| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
07 Feb 2007 08:19:44 AM |
| Object: |
Our creationist cretins aren't alone in the world |
From The Associated Press, 2/6/07:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/06/kenya.fossildebate.ap/index.html
Ancient boy's skeleton sparks evolution debate
NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) --
Deep in the dusty, unlit corridors of Kenya's national museum, locked
away in a plain-looking cabinet, is one of mankind's oldest relics:
Turkana Boy, as he is known, the most complete skeleton of a
prehistoric human ever found.
But his first public display later this year is at the heart of a
growing storm -- one pitting scientists against Kenya's powerful and
popular evangelical Christian movement.
The debate over evolution vs. creationism -- once largely confined to
the United States -- has arrived in a country known as the cradle of
mankind.
"I did not evolve from Turkana Boy or anything like it," says Bishop
Boniface Adoyo, head of Kenya's 35 evangelical denominations, which he
claims have 10 million followers.
"These sorts of silly views are killing our faith."
He's calling on his flock to boycott the exhibition and has demanded
the museum relegate the fossil collection to a back room -- along with
some kind of notice saying evolution is not a fact but merely one of a
number of theories.
Against him is one of the planet's best-known fossil hunters, Richard
Leakey, whose team unearthed the bones at Nariokotome in West Turkana,
in the desolate, far northern reaches of Kenya in 1984.
"Whether the bishop likes it or not, Turkana Boy is a distant relation
of his," Leakey, who founded the museum's prehistory department, told
The Associated Press.
"The bishop is descended from the apes and these fossils tell how he
evolved."
Among the 160,000 fossils due to go on display is an imprint of a
lizard left in sedimentary rock, dating back 200 million years, at a
time when the Earth's continents were only beginning to separate.
Dinosaur fossils and a bone from an early human ancestor, dating back
7 million years, will also be on show along with the bones of
short-necked giraffes and elephants whose tusks protrude from their
lower jaws.
They provide the clearest and unrivaled record yet of evolution and
the origins of man, say scientists.
But the highlight will be the 5-foot-3 Turkana Boy, who died at age 12
and whose skeleton had been preserved in marshland before its
discovery.
It will form the center stage of the exhibition to be launched in July
following a $10.5 million renovation of the National Museums of Kenya,
financed by the European Union.
The EU says it has no concerns over the displays and that the museum
was free to exhibit what it wished.
Followers of creationism believe in the literal truth of the Genesis
account in the Bible that God created the world in six days.
Bishop Adoyo believes the world was created 12,000 years ago, with man
appearing 6,000 years later.
He says each biblical day was equivalent to 1,000 Earth years.
Adoyo's evangelical coalition is the only religious group voicing
concern about the exhibition.
Leakey fears the ideological spat may provoke an attack on the
priceless collection, one largely found during the 1920s by his
paleontologist parents, Louis and Mary Leakey, who passed their
fossil-hunting traditions on to him.
The museum, which attracts around 100,000 visitors a year, is taking
no chances.
Turkana Boy will be displayed in a private room, with limited access
and behind a glass screen with 24-hour closed-circuit TV.
Security guards will be at the entrance.
"There are issues about the security," said Dr. Emma Mbua, the head of
paleontology at the museum.
"These fossils are irreplaceable and we wouldn't want anything to
happen to them."
Insurance coverage could run into millions of dollars, she added.
Mbua, a Protestant, is a little taken aback at the controversy but has
no problems reconciling her own faith to the scientific evidence.
"Evolution is a fact," adds Mbua, who has run the department for the
last five years.
"Turkana Boy is our jewel," she said.
"For the first time, we will be taking him out of the strong room and
showing our heritage to the world."
_________________________________________________
"The argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as science
collapses on three major grounds: the creationists' need to invoke
miracles in order to compress the events of the earth's history into
the biblical span of a few thousand years; their unwillingness to
abandon claims clearly disproved, including the assertion that all
fossils are products of Noah's flood; and their reliance upon
distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to
characterize the ideas of their opponents."
Stephen Jay Gould
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "Scotius" |
|
| Title: Re: Our creationist cretins aren't alone in the world |
07 Feb 2007 08:56:51 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 14:19:44 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
From The Associated Press, 2/6/07:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/06/kenya.fossildebate.ap/index.html
"Our creationist cretins aren't alone in the world"
See the PBS documentary about the Biblical flood, and how NASA
proved that's the way it happened.
