Originally posted by jaywillNot all evangalicals reject the notion of "ape-men". For example, in Genesis it says that God both created and formed man. This could mean that he slowly formed man from the dust of the earth over time via an evolutionary process and then breathed life in him once his creation was perfected. Once God breathed into Adam, man became what we know him to be today.
Where can I read about a fossil that conclusively proves without a shadow of doubt that it is of a creature that was part ape and part human?
There is no doubt that man is "different" from the rest of creation. This is a problem for atheistic evolutionists, not for those of faith. Whatever constitued the "breath" of God seperated man from the rest of creation.
Originally posted by jaywillThat's a non-starter.
Where can I read about a fossil that conclusively proves without a shadow of doubt that it is of a creature that was part ape and part human?
You can't find such a fossil.
The process of human evolution takes place very gradually over 5+ million years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1157536.stm
"The creature is said to be six million years old, double the age of the previous record holder, an australopithecine skeleton commonly referred to as Lucy.
The team said its hominid was more human than Lucy, with teeth close to those of modern humans and a strong femur, suggesting an ability to walk upright."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1055105.stm
[i]"French and Kenyan scientists have unearthed what they believe to be the oldest remains of a hominid, or ape-man, ever found.
Although the fossils themselves have not been dated, the rock in which they were discovered is known to be six million years old.
The Kenya Palaeontology Expedition (KPE) said body parts belonging to at least five individuals, both male and female, had been recovered.
These included an almost perfectly fossilised left femur showing the hominid had strong back legs which enabled it to walk upright - a characteristic which relates the creature directly to man."[i]
Originally posted by Squelchbelch+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That's a non-starter.
You can't find such a fossil.
The process of human evolution takes place very gradually over 5+ million years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1157536.stm
[i]"The creature is said to be six million years old, double the age of the previous record holder, an australopithecine skeleton commonly referred to as Lucy.
Th bled it to walk upright - a characteristic which relates the creature directly to man."[i]
"The creature is said to be six million years old, double the age of the previous record holder, an australopithecine skeleton commonly referred to as Lucy.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It sounds to me that the journalist who wrote that sentence is saying that such and such is alledged to be the case .. "The creature is said to be ..."
You must admit that the writer does not totally commit to one view or another. How about we be fair?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The team said its hominid was more human than Lucy, with teeth close to those of modern humans and a strong femur, suggesting an ability to walk upright."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here again the writer only reports what was said by the team. And the evidence is suggestive of something. The writer stops short of insisting that the evidence absolutely proves something.
Let's be sober minded and fair in these things.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"French and Kenyan scientists have unearthed what they believe to be the oldest remains of a hominid, or ape-man, ever found.
Although the fossils themselves have not been dated, the rock in which they were discovered is known to be six million years old.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here again the journalist reports to us what is believed to be the case of some scientists. - "unearthed what they believe to be ..."
Isn't that short of total commitment to a situation of known FACT?
" Non starter," I think, is not the appropriate discription of my caucious approach to the evidence you provide.
Rather what I see is room for speculation. So I speculate that maybe we don't have conclusive proof of ape - men.
There could be other reasons why a wise Creator would make animals similar looking to a human. If God wanted to cultivate an appreciation within man that he is almost but not quite like any other animal He might make some close to man but not the same.
So human are placed at the top of a pinnacle of creatures more and more like him yet not arriving at his uniqueness.
The evidence could be interpreted different ways. Some might see a gradual descent from other creatures over a long period of time. Others of faith in His word that He is the creator, might see that man is connected to all the other animals yet undeniably unique. He is unmistakenly in a class all his own.
I count this to be the wisdom of the Creator. Our connection to apes and other creatures keeps us humbly reaslizing we are another creature. Yet our uniqueness testifies that unlike any of the other beings we are made in the image of God as He has said.
Two eyes look at the same evidence and two hearts interpret differently the same evidence.
It is marvelous how God does not violate our will in deciding which we would rather believe.
Originally posted by jaywillYour post says a lot about the human capacity for making excuses.
There could be other reasons why a wise Creator would make animals similar looking to a human. If God wanted to cultivate an appreciation within man that he is almost but not quite like any other animal He might make some close to man but not the same.
So human are placed at the top of a pinnacle of creatures more and more like him yet not arriving at h ...[text shortened]...
It is marvelous how God does not violate our will in deciding which we would rather believe.
Originally posted by jaywillSince experience has shown that you are similarly disposed toward logic as you are toward evidence, I won't waste my time.
It's a far better rational then imagining millions of years of accidents turning lifeless gravel into a thinking, arguing and reasoning brain.
Here's a question and the subject may have been broached before.
Why do we hear about more than a few people who claimed that they are athiest all their lives, on their deathbeds or when they are near death, beg God for mercy and forgiveness?
Case in point, Madeline Murray O'Hare. Were they frauds all their life, claiming to not believe in God? Or did they have a epiphany?
One wonders.....
Originally posted by jaywillThe United States doesn't. That's why there's Home Schooling.
Do some human governments mandate the that all children in thier society be indoctrinated to believe we are have an relationship of descent with apes?
Do some government sanction only evolutionary descent of human beings from ape like progenitors?
I wonder if some countries need a constitutional philosophy of the seperation of Ape and State.