Posted on 04/11/2010 1:38:48 PM PDT by valkyry1
Identified via two-million-year-old fossils, a new human ancestor dubbed Australopithecus sediba may be the "key transitional species" between the apelike australopithecines—and the first Homo, or human, species, according to a new study.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.nationalgeographic.com ...
Thats not creationism thats the words of the Bible and it says that Adam was made from the dust of the earth and that God breathed life into him and all humanity was then born from them.
What makes you an evolutionist and not a scientist is your insistence that these new discoveries would not exist were they not based in evolutionary beliefs. This is a false claim.
And the evolutionist obsession with searching for that perfect missing link has nothing to do with the science either, for evolutionary biology would operate just as it has so far without that.
You have made it very clear that the topic of the article is not your main interest here given your replies and on post 55 where you people who do not agree with your beliefs as ‘cretins’.
Science produces value? Okay then scientists can produce a world of evil when they operate with wrong philosophical underpinnings and fall in love with their own intellects.
Your value judgments on creationists have nothing to do with this article so why dont you take it elsewhere
I am a scientist. The theory of evolution is the underlying theory of biology, much as the theory of universal gravitational attraction is the underlying theory of astronomy. Almost every biological discovery was made possible or eased by the understanding that knowledge of evolution has brought.
If you want a place where creationists are free to make as many ridiculous claims about evolution as they wish, declare that creationism is your religion and you can have a closed caucus thread where creationist can merrily say obviously incorrect things and nobody will be the wiser.
Because most creationists don't just reject the theory of evolution, they don't understand the theory of evolution.
Perhaps that is why the more educated a person is the less likely they are to be a creationist.
I only wanted you to stay on the topic of the article, not put words in peoples mouths, not hijack the thread, and not resort to personal insult. You failed in all of these.
You claim to be a scientist, but you come across as a evangelist for evolution. The evolutionist makes a mockery of true education. You have a degree in being indoctrinated, thats all. I could put up plenty of material for that but its for another thread.
Like I said, I am totally unconcerned about your value judgments of creationists, their education, and your insulting name-calling. Indeed that is one of the evolutionist primary tactics and it has nothing to do with science.
The evolutionist must attack the credentials and the intelligence of anyone who expresses doubt in their beliefs. Why? because there is so little scientific evidence that supports evolution. And what little evidence they have is highly questionable.
So the more time you can get people to spend defending themselves, the less time they have to present factual data about the unscientific notions upon which the theory of evolution is based. I tend to ignore the personal attacks and focus on science, and that’s the last thing an evolutionist wants to happen.
The discussion is about a hominid fossil, so naturally the subject of evolution and common descent came up.
When someone posted that interbreeding between species (humans and neanderthal specifically) was necessary for (human) evolution I pointed out that this was incorrect.
Having found yourself unable to advance your “god” vs “atheist” strawman that you presented as your initial gambit, you now try to thread hijack to make this about my attitude.
Sorry. It isn't about my religion. I am Christian. And it isn't about my attitude or the likelihood that I will point out that statistically the more educated you are the less likely you are to be a creationist.
It is about a hominid fossil.
Now evolution as a theory provides a model wherein this find can be discussed and evidence compiled and information learned.
Creationism provides nothing. There is no mechanism to differentiate between the “they are all deformed humans or apes” or the “they were their own species of ape” creationists. It leads nowhere, to nothing.
Science is a useful and predictive model that produces value.
Creationism isn't.
Nuff said.
How can I ‘make it about you’ when all I/we had were your replies to go on?
//that interbreeding between species (humans and neanderthal specifically) was necessary for (human) evolution I pointed out that this was incorrect//
The components and data points of the theory have changed so over time there is apparently not much that needs to be ‘correct’ inorder for the theory to work.
Evolution as a model means that like all other models it may be later discarded as false. Does lead to nowhere sound familiar? So as a scientist I would not be wedded to its veracity.
Well you ended where you began, with a diatribe on ‘creationists’ that was your strawman. Just understand that is not required to see the weakness in evolutionary beliefs.
Because scientific models are subject to change in the face of new data?
Really?
Really?
THAT is your position?
THAT?
Evolutionary biology explains why there are bipedal apes of this sort, where they likely came from, how long ago they lived, and where you could find more of them.
Creationism explains nothing, no two creationists explanations are likely to be similar and there is no mechanism for differentiating between.
That is not a strawman, it is the truth.
What she said was probably at one time postulated and taught to her as hard scientific fact ‘truth’, only to be shelved away later.
A man’s rationalizations do not equal truth even if several million agree on the same issue. So yes some number of scientists could well be on the ship of fools. It is the scientists who are still asking themselves questions about the unknowable and questioning their answers to it that I resonate with.
