TORAH and SCIENCE-----evolution and fossils
bubbles Posted - 21 August 2003 19:19
I know this question is probably going to sound ignorant to some people, but I am still in the process of learning about religious Judaism.
Anyway, I know that Judaism does not support the theory of evolution, and neither do I. I also know that no transitional fossils (that would have to exist in order for evolution to be true) have ever been found.
However, what about the fossils of early, "ape-like" humans? Homo habilus, homo erectus, etc? These fossils seem to clearly prove, and show, humans evolving from ape-like ancestors.
And what does Judaism say in order to explain the age of the dinosaurs? I would really be interested in your response.
MODERATOR Posted - 21 August 2003 19:48
First, even if semi-humanoid life forms existed, it does not prove in the slightest that they were our ancestors. Perhaps they existed, as ape-like mammals, with more similarity to humans that the apes with which we are familiar. Fine. But what says they are our ancestors? Nothing at all.
Second, there is no evidence at all that those fossils are indeed of ape-humans. They don’t even have proof that those creatures even existed. Any shred of a fossil that they find that gives them an opportunity to speculate about what kind of creature the fossil came from, they latch on to and built mountains out of molehills, and produce theories about what the creature was. This happens constantly:
Zinjanthropus Man, a humanoid race touted as being 600,000 years old based on "fossil evidence", was not even based on one body, or even an entire skull. They found one skull with the lower jaw missing. The skull was not found in one piece - it consisted of 400 fragments, found distributed among tons of debris and put together at the discretion of the people who stand to gain the most by such a "discovery". The entire episode was totally biased, and they still have zero evidence that this creature was anything but human, with, at most a perhaps slightly deformed skull.
And how do they know how old this creature was? Because of the fossils that they found in the same strata with his fossils. And how do they know how old those animals were? Because of the theory of evolution which says that such animals should be that old. There is no evidence of anything here - just theory and wishful thinking.
Every such "discovery" has had opposing scientists who declare them to be nothing. Java and Peking Man were declared by the prominent evolutionist Weidenrech to be plain humans, nothing more and nothing less.
E.E. Stanford, ("Man and the Living World") declared that Neanderthal Man lives with us today. IN "The Fossil Evidence for Human Evolution". W.E. LeGros Clark declares that Neanderthal Man existed at the same time with regular human beings.
All these types of ape-humans are nothing but apes or humans that can be seen among us today. At the
Procunsul Africanus, touted as the ancestor of "both apes and humans" was declared at that same convention to be nothing but a plain ape.
Java Man was represented by a skull cap, a left femur, a small piece of a jaw, and 3 teeth. Nothing more. And they were found not together but about 50 feet apart, over the span of a year, among many many other bones and debris. Based on this "evidence" they created an entire era in history. Later they found more skulls, more bones etc. Everything was the same as human remains except for the teeth, and evolutionists claim that those teeth are the teeth of a plain monkey.
Peking Man has nothing that cannot be found in normal men. Cro-Magnon Man was, evolutionists admit "fully developed" and intelligent as any man today. He was about 6 feet tall, with a regular forehead, full chin and large brain. he is no more proof of evolution than we are.
But do the math: Even according to the most stubborn and irrational evolutionists, for every single fossil of normal humans and apes that they find, they should be finding billions upon billions of in-between fossils. The steps between ape and human included tons of in-between creatures, and mutant creatures who were not fit for survival. Yet no such fossils have been found.
Even the little that they desperately squirm to concoct is pitifully useless compared to what should exist out there. Yet fossils of regular men and apes exist in abundance - in a bundance! - and only once in a blue moon do they even claim to find an in-between fossil. And incidentally, the fossils of normal men are found in the same strata as those of the "ancient" and prehistoric men. Go figure.
The fossil record is the biggest proof against evolution. Not that proof is needed - the entire idea is a baseless theory, the only reason they cling to it is because they have nothing better to cling to, if they don’t want to admit the obvious - that the world was created by G-d.
I would suggest, if you want this information in detail, to read Rabbi Avigdor Miller's Sing You Righteous and Awake My Glory.
jess Posted - 04 July 2006 12:11
Moderator, what about this?
Please read and share your thoughts, it's freaking me out....they claim to have found the key transition fossil we've all been looking for.... !
MODERATOR Posted - 04 July 2006 13:16
Well it’s not wonder the world isn’t hopping with this discovery, whose news is relegated to places like where you found it.
Read the article again, and separate the hype and the "this may be what were looking for" from the facts. They found a fish that can do some kind of pushup, had a mobile neck and "had lost the bony coverings of the gills that fish use to fan water to maximize their oxygen intake".
No evidence of lungs, nothing. "These suggest that the fish may have been at least partly air-breathing, like modern tetra pods", they say.
It "suggests the fish may have been". They have no evidence, but because this fish has these features, MAYBE this is what it means, they say. "Maybe", meaning why not make it another theory? But evidence that this thing was actually air breathing? Not there.
All he claims to have is a fish with some unusual characteristics. Even he doesn’t claim to have anything more. He says, he "now plans to return to
Good luck.
But it doesn’t matter, really. Because its not one single fossil they have to find, but tons --- there should be tons of them every step of the way between pond slime and human. It's not impressive to find a duck billed platypus or a dolphin or, well, a monkey, and say this is the missing link. They’ll have to do a lot better than this fish. Don’t expect this "discovery" to generate a lot of excitement even among evolutionists.
No comments:
Post a Comment