tonorator Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 proof that our evolutionist friends really have no idea how we came to be here. Overall what it paints for human evolution is a "chaotic kind of looking evolutionary tree rather than this heroic march that you see with the cartoons of an early ancestor evolving into some intermediate and eventually unto us," Spoor said in a phone interview from a field office of the Koobi Fora Research Project in northern Kenya. That old evolutionary cartoon, while popular with the general public, keeps getting proven wrong and too simple, said Bill Kimbel, who praised the latest findings. He is science director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University and wasn't involved in the research team. "The more we know, the more complex the story gets," he said. Scientists used to think Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthals, he said, but now know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals. Now a similar discovery applies further back in time. see the article for the new discovery ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Wait, you mean that scientists actually revise their theories once new information becomes available? I can see how that might not sit well with the creationist crowd who simply disregard any and all empirical data in favor of a fairy tale... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Interesting article..... thanks. I have no idea how one concludes possible advances in evolutionary theory by scientists prove that previous scientists had no idea how we came about. Your using conclusions from the scientific method to claim the scientific method doesn't work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 proof that our evolutionist friends really have no idea how we came to be here.see the article for the new discovery ... All the changes to human evolutionary thought should not be considered a weakness in the theory of evolution, Kimbel said. Rather, those are the predictable results of getting more evidence, asking smarter questions and forming better theories, he said. Way to leave that part of the article out of your paste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Way to leave that part of the article out of your paste I expected more from tonorator. He is normally pretty even-handed and not subversive. Are we certain H8Tank didn't steal his password? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 what would skins do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 what would skins do? Tormanondogit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengal Mania Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 (edited) Wait, you mean that scientists actually revise their theories once new information becomes available? I can see how that might not sit well with the creationist crowd who simply disregard any and all empirical data in favor of a fairy tale... I think the "true" creationist (as in there was nothing, then 7 days later there was everything) crowd has dwindled mightily due to the advances of science. I'm not a creationist at all in that sense. I do fall in a pretty large group that believes in a superior being. The Bible, I believe, cannot be taken literally (this by itself could tangent off a bunch of discussion). But look at the time it was written, and what the knowledge was of the people who first read it. The "creationist" story would seem to be (maybe) appropriate for the crowd. I don't know. I think it's interesting that all the gospels were written by different people at different times, but tell the same story. (I'm sure science can explain a plausible theory about this, I'm not arguing) Maybe the "creation" was God putting those traits in the evolved man that separate him from all other creatures. Science can't explain conscience, love, hate, etc. The free will expressed in the Bible allows some people to give in to temptation, to committ evil acts, etc, while others sacrifice lives, money, time, to help others, for example. No other creature in a scientifically-proven evolutionary species does anything like this. Why? Science has absolutely no theory to explain why you felt like you did when your kid was born. All of this is based on faith, about whether you can believe in something that can't (someday) be proven to you. It's tough, and it's hard to not doubt a lot of it at times. What if each of the "seven days" really stood for some long-scientific evolutionary time, like a billion years. Somebody do the math, divide the whole history of the universe (according to Science) into seven equal components. See if each of hte things the Bible says God did on each day fall into that component of evolution. Did evolution of the universe happen in the approximately same order as described in Genesis? Cuz if it did, somebody's gonna need to get a scientist to explain how the heck somebody thousands of years ago couldv'e known this scientific theory so well, even though they crafted it into a "fairy tale" that offends Spain. Edited August 8, 2007 by Bengal Mania Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 I think the "true" creationist (as in there was nothing, then 7 days later there was everything) crowd has dwindled mightily due to the advances of science. I'm not a creationist at all in that sense. I do fall in a pretty large group that believes in a superior being. Why so many people think that the two theories are mutually-exclusive is beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengal Mania Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Why so many people think that the two theories are mutually-exclusive is beyond me. I think the literal belief that creation happened ~10,000 years ago in one week is pretty much mutually-exclusive from all of evolutionary theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffeeman Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 I think the literal belief that creation happened ~10,000 years ago in one week is pretty much mutually-exclusive from all of evolutionary theory. Agreed, but I think most of the Bible-believing folks here are not strict creationists using that definition. What seems to be most