Jan 12
‘Missing Link’ found in SA
Apparently the missing link has be found… again… this time in South Africa (though I think South Africa’s quite a hot spot for missing links). The news article goes a little something like this:
A prehistoric human skull from the Eastern Cape has provided a vital “missing link” in the fossil record which shows that modern people originally came from sub-Saharan Africa and migrated to colonise Europe and Asia around 30 000 to 40 000 years ago.
The 36 000-year-old Hofmeyr skull, named after the Karoo town where it was found, shows that people living in Africa at that time looked the same as people living in Europe then.
This critical piece of evidence, which is published in the journal Science on Friday, corroborates genetic evidence about the African origins of modern humans. It is the first fossil evidence to support the “out of Africa” theory, which holds that all modern humans evolved in Africa and then migrated to Europe and Asia.
Alan Morris of UCT’s department of human biology, was part of an international team, led by Frederick Grine of Stony Brook University in New York, that studied the skull.
“The skull is probably male and is completely modern. If he sat down next to you on the Sea Point bus you would not react, apart from wondering where he came from. He would not look like modern Africans or like modern Europeans, or like modern Khoisan people, but he is definitely a modern human being,” Morris said.
The skull was found decades ago, but was dated only recently. It was found in an erosion gulley in the mid-1950s near Hofmeyr, 70km north-east of Cradock.
Morris, who first saw the skull in the Port Elizabeth Museum in the 1990s, showed it to Grine a couple of years ago. Grine had it dated by a method developed by Richard Bailey of Oxford University.
Grine said in a statement that the field of anthropology was known for its hotly contested debates. One which had raged for years concerned the evolutionary origin of modern people. A number of genetic studies of living people indicated that modern humans had evolved in Africa and moved to Europe and Asia between 65 000 and 25 000 years ago to colonise these continents.
But he said other DNA tests argued against this Africa origin and exodus model.
DNA tests argued against this Africa origin and exodus model
“Instead they suggested that archaic, non-African people, such as the Neanderthals of Europe, made significant contributions to the genomes of modern humans in Europe and Asia. Until now, the lack of fossil evidence from sub-Saharan Africa has meant that two competing genetic models of human evolution could not be tested by palaeontological evidence. The skull from Hofmeyr has changed that,” he said.
Once the skull had been dated in Oxford, it was studied by other members of the team at the Max Planck Institute in Germany. The scientists there had expected the Hofmeyr skull to have close resemblances to the Khoisan, because they are represented in the recent archaeological record in South Africa.
Instead, the Hofmeyr fossil was found to have a very close affinity with the fossil skulls of Europeans of the Upper Palaeolithic, and is quite distinct from Khoisan specimens.
Grine said the evidence from the Hofmeyr skull agreed with the “out of Africa” genetic theory, which predicted that humans similar to those who lived in Europe and Asia around 36 000 years ago, would also be found in sub-Saharan Africa during the same period.
The Hofmeyr skull from the Karoo provides the first fossil evidence to support this prediction.
I tried to scan in the article from the newspaper, but the pages were too big for the scanner so I’ve had to try and patch them together as best as possible, and the quality’s not great, but here they are:
Newspaper article 1
Newspaper article 2
I find it somewhat interesting that they say we wouldn’t have been alarmed to see him sitting next to us on the bus. Surely in 30 thousand years things should have to change a little, and he would be noticeably different? And why wasn’t the skull dated until now? And how do we know the specimen hasn’t been contaminated or tampered with. Considering the world’s been so desperately searching for “the missing link” all this time, surely someone would’ve wanted the fame and come forward sooner? Or was it perhaps dated previously, and it didn’t yield any juicy results so was put back into its box until someone discovered another dating method that would tell them what they wanted to hear. Why do they only use one dating method?
Let’s recap… we’ve got a skull which looks the same as “modern human” skull would, found some 50 years ago, supposedly sticking out of a deep erosion gully, which has been sitting in a museum until the 1990s, and some dating method says that it’s thousands of years old. Just “what if” the guy who found it bent the truth, and instead of “sticking out” it was just lying there? Yeh, nice hard evidence we’ve got going here - let’s see if it would hold up in court, but some how it’s all “science” (say “oooh, aaah” and act amazed).
Caught in a flash flood (second scanned in page), what a co-incidence, my bible mentions a flood a few thousand years back. It “could not be carbon dated” because “carbon had leached out of the bone”… well this is the first I’ve heard of this, and if carbon can “leach out of bones”, couldn’t this affect other bones that have been carbon dated? Can’t anything be carbon dated, I mean technically? It just wont return an answer, or a valid one, if their’s no carbon?
They couldn’t even find the gully where the skull was said to be found, because it had since been eroded so badly, and only one scientist went to see it! As for the dating method, Wikipedia says “Ages can be determined typically from a few hundred years to 100,000 years, and can be reliable when suitable methods are used and proper checks are done” - what do they mean CAN BE reliable? Shouldn’t they ALWAYS be reliable? If you don’t know how old something is, to start with, how do you know when you’ve used the “suitable methods” to calculate it’s age correctly? Why are there “suitable methods”, not THE method? “Crucial to the optical dating method is that there was adequate daylight exposure to the mineral grains before they were buried” - and what if there wasn’t adequate daylight exposure, in this case?
Sounds far more like a theory, than any scientific proof of anything, to me.
read more about me at http://www.socialoutcast.net
15 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Yo dude, awesome article, really.