Since we are endowed with free will, a man makes his own destiny by the totality of his thoughts actions beliefs.
I remember a quote out of the Mahabharata from reading it many years ago so I might have got it wrong a little. It says something like ‘Beware Arjuna, those who worship lessor gods will go onto them’.
And science doesn't claim to be “truth”, but to be an accurate model that allows explanation and prediction. Once again you show you have no inkling of what it is you oppose.
You do indeed seem to worship a lessor god, but again, this is about a hominid fossil, not your peculiar theological beliefs.
What could possibly go awry with this thread?
Maybe this:
“Whatever state of being one remembers when he quits his body, that state he will attain without fail.”
Or perhaps:
“The results obtained by these foolish persons are temporary. Those who worship devas [demigods] attain the devas, and those who worship Me attain to me.”
You have miss-characterized what she had stated for your convenience I guess.
An accurate model which allows for explanation and prediction is on the level of ballistics and hard chemistry, these things can be demonstrated.
What the evolutionist attempts to accomplish with his beliefs is to give them the appearance of coming from such an accurate model. But the outsider who has not been indoctrinated in his beliefs and looks at the totality and history of evolutionary beliefs will say what??
Darwin’s works are a good place to start for anyone who might have doubts, there is some pretty absurd material in there.
The second one sounds something like it. Thanks!
The power of this method is so great that industries looking for enzymes for industrial processes do not design the enzyme they want from scratch, they evolve it by introducing random variation and stringent selective criteria.
Not only do we see evolution everywhere we look, it is biologically impossible for a species to not evolve. The very process of DNA replication introduces variation, and relevant variation is subject to selection.
However, the scientific method is NOT a philosophy.
It is a methodology for examining the physical world, just a tool.
But science is irrelevant to any theology not tied to physical dogma. That is why science is discussed, argued, and accepted worldwide by people of all faiths.
Because science, unlike faith, can be determined by evidence.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.
And without faith, it is impossible to please HIM, for those that come to him must believe that he is, and a rewarder of those who seek HIM.
//The model that Darwin proposed, of evolution through natural selection of variation, is a solid scientific model that explains facts and allows prediction//
Yeah here is your Darwin model
“it is conceivable that flying-fish, which now glide far through the air, slightly rising and turning by the aid of their fluttering fins, might have been modified into perfectly winged animals”
The people who choose to believe God over the speculations of man, no matter what they're based on, do not deserve the pejorative of *cretard* or *cretin* or whatever derogatory label you choose to attach to those who choose a different path than you.
You base your acceptance of the ToE on what you can see and touch which is certainly your right. But basing your acceptance of the TOE based on the evidence you see is not of faith and to add something that is not of faith to Scripture cannot, by your own reasoning, be pleasing to God.
Others of us base our acceptance of the creation account based on our conviction of God's truthfulness and reliability, accepting what He said in matters where we haven't seen Him work based on His faithfulness in our lives in areas where we have seen Him work.
FWIW, the main area of disagreement concerning the ToE between evos and creationists is the amount of change that occurs. Creationists do NOT disagree with natural selection and variation within species. That can be clearly seen. The major area is the amount of change that's capable of happening. Simply because one doesn't believe that enough change can happen to cause speciation, does not mean one is stupid or ignorant or uneducated. It means that someone has a different philosophical basis for their interpretation of the evidence. And that basis is based on interpretation of Scripture.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that it's not valid, because your basis is that of "methodological naturalism", which is simply your choice. "Methodological naturalism" is strictly a philosophy and as such cannot be supported scientifically, as science is incapable of addressing that which cannot be observed of tested. So your choice to go with that has no more valid a basis than anyone who chooses to accept what God had written in Scripture as He wrote it.
Evos as a whole like to present themselves as intellectually superior and better educated that those who disagree with them (present company included, amd) but that cannot be demonstrated by adherence to a certain philosophy. One's philosophical position is not a litmus test or indicator of intelligence.
If faith is so important to you, then why do you go to such lengths to mock the intelligence of those who disagree with you? You're all worried about how creationists make Christians and conservatives look because of how they choose to exercise their faith in God (which evos portray as being *stupid*), and yet it seems to completely escape your notice how your mockery and derision of those who disagree with you make evolutionists look.
At worst, creationists will be portrayed as stupid (really only because they're portrayed that way by evos such as yourself). Your behavior and that of other evos, makes them come across as mean-spirited, spiteful, and condescending, which doesn't even need to be portrayed by anyone else as anyone can see that behavior for what it is.
To convince others that creationists are stupid requires attacks and convincing, as one's intellectual capabilities are not immediately apparent based on their belief in creation. To convince others that evos are mean spirited and spiteful just requires that others see their behavior. It speaks for itself.
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.