Ancient boy's skeleton sparks evolution debate
NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) --
Deep in the dusty, unlit corridors of Kenya's national museum, locked
away in a plain-looking cabinet, is one of mankind's oldest relics:
Turkana Boy, as he is known, the most complete skeleton of a
prehistoric human ever found.
But his first public display later this year is at the heart of a
growing storm -- one pitting scientists against Kenya's powerful and
popular evangelical Christian movement.
The debate over evolution vs. creationism -- once largely confined to
the United States -- has arrived in a country known as the cradle of
mankind.
"I did not evolve from Turkana Boy or anything like it," says Bishop
Boniface Adoyo, head of Kenya's 35 evangelical denominations, which he
claims have 10 million followers.
"These sorts of silly views are killing our faith."
He's calling on his flock to boycott the exhibition and has demanded
the museum relegate the fossil collection to a back room -- along with
some kind of notice saying evolution is not a fact but merely one of a
number of theories.
Against him is one of the planet's best-known fossil hunters, Richard
Leakey, whose team unearthed the bones at Nariokotome in West Turkana,
in the desolate, far northern reaches of Kenya in 1984.
"Whether the bishop likes it or not, Turkana Boy is a distant relation
of his," Leakey, who founded the museum's prehistory department, told
The Associated Press.
"The bishop is descended from the apes and these fossils tell how he
evolved."
Among the 160,000 fossils due to go on display is an imprint of a
lizard left in sedimentary rock, dating back 200 million years, at a
time when the Earth's continents were only beginning to separate.
Dinosaur fossils and a bone from an early human ancestor, dating back
7 million years, will also be on show along with the bones of
short-necked giraffes and elephants whose tusks protrude from their
lower jaws.
They provide the clearest and unrivaled record yet of evolution and
the origins of man, say scientists.
But the highlight will be the 5-foot-3 Turkana Boy, who died at age 12
and whose skeleton had been preserved in marshland before its
discovery.
It will form the center stage of the exhibition to be launched in July
following a $10.5 million renovation of the National Museums of Kenya,
financed by the European Union.
The EU says it has no concerns over the displays and that the museum
was free to exhibit what it wished.
Followers of creationism believe in the literal truth of the Genesis
account in the Bible that God created the world in six days.
Bishop Adoyo believes the world was created 12,000 years ago, with man
appearing 6,000 years later.
He says each biblical day was equivalent to 1,000 Earth years.
Adoyo's evangelical coalition is the only religious group voicing
concern about the exhibition.
Leakey fears the ideological spat may provoke an attack on the
priceless collection, one largely found during the 1920s by his
paleontologist parents, Louis and Mary Leakey, who passed their
fossil-hunting traditions on to him.
The museum, which attracts around 100,000 visitors a year, is taking
no chances.
Turkana Boy will be displayed in a private room, with limited access
and behind a glass screen with 24-hour closed-circuit TV.
Security guards will be at the entrance.
"There are issues about the security," said Dr. Emma Mbua, the head of
paleontology at the museum.
"These fossils are irreplaceable and we wouldn't want anything to
happen to them."
Insurance coverage could run into millions of dollars, she added.
Mbua, a Protestant, is a little taken aback at the controversy but has
no problems reconciling her own faith to the scientific evidence.
"Evolution is a fact," adds Mbua, who has run the department for the
last five years.
"Turkana Boy is our jewel," she said.
"For the first time, we will be taking him out of the strong room and
showing our heritage to the world."
_________________________________________________
"The argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as science
collapses on three major grounds: the creationists' need to invoke
miracles in order to compress the events of the earth's history into
the biblical span of a few thousand years; their unwillingness to
abandon claims clearly disproved, including the assertion that all
fossils are products of Noah's flood; and their reliance upon
distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to
characterize the ideas of their opponents."
Stephen Jay Gould
Harry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Fazemeier" |
|
| Title: Re: Our creationist cretins aren't alone in the world |
07 Feb 2007 09:24:11 PM |
|
|
"Scotius" <wolvzbro@mnsi.net> wrote in message
news:8a4ls25fe00pu21deknod6ivdus0pop8ag@4ax.com...
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 14:19:44 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
From The Associated Press, 2/6/07:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/06/kenya.fossildebate.ap/index.html
"Our creationist cretins aren't alone in the world"
See the PBS documentary about the Biblical flood, and how NASA
proved that's the way it happened.