People are jumping and grabbing at anything that even smells like a missing link now-a-days, just so that they don’t have to think about the “other” option. ie, realizing the earth is a young earth and that it just maybe God really does exist.
I have this theory on scientist and evolution etc. All they do is come up with as much evidence as possible and just throw it all into there little evidence box. Even though most of the evidence has been disproven , they still keep it in there just to make the box look fuller than it really is, and of course to confuse the hell out of anyone who actually tries to work through all that junk..
So I’d say, lets drop this evolution stuff, until SOME REAL evidence has been found, and I’ll give you a hint that might save you some time. Evolution never happened, there never will be REAL evidence..
THE ‘MISSING LINK’ IS NOTHING TO DO WITH HUMAN SKULLS.
The term came into popularity as part of an anti-Darwinian argument that posited that if animals and people came about as the result of gradual evolution, then somewhere we should be able to find the fossil of something that is halfway between a land-animal and a bird. Like a skinny girl with little chicken wings, say.
The guy who posted the last comment is a total n00b.
The missing link is pretty much the basis of the proof of Darwinism,
without it there’s no proof evolution took place. I’m guessing a skull would be required to prove a full human evolution from ape to man?
The comment poster above thinks he is a real stud ><
This is addressed to both the ‘Ultra-LOrd’ and the ‘Mumbling Christian’:
how can you be so confident in your views when you seemingly understand so little of the process of evolution, geological dating methods or the philosophy/approach of science? Shouldn’t you find out something about each of these before holding such strong beliefs? Some vague opinion, maybe, but surely nothing with any substantial weight or genuinely solid foundation.
Science is about deciding which of several competing hypotheses is the best. Nothing can be proved by science, or anything else for that matter. It is however, a wonderfully powerful method of deciding which of several competing ideas (hypotheses) is better. A better hypothesis is one which can be tested, with the possibility of being shown to be wrong, and which comes out better than another, because it explains more and fits the evidence better. To be ’scientific’, an idea must have the potential to be shown to be wrong. This is all science is - a very careful process or method for showing which theory is better than another. No good scientist will ever claim to have proved anything (excluding mathematics, where logical proofs can exist).
Do not, however, fall in to the trap of thinking just because one theory/hypothesis cannot be proven beyond doubt, that another idea/theory necessarily deserves an equal footing. We can predict the approximate makeup (from a chemical point of view) and likely mass of planets orbiting other stars (for example, that they are likely to have metallic cores, as our planet does). We cannot prove that there is not a planet on the other side of our galaxy which is not made of cheese. This doesn’t mean that the metallic and cheese hypotheses are equally valid. There is good reason to believe the metal one, but the cheese one is entirely made up and without any foundation - other than that I just thought of it.
Do you get my point?
Darwinian evolution does not rest on finding a missing link. This is simply wrong - an idea that is at least 100 years out of date. Evolution can be observed (e.g. the observable mutation of viruses and bacteria, or the speciation of plants/animals over relatively short timescales in island ecosystems) and is extremely hard to argue against.
Scientists (good ones, at least) do not allow themselves to fall for sloppy logic, or to say unfounded things. You can be sure that if carbon leaching was a serious problem in carbon dating (and it is not, by the way), then it would have been studied exhaustively. Experiments would have leached carbon on purpose to observe the effects, etc, etc.
The results from luminescence dating do not depend in any way on what the practitioner is expecting. 100x less light than expected would not make the date 100x younger. This is just simply wrong. Your scenario would actually increase the apparent age of the skull. But again, don’t you think the people who spend their time doing this kind of thing would have thought of this? They have.
Those involved in science do ‘throw all the evidence in to a box’, but they don’t pretend things are different to how they see them, just because they want them to be. The box is clear and the evidence is looked at many times by very many people, who are trying very hard to figure out if there is anything wrong with how they see things. This is the difference between people who have strong views and people who have taken the time to understand something in detail and then have views, but not ones which are utterly static and unchanging in the light of new evidence.
If I was allowed to give advice, I would suggest:
1. As much as possible, to try not to decide what you think before you look (carefully and knowledgeably) at the evidence;
2. Don’t make up cheese stories to explain either what you personally don’t understand or what cannot be ‘proven’.
Micky: I wrote the article, and I believe Ultra-LOrd’s comment your talking about is actually based on a discussion he and I had, and he’s basically posted what I was saying, so I feel I need to answer for both.
After starting to type up a lengthy reply, I’ve decided to just leave it at:
My comment about “the missing link” being the proof for it is out of context, more correctly “the missing link is the proof needed for the claim that we evolved from apes”.
I see two major problems with the dating method used:
1) what if sand that has been exposed to sunlight gets mixed with sand that hasn’t been exposed with sunlight (or sand that’s had different amounts of exposure) - such as what a flood might just do (mentioned in the news article)
2) they dated the skull, based on the age of the sand? Take a human skull, pour some old sand into it. Does that magically make the skull as old as the sand? Me thinks not. Or take a brand new glass, pour some 100 year old wine into it - does that make the glass 100 years old?
I’m sorry I haven’t been able to give your comment the time and response it deserves.
Ross.
Thank you for your reply.
