Evidence for God from Science

Hi Anita, What about the Hobbits recently found? Are they monkeys?

Homo floresiensis ("Man of Flores", nicknamed Hobbit) is a possible species in the genus Homo, remarkable for its small body and brain, and survival until relatively recent times. It was named after the Indonesian island of Flores on which the remains were found.[1][2] One largely complete subfossil skeleton (LB1) and a complete jawbone from a second individual (LB2),[3] dated at 18,000 years old, were discovered in deposits in Liang Bua Cave on Flores in 2003. Parts of seven other individuals (LB3 — LB9, the most complete being LB6), all diminutive, have been recovered as well as similarly small stone tools from horizons ranging from 94,000 to 13,000 years ago.[4] The first of these remains was unearthed in 2003 and the publication date of the original description is October 2004.[1][2]

DB

More on the Hobbits...

Evolutionists were completely caught off-guard by the discovery of a new hominin species. The authors of the study suggested that these creatures had evolved from Homo erectus ancestors. However, all individuals recovered from the cave exhibited similar morphology - even though separated by up to 56,000 years of minimal change or evolution. Dwarfism resulting in the kind of changes required to produce dwarf functional brains would not be expected to occur rapidly, due to the vast number of simultaneous changes necessary. Unless scientists find intermediates between Homo erectus and Homo floresiensis, 56,000 years of stasis do not support an evolutionary explanation. Peter Brown, a paleoanthropologist at the University of New England in New South Wales, Australia admitted, "H. floresiensis presents an intriguing problem in evolutionary biology."6

However, the biblical creation model says that God created many different species of animals, including bipedal primates. How can we tell which model is correct? Biblical creation says that all species are specially created by God. Therefore, we would not expect to find any intermediates between Homo erectus and Homo floresiensis. Paleoanthropologist are actively searching the Island of Flores and surrounding islands to find similar or intermediate species. My prediction is that they will find more examples of Homo floresiensis, but no intermediates. Time will tell.

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/hobbit.html

Well David, I am not going to supply cited material on the Hobbits, but it is in my OPPINION that the Hobbits were human!

I assess this again by common sense. How so you might ask? And I will tell you by starting to examine the Island of Flores itself and adjacent islands where these Hobbit bones have been found - there are some pretty weird things going on there. A "natural selection" (not evolution) of the smallest kind where animals and living things on these isolated island (that were cut off from the mainland) began to shrink in order to adapt to the limited resources of the environment - smaller species, the thinking goes, can get by on less food.
So I'm suggesting that it was island dwarfing. We know that large mammals tend to shrink like the smallest elephant in the world which is from Flores.

the bolded part is mine. That is evolution. Mutation, which is the only way that dwarfism can occur (phenotypic change is only an expressed genetic change), is followed by natural selection. In an environment like islands, you have selection against large size (lack of food) and also against flight (no predators). These are both not required and are substantial energy-consumers. As a result, they "disappear" over time. The development of island dwarfism is evolution.

It's a totally unique situation that throws the evolutionist out in left field because these Hobbits had chimpanzee sized brains yet they used stone tools to butcher animals and mastered the use of fire in cooking. This totally defies the evolutionary theories that suggest that big brains are smarter or better. There is also some thought that the hobbits could have had a dwarfism condition called microcephaly (a condition of abnormal smallness of the head).

there was a show on the Hobbits and scientists tested the microcephalic hypothesis and came to the conclusion that they did not have the condition. The specimens captured so far all have the same morphometrics. The fact that they were so small explains why they had chimp-sized brains. I believe some dwarf H. sapiens also have chimp-sized brains (due to their small skulls) but their intelligence is not different from a normal human. Scientists also think that the two species lived sympatrically at one point and the Hobbits simply died out through competition. The fact that they lived sympatrically is strong evidence that there was little interbreeding (or else the gene pool would have diluted and the two species would have become one without this distinct dwarf form).

Therefore it is my assessment (and opinion) that (like usual) the Hobbits were indeed little humans (other miniture living humans can be viewed in the world guiness book of records). And again, the age of these specimens is way off the mark since bone cannot be dated properly aside from the evolutionist indoctrinated thinking that gauges these things to other evolutionary thoughts.

your opinion, fine. But radiometric dating is not "evolutionary indcotrination". It has proven methodology and ages are cross-validated from several dating techniques. How can that be faked?

I think the relative size is unimportant, the actual structure of the brain (as in the extent of the cerebrum) is more important to the intelligence of this hominid.

Hi Anita,

Elephants have great big brains, far larger than you or I. Common sense would suggest several of them should have won a nobel prize by now. How come they haven't?

DB

and supposedly whale brains and human brains are similar to each other. I guess whales will develop agriculture and a space program soon.

