Fossils in Greece Suggest Human Ancestors Evolved in Europe, Not Africa

a reply to: Consvoli

Because there's only early ancestors to all hominini found in Africa that's why. 13 - 15 million year old lemur, gibbon looking creatures. At the end of the day tho the homo genus lineage is exclusive to Africa.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I am very familiar with the change to the storyline, attempting to argue that everything is a link, yet if you put every species on a sidebranch or sideline leading nowhere, you have no evidence of a link between different categories of organisms, such as some mysterious unspecified apelike ancestor (no fossil has been specified as being this ancestor) that is supposed to be the ancestor of both apes and humans. Where is the evidence for the link between some apelike ancestor and humans that shows the gradual evolution from one to the other you speak of? For which you need a whole bunch of species and fossils along the line that is drawn in evolutionary trees, not only at the end of the line, then if you trace the line back, you come to an unspecified ancestor for which no fossil has been found or assigned. Where is the evidence for the line you have drawn, the storyline that one evolved from the other?

It's a change to the storyline that tries to circumnavigate the fact that there is no evidence for any link between them. And mind you, it was only 15 years ago that fossil Ida was still promoted as a "missing link" in human evolution, I quoted it from sources that promote the evolutionary storyline. What we see in the fossil record is a bunch of ape fossils and a bunch of human fossils, no evidence of any link between them. And it's not just for humans and apes where this is the case, it's all across the board. As already admitted by Newsweek back in 1980 (and nothing noteworthy has changed about the actual evidence, so instead, they change the storyline as if the evidence of a link between man and ape is no longer required, cause now they supposedly just share a common ancestor, which they won't identify specifically; how do you evaluate a storyline like that if there is no evidence to evaluate? It's too vague.)

Where are the “links”?

Science Digest speaks of “the lack of a missing link to explain the relatively sudden appearance of modern man.” (Science Digest, “Miracle Mutations,” by John Gliedman, February 1982, p. 91.) Newsweek observed: “The missing link between man and the apes . . . is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule.” (Newsweek, “Is Man a Subtle Accident?” by Jerry Adler and John Carey, November 3, 1980, p. 95.)

Because there are no links, “phantom creatures” have to be fabricated from minimal evidence and passed off as though they had really existed. That explains why the following contradiction could occur, as reported by a science magazine: “Humans evolved in gradual steps from their apelike ancestors and not, as some scientists contend, in sudden jumps from one form to another. . . . But other anthropologists, working with much the same data, reportedly have reached exactly the opposite conclusion.” (Science 81, “Human Evolution: Smooth or Jumpy?” September 1981, p. 7.)

Thus we can better understand the observation of respected anatomist Solly Zuckerman who wrote in the Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh: “The search for the proverbial ‘missing link’ in man’s evolution, that holy grail of a never dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily to-day as they did 50 years ago and more.”⁠ (Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, “Myths and Methods in Anatomy,” by Solly Zuckerman, January 1966, p. 90.) He noted that, all too often, facts were ignored, and instead, what was currently popular was championed in spite of evidence to the contrary.

And nothing noteworthy has changed in the behaviour of those working in this field since then. ...

The theoretical family tree of human evolution is littered with the castoffs of previously accepted “links.” An editorial in The New York Times observed that evolutionary science “includes so much room for conjecture that theories of how man came to be tend to tell more about their author than their subject. . . . The finder of a new skull often seems to redraw the family tree of man, with his discovery on the center line that leads to man and everyone else’s skulls on side lines leading nowhere.” (The New York Times, October 4, 1982, p. A18.) (so nowadays they put everything on a side-line leading nowhere, so much for the evidence for Stephen Jay Gould's claim that: “People . . . evolved from apelike ancestors.” Boston Magazine, “Stephen Jay Gould: Defending Darwin,” by Carl Oglesby, February 1981, p. 52.)