It simply is not the case that a ‘missing link’ is needed in order to validate the theory that humans have evolved very slowly over a very long time. There is ample evidence of evolutionary change of many different organisms in the fossil record, and a wide range of very elegant studies on genetics which provide very strong support for the existence of evolution. It really is just one of those things, like the existence of gravity, which we should be debating the fine details of, but surely not the existence of. The argument was conclusively won many decades ago. Pretending evolution does not happen is like pretending that the sun is switched off at nigh time.
Further, there are NO convincing arguments that geological time is limited to several thousand years or less. It simply does not make sense based on a vast body of evidence gathered by very clever careful people over the last century or so. Of course, as with planets made of cheese, it is possible to dream up any number of alternative hypotheses (and often quite good fun!), but in order for them to be taken seriously, they must have some solid foundation. Otherwise they are no more than fairy tales. If we follow this route, we must choose to abandon reason. Once we abandon reason then ANYTHING is allowed and we can no longer hope to understand anything properly - and worse than this, we allow ourselves to believe things because we are told they are true, rather than taking time to think about them and perhaps find out for ourselves.
To address your two comments:
1. I have looked in to this. There are several methods which can be used to tell if mixing of grains has happened. One involves deriving dates from individual sand grains, which is pretty clever. If a wide variation in ages is observed, then it is clear that the dating cannot be trusted. This is often how things are in empirical sciences - it can sometimes be relatively straightforward to spot if something is wrong. Rather than a criticism, this is a very positive thing, because it is possible to tell if the results are meaningless.
2. I have looked in to this too. When sand is transported it takes only several seconds for the OSL signals to be set back to zero. In studies of modern age samples, dates of several years are typically found, showing that resetting is not a problem. Further, when single grains are looked at, it has always been found that at least some of the grains are reset properly. It is simply is not possible that none of the grains from the skull would have been exposed to light for a few seconds. Therefore, if the individual dates they got generally agree (and they do), then there is no evidence of a problem.
In other studies which have used OSL to date early humans, samples of windblown sand have been dated. The transport time of windblown sand would make it impossible for any residual signals to survive - i.e. there is no reason to doubt the dates (e.g. 65,000 years for early human occupation in Australia).
M.
Thank you for your reply.
It simply is not the case that a ‘missing link’ is needed in order to validate the theory that humans have evolved very slowly over a very long time. There is ample evidence of evolutionary change of many different organisms in the fossil record, and a wide range of very elegant studies on genetics which provide very strong support for the existence of evolution. It really is just one of those things, like the existence of gravity, which we should be debating the fine details of, but surely not the existence of. The argument was conclusively won many decades ago. Pretending evolution does not happen is like pretending that the sun is switched off at nigh time.
Further, there are NO convincing arguments that geological time is limited to several thousand years or less. It simply does not make sense based on a vast body of evidence gathered by very clever careful people over the last century or so. Of course, as with planets made of cheese, it is possible to dream up any number of alternative hypotheses (and often quite good fun!), but in order for them to be taken seriously, they must have some solid foundation. Otherwise they are no more than fairy tales. If we follow this route, we must choose to abandon reason. Once we abandon reason then ANYTHING is allowed and we can no longer hope to understand anything properly - and worse than this, we allow ourselves to believe things because we are told they are true, rather than taking time to think about them and perhaps find out for ourselves.
To address your two comments:
1. I have looked in to this. There are several methods which can be used to tell if mixing of grains has happened. One involves deriving dates from individual sand grains, which is pretty clever. If a wide variation in ages is observed, then it is clear that the dating cannot be trusted. This is often how things are in empirical sciences - it can sometimes be relatively straightforward to spot if something is wrong. Rather than a criticism, this is a very positive thing, because it is possible to tell if the results are meaningless.
2. I have looked in to this too. When sand is transported it takes only several seconds for the OSL signals to be set back to zero. In studies of modern age samples, dates of several years are typically found, showing that resetting is not a problem. Further, when single grains are looked at, it has always been found that at least some of the grains are reset properly. It is simply is not possible that none of the grains from the skull would have been exposed to light for a few seconds. Therefore, if the individual dates they got generally agree (and they do), then there is no evidence of a problem.
In other studies which have used OSL to date early humans, samples of windblown sand have been dated. The transport time of windblown sand would make it impossible for any residual signals to survive - i.e. there is no reason to doubt the dates (e.g. 65,000 years for early human occupation in Australia).
Your statement (about the carbon leaching) that “it would have been studied exhaustively” has been bugging me. I’d just like to point out that many a time scientists have based their studies and theories on someone else’s work without first ensuring that it’s accurate, and there have been enough cases of scientists submitting fraudulent work - enough to make me a skeptic I’m afraid.
Seriously though, think about it… when last did you hear about “carbon leaching”? Did they even think about it way back when they first started digging up dinosaur bones? Have they even tried any newer dating methods on them old bones they dug up?
I’m not sure how solidly, or tightly packed, the sand in the skull was… but keep in mind the skull’s been handled and passed around for the last 50 years - I’d say there’s a fairly decent chance of contamination (ie: exposure to sunlight, or loss/movement/replacement of soil). But then again I’m sure they’ve already thought of this, and I’m probably just being technical and overly complicated - they have the answer they were looking for, and they’ve made it sound scientific enough, no more work, tests, or experiments needed - we have the facts, case close. Or not
At the end of the day, it’s some old guy, who found a human skull that looks just like any other modern skull, that he claims he found in the ground, with sand in need of a tan inside - and that’s proof we came from monkeys. Amen brother.
In answer to each of your points:
1. Being a skeptic is good.It means that you question everything and don’t take things at face value. Do you apply this approach to everything?! Clearly not.