That is like saying, "Hey, my grandpa done smoked since he was 10 and he
din't git no cancer!"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Our creationist cretins aren't alone in the world |
08 Feb 2007 11:04:00 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 21:56:51 -0500, Scotius <wolvzbro@mnsi.net> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 14:19:44 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
From The Associated Press, 2/6/07:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/06/kenya.fossildebate.ap/index.html
"Our creationist cretins aren't alone in the world"
See the PBS documentary about the Biblical flood, and how NASA
proved that's the way it happened.
So NASA's doc about a prehistoric catastrophic flood proves
creationism? And all the animals went marching two by two onto some
ark? Ummmm...nope! That there was a flood is probable. That man arose
fully formed in a fit of spontaneous generation is just silly.
WB Yeats
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scotius" |
|
| Title: Re: Our creationist cretins aren't alone in the world |
08 Feb 2007 06:26:51 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:04:00 GMT, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 21:56:51 -0500, Scotius <wolvzbro@mnsi.net> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 14:19:44 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
From The Associated Press, 2/6/07:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/06/kenya.fossildebate.ap/index.html
"Our creationist cretins aren't alone in the world"
See the PBS documentary about the Biblical flood, and how NASA
proved that's the way it happened.
So NASA's doc about a prehistoric catastrophic flood proves
creationism?
Genetic scientists have also proven that ALL mammals known
have two common ancestors, and that at some point there was a
catastrophe that caused this to be the case. They also say that the
genes must have been much broader before, and could survive such an
event, whereas they couldn't again.
And all the animals went marching two by two onto some
ark?
The Pentagon has a picture of the boat on top of Mt. Ararat
that is actually named "Noah's Ark".
Ummmm...nope! That there was a flood is probable. That man arose
fully formed in a fit of spontaneous generation is just silly.
What's silly is the idea that something comes from nothing; it
doesn't, and it isn't possible that it could. Every reputable
scientist would acknowledge that. The universe did not come into being
because it was "mathematically probable" that it would; there was no
mathematical probability before anything existed.
WB Yeats
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Our creationist cretins aren't alone in the world |
09 Feb 2007 10:28:03 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:26:51 -0500, Scotius <wolvzbro@mnsi.net> wrote:
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:04:00 GMT, wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 21:56:51 -0500, Scotius <wolvzbro@mnsi.net> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 14:19:44 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
From The Associated Press, 2/6/07:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/06/kenya.fossildebate.ap/index.html
"Our creationist cretins aren't alone in the world"
See the PBS documentary about the Biblical flood, and how NASA
proved that's the way it happened.
So NASA's doc about a prehistoric catastrophic flood proves
creationism?
Genetic scientists have also proven that ALL mammals known
have two common ancestors, and that at some point there was a
catastrophe that caused this to be the case. They also say that the
genes must have been much broader before, and could survive such an
event, whereas they couldn't again.
All this proves, if true, is a common ancestor and further proof of
evolution - not creationism.
And all the animals went marching two by two onto some
ark?
The Pentagon has a picture of the boat on top of Mt. Ararat
that is actually named "Noah's Ark".
But it ain't really Noah's Ark. Sort of like the Devil's Tower in
Wyoming. Don't bring any Bible stories to a discussion of evolution if
you wish to be taken seriously by anybody.
Ummmm...nope! That there was a flood is probable. That man arose
fully formed in a fit of spontaneous generation is just silly.
What's silly is the idea that something comes from nothing; it
doesn't, and it isn't possible that it could. Every reputable
scientist would acknowledge that. The universe did not come into being
because it was "mathematically probable" that it would; there was no
mathematical probability before anything existed.
In the beginning was the void, then the big bang, then the cooling,
then the emergence of life, and then the evolution of the different
species, then the evolution of man from one of the many anthropoid
species on earth. If God fits in there, please prove it. Kant
couldn't, and you can't. Belief is one thing, fact another.
WB Yeats
.
|
|
|
| User: "No" |
|
| Title: Re: Our creationist cretins aren't alone in the world |
11 Feb 2007 02:06:36 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 16:28:03 GMT, wrote:
In the beginning was the void,
OK.
then the big bang, then the cooling,
Where did the matter to fuel the big bank come from?
What from the void, cooled?
then the emergence of life, and then the evolution of the different
species, then the evolution of man from one of the many anthropoid
species on earth. If God fits in there, please prove it.
Lets see. Say the basic elements (that we know of) were formed and
existed somehow which, is not going to be part of this discussion as
it is assumed to preexist for simplicity. We know that we are made
up of many cells and moles that working together, to form our whole,
makes up each living entity, man, beast or plant. Each doing what it
must, as it is programmed and as how nature dictates. Like, each of
us is made up of virus and bacteria organisms which somehow, know how
to replicate it's original host as well as knows it needs a
complementary mate which is quite different to do so.