In a book review of The Myths of Human Evolution written by evolutionists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, Discover magazine observed that the authors eliminated any evolutionary family tree. Why? After noting that “the links that make up the ancestry of the human species can only be guessed at,” this publication stated: “Eldredge and Tattersall insist that man searches for his ancestry in vain. . . . If the evidence were there, they contend, ‘one could confidently expect that as more hominid fossils were found the story of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas, if anything, the opposite has occurred.’”

Discover concluded: “The human species, and all species, will remain orphans of a sort, the identities of their parents lost to the past.” (Discover, book review by James Gorman of The Myths of Human Evolution by Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, January 1983, pp. 83, 84.) Perhaps “lost” from the standpoint of evolutionary theory. But has not the Genesis alternative “found” our parents as they actually are in the fossil record​—fully human, just as we are?

The fossil record reveals a distinct, separate origin for apes and for humans. That is why fossil evidence of man’s link to apelike beasts is nonexistent. The links really have never been there.

And that's why they changed the storyline. Just call everything a link even though it does not provide us any evidence of actually being a link between 2 different categories of organisms. Cause as mentioned before:

Gyula Gyenis, a researcher at the Department of Biological Anthropology, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary, wrote in 2002: “The classification and the evolutionary place of hominid fossils has been under constant debate.” This author also states that the fossil evidence gathered so far brings us no closer to knowing exactly when, where, or how humans evolved from apelike creatures.(3)
...
3. Acta Biologica Szegediensis, Volume 46(1-2), “New Findings​—New Problems in Classification of Hominids,” by Gyula Gyenis, 2002, pp. 57, 59.

That means (especially the bolded part) there is no actual (fossil) evidence of an evolutionary link between this mysterious unspecified apelike ancestor and humans. Something this promoter of evolutionary philosophies/ideas and storylines will never spell out like that, for obvious reasons. The other conclusion bolded before is still true:

The fossil record reveals a distinct, separate origin for apes and for humans. That is why fossil evidence of man’s link to apelike beasts is nonexistent. The links really have never been there.

Or as you put it: "So there really isn't a missing link out there to be discovered", because there is no evolutionary link (again, you will never admit that last part, cause you no longer care about the actual evidence of the evolutionary storyline not being there, you just pretend you no longer need it).

a reply to: Xtrozero

Continuing from my previous comment and focusing on the remark: "What we see in the fossil record is a bunch of ape fossils and a bunch of human fossils, no evidence of any link between them. And it's not just for humans and apes where this is the case, it's all across the board. As already admitted by Newsweek back in 1980 ..." when it said: “The missing link between man and the apes . . . is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule.” (and once more, if you change the storyline as explained before and misleadingly and falsely claim that humans are apes, you still need evidence for a link between man and this apelike ancestor spoken of, not to mention evidence, i.e. a fossil, for this mysterious apelike ancestor itself, otherwise, you have no evidence for this evolution of an apelike ancestor to man, period; gradual or otherwise, i.e. "jumpy", as the term was used before, see first comment or previous comment, quoting the term from Science 81, this is the same as Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" idea/philosophy, which is unverified and just a trick to pretend there is no need anymore for evidence of gradual evolution from one category to another, you are trying to pretend that evidence from the fossil record for the creation account in Genesis that mentions that organisms reproduce "according to their kinds", which fits what we see in the fossil record in terms of what fossils have actually been discovered, is still evidence for the evolutionary storyline of common ancestry of all kinds).