2. Just because YOU haven’t heard of something, doesn’t mean it’s not a common phenomenon. This is an example of very poor logic.
If you apply carbon dating to dinosaur bones you don’t get a meaningful age. Not because they are actually young, but because there’s no radiocarbon left anymore, because they are so old. A good way to think about it is that radiocarbon dating is like measuring how much water is left in a container. After a while, half of it has evaporated - because we know the evaporation rate we can say how long it’s been there. After a really long time, there’s no water left because it’s all evaporated. So measuring the water left (i.e. measuring the radiocarbon left in a very old bone), will give you an answer of zero water (zero radiocarbon) - i.e. very old. This is what happens when you measure dinosaurs with radiocarbon.
Dinosaur bones are dated methods such as Argon-dating (where the ‘water’ evaporates very slowly). The dates for the extinction of the dinosaurs routinely come out at about 65 million years. There is no good reason to doubt that this is correct. If there is, please tell me. (other than that if you interpret the Bible literally)
3. It would be relatively easy to tell if the grains had been recently exposed to light. It says in the paper that the grains were held firm by carbonate in the skull. Light could therefore not have got in. Simple. Trust me, you’re not being overly technical…. Have you actually read the section where the dating methods are described?
4. It doesn’t look like any other skull. Only to someone who knows nothing about skulls, sorry. No, that’s not proof we came from monkeys. It’s consistent with studies of genetics which say we had a common ancestor about 50,000 years ago. Read my first comments, regarding proof in science.
I’d be very interested to hear your comments on all of the things I’ve written. It’s a good debate to have. My views are very clearly different, so please explain to me why you disagree. I find it extremely difficult to understand how you can hold such views about evolution, the age of the Earth, etc., when there is so much evidence - really an overwhelming amount of evidence, gathered from many different and independent methods - which supports the view that the Earth is at least 4 billion years old. Cultural and emotional bonds towards religions are clearly very strong but can they completely overwhelm reason?
To me, believing the view that we were made in our present form by a supernatural being - just because it says so in a book that was written by many different people, over a great length of time, was selectively edited along the way, incorporated all kinds of local myths and legends and mostly was written in a time when virtually nothing was understood about the way the physical world worked - just doesn’t make sense.
One final thought…. in an earlier comment you said that the skull could seem older if it had had old sediment put in to it (old wine in a young glass, I think). We, logically, entirely possible. BUT, if the Earth is 6,000 years old, how come there is 36,000 year old sediment on it to be filling a skull with?
Just one more thought…. if you do choose to have Christian beliefs, why are these necessarily inconsistent with scientific views? Couldn’t a god have created the universe and then allowed it to evolve? How can you explain the abundant fossils that are found in rocks which show a very clear change in form of lots of different creatures? (i.e. lots of different versions of creatures have existed, which don’t exist today). What IS this, if it’s not evolution? Can you give ANY other reasonable explanation?
Surely those who believe in creationism are simply choosing to ignore the evidence. But I don’t see why this has to be the case. Can you explain?
I’d like to hear your response to my previous comments though, so please don’t get stuck on this one!
I really do look forward to reading what you have to say…..
Hi Micky,
You’re really not making this easy for me - I promised myself I wouldn’t get into anymore evolution vs creationism “debates”
I believe people on both side of the “debate” to be biased, each having their own reason for being so, and can’t (easily) see or accept the other person’s reasoning. I’ll also openly admit you’ve probably studied topics related to all these questions far more than I have, and so are probably already the “winner” of said debate. But here goes….
1. Once upon a time I was a skeptic, honestly, I couldn’t understand why Christians were so stupid they couldn’t see that a “big bang” (as in the theory of) would probably have lead to light (as in “let there be”), or why “science and religion can’t get along” - I thought they were ignorant, stuck up, wackos. Then one day I became one - ironic wouldn’t you say. I used to hate Christians, and church, with their contradictory denominations and varying beliefs - my Catholic girlfriend and I had a good number of fights (prior to me becoming a Christian) about the things they do, and how no-one really knows why, especially when they’re the opposite of the bible. I wish I could tell you, and everyone else in my life that doesn’t understand how and why I changed, but I can’t. I think the best I can do - which I admit probably sounds as un-scientific, illogical, and crazy as possible - is tell you that “God spoke to me”. Crazy huh? For what it’s worth, I really didn’t want to believe it was God. I was not in a place to believe in God - certainly not God of the bible. Like I said, I wish I could explain it, but I can’t - and I realise you can’t accept/understand that, and why. I’ve become so sure of things I used to be skeptical (even un-believing) about, and I can’t not be.
2. I understand why carbon dating isn’t usable beyond 10,000 years (or whatever the exact duration is), due to it’s half-life, making argon-dating a far more viable option. My skepticism here is, how do we measure such a HUGE half life? What’s the longest we’ve measured something for? 100 years? We’re assuming that the rate of change (or decay) is constant, by measuring what, 1% of it’s half-life? I realise this fairly logical, and we can measure things with much shorter half-lives and possibly see them to be constant, but do we really “know” that the half-life of carbon is 10,000 years (or whatever the exact value is), have we watched and measured it, or calculate and theorized it? Do we know what conditions “back then” were like, and how they may have affected said element’s half-life (heat, other chemicals/elements, etc), or even what the starting concentration. Just because a container is only half full of water, evaporating at 1 drop per second, doesn’t mean the container was ever full of water - so calculating how many seconds might have passed, causing it to be half full, would be theory not fact. And we’re once again ignoring that the rate of evaporation might have changed during how ever long said container has had water in it (such as the temperature would vary in a day, from morning to night). There is no reason for me to believe those dates are correct. I will agree that mathematically, and logically, they may make sense, but without proof that the assumptions are correct, I can’t take the answers to be correct.
