Friday, 25 April 2008

humans nearly wiped out 70 000 years ago?

Well, according to this article on CNN.. See, scientists are finding genetically, that we're all related much much closer than they previously thought. To the point that a while back there were only a bunch of us with common genes... so, what better way to explain it that us almost being utterly wiped out? Then they can have a catastrophe (but not a worldwide flood, ok?), and happily continue with the monkey-business that is evolutionary biology...

Well, I believe there is a better explanation. But it's one that many scientists won't even consider, because it doesn't fit with certain presuppositions. My explanation is: the history of man should be according to the bible and not Darwinian goo-to-you evolution. And yes, my explanation also fits the evidence.

I believe more and more these days that science is going to strongly support a biblical account of things. Science will return to her roots: observation of all of creation, with marvel and wonder being directed at the Creator. I also expect an outcry from the atheistic evolutionary bunch, crying "foul" and not pulling punches in trying to discredit the flow of things.


Anonymous said...

This will be a discussion that will always exist. Those who believe in the creationist theory do so because they choose to do so. It doesn't make sense, but you believe it anyways because, hey... the almighty said so, right? In a book, written by people, who say they were inspired by HIM? Right? And if there are holes in the creationist theory, it will all be answered by the almighty when we die and go to heaven, right? Right?
I prefer science. Anyone can study science. And anyone can challenge science. It is the "I challenge you and you challenge me" - (of course, based on observation trial and error) dynamic that that polishes all these theories and makes it work. That's the good thing: I don't have to blindly choose to believe it - it's just so obvious it works.

Anonymous said...

Please get at least the basic facts straight before you begin your religious rant.
Evolution (founded by Darwin) does NOT describe the origin of life, or goo-to-you as you put it. It has absolutely nothing to do with it! Look up abiogenesis please.

Billy Einkamerer said...

Hey anonymous (x2?), thanks for taking the time to leave a comment hey! This whole "people actually reading my blog" is new to me, and I appreciate it all, even criticism and rants. It is my intension to engage in honest discussion.

OK, so to answer anon_1:
I agree with you about your view on science, that anyone can study or challenge science. You can even challenge the ideas that are formed from scientific research, look at the hard facts and use reason and logic to draw conclusions. Arguably, I'm doing that in my post, though maybe not terribly well.

If you have holes to poke, poke away... Because I assume, like me, you are someone who wants to find truth (as per it's definition, the ultimate reality, what's really going on).

I'm not sure I agree with you on your view of faith, but to avoid a long boring post (now that I know that people read this!!) I'll save that for another entry.

Thanks again for posting a comment, please choose a random nickname when posting an anonymous comment, if you'd like, for the sake of clarity... Otherwise I'm gonna assume a multiple-personality-disorder-candidate called "anonymous". Maybe go with "Zorro", that little mask kept him anonymous all those years...

and anon_2:

Admittedly, my post wasn't well researched by me - I read the article on CNN and jotted down my thoughts on it. (hehe, if I was to have it peer reviewed by a panel of scientists, I'd probably have put more time and effort into my research; I'd also have written it with more of a logical flow and hopefully made a stronger case).

I do know a bit about the subject though, and know that his book was on the origin of man and separate species, and not the beginning of life. The thing is though, in my experience, people who follow darwinian schools of thought often also subscribe to the goo-to-you version of evolution, so I chucked them in the same thought and generalised.

That being said, it's important to not be slanted or misleading in my thoughts here, so I accept your challenge and I will read up on abiogenesis. Any resources you recommend?