New Scientist noted that evolution “predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time.” But it admitted: “Unfortunately, the fossil record does not meet this expectation, for individual species of fossils are rarely connected to one another by known intermediate forms. . . . known fossil species do indeed appear not to evolve even over millions of years.”⁠ (1) (solution? Just change the storyline, just never admit the fossil record does not support the evolutionary philosophy of common ancestry but instead supports the creation account in Genesis; just claim that every species is an "intermediate form", a "link", or "transitional form", even though, you do not place it as an actual intermediate transitional form or "link" in your evolutionary trees, they are all on a sideline leading nowhere, and coming from something unspecified for which no fossil has been assigned or found, a 'phantom creature' for which the fossil evidence is no better than for pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters or mermaids, sometimes called "aquatic apes" now, vagueness rules supreme in mythology). And geneticist Stebbins writes: “No transitional forms are known between any of the major phyla of animals or plants.” He speaks of “the large gaps which exist between many major categories of organisms.”⁠(2) “In fact,” The New Evolutionary Timetable acknowledges, “the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time.”⁠(3)​—Italics added.

This agrees with the extensive study made by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological Association of England. Professor of natural science John N. Moore reported on the results: “Some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals divided into about 2,500 groups. . . . Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor.” Moore added: “No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/​or transitions between plant kinds have never occurred.”(4)

Thus, what was true in Darwin’s day is just as true today. The evidence of the fossil record is still as zoologist D’Arcy Thompson said years ago in his book On Growth and Form: “Darwinian evolution has not taught us how birds descend from reptiles, mammals from earlier quadrupeds, quadrupeds from fishes, nor vertebrates from the invertebrate stock. . . . to seek for stepping-stones across the gaps between is to seek in vain, for ever.”⁠(5)

What the Fossil Record Really Says

When we let the fossil record speak, its testimony is not evolution-oriented. Instead, the testimony of the fossil record is creation-oriented. It shows that many different kinds of living things suddenly appeared. While there was great variety within each kind, these had no links to evolutionary ancestors before them. Nor did they have any evolutionary links to different kinds of living things that came after them. Various kinds of living things persisted with little change for long periods of time before some of them became extinct, while others survive down to this day.

“The concept of evolution cannot be considered a strong scientific explanation for the presence of the diverse forms of life,” concludes evolutionist Edmund Samuel in his book Order: In Life. Why not? He adds: “No fine analysis of biogeographic distribution or of the fossil record can directly support evolution.”(6)

Clearly, the impartial inquirer would be led to conclude that fossils do not support the theory of evolution. On the other hand, fossil evidence does lend strong weight to the arguments for creation. As zoologist Coffin stated: “To secular scientists, the fossils, evidences of the life of the past, constitute the ultimate and final court of appeal, because the fossil record is the only authentic history of life available to science. If this fossil history does not agree with evolutionary theory​—and we have seen that it does not—​what does it teach? It tells us that plants and animals were created in their basic forms. The basic facts of the fossil record support creation, not evolution.”⁠(7) Astronomer Carl Sagan candidly acknowledged in his book Cosmos: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”(8)

Darwin: “If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution”

Talking about the Cambrian period:

Darwin: “Whole groups of species suddenly appear”

Paleontologist Alfred S. Romer: “The general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation”

Biochemist D. B. Gower: “There was a complete absence of intermediate fossils”

Context for the quote above:

Some argue that Precambrian rocks were too altered by heat and pressure to retain fossil links, or that no rocks were deposited in shallow seas for fossils to be retained. “Neither of these arguments has held up,” say evolutionists Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould and Sam Singer. They add: “Geologists have discovered many unaltered Precambrian sediments, and they contain no fossils of complex organisms.” (A View of Life, p. 651.)

These facts prompted biochemist D. B. Gower to comment, as related in England’s Kentish Times: “The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks, developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils.”⁠ (Kentish Times, England, “Scientist Rejects Evolution,” December 11, 1975, p. 4.)

Zoologist Harold Coffin concluded: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.” (Liberty, “Evolution or Creation?” by Harold G. Coffin, September/​October 1975, p. 12.) And again, before someone makes a remark about how old these quotes are with the implication that the evidence is now so much better, nothing significant has changed regarding the actual fossil evidence, they just changed the storyline to pretend they no longer need the fossil evidence to match up with the original storyline, they now pretend that fossil evidence that fits the creation account in Genesis, works just as well for the evolutionary philosophy concerning common ancestry or common descent, i.e. evolution (using terms like "jumpy" and "punctuated eqluibrium" as explained before, pretend you no longer need it to be gradual and thus not see this gradual transition in the fossil record; but that part of the original storyline was the whole point, this was supposed to make it sound more plausible and different from what you would expect to find from the creation account in Genesis).