As for interpreting the bible literally, this is a bit of a touchy subject with Christians and non-Christians. I don’t take the bible literally because my family or friends (pretty much non believers) tell me to, or because my church leaders do (in fact I’ve actually “debated” exactly this with some of them - seems Genesis is just “a story”, man that a whole other debate right there). I take the bible literally, because I believe (yup, more craziness) God told me. Not in “thou shalt believe-eth Genesis-eth”, more of a “hey God, this sucks, you barge into my life, I’m supposed to read and believe in your bible, but then I’m told some of it’s nothing more than stories - well who gets to decide? how do I know what is an what isn’t? this is stupid. If I don’t have to take some of this literally, why do I have to take any of it literally?” (I realize some books are poems, some books are stories, and some are visions - personally I feel these are fairly obvious, unlink Genesis which appears to be recorded in a pretty obvious “factual” way) - I feel He’s guided me through that, explaining that the bible’s far simple than HolyPoly people like to make it, bending it for their own needs - it’s all there, in black and white (though also in red, in some bibles) for anyone to read, understand, and know. Round about now I’ve got Christians and non-believers angry or laughing at, and disagreeing with, me. I don’t blame you if you laugh at this, or doubt my mental stability - if I were where I was two years ago, I certainly would!
3. Probably didn’t read it as well as I should/could have… my apologie.
4. I was under the impression that we wouldn’t notice anything un-usual if the owner of the skull were alive and sitting next to us on a bus. Given the variety of head (and thus skull) shapes in humans today, I’d imagine it has to be rather different from the “average”, for it to be a significant enough difference (then again, I know very little about the shape of the human skull, and these are purely my own assumptions).
As I said above, I don’t think we can fully understand or appreciate each other’s views. I don’t blame you for regarding things as true and accurate, but I feel you maybe don’t question them as much as you should - I’m not saying that’s wrong, just what I’d imagine to be natural, as you don’t see anything out of order or wrong in any of it. I would have to say that in a sense my “emotional bonds towards (my) religion” have overwhelmed my reasoning (suppose means I admitting to being ignorant, illogical, and just plain dumb), but I don’t feel I have a choice given what I’ve “experienced”/”felt” (yup, more crazy religious mumbo jumbo).
I’m tempted to defend your comments about the bible being selectively editted, incorporating myths and legends, but that’s ALSO another debate entirely. As I’ve kinda said, I don’t believe what I do just because it’s written in a book that people like to quote from, while standing in front of large crowds of people.
If the 36,000 year old sand has been around (and never exposed to sunlight after day 1) since there was sand, then 36,000 years is still way closer to “my 6,000 years” than millions of years we’re told the earth is old. Besides, I still doubt the dating method, remember - they might have it wrong by 6x
From a biblical point of view, I don’t understand how someone can choose not to take Genesis literally, “because science says otherwise” (or re-interpret it other than literally), but then believe that a man died, and rose from the dead three days later - which I believe science can prove time and time again doesn’t happen (anyone wish to dispute this need only volunteer to be the test subject). I don’t feeling science and the bible are contradictory, but at some points they can’t be compatible (such as said resurrection). Things like the usual creationists would say (not because they say them, but because they’re logical):
* if death only came into the world because Adam sinned, how could such large periods of time pass, with animals dying, to reach the evolved state of man? Death before man?
* apart from whether the word “day” really meant 24 hours, the order of things happening as recorded in the bible goes against nature (or assumed evolutionary order?): the earth and grass on it, before sun, moon or stars (stellar evolution?), flying creatures before land animals
* Moses giving the commandment of the sabbath, based on “the seventh day”, Jesus later saying that people who don’t believe Moses can’t believe Him, when Moses is said to be the writer (compiler?) of Genesis as well
I realize I’ve strayed away from the “religion vs science” a little there, but I can’t imagine how a Christian can interpret Genesis to fit science, rather than how the rest of the bible refers to it (if that makes any sense). And I don’t see science to be in contradiction to my beliefs, or rather the evidence “both sides” have - it’s the assumptions, calculations and theories (which can’t be proven in a “let’s go back and see how it really was back then” way, or “watched to see if it works out correctly” - such as watching a 10,000 year half life).
I think that’s pretty much all a (LONG) reply to your questions and comments - I’m sorry if they’re not worth much. Just some of the reasoning that goes on in my head:
For a while the “evolution of the horse” was taught, which was wrong (and yes, “science” admitted it was wrong, and has since done away with the teaching, as good science should). This was only 1 animal, with all the “fossil evidence” needed (and I believe even in the correct geological layers, but I should check that), matching the theory perfectly, yet they were wrong. You have to admit this is an incredibly smaller scale than the evolution of every living thing - or even just of “ape to man”. If they couldn’t get that right, and even worse were so sure that they were right when they weren’t, how can they suddenly be so sure of something on a so much bigger scale? I mean they needed far fewer fossils, they had to cover far less time, and show far less changes - it should be FAR easier to prove? I just don’t understand how that happens, or how they walk away not questioning the theory of evolution entirely. Instead I think it’s proven to be a perfect example of how “all the right evidence”, fitting this “proven theory”, can in fact be wrong.
