Skip to comments.Where did we come from? Prehistoric fossils may rewrite human evolution (LOL!)
Posted on 04/14/2013 9:54:40 AM PDT by GodAndCountryFirst
A collection of prehuman skeletons has sparked intrigue and debate in the scientific community, eliciting calls to redraw or at least reconsider mankind's evolutionary map.
On Friday, an international team of researchers will publish their latest findings on Australopithecus sediba a uniquely puzzling prehuman species that lived nearly 2 million years ago. Led by Lee Berger, a paleoanthropologist at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, the research reveals new insights about the way Au. sediba walked, chewed, and moved, lending support to Berger's claim that the species is a direct human ancestor.
Experts have long identified Homo habilis as the most likely ancestor to Homo erectus the precursor to modern man but Bergers research points to an alternate lineage. Au. sediba predated Homo habilis by nearly 100,000 years, according to some estimates, and its "mosaic" blend of ape and human qualities suggests a different evolution from human ancestors (known as hominins) to our own Homo genus.
(Excerpt) Read more at theverge.com ...
Just read Dr. Berlinksi’s book: “The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Scientific Pretensions”. The witty mathematician tears apart the “thinking” of the evolutionary Marxists who are irrational.
Dad said he traded a three-legged cat for me.
I bet that existed back then, liberal cavemen who sat around all day and refused to hunt then complained: “Gorg have more deer meat than me” and the tribal elder “ Bargack Obomo” who took the deer meat from Gorg and redistributed it.
That’s the nature of science. When you get more information, you have to integrate it and recalculate. Religion doesn’t allow any new information, so there’s never any question of reconsidering your conclusions.
I'll add this:
"Without a doubt, the ultimate Black Swan is whatever it was that permitted merely genetic human beings to emerge into full humanness just yesterday (cosmically speaking), some 50,000 years ago. .....
"....once man consciously enters the sensorium of time and space, he is implicitly aware of both Absolute and Infinite, and therefore Love, Truth, Justice, Beauty, Virtue, and Eternity. These are the things that define man, not his genome. ....."
A religion that cannot encompass science is not worthy the name, while a science that cannot be reconciled with religion is not fit for human beings.
Obomo would not have been successful taking it himself. They would have kicked the crap out of him. No. Obomo somehow persuades the women and masses of inferior men to gang up and steal the deer meat. Then it is redistributed. The stronger men are outnumbered and leave the clan and migrate out of Africa. They go on to form mighty tribes that eventually grow into major countries. They leave behind the Obomo clan in Africa that continues to grow soft and is decimated within a year.
I started the creationist threads here
and I find it hilarious
ANOTHER rewriting of science to fit a theory, instead of their theory fitting the science
IN THE BEGINNING, GOD...
Science should not hold fast to one theory and then just twist all "new information" so that the same tired old theory "still works".
Religion doesn't allow new information? How about miracles? How about healing through prayer? From a religious standpoint, such events are new information which confirm how the world is supposed to work. But a materialist will cross their arms, shake their head, and say "That new information is bogus. The world doesn't work that way. It doesn't. It doesn't. It doesn't."
From where I sit, what you just posted is pure projection: Religion takes new information and gets stronger, while science never reconsiders its conclusion, it just manipulates data so that the new inputs don't threaten the agreed upon position.
Abstracting information from their environment is what made Adam and Eve the first humans.
In other words, if your pre-existing belief is that everything is God's will, then of course everything that happens is covered. So there is no new information.
I disagree. Judaism and most branches of Christianity have incorporated information form science quite well, if however laboriously.
The Vatican Observatory houses one of the best meteorite collections in the world. And many notable scientists have been and are believers.
Personally, I know of no instance where Torah at least, is not comportable with science.
If my belief system were that, so long as I pray for someone, then that person will never, ever die .. then I guess you would have a point. There would be a lot of tremendously old people walking around. But there aren’t. The fact that, in the end, everyone does die, does not in any way provide “evidence against God”.
And no “miracles” for amputees to grow back appendages.
Science is the best hope for limb regeneration. No amount of praying has seen anyone grow back an arm. Their god hates amputees, huh?
Exactly. There is nothing you would accept as "evidence against God," which is what I mean when I say that no new information is ever incorporated. The standing belief that everything is God's will means nothing is ever new. That's why religion and science have two different names. The latter must account for new information. For the former, there is no such thing.
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.