References:

1. New Scientist, February 4, 1982, p. 320.

2. Processes of Organic Evolution, p. 147.

3. The New Evolutionary Timetable, p. 95.

4. Should Evolution Be Taught? by John N. Moore, 1970, pp. 9, 14, 24; New Scientist, “Letters,” September 15, 1983, p. 798.

5. On Growth and Form, by D’Arcy Thompson, 1959, Vol. II, pp. 1093, 1094.

6. Order: In Life, by Edmund Samuel, 1972, p. 120.

7. Liberty, September/​October 1975, p. 14.

8. Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, 1980, p. 29.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Xtrozero

I am very familiar with the change to the storyline, attempting to argue that everything is a link, yet if you put every species on a sidebranch or sideline leading nowhere, you have no evidence of a link between different categories of organisms, such as some mysterious unspecified apelike ancestor (no fossil has been specified as being this ancestor) that is supposed to be the ancestor of both apes and humans. Where is the evidence for the link between some apelike ancestor and humans that shows the gradual evolution from one to the other you speak of? For which you need a whole bunch of species and fossils along the line that is drawn in evolutionary trees, not only at the end of the line, then if you trace the line back, you come to an unspecified ancestor for which no fossil has been found or assigned. Where is the evidence for the line you have drawn, the storyline that one evolved from the other?

The problem is that you do not accept anything. What would be proof to you, another set of bones like Lucy? Seems you do not accept that path either. How about DNA and how close Chimp are to us and we see a correlation of the farther other apes are to us the less DNA that matches. There is no proof out there that you would accept, so it's a worthless debate to really suggest anything.

I agree the storylines is always evolving too as we gain further knowledge, is that a bad thing to you? For example, we keep pushing back when Man came to the Americas because we find older sites, pretty damn logical approach.

15,000 words later...

"What we see in the fossil record is a bunch of ape fossils and a bunch of human fossils, no evidence of any link between them.

As I said there is no proof you would accept expect to say God POOFED all life on the planet in its current form. End of story.

BTW your posts are so large I need to delete just to reply...

It shows that many different kinds of living things suddenly appeared.

We have fossil records going to billions of years, that isn't sudden. We had simple lifeforms for billions of years until the Cambrian explosion 500+ million years ago when advanced life started to evolve.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

The problem is that you do not accept anything.

I accept "what the fossil record really says", do you? The actual fossil evidence and what it supports and what it contradicts as explained and admitted to by evolutionist Edmund Samuel and zoologist Coffin in that section. The facts of the matter: “The basic facts of the fossil record support creation, not evolution.”⁠ (Coffin, Liberty, September/​October 1975, p. 14.)

The problem concerning the acceptance of the reality of the matter lies with those who do not like these facts, and therefore would never admit what Coffin admits above. They would rather spin it and describe the same thing in their own way, without acknowledging the final point quoted above (the full quotation can be found in my previous comment).

I do not accept spin and propaganda. Such as the misrepresentation of DNA comparisons concerning humans, chimps and other ape species. Just another card that is played to distract from what the fossil record already so clearly shows. The percentages of similarity they throw out are not facts, and often completely bogus and propagandistic once you look into how they actually got these numbers, and how they played around with them to get the number they wanted in the first place, conveniently ignoring major differences and only looking at those parts in the DNA sequence that are most similar, or have been sequenced in a biased manner to make it look more similar (often altering raw data using terms like "indels" to skip whole sequences that don't align the way they want them to align; "indels" stands for assumed insertions or deletions that supposedly happened in a DNA sequence, so they can align them better in a comparison, but they don't know if an actual insertion or deletion happened there, it just allows them to align better so you get higher percentage numbers for similarity, but if you count the sequence as actually represented just after sequencing all the nucleotide bases, and don't assume insertions and deletions, you get a much lower percentage of similarity, cause then it won't align as well anymore).

