim that the public schools are endanger of teaching only creationism is hogwash, the schools have done just the opposite over the last few years teaching evolution to the exclusion of creation science, why can’t both be taught? Are you afraid that your kids may find that creation science is more logical? I send my daughter to a Christian school and they teach both points of view, granted they are slanted toward creationism but hay, they are a Christian school. I am strong in my faith in Jesus Christ and my belief in the Genesis 6-day creation account. I do not judge your relationship with Christ, which is between you and God. I do have a hard time seeing the logic in how one can believe in both an evolutionary processes that took millions of years and still except God and the salvation of Christ. The Bible clearly states that before the fall their was no sin, before sin their was no death, without original sin and the result of death in this world it would not have been necessary for Christ to have come to this world to die for are sins. Your theology is not logical.
     
  17. Apr 28, 2002 #57 of 163
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Gen 1:6 God said, "I command a dome to separate the water above it from the water below it."
    Gen 1:7 And that's what happened. God made the dome
    Gen 1:8 and named it "Sky." Evening came and then morning--that was the second day.
    --Days three and four and then:
    Gen 1:14 God said, "I command lights to appear in the sky and to separate day from night and to show the time for seasons, special days, and years.
    Gen 1:15 I command them to shine on the earth." And that's what happened.
    Gen 1:16 God made two powerful lights, the brighter one to rule the day and the other to rule the night. He also made the stars.
    Gen 1:17 Then God put these lights in the sky to shine on the earth,
    Gen 1:18 to rule day and night, and to separate light from darkness. God looked at what he had done, and it was good.
    Gen 1:19 Evening came and then morning--that was the fourth day.

    See, you are so conditioned to accepting a round earth with an understanding of a sun that we go around and infinitely deep space, that you don't even recognize what the people of the Dark Ages saw as undeniable truth of a flat earth and a "Dome" named "Sky" that the stars and sun and moon were hung on as they rotated around the earth. There are several other passages that were interpreted as affirming a flat earth, but I do not have time to look them up right now. As far as your assertion that there is no danger of Creationism being the only acceptable explanation of the origin of life, you have evidently not heard of a place called Kansas, where it was only by the efforts of some very brave state school board members that both views are still being taught. And Chris, I am sorry, but I still do not see the necesity for the creation of the universe to have taken a strict 144 hours in order for me to receive salvation for my sins. What is sin? What was the "fall?" It is the decision to deny that God has your best interests at heart and striking out on your own. I don't need Adam and Eve to do that for me. I do it for myself over and over again. The story is my story, its your story. We all eat the fruit every day. The important thing is that God still loves us, died for us, and lives again for us, and we must love God in response. I can love God and still accept the possibility that God took 154 hours to create the universe instead of 144. Prove to me, show the passage, where Jesus says this is vital to salvation. This is commentary, these are passages to help us to understand our relationship with God, the universe God created and each other. Genesis 1 is not a test of faith.
     
  18. Apr 28, 2002 #58 of 163
    Rage

    Rage Fromer Member

    1,113
    0
    Aug 19, 2001
    Chris:

    "Genesis does not teach anywhere that the earth was flat and that the earth revolves around the sun. Just because many believed this at one time does not mean that the book of Genesis teaches this. Your claim that the public schools are endanger of teaching only creationism is hogwash, the schools have done just the opposite over the last few years teaching evolution to the exclusion of creation science, why can’t both be taught?"

    Becuase the beast hates the elect and hates the truth.

    "Are you afraid that your kids may find that creation science is more logical?"

    People note that this opposition comes from a self-proclaimed "preacher" 501c3 worker for God.

    "I send my daughter to a Christian school and they teach both points of view, granted they are slanted toward creationism but hay, they are a Christian school. I am strong in my faith in Jesus Christ and my belief in the Genesis 6-day creation account. I do not judge your relationship with Christ, which is between you and God."

    However the Lord does and he will burn in hell thus says the Lord.

    "I do have a hard time seeing the logic in how one can believe in both an evolutionary processes that took millions of years and still except God and the salvation of Christ."

    Not possible.

    "The Bible clearly states that before the fall their was no sin, before sin their was no death, without original sin and the result of death in this world it would not have been necessary for Christ to have come to this world to die for are sins. Your theology is not logical."

    That because his father is the devil and he will burn in the lake of fire with him thus says the Lord.
     
  19. Apr 28, 2002 #59 of 163
    TNGTony

    TNGTony Hall Of Fame

    5,345
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    First off...as I said before, saying "I believe in evolution" is not to be equated with "I believe in God." (which I do) "I believe in Evolution" is to be equated to "I believe the sky is blue."

    As to evidence...you could take a trip to your local library and read books beginning with Darwin's "Origin of the Species." There are piles of evidense available to research. The only "theory" remaining in the theory of evolution is the process and not its existance. Evolution is fact. Demonstrable. Provable to those that wish to see it. The process is still up for debate and there are many theories how early primates evolved into the modern great apes and humans.

    One of the most interesting theories about this is purely based on circumstancial evidense and is currently dismissed by most of the scientific community. But it's a cool theory anyway.

    There really is no "missing link". There is a fossil record of primates to proto humans to modern humans that can be examined. But there is a gap. We know for a fact (the proof is available in your public library--probably main branch-- in the science/biology section) that primates/proto human were in the African jungles about 5,000,000 years ago. And we know that 3,000,000 year old remains of early humans were found in the savana (desert-like for much of the year). The problem is that humans are very poorly adapted for life on the Savana. We sweat, have dilute urine (lots of water content), very moist dung, require much more water than any other land mammal. So what the heck were proro humans doing dorung the "missing" 2,000,000 years?

    This theory goes that what ended up being humans ended up on the eastern estuaries of Africa. The species became, over the millenia, semi-aquatic. The remaining evidense in modern humans is pretty interesting. Humans are the primate to have a layer of blubber over our entire bodies. Only aquatic and semi-aquatic mammals have this trait. We are the only primate with a "dive reflex". When a baby (newborn) is emersed in water, it will instinctively hold its breath. All other primates will continue breathing and drown. Also this reflex slows down heart beat to conserve oxygen. Humans are the only primate with a down-turned nose. This lends itseld to preventing water from entering the sinuses as much as say a gorilla. Humans are the only primate with partial webbing between our digits. Humans hair patterns have something to do with this too...we have more hair follicles per square inch than any other non-aquatic mammal.

    Again, this is one of the many theories of the "Theory" of evolution. That we got here from there is not the issue. Now we seek to know HOW we got from there to here.

    See ya
    Tony

    I did a quick search for those interested in reading more abot this. Here are a couple of sites that detail what is known as the "Aquatic Ape Theory"
    http://homepages.tesco.net/~sondela/AquaticMan.html
    http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5168/aat/leaflet.html
    http://www.gaialounge.com/aat/aat.html
    http://www.primate.wisc.edu/pin/aquatic.html
     
  20. Apr 28, 2002 #60 of 163
    RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    Huh!!! Today science is amassing knowledge at an incredible rate. Everything from the human genome to the makeup of the Cosmos is being investigated. Diseases that have plagued man for ages are now cured. We are even on the verge of curing many cancers (via the study of molecular evolution). I would hardly call this stagnation and decay. Your words do a great disservice to many dedicated researchers... plus they have no basis in fact.

    It is also important to separate "science" and "technolgoy". You seem to confuse the two. But even though technology is guilty of some exploitation, it is also responsible for the high standard of living we enjoy... as well as the ability to post opinions via the Internet. :lol:

    Teach, learn, or get out of the way!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page