NationStates Jolt Archive

"Bone of Hobbit-like species uncovered

Tuesday, October 11, 2005; Posted: 4:12 p.m. EDT (20:12 GMT)

(AP) -- Scientists say they have found more bones in an Indonesian cave that offer additional evidence of a second human species -- short and hobbit-like -- that roamed the Earth the same time as modern man."

Full story: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/10/11/hobbit.jaw.ap/index.html

So, if these people did exist, what are the implications for creationists? The Bible does say that God created man in His own image, but we don't know what God looks like so we cannot know what the man He created looks like. Could He have created a "man" that then evolved into something different? Could creationism and evolution both be true?

"Bone of Hobbit-like species uncovered

Tuesday, October 11, 2005; Posted: 4:12 p.m. EDT (20:12 GMT)

(AP) -- Scientists say they have found more bones in an Indonesian cave that offer additional evidence of a second human species -- short and hobbit-like -- that roamed the Earth the same time as modern man."

Full story: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/10/11/hobbit.jaw.ap/index.html

So, if these people did exist, what are the implications for creationists? The Bible does say that God created man in His own image, but we don't know what God looks like so we cannot know what the man He created looks like. Could He have created a "man" that then evolved into something different? Could creationism and evolution both be true?
"No".

The only implications are that creationists will have to try harder to convince themselves that science is wrong, etc. and will get frustrated and angry at scientists.

The only implications are that creationists will have to try harder to convince themselves that science is wrong, etc. and will get frustrated and angry at scientists.

So you don't think God could have created "man" and "man" could have evolved?
You think creationism and evolution must be mutually exclusive?

The only implications are that creationists will have to try harder to convince themselves that science is wrong, etc. and will get frustrated and angry at scientists.
Oh, Hell no - diehard Creationists will just claim that God hid the fossils where scientists could find 'em in order to "test their faith". They're unstoppable, these Jehovah apologists.

So you don't think God could have created "man" and "man" could have evolved?
You think creationism and evolution must be mutually exclusive?
From a theological point of view: Sure, why not.


From a science point of view: You're making too many postulations and cluttering things up. Postulating a supernatural being is something that should be avoided at all costs. Postulations of any sort should be avoided.

So you don't think God could have created "man" and "man" could have evolved?
No, I don't. For one thing, the biblical age of the earth (~6000 years) is not long enough for such great differences to emerge.

You think creationism and evolution must be mutually exclusive?

You could believe that God created loads of stuff, and then let it do its stuff naturally, but I don't.

Oh, Hell no - diehard Creationists will just claim that God hid the fossils where scientists could find 'em in order to "test their faith". They're unstoppable, these Jehovah apologists.
well, untill those "DieHard Creationists" post... I refrain from putting words in their mouths.

creationism is based on the denying of science and the ignoring of evidence, why would this affect it?

Oh, Hell no - diehard Creationists will just claim that God hid the fossils where scientists could find 'em in order to "test their faith". They're unstoppable, these Jehovah apologists.

Ok Dobbs, but do YOU think creationism and evolutionism must be mutually exclusive?

No, I don't. For one thing, the biblical age of the earth (~6000 years) is not long enough for such great differences to emerge.

Where in the Bible does it give a time line? I don't recall seeing one, but then again I don't know the Bible all that well.

You could believe that God created loads of stuff, and then let it do its stuff naturally, but I don't.

Why not?

Where in the Bible does it give a time line? I don't recall seeing one, but then again I don't know the Bible all that well.

Someone with too much time on their hands (probably a few people) worked it out using the ages of characters in the bible.

Why not?
Because if nature can do it all by itself, why add in extra elements?

Someone with too much time on their hands (probably a few people) worked it out using the ages of characters in the bible.

So you admit the Bible gives not time line and this "someone" could be wrong?


Because if nature can do it all by itself, why add in extra elements?[/QUOTE]

You did very well evading an answer to the question, but I won't give you a cookie. :D

there is only one possible conclusion we can come to that saves creationism from the dustbin of science.


tolkien is god.