I also do not accept straw man and red herring fallacies as legitimate arguments or points (your final 2 points, arguments or remarks, the first being a straw man concerning creation, the 2nd being a red herring concerning the actual point that was made in the part of my comment that you quoted out of context to facilitate the red herring). First off, the point that you quoted was not just about the Cambrian period, as explained before that and in the preceding comment. But let's follow your red herring and talk some more about the Cambrian period alone...

Darwin's own words concerning the Cambrian period: “Whole groups of species suddenly appear”. Funny how you didn't quote that instead when arguing about the word "sudden". The point about the Cambrian period there was that: “The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks, developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils.”⁠ (biochemist D. B. Gower, Kentish Times, England, “Scientist Rejects Evolution,” December 11, 1975, p. 4.)

So much for Consvoli's claim on the previous page that 'scientists or experts only or just debate the details (concerning evolution) and none of them argue humans, animals, plants, are a result of some form of a creator'. The scientist above spells it out quite clearly: “The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis.”⁠ The account of Genesis talks about a specific Creator. And as per the title of the news article, he outright "rejects evolution", and is not just debating the details as to exactly how or when things evolved, or which species evolved into which other species and in what order species should be placed in the evolututionary tree. And he's not the only scientist out there who does either or both (or has done so in the past ever since Darwin published his book), that is, either rejecting evolutionary philosophies outright or acknowledging that the evidence fits the account of Genesis (or doing both). Keep in mind that in some fields of science (eg. paleontology or evolutionary biology) you have to parrot the party line and propaganda if you want to have a career in that field (but Consvoli clearly used the more general term "scientists", and not paleontologists or evolututionary biologists, so a biochemist like D.B. Gower or a zoologist like Coffin count as "scientists" in these examples to refute a propagandistic claim that simply isn't true):

originally posted by: whereislogic

I accept "what the fossil record really says", do you?

We have a very limited number of fossils, so what do they say? Do you accept DNA comparisons?

You also say you do not accept strawman and red herring fallacies, but no one is suggesting anything popped out of nowhere. People refer to Darwin and he was a start but a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong way from what we know today, and he was wrong in many areas, but he still was cutting-edge stuff. Let's come out of the 1800s, OK?

Such as the misrepresentation of DNA comparisons concerning humans, chimps and other ape species. Just another card that is played to distract from what the fossil record already so clearly shows.

Why? If life evolved on another planet, do you think DNA would in any way be similar to ours?

I'm assuming you believe the earth and universe has been here a long time. If I run with that then the term spontaneous means 50 to 100 million years, not instantly. Life on Earth went on for billions of years with little change, then something happened, you can call it magic God dust for all I care, but at one point a lifeform found it could get its energy from other lifeforms and the great arms race started of predator vs prey.

The problem is you and others see evolution as anti-God, and that isn't so. Evolution could be the tool of God too, so instead of finding why you do not think evolution works maybe look at how it can. Your only other choice is to suggest God made life in its current form and when was the last time life just poofed on the planet?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Chapter 7: “Ape-Men”—What Were They?

...

If “ape-man” reconstructions are not valid, then what were those ancient creatures whose fossil bones have been found? One of these earliest mammals claimed to be in the line of man is a small, rodentlike animal said to have lived about 70 million years ago. In their book Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey wrote: “They were insect-eating quadrupeds about the size and shape of squirrels.”⁠30 Richard Leakey called the mammal a “rat-like primate.”⁠31 But is there any solid evidence that these tiny animals were the ancestors of humans? No, instead only wishful speculation. No transitional stages have ever linked them with anything except what they were: small, rodentlike mammals.