So THAT's what's happening to earth's oceans. The whales are using too much insecticide and not rotating their crops.

DB

The elephants on Flores are miniatures, and thus have smaller brains, but there brain ability is the same as their bigger predecessors.

I've also seen miniature horses and dogs that still have the same brain capacity and ability as their bigger predecessors.

I even recall in the worlds book of Guinness records a small fully grown woman only 3 feet tall. Thus her brain was also smaller, but she was just as smart as any human being.

Explain that?

Well, the answer is that the percentage weight of the brain to that of the whole body is what is related to intelligence. When you compare the elephant's brain weight to the elephant's gross weight, and compare it to the same measurement in humans, the human brain wt/gross wt number should be higher. Our higher intelligence is usually attributed to the cortex, which is extremely thin, thereby takes up little space - and it is something that lower animals have not evolved (thought I'd sneak that one in on you). The visual system in our brains takes up an inordinate amount of space. But the rule of thumb about comparative weight still applies. That does not make complete sense, but, as I said before, common sense is not given a spot at the scientific dining table. That's why the small person with the small head can still do math.

Achondroplastic dwarves, btw, have a head as big as a big person has.

DB

why are we talking about this small matter of Hobbit's brain size? Why bring up all of this new stuff? Can Anita address these?

The research clearly shows there are many transitional species. The single fraud that I know of is Piltdown man. Yes, Virginia, there are fraudulent scientists. Most, however, are just doing their jobs like anybody else. I'll make a wild guess that you are not reading legitimate science books. Am I right?

So that first skeleton I posted has no resemblance to humans??? What more do you need? The second one is more spe-like but the H. erectus IS humanoid!

what's your deintion of "remotely"... So what, there have been like maybe a few fakes and hundreds of reals... Would you like to prove they are all fake? Your precious little Ica Stones were fakes... Your Paluxy footprints were fakes... Your tools in coal were fakes.... you want me to go on with YEC forgeries? YEC is a cesspool of forgery.

Which ones? Waliking upright for a few moments or for a brief sprint is not "walking upright". Please enlighten me to which primate/ape species walks around on 2 legs all the time.

I guess they reproduced so quickly after the flood that there were plenty of people to build the pyramids, or develop Mesopotamia or China or America, all in the span of 100's of years after this flood. AND, in the 100 years after the Flood, they forgot about God and developed "heathen" religions despite this "global Flood" that would have made anyone a believer in God. And the fact that they were all separate races... what hyperevolution caused that?

Which, did you know at one time because of Darwin's theory people were killed just to be dissected because people actually though they were cavemen.

Because of Darwin's theory? Documentation?

Verse? "Men living in caves" is clearly not the same as "cavemen". The term caveman was not in use when the Bible was written so clearly they did not know what a Neanderthal or H. erectus was. The ancient Jews and Arabs often lived in cliff and stone dwellings. Are they cavemen? Nope.

I firmly stick by what I said. All the skeletons that have been found that suggest a transitional stage between ape and man have been altered in some way. Even Lucys pelvis was found to be sawed/filed to fit together to look somewhat human.

First, source please....show that EVERY skeleton?!??

Oh my...is this really going to come to a showdown of forgeries??!!?? YEC has a history of manipulating data, using poor calculations and "forgetting" to include variables in their equations that produce favorable results.

Actually, no....Their pelvic bones do not allow them to walk upright. THis is simply a poor argument. I hear this all the time from my students and I cringe when I hear it. Just because chimps and other apes and some monkeys (and even dogs!!) can walk on their hindlegs does not invalidatge the significance of the structure of pelvic bones. Just because we can crawl around on all fours, you would not make the argument that our bones are insignificant in our anatomy. If we see a skeleton of a chimplike animal that has a pelvic bone more like ours, it is an ok conclusion that they walked upright.

you did not answer my question... do not assert. PROVE they are all fake. I want documentation for every fossil. Until you do so your assertions are ridiculous.

Periodically is the key word there... periodically does not equal bipedal. The bone structure and wear patterns in hominid fossils match the patterns found in the bones of Homo sapiens. Coincidence? Satan? What is it?

If you take that same baboon and took another picture a minute later, I ASSURE you he will be on all fours.

we have transitionals between every group of animals on the planet. What ones do you want me to show you? Or are you going to ASSERT that "that is just a fish with legs" or "that is a dinosaur with feathers". The fact is there will never be enough transitional fossils to satisfy you. Just keep denying it, they won't go away.

Please prove to me that YEC's HAVE NOT made all of their stuff up.

well, wouldn't a flood that layed down thousands of feet of sediment, carved canyons in days, and moved continents have slightly disturbed such monuments? I guess the missing nose would be the least of the Sphinx's problems! The pyramids would have been smoothened and flattened.

so a scientific explanation based on experimentation and evidence is "just a label"?