So here we are. To explain evolution from this stage is secondary to
the first precept which is where thoughts of a God or an intelligent
force is needed. Regard this thread subject. Evolutionist have yet
to explain the first precept. It could be said that some initial
chemical reactions combined two basic elements and found it
satisfactory until another was attached which continued till the first
form of life occurred but still, it's a stretch. Has man ever
combined elements to create a life form?
All life is a wonder yet, we kill, eat meat and plants. Most of us
relish the thought of our next great meal.
Kant
couldn't, and you can't. Belief is one thing, fact another.
WB Yeats
The more I know, the more I know - I don't know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Our creationist cretins aren't alone in the world |
11 Feb 2007 12:59:49 PM |
|
|
No <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 16:28:03 GMT, wrote:
In the beginning was the void,
then the big bang, then the cooling,
Where did the matter to fuel the big bank come from?
Are you asking a rhetorical question? Contemporary science has
already answered all of these questions -- which you can find
covered in just about any recent cosmology text book at your
local library.
---
Christian family values: http://la.indymedia.org/news/2007/02/193123.php
Scientology crime syndicate: http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/fishman/home.html
"I am not part of the problem. I am a Republican." - Dan Quayle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scotius" |
|
| Title: Re: Our creationist cretins aren't alone in the world |
13 Feb 2007 01:01:43 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:59:49 GMT, (Fredric L.
Rice) wrote:
No <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 16:28:03 GMT, wrote:
In the beginning was the void,
then the big bang, then the cooling,
Where did the matter to fuel the big bank come from?
Are you asking a rhetorical question? Contemporary science has
already answered all of these questions -- which you can find
covered in just about any recent cosmology text book at your
local library.
Ahhh... contemporary science has NOT answered these questions.
The best explanation I've heard wasn't one at all. The claim that the
universe came into being as a result of "mathematical probability" is
ridiculous. Before there was anything, there was no such thing as
probability anyway. The whole argument is insane; something does not
come from nothing, period. Is there anyone so stupid that they don't
understand that?
Anyway, if you want to argue the point, argue it with Stephen
Hawking, who is considered to be the World's most brilliant physicist,
by many. He says that if people can understand the fundamental forces
governing the smallest things that make up matter, that we might begin
to understand the mind of God. Deal with it. Conversely, you could go
to MIT or another prestigious university, become a very learned
physicist, get yourself a reputation exceeding that of Hawking's (not
gonna happen) and then insist the stupid things you normally do on
this newsgroup.
---
Christian family values: http://la.indymedia.org/news/2007/02/193123.php
Scientology crime syndicate: http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/fishman/home.html
"I am not part of the problem. I am a Republican." - Dan Quayle
.
|
|
|
| User: "WF Peifer" |
|
| Title: Re: Our creationist cretins aren't alone in the world |
13 Feb 2007 01:35:43 PM |
|
|
"Scotius" <wolvzbro@mnsi.net> wrote in message
news:ii24t25pl4m95fv8fh95sifmfrl0kf4knr@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:59:49 GMT, (Fredric L.
Rice) wrote:
No <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 16:28:03 GMT, wrote:
In the beginning was the void,
then the big bang, then the cooling,
Where did the matter to fuel the big bank come from?
Are you asking a rhetorical question? Contemporary science has
already answered all of these questions -- which you can find
covered in just about any recent cosmology text book at your
local library.
Ahhh... contemporary science has NOT answered these questions.
The best explanation I've heard wasn't one at all. The claim that the
universe came into being as a result of "mathematical probability" is
ridiculous. Before there was anything, there was no such thing as
probability anyway. The whole argument is insane; something does not
come from nothing, period. Is there anyone so stupid that they don't
understand that?
Sure! Christians, who believe something (their God) not only came from
nothing, but always existed. Now, THERE is an argument that's insane!
Anyway, if you want to argue the point, argue it with Stephen
Hawking, who is considered to be the World's most brilliant physicist,
by many. He says that if people can understand the fundamental forces
governing the smallest things that make up matter, that we might begin
to understand the mind of God. Deal with it.
Nice job of paraphrasing and taking Hawking's views completely out of
context. But if one WERE to try to "argue" the point with Hawking, it
wouldn't be much of an argument, inasmuch as Hawking has already explained
that his use of the word "God" was not a reference to the mythological
Judeo-Christian concept of God. And he goes on to elaborate (and I will
quote directly, rather than paraphrase as you did) "So long as the universe
had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is
really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither
beginning nor end, it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"
Hawking's argument is that if there is a creator who created the universe,
then logically someone or something would have had to create the creator.