Next on the generally accepted list, with an admitted gap of about 40 million years, are fossils found in Egypt and named Aegyptopithecus​—Egypt ape. This creature is said to have lived about 30 million years ago. Magazines, newspapers and books have displayed pictures of this small creature with headings such as: “Monkey-like creature was our ancestor.” (Time)⁠32 “Monkeylike African Primate Called Common Ancestor of Man and Apes.” (The New York Times)⁠33 “Aegyptopithecus is an ancestor which we share with living apes.” (Origins)⁠34 But where are the links between it and the rodent before it? Where are the links to what is placed after it in the evolutionary lineup? None have been found. [whereislogic: solution? Put everything on a sideline again leading nowhere and coming from something unspecified for which no fossil was found, and for good measure, change the storyline to: 'well, the evolution of man was not a straight line from one species to the next'. So you end up with an evolutionary tree where nothing* is placed on either side of any species; *: generic nonspecific names of mythological common ancestors for which no fossil is presented for evaluation don't count as placing something before another species for which we do have a fossil, so that's still "nothing" as I used the word there.]

30. Lucy, p. 315.

31. Origins, p. 40.

32. Time, “Just a Nasty Little Thing,” February 18, 1980, p. 58.

33. The New York Times, “Monkeylike African Primate Called Common Ancestor of Man and Apes,” by Bayard Webster, February 7, 1980, p. A14; “Fossils Bolster a Theory on Man’s Earliest Ancestor,” by Bayard Webster, January 1, 1984, Section 1, p. 16.

34. Origins, p. 52.

Now let's talk about Lucy and the 'ahum' "reconstruction" of the pelvis (to argue that it walked upright), from 19:54 - 23:16 below:

That behaviour by Johanson is a big red flag for recognizing propaganda. But if you must (can't resist), you can keep on doubling down on the straw man and red herring fallacies. Just don't expect me to waste time on responding to them.

a reply to: whereislogic

You don't accept spin and propaganda as you said. Is this why you are trying to convince others evolution is not what happened but it was intelligent design through a creator described in the bible. These very long posts of yours are a testimony to your efforts to promote creationism by citing the bible. Is the bible scientifically driven? Maybe is a religious book made by religious people for religious people.

a reply to: whereislogic

Once again all you want to do is grab whatever fits your point and not try to understand anything else. Who is the goofy MFer in the video? So should I just run with whatever he says?

I think we are done with these postings; I really do not want to keep reading your massive pastes and links.

a reply to: Consvoli

Evolutionary philosophies are purely religously motivated and rooted (I've used the link before and you still won't acknowledge it even if you ever clicked it, but this is a reminder for anyone truly openminded to the history of evolutionary mythology):

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2)

Charles Darwin didn't come up with it. He just copied from his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin (who hung out a lot with Mother Nature worshippers; 'nature did it') who in turn copied it from more ancient pagan religious philosophers, gurus and Brahmin (Hindu priests and teachers). A few modifications here and there, and they were good to go. As if all of us would forget where these pagan religious myths came from.

The actual science/knowledge (Latin: scientia; Greek: gno'sis), the facts, don't back them up as they do the account of Genesis. But that won't discourage some people from making a career out of selling philosophy and mythology under the marketingbanner "Science", making it pseudoscience. Exactly according to the behaviour described at 1 Timothy 6:20.

...
Knowledge (gno'sis) is put in a very favorable light in the Christian Greek Scriptures. However, not all that men may call “knowledge” is to be sought, because philosophies and views exist that are “falsely called ‘knowledge.’” (1Ti 6:20) ...
... Thus Paul wrote about some who were learning (taking in knowledge) “yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge [...] of truth.” (2Ti 3:6, 7)

a reply to: whereislogic

What do you mean by evolutionary philosophy and evolutionary mythology??

What is truly a myth is creation by intelligent design. This has begun shown long time ago but I bet the same myths are circulated online as if we still live in the dark ages.