What in the world?!? What word games?!?? You have attacked and labeled every scientist as evil while glossing over the many gross manupulations of data by YEC. I have provided my sources (which you don't seem to address or read). Again, you seem to want to simply assert and then act surprised that somebody calls you to defend your statements.

And I find it sad and incredibly disappointing that you are equating being above school as a good thing. Since when is it bad to learn? I have actually been much gentler than most non-Christian scientist with your arguments and we should always be able to engage in discussions.

And again, yes human population and growth are consistent today with 8 people walking off an ark 4,000 years ago. Do you want me to do the math for you

And you can make quite a list of mistakes from scientists and con-men (altough you are still refusing to provide a source for Lucy and the filing) but you still haven't addressed my source of mistakes made by YEC. These data manipulations are across the board.YOu still refuse to tackle them.

What is your source concerning the handling of Lucy's pelvis (I have asked this numerous times....please place your link). Is it documented in science journals? In multiple sources? It's easy to criticize but most critics don't have the expertise to justify the criticism

I have provided numerous sites concenring YEC fraud (never addressed by you), refuted your claims that Lucy was a fraud (shrugged aside with a snide comment about sources, has not been addressed by you), and addressed your comment concerning proboscis monkeys (and you don't even understand that I refuted your claim).

YOu made a claim that Lucy was grossly tampered with (with no sources), I provided a source refuting it...

YOu made a claim concerning the proboscis monkey (with no source), I provided a source refuting it...

I provided a source concerning the multitude of evidence for an Old Earth, you don't even touch it

Let's see....

YOu also refuse to tackle the YEC frauds

YOu make incredibly broad accusations....

UNless you are going to address the PROBLEMS of YEC calcualtions that I provided, OR provide criticisms of the wealth of evidence for OEC,then your statement means absolutely nothing. It is akin to someone holding their fingers in their ears and going "lalalalallal" I can't hear you!!!

Many people on this site use the literal Bible to support their OEC beliefs. Since you bpoth use the Bible to support your beliefs, you have to move on and use real world evidence to find proof for YEC. You have not done that.

On this topic though I ask you: If there was a global flood, there should be abundant and completely intact fossils of land animals and plants all over the world. However fossils of most species are very rare and the majority of fossils we find are from sea creatures. Why is that if everything (land and sea) was buried in the Flood? Why aren't the remains of Pre-Flood man and technology being found? If they are, why not more common?

source for the last sentence?
So all of these H. erectus are fake too?
"Some of the major Homo erectus fossils:
Indonesia (island of Java): Trinil 2 (holotype), Sangiran collection, Sambungmachan collection, Ngandong collection
China: Lantian (Gongwangling and Chenjiawo), Yunxian, Zhoukoudian, Nanjing, Hexian
India: Narmada (taxonomic status debated!)
Kenya: WT 15000 (Nariokotome), ER 3883, ER 3733
Tanzania: OH 9
Vietnam: Northern, Tham Khuyen, Hoa Binh
Republic of Georgia: Dmanisi collection
Turkey: Kocabas fossil[16] "

What about the other hominid species?
Homo erectus remains one of the most successful and long-lived species of the Homo genus. It is generally considered to have given rise to a number of descendant species and subspecies. The oldest known specimen of the ancient human was found in southern Africa.

Homo erectus
Homo erectus yuanmouensis
Homo erectus lantianensis
Homo erectus wushanensis
Homo erectus pekinensis
Homo erectus palaeojavanicus
Homo erectus soloensis
Other species

Homo floresiensis
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens
Homo sapiens sapiens
Homo rhodesiensis
Homo cepranensis

your opinion, fine. But radiometric dating is not "evolutionary indcotrination". It has proven methodology and ages are cross-validated from several dating techniques. How can that be faked?

I suggest we ignore other "diversions" until we get answers here.

Maybe you catch more flies with honey.

DB

David: What do you mean? These quotes are taken verbatim from prior posts... I am simply restating them.

And they all look accurate but Anita's mind set didn't develop overnight. It probably dates from childhood, she most probably reads nothing about it other than YEC literature, she probably talks about this issue with mainly YEC people...maybe yours is the right tactic. She's not going to hear it from her group.

But most likely if she changes her mind, it'll be a random, partly gradual sort of event sometime in the future that has nothing to do with what happens on this DB.

DB

Look Himan, I don't know all the answers to these questions either. That's why I'm here to discuss them. What I had stated was in my own “opinion” and I tend to be G-d orientated, so of course I am going to refute all evolutionary prospects.