So you admit the Bible gives not time line and this "someone" could be wrong?

Uh... I am certain that they are wrong about the age of the earth, I'm just telling you approximately how old it would be, going by the bible.

You did very well evading an answer to the question, but I won't give you a cookie. :D

?? I answered it perfectly. When you have a model that already works (e.g. evolution) there's no need to include extra factors (e.g. God) in it.

creationism is based on the denying of science and the ignoring of evidence, why would this affect it?
Actually, as in my case, it can based on being dissatisfied with the scientific evidence for macro-evolution and, for a reason that I have yet to explain to myself, consider creationism to be the more rational of the two routes.
Evolution can accompany creation, (in fact I believe it did) just not in the class room.
Calculations of the age of the bible by the age of Adam’s descendants are not entirely reliable, since it may only be referring to notable descendants. It is not a genealogy.

?? I answered it perfectly. When you have a model that already works (e.g. evolution) there's no need to include extra factors (e.g. God) in it.

Therefore, you will not entertain any theory other than evolution? Doesn't that put you in the same category (close minded) as those who will only entertain creationism? Is it not possible there is another theory or explanation that is a combination of both theories?

tolkien is god.

:D

Therefore, you will not entertain any theory other than evolution? Doesn't that put you in the same category (close minded) as those who will only entertain creationism? Is it not possible there is another theory or explanation that is a combination of both theories?

It's possible to come up with any theory. I'm trying to tell you what theory I think is most likely to be accurate out of the ones I'm familiar with.

The Catholic Church will call a secret council to recall all copies of the Bible on bookshelves and replace them with copies listing the hobbit among the creatures God created on the fifth day. (e.g. "And He created the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea; and the bugs of the land, and the beasts, and the hobbits...")

:D

Ok Dobbs, but do YOU think creationism and evolutionism must be mutually exclusive?
Hey, I have my problems with the theory of evolution. But that doesn't mean I'll chalk it all up to God as a matter of course. If anything, I believe we should redouble our efforts in scientific research in order to disprove gradualism.

Hey, I have my problems with the theory of evolution. But that doesn't mean I'll chalk it all up to God as a matter of course. If anything, I believe we should redouble our efforts in scientific research in order to disprove gradualism.

:D You must be a politician. :eek: You can never get a direct answer from a politician. :D

:D You must be a politician. :eek: You can never get a direct answer from a politician. :D
...Or a l*wyer. :D

So, if these people did exist, what are the implications for creationists?
There isn't really any. The Bible does say that God created man in His own image, but we don't know what God looks like so we cannot know what the man He created looks like.
I always thought "in his own image" didn't really have much to do with outward appearances anyway, as God really doesn't have need for a physical appearance, more like we were created in his spiritual image.

Could creationism and evolution both be true?
sure why couldn't they both be true? well, in the sense that if evolution is true then God is not automatically false, I don't know about the people who take the creation story in Genisis as a literal account....

...I always thought "in his own image" didn't really have much to do with outward appearances anyway, as God really doesn't have need for a physical appearance, more like we were created in his spiritual image.


I like that. Never thought about it that way before. Thank you.

I like that. Never thought about it that way before. Thank you.

Just out of curiosity, what is a "spiritual image"?

IIRC, they get their "timeline" by adding up all the "begats" in Genesis Ch. 5 and Matthew ch. 1.

Just out of curiosity, what is a "spiritual image"?
okay that isn't really a technical term. I meant that we have a soul, free will, ect.

as apposed to animals, plants, rocks, dirt, ect.

"Bone of Hobbit-like species uncovered

Tuesday, October 11, 2005; Posted: 4:12 p.m. EDT (20:12 GMT)

(AP) -- Scientists say they have found more bones in an Indonesian cave that offer additional evidence of a second human species -- short and hobbit-like -- that roamed the Earth the same time as modern man."