popular is a merging of the two ideas - that God somehow used evolution over a period of time in the creation. Am I correct here, people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 (edited) I think the literal belief that creation happened ~10,000 years ago in one week is pretty much mutually-exclusive from all of evolutionary theory. I was referring to the general belief in a higher power that set evolution in motion, rather than the specific Judeo-Christian tenet outlined in the Old Testament that you're (apparently) referring to here. Edited August 8, 2007 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted August 8, 2007 Author Share Posted August 8, 2007 Interesting article..... thanks. I have no idea how one concludes possible advances in evolutionary theory by scientists prove that previous scientists had no idea how we came about. Your using conclusions from the scientific method to claim the scientific method doesn't work. when the evolutionists portray man evolving from a neanderthals only to then discover that humans existed at the same time that neanderthals did, that proves they are pretty far off base. this latest discovery shows how the nice cartoon of us no longer dragging our knuckles is just bunk. for evolution to work, the highly evolved human form that we now exhibit must be the result of millions of years of subtle changes to us. when we discover that one pre-evolved form walked around at the same time as the highly evolved form, then we are way, way off base. i'm not discounting the scientific method and its effectiveness in continuing to build and refine our understanding of this world. it works. these kinds of discoveries, however, prove that those who believe in an evolutionary theory know about as much as those who thought the earth was flat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted August 8, 2007 Author Share Posted August 8, 2007 Tormanondogit? i miss skins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 when the evolutionists portray man evolving from a neanderthals only to then discover that humans existed at the same time that neanderthals did, that proves they are pretty far off base. uhh, not really, but since we're on the subject, what is the bible's theory on neanderthals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Meh...whatever. Just because evolution possibly didn't progress in a nice orderly cartoon like fashion doesn't even come close to proving that evolutionary theory doesn't have merit. This is the way science works. I think it's pretty obvious you aren't so much interested in the discovery as you are trying to diminish evolutionary theory and pimp Creationism. and your basis for it is pretty weak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Maybe the "creation" was God putting those traits in the evolved man that separate him from all other creatures. Science can't explain conscience, love, hate, etc. The free will expressed in the Bible allows some people to give in to temptation, to committ evil acts, etc, while others sacrifice lives, money, time, to help others, for example. No other creature in a scientifically-proven evolutionary species does anything like this. Why? Science has absolutely no theory to explain why you felt like you did when your kid was born. love and hate are reactions to certain chemicals in your brain releasing... the emotions can be manipulated... I believe in a higher being, but don't know who or what that is... maybe it's the moops.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 I believe in a higher being, but don't know who or what that is... maybe it's the moops.. I thought it was whomper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 I thought it was whomper no, he is a Cowboys fan... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 no, he is a Cowboys fan... The lowest form of life known to man.... :ducksandcoversasDMDpullsoutrealgun: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 The lowest form of life known to man.... :ducksandcoversasDMDpullsoutrealgun: I wouldn't be shocked if you had logging in problems for the next week or so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 (edited) when the evolutionists portray man evolving from a neanderthals only to then discover that humans existed at the same time that neanderthals did, that proves they are pretty far off base. this latest discovery shows how the nice cartoon of us no longer dragging our knuckles is just bunk. for evolution to work, the highly evolved human form that we now exhibit must be the result of millions of years of subtle changes to us. when we discover that one pre-evolved form walked around at the same time as the highly evolved form, then we are way, way off base. Ton, you have a fundamental misunderstanding, and the author knows very little about evolution. First of all, the finding by Leakey isn't even about Neanderthals (Homo Neanderthalensis). Its comparing Homo habilis and Homo erectus. The tree of evolution is refined with every new discovery but only in the details not in the grand scheme. We share a common ancestor with Chimpanzes, the Great Apes, Lemurs, Monkeys, etc. Multiple human-like forms existed over the years. Neandethals lived at the same time as early Homo sapiens (us). Look up a human evolutionary tree somewhere. You'll see a dozen branches. Some died off, some keep going, but we are not "off base". The only goal of evolution is to survive and have babies. There is technically no "higher" being - only different methods of sending DNA into the next generation. Edited August 8, 2007 by The Irish Doggy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 uhh, not really, but since we're on the subject, what is the bible's theory on neanderthals? I think Goliath was a neanderthal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 I think Goliath was a neanderthal At the very least i Like Soup is a descendant of his Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted August 8, 2007 Author Share Posted August 8, 2007 uhh, not really, but since we're on the subject, what is the bible's theory on neanderthals? not sure how that is relevant to this discussion ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.