Hawking's concept that the universe "would have neither beginning nor end"
goes beyond our abilities to conceptualize, but no more so than the concept
of a God who "would have neither beginning nor end".
Conversely, you could go
to MIT or another prestigious university, become a very learned
physicist, get yourself a reputation exceeding that of Hawking's (not
gonna happen) and then insist the stupid things you normally do on
this newsgroup.
Or, as in your case, one could just completely ignore all scientific fact
and accept dogma as if it were rock-solid, and then take the opinions of
learned people out of context to support your unsubstantiated beliefs.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gogarty" |
|
| Title: Re: Our creationist cretins aren't alone in the world |
13 Feb 2007 03:41:15 PM |
|
|
In article <ii24t25pl4m95fv8fh95sifmfrl0kf4knr@4ax.com>,
says...
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:59:49 GMT, (Fredric L.
Rice) wrote:
No <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 16:28:03 GMT, wrote:
In the beginning was the void,
then the big bang, then the cooling,
Where did the matter to fuel the big bank come from?
Are you asking a rhetorical question? Contemporary science has
already answered all of these questions -- which you can find
covered in just about any recent cosmology text book at your
local library.
Ahhh... contemporary science has NOT answered these questions.
The best explanation I've heard wasn't one at all. The claim that the
universe came into being as a result of "mathematical probability" is
ridiculous. Before there was anything, there was no such thing as
probability anyway. The whole argument is insane; something does not
come from nothing, period. Is there anyone so stupid that they don't
understand that?
Anyway, if you want to argue the point, argue it with Stephen
Hawking, who is considered to be the World's most brilliant physicist,
by many. He says that if people can understand the fundamental forces
governing the smallest things that make up matter, that we might begin
to understand the mind of God. Deal with it. Conversely, you could go
to MIT or another prestigious university, become a very learned
physicist, get yourself a reputation exceeding that of Hawking's (not
gonna happen) and then insist the stupid things you normally do on
this newsgroup.
I just finshed reading Hawking's book yesterday (A Brief History of Time). Too
many exclamation points! Tells us a lot about sub-atomic particles but doesn't
solve the problem.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Our creationist cretins aren't alone in the world |
11 Feb 2007 09:46:57 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 08:06:36 GMT, No <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 16:28:03 GMT, wrote:
In the beginning was the void,
OK.
then the big bang, then the cooling,
Where did the matter to fuel the big bank come from?
Good question. But you've got to prove the existence of a God before
you can attribute any of this to some supreme being.
What from the void, cooled?
Bang and then all sorts of stuff started floating around, joined up,
cooled, presto planets.
then the emergence of life, and then the evolution of the different
species, then the evolution of man from one of the many anthropoid
species on earth. If God fits in there, please prove it.
Lets see. Say the basic elements (that we know of) were formed and
existed somehow which, is not going to be part of this discussion as
it is assumed to preexist for simplicity. We know that we are made
up of many cells and moles that working together, to form our whole,
makes up each living entity, man, beast or plant. Each doing what it
must, as it is programmed and as how nature dictates. Like, each of
us is made up of virus and bacteria organisms which somehow, know how
to replicate it's original host as well as knows it needs a
complementary mate which is quite different to do so.
Okay, let's say that. You're wrong, but say it anyway. Ummm... free
will in Homo Sapiens.
So here we are. To explain evolution from this stage is secondary to
the first precept which is where thoughts of a God or an intelligent
force is needed. Regard this thread subject. Evolutionist have yet
to explain the first precept. It could be said that some initial
chemical reactions combined two basic elements and found it
satisfactory until another was attached which continued till the first
form of life occurred but still, it's a stretch. Has man ever
combined elements to create a life form?
Nobody has fully explained what events transpired to form the void -
so to speak. You cannot empirically prove the existence of a God -
only thru belief. Evolutionists aren't really interested in the
formation of the universe but in the emergence and evolution of life.
Darwin's theory is now accepted fact by most enlightened people. That
God made man in his image is not only untrue, it's so full of hubris
as to be plain silly. Man has not combined elements to form life,
nature has. Man has, however, created Gods as an answer to the
mysteries of life. I prefer the Greek Gods to the Xtian - they had a
sense of humor.
Kant couldn't, and you can't. Belief is one thing, fact another.
The more I know, the more I know - I don't know.
That fairly evident.
WB Yeats
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|