Nothing above was meant to be offensive or sarcastic, I’d be happy to continue discussing/debating if you’d like to - I don’t mind scaring what I believe, or don’t believe (or question) - but I’m really not looking to “win”, or trying to “out smart you” or anything like.
I can’t imagine making you understand without, giving you whatever “it is I’ve got”, or “has happened to me” - but I don’t know how to. I wish I could say I was subject to religious brain washing by my friends or family - as I’ve had friends accuse me of, little do they realize they don’t even share these beliefs… so I’m a little unclear as to how they (or who) could’ve brainwashed me (and aren’t they in fact accusing themselves of doing so? I don’t get it but anyway) - but I can’t. I think the most logical reasoning, excluding God, is that I’ve lost my mind - so I’d understand if you thought that.
This angers people and they don’t like doing it, but humor me… imagine for a second there is a infinitely power God who literally created, and controls everything. Imagine you thought you understood how everything worked, thanks to science, and then one day He reveals Himself to you and asks you to put that aside and hear His side of the story… He things really happened. What would you do, would you tell God his existence doesn’t fit into your science, or would you re-think your science? (round about here most people answer something like “I’d think I was dreaming” or “I’d wonder what drugs I took” etc - but I did ask you to imagine said God actually existed and wasn’t a figment of your imagination).
Imagine this happened and you wanted God to be a figment of your imagination, a bad dream, or result of some drugs you don’t remember taking - but He wasn’t. Imagine you tried to shrug the idea off, and forget about this “God” person, and go on with your simpler life free of rules and difficult beliefs, but you couldn’t. Imagine doubting a times, refusing to believe at others, but Him always being there, and reminding you.
Imagine being able to put the things you experienced, felt, or saw, into words that would stop people from thinking you were a little crazy, or plain simply dumb. Even worse, imagine you couldn’t.
—
We could debate evolution, religion, and God forever - and for a while I’ve tried to, but felt mostly like all I’ve done is upset people, and waste time. All over the world people believe different things (even within Christianity) - I don’t want to spend my life arguing with them about it. I’ve wondered if I should ever have posted this article on my site (*ahem* http://www.socialoutcast.net) - which Ultra-L0rd though we should post here - because I suppose I’m attacking evolution in a sense, getting myself into the very debate I don’t want to be in (so maybe not the smartest move).
I believe in God, and I don’t believe I have a choice (anymore). I believe I would far rather share how my life’s been changed by God, than argue about His existance. I’d rather tell people about how his Son died on the cross for our sins, than that they have to take Genesis literally. I’d rather be doing something more Christian, than debating evolution.
I hope some of all that makes sense, or that you have a slightly better understanding of where I’m coming from. Like I said above, I’d be happy to continue discussing it with you, but I’m not out to win a debate, it’s all yours - just airing my thoughts. Gotta admit, I was expecting a little more hostility in your replies, so thanks
Ross
P.S. This is why I try and force myself to brief replies, otherwise they end up like this one… LONG! Sorry about that, heh.
Hey,
Unfortunately due to my back problem I havn’t been able to follow this post much, and read much of it.
Just read your last post ross.. and just wanted to say that I completely agree with the following lines : “I believe I would far rather share how my life’s been changed by God, than argue about His existance. I’d rather tell people about how his Son died on the cross for our sins, than that they have to take Genesis literally. I’d rather be doing something more Christian, than debating evolution.”
No matter how much we teach and explain, they(non-christians) will never understand or want to understand the power and glory of God the father, Jesus, and the holy spirit. Because to non-believers it’s completely nonsense, even though its only because their eyes have been kept shut. So all we can do is pray and ask for there eyes to be opened, so that hopefully one day we might see them in heaven.
Thanks for taking your time out to reply to Micky’s comments, been awesome.
Keep it up.
See you soon (when I’m better)
UL
WOW… what a read! I just want to say both to Ross and Micky, good on both of you for keeping it a clean and intelligent debate / discussion. Being a Christian with the very same experience had like Ross mentioned in his earlier comment I can relate with what Ross said. It is this unimaginable experience that makes you believe the things you belief and trust that God is in control of everything. Ross just for the record what you said about hating Christians and then becoming one yourself in the end is a familiar story to me. I experienced the same thing, I even tried out many religions / beliefs but it was Christ who finally allowed me to see.
I would like to share something just for interest sake from Ephesians 3:20 “Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us…” I want to emphasise the “…immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine…” God does things that can not be proven or explained because of His greatness and yet people still find it difficult to believe that God created us, why would He need evolution to make humans when all He had to do was speak and it happened. This verse might be slightly out of context in that these verses explain God’s great love for us, but my point is still there. The plain and simple fact is like I once too was blind so are these people who cannot understand why Christians believe the things they do (as UL also mentioned in his comment). However we still have to love our brothers and sisters non-believers alike and be compasionate with one another and I believe that this website is a shining example of this and a safe way to discuss issues that ordinarily would have ended up in Bible bashing and / or blasphemy…
Thank you to Ross for saying it as it is and for Micky for your intelligent and thought provoking answers, you clearly are well read and have put a lot of time and thinking into this subject. I have to say though that although I cannot accept what you say as correct for me I do appreciate that you have shared your views with all those to read in a loving way.