Full story: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/10/11/hobbit.jaw.ap/index.html

So, if these people did exist, what are the implications for creationists? The Bible does say that God created man in His own image, but we don't know what God looks like so we cannot know what the man He created looks like. Could He have created a "man" that then evolved into something different? Could creationism and evolution both be true?
Not a problem for creationism. Created in the image of God refers to the heart and mind, not to the physical appearance (which is why God can be said to be all races, or none). You've never seen siblings that look completely different? Divergence can happen extremely quickly within a species. Look at dogs (although they had help).

:D You must be a politician. :eek: You can never get a direct answer from a politician. :D
Well, while I don't believe in some Cosmic Clock-keeper with a penchant for mischief uncorking a pair of perfectly-formed H. Sapiens Sapiens with intent to breed, I also have reservations about a dynamic force such as evolution being mired in the gradualist model, which demands I believe it takes staggering amounts of time for say a fish to go from having one blue stripe to having three yellow stripes and a pointy nose. Balderdash.

I believe in a catastrophic model, wherein major shifts in form or function could occur rapidly, over very few generations - sparked in response to sudden, catastrophic change in global, or even local conditions.

Well, while I don't believe in some Cosmic Clock-keeper with a penchant for mischief uncorking a pair of perfectly-formed H. Sapiens Sapiens with intent to breed, I also have reservations about a dynamic force such as evolution being mired in the gradualist model, which demands I believe it takes staggering amounts of time for say a fish to go from having one blue stripe to having three yellow stripes and a pointy nose. Balderdash.

I believe in a catastrophic model, wherein major shifts in form or function could occur rapidly, over very few generations - sparked in response to sudden, catastrophic change in global, or even local conditions.
wow. are you serious? cuz that is kinda freaky, I am going to have to decide what I think about that.......could take a while.........

wow. are you serious? cuz that is kinda freaky, I am going to have to decide what I think about that.......could take a while.........
Yeah, it kinda freaked me out at first, too. The problem as I see it is that we're basing a lot of our assumptions that things have always been more or less the same, albeit with protracted swings in climate.
But what I see of this planet is a place that has seen upheaval. All sorts, all manner of activity. Tremendous change. Fossil records show many types of animals, many types of mammals - that no longer exist. Conditions changed, lines ran out - or were supplanted by another form moving into the same or a higher niche in the food chain. Or survived by a more successful variant on the same theme, perhaps in an isolated area. But this needn't happen over thousands of millennia.
I think it could happen over a thousand years, a hundred, or maybe even a decade - depending on the extent and the nature of the cataclysmic shift in the environment.
And no, I don't think you need a tinfoil hat for this one.:p

The discovery has no religious implications. Either these are/were human beings and part of mankind like the other three races, or they were/are not and they are part of the animal kingdom like all other species. Either way, nothing has changed. I dont see any religious implications.

various snips

I think both punctuated equilibrium (drastic change due to upheaval and the sudden explosion of speciation to fill vacated environmental roles,) and slow, steady change are in effect. That seems to be the prevaling thought at the moment. Neither one negates the other, and both are necessary.

there is only one possible conclusion we can come to that saves creationism from the dustbin of science.


tolkien is god.
or God is a Fan of Tolkien's work.

I think that I might become a Strict Creationist if Science doesn't cut the crap. Hobbits? HOBBITS!?
I think that Nietzsche may have been right, but only part way. He said that early man needed God to assure him of a just Universe, I will go on to say that Middle Man needed Science to assure him of a rational Universe. Now we can all embrace the chaos, throwing sanity and morals to the wind!
Come dance with me in my gum drop paradise whilst we feed upon the innocent and the young. Let us sacrifice Babies upon the alters of the Enjoyment and relish in a fruitful harvest.
AMENTIA LAURIFER!

Come dance with me in my gum drop paradise whilst we feed upon the innocent and the young. Let us sacrifice Babies upon the alters of the Enjoyment and relish in a fruitful harvest.
AMENTIA LAURIFER!

Damn, I thought that might be a new Michael Jackson song. :D