Posted on 02/22/2017 11:14:17 AM PST by fishtank
Coming from you I take that as high praise.
.
Its as close to praise as you’re likely to ever get.
.
I feel sorry for you.
Man isn’t coming from the apes, he’s going to them.
= = =
I don’t think we are going back to apes, but
I believe we ARE getting dumber.
The increase and availability of information and data (the ‘web’) have made people assume they are ‘smart’.
Sorry. Wisdom and knowledge are not the same thing.
Ancient cultures knew all about the seasons, the celestial bodies, plants and animals and their habits. They just did not know their ‘scientific latin name’.
Oh, back to the ‘becoming apes.’ I recognize that certain elements DO have characteristics of apes - - actions, reaction to their environment, treatment of their fellow animals, methods of survival, intellegence level, etc.
And those characteristics seem to define an actual divide or separation in our culture. Real enough that I make that part of my daily ‘calculus’ (please don’t criticize me for a brief foray into “bo-speak”)
What are you guys talking about?
“Does adaptive evolution within a species go on: Of cource”
Two things.
1) What are you talking about, “adaptive evolution”?
Define that and explain how it us not redundant.
2). Justify your “of course”.
What is “naturalism”?
Have you seen the movie “Idiocracy”?
The premise is that the smart people are never ready to have kids, while the drunk village redneck is knocking up his wife, his girlfriend, his neighbor, random others. The smart couple waits until its too late, while the redneck is popping out kids like popcorn.
Over the course of 500 years, this takes a toll on the national IQ.
Thanks.
It’s not really an article, rather a feature story.
And, it underscores just what just-so nonsense is disseminated to the public.
Claptrap like this makes physical anthropology look really bad. Probably not fair to the field and scientists working it it.
But, the general public wouldn’t understand and takes thus stuff as gospel.
That’s not an example of evolution, but of alien species... mainly Klingon.
She is yelling “YOUR MOTHER HAS A SMOOTH FOREHEAD”, one of her favorite insults in her mother tongue.
Over the course of 500 years, this takes a toll on the national IQ.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speak for yourself. My sons will purify the planet with their genes while the rest of their generation is aborted and brainwashed with sexual deviance until my DNA is the dominant human genome here and the worlds beyond.
LOL!
I quickly read the original article and what I understand is that we have a different common ancestor with the Neanderthals than previously thought, and that this ancestor is further back in time. In this context “primitive” doesn’t mean inferior, but simply that modern humans conserved some facial traits that Neanderthals did not. We’re still around. Neanderthals are extinct, as are all other human species.
You didn't understand my criticism?
Let me illustrate by example. Say some flippant atheist says he can't believe in Christianity because there is no way a cloud could support God's throne chair. This criticism is obviously useless. Mature erudite Christians do not think God's throne is literally sitting on some cloud, although a small Christian child might.
If one wants to debunk something, then one should show why the most plausible forms of it are wrong. I think this article was focusing on some silly people doing wild guess work with fossils rather than tackling the more plausible reasons one might believe in evolutionary theory. Which is fine if the only thing they were really trying to criticize was the silliness of these particular people, but they seemed to generalize it to imply therefore all evolutionists were silly, which I thought was not a valid way to argue.
which can lead to all sorts of bad reasoning.
The philosophical doctrine that there is nothing super-natural.
Naturalism is very close to materialism, and typically atheists are naturalists and materialists.
The best illustration between Naturalism and its opposite Super-Naturalism I think was made by CS Lewis in his book "Miracles" in chapter 2.
I have seen people make that kind of bogus argument, but its not what I had in mind.
“The philosophical doctrine that there is nothing super-natural.”
Thanks.
I am more familiar with it being called materialism.
Where’s Laz?
it is a very controversial discussion, among people of faith, it doesn’t shake my faith, but i wish they wouldn’t ridicule the belief in creationism...
thanks for the info
t
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.