Looking forward to hearing more great discussions on this website… keep it up!
Zoe
Apologies for my slow response - I’ve not lost interest, it’s just that work is getting the better of me at the moment, so no time for extra things.
I enjoyed reading your response very much. Very interesting. Thank you for being so frank. When I have time I’d like to ask you some more specific questions, but for now, just one quick one…
What was was it about your experience that convinced you that a supernatural being was contacting you? A wonder at nature, the connectedness of things and the apparent deep beauty and order of the world is not enough. I feel these things too, very strongly, but I do not attribute them to a creator. To me, that’s an un-necessary and unjustified leap.
OK, two questions (!)…. why did you chose to follow one book (the Bible), rather than another - there are plenty to chose from. The answer is probably obvious - cultural heritage, i.e. that is the book that ismost familiar to you and those around you. Isn’t it all a little arbitrary then? (i.e. if you’d had a similar experience - whatever that was - and you had been born in India, you’d now be following a different set of ‘rules’ and would have significantly different beliefs, which you would be just as sure were correct, and yet are different to the ones you have now (which you are also sure are correct)). If it is to some extent an ‘accident of geography’, doesn’t this mean that you should be more questioning of your absolute belief in one book over another?
I don’t mean to ignore all of the other things that you wrote, it’s just that I don’t have much time at the moment so though it best to reduce my argument down to the simplest form, rather than get caught up in the details.
As ever, I look forward to seeing what you think!
M.
Hey Micky,
Glad to see we didn’t lose you
Where do you live, if I may ask - I’m in South Africa - maybe we should chat over Skype or something some time?
I’m not really sure how to answer your first question… there’s something so much more to it than just the events, or feelings, like a kind of knowing inside. I guess it’s like trying to explain love.. sure there are all the chemical response in your body, and the thoughts in your brain… but there’s something more.
In short, I was out happily enjoying life, having long since given up on the idea of following any kind of “god”, specifically out trying to drink silly on weekends (Vodka happened to be my drink of choice). One day I get this idea, though more like a voice, in my head that I should be going to church - no, I didn’t suddenly attribute that to “god”, being the skeptic I (believe I) am I reasoned that logically this was just a deeper part of myself crying out for some kind of purpose or fulfillment in life, a need for a “god” and to comfort me and tell me everything was going to be okay. So I laughed at myself for being so stupid, and carried on doing whatever I want to. The feeling/idea/voice telling me to go to church wouldn’t go away, and I decided there must be something that I’m not consciously aware of that’s troubling me, leading to this “need” of church or “god”, so I decided to rather look inside myself and take the necessary action so I could continue living independently of any such foolishness. Despite my best efforts, the “voice” kept getting louder, and stronger.
One day I kinda just said out loud “okay God, if that’s really you, here’s the deal… I’m going to go out and do whatever I want to to, stay out as late and get as drunk as I feel like, on Saturday night and it’s up to you to get me up, feeling great, in time for church and I’ll go”. This is the part where you should be thinking that I’d already given in to the idea of “god”, but I’d still defend that I was being more arrogant and sarcastic than serious. I even thought I’d do “God” the favour of setting my alarm to wake me up (that’s how sure I was nothing would get me up on Sunday morning). Sunday morning came, my alarm must’ve been going off for ages, and eventually I woke some time near lunch time. I switched my alarm off, and smiled - what a stupid idea… “God” - hah! I was glad I’d proven myself to be going temporarily insane and there was no “god” for me worry about - so I continued with my happy little life, doing everything I enjoyed without thinking twice about it.
Then the voice came back, quietly, and not as often, but it was still there. Having been through this before I just ignored it - until I couldn’t ignore it anymore, so I thought “well stuff it, you’re being stupid, but let’s play this little game AGAIN”. Same scenario as last time, “hey God, if that’s really you blah blah blah Saturday night blah blah blah get me up in the morning blah blah blah” (getting me up wouldn’t be close to enough, if I felt tired, or hungover, there was no way I was going to drag myself to church). Set my alarm, went out.
So I wake up the next morning, everything’s quiet and peacefull, I feel like I’ve had plenty of hours of sleep, I glace at the window and see it’s really bright outside, probably mid-day. I chuckled to myself for playing this stupid “game” again, for even thinking there could be a God, and if there was that He’d be some how “talking” to me - not to mention the idea of ME in church! Having felt quite sure I’d beaten this stupid voice in my head, or “god”, I reached across to check what time it was… 1 minute before my alarm was set to go off. I felt like I’d been hit by a ton of bricks, and a second later my alarm went off.
These are merely the “events”, or the “outside”, of what happened. I can’t explain what happened “inside”. The voice saying “I am here, I am real, and I want you to get up and go to church - I have a message for you” - but more than a voice. In the same way you couldn’t doubt the presence of someone in the room with you, I suddenly couldn’t doubt of the presence of God there with me. It’s anything but what I wanted to accept, and if anything I was more scared to death than anything else. I got myself dressed, and off to the nearest church (which admittedly I attended as a kid, when my family still went). The message that day was about the woman looking for her coin (a wedding gift) - looking everyone for her 1 lost coin, because it was so valuable to her, both financially and sentimentally. Then the voice “from God” saying He’d been looking for, and calling me… I know, I know, “cute” and cliche.
Like I said in my previous post, I wouldn’t blame you for thinking any of this was madnesses - I certainly would if it hadn’t happened to me. I just can’t put into words the “knowing”, or what I experienced, I know the events just seem like chance, but they’re not even what counts.
(sorry for yet another REALLY lengthy reply)
As for your second question, I think it’s something crucial that all religions over look. I totally agree with you that so often religion is a cultural heritage - passed on by culture or family. As I said above, my family attended the church I went to that day, a Christian (baptist) church, so if anything that was the biggest or only influence. Once again, I’d claim to be a skeptic, and I was fully aware of that fact, I’d almost decided I’d fight becoming a Christian on exactly those grounds - knowing “naturally” I’d be more inclined towards Christianity.
Beyond what your family or culture thinks, if there really is a God, then religion doesn’t matter as much has His truth/way does. Believe God became man, died, and rose from the dead? I don’t think so, not easily. So where do you start, how do you know you’re believing the right thing, who do you listen to? I reasoned that “man”s opinion and beliefs don’t matter, if there’s a “God” (which I now believed, though not entirely by choice), and if He’d come along and “spoken” to me telling me what to do, surely I could ask questions back.
“Dear God, it’s not enough that I have to accept you are real, and the God of all… but now I have to choose which book to read? What title to give myself? What type of building to meet in? What rules to follow? It’s not exactly fair that I’m in a Christian culture, where they’d all have me believe they’ve got the right answers - I can’t believe that simply because they do. How am I supposed to know what to do?”
I wonder what would happen in all these “religious” and “spiritual” people stopped listening to their pastors, bishops or popes, messiahs, prophets, teachers, leaders or gods-in-carnate, and just asked “God - show me who you are, and what I must believe?”. What if all Christians surrendered their beliefs, that make their denomination different from another, and just asked God what’s really going on - would we really have so many different religions?
Why do I believe the bible, because I believe God answered my prayer and told me this book, only this one, was His word. It’s not the answer I wanted to accepted - “I just think that, because that’s what everyone around me says, it can’t be”. I believe Jesus was God, died, and rose from the dead, because I just couldn’t accept that, it didn’t make sense scientifically, no-one could prove it to me, and I had no reason to accept it - except He told me it was true.
Why do I take the bible literally? Because I didn’t know what to do with it - “God, you tell me to believe this book, which makes these claims which don’t make any sense, even your own Christian people can’t decide how to read or interpret it, and yet you somehow want me to believe all of this? I don’t even know what parts to believe, or what to take as warm fuzzy stories - I just can’t”.
The answer I got was something like this - “It’s not there to confuse, or trick you. It’s simple, and the truth - read it, as would a child… it’s man who complicates it”.
What if all the Christians all over the world, handed in their theology degrees, surrendered their pride and “understanding” of the bible, and just said “Hey God, could you explain this to me? How am I supposed to understand your bible, or know what to believe?”. I believe the bible says what it says, and man really does complicate things in the name of “interpretation”.
If you asked a kid to read the first few chapters of Genesis, how many days would he think God made everything in? Six. Why do some Christians not believe that? Because they apply “intelligence” to it, complicate it, and try and explain away literal six days - “maybe days actually mean periods of time”.
I know it’s basically circular-reasoning, but what about 1Co 3:18 “Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise” - I’d love to know what Christians who apply their wisdom to the bible do with that verse… I’m pretty sure they’ll go on to explain how it’s definitely not talking about people who think they have the ability to interpret the bible themselves, but rather people who think they’re “too smart” to believe in the God… or something like that. The way I see it, they’re trying to be wise about the bible - I’m not saying we shouldn’t think, and use our intelligence, but maybe the right way to do things is to ask God what he meant, not to trying and figure it out for ourselves… we just might be wrong. You only need to look at all the different denominations, never mind Catholics vs Protestants, to know that either a lot of men have got it very wrong, or God can’t make up His mind about himself or His bible. I think the error’s on man’s side.
Back to the point, I’d like to think that if I were born in India, or any country with other religious beliefs, that I would still be Christian. Not because of any choice on my part, but because I honestly believe that’s what God’s told me is “the truth”.
Hearing voices in my head, and thinking God’s telling me stuff that is probably nothing more than cultural influence… I’d think I was crazy, so you really are allowed to.
I don’t know what all you believe “spiritually”, but I guess my challenge to you (if you’re an atheist, agnostic, or have different religion) is just to say “Hey God, are you there? If you are… I want to know you, and I want to know the truth to believe” - even if just to humour yourself. Surely any “intelligent” atheist would have to admit that if there is a God, you’d have to be fool not to want to know? Isn’t that the very basis of science and intelligence? Testing, seeking, and answering? It doesn’t help closing your eyes when looking for something, then claiming it’s not there because you can’t see it. The bible (yup, more with this bible stuff) says “I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me” (Pro 8:17). God says those who look for Him will find Him, I have to believe that means He’ll reveal Himself to anyone who asks.
I refuse to simply believe something, because someone told me - be it about the age of the earth and evolution, or about God, Jesus or religion - regardless of whether it’s family, friends, a scientist, or my pastor at church. The only authority I’m concerned about is God’s - and I guess that’s what makes me a “very-religious Christian fundamentalist” or something. Personally I just think God knows better
This reply’s a lot longer than I intended it to be - sorry about that!
If you want to get in touch with me directly, my e-mail’s ross @ hypn.za.net - this isn’t my website - but otherwise I’d be happy to continue chatting here.
Cheers, Ross.