Early human ancestor didn't have the jaws of a nutcracker

South Africa's Australopithecus sediba, discovered in 2008 at the archaeological site of Malapa in the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site, is again helping us to study and understand the origins of humans. Research published in 2012 garnered international attention by suggesting that a possible early human ancestor had lived on a diverse woodland diet including hard foods mixed in with tree bark, fruit, leaves and other plant products.

But new research by an international team of researchers now shows that Australopithecus sediba didn't have the jaw and tooth structure necessary to exist on a steady diet of hard foods.

"Most australopiths had amazing adaptations in their jaws, teeth and faces that allowed them to process foods that were difficult to chew or crack open. Among other things, they were able to efficiently bite down on foods with very high forces," said team leader David Strait, PhD, professor of anthropology in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis.

And it takes no great genius to ask questions for which there are not answers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You’re right there, I never claimed to be a genius.

However, after all of the junk science I’ve seen (”climate change” being the most recent and prominent of it), and seeing the similar arguments used to support neo-Darwinian evolution (percentage of scientists’ consensus, settled science, evidence provided by vested interests, etc.), it leads me to my conclusion.

How much study do you need to answer some of the most basic questions that underpin the theory? We’ve had over 150 years. Most laymen (read: non-geniuses) should not be able to come up with unanswerable questions.

Should we be calling academics “scientists” when they simply pull “sexual selection” out of their hats when they can’t explain a trait that (logically) should have been eradicated by natural selection? And then they even claim that it PROVES their theory and call people stupid for questioning it, instead of prompting a re-examination of the theory?

If you have to use the Dawkins trifecta - anyone who doesn’t believe what I do is either “stupid, ignorant, or insane” - to upgrade your hypothesis to theory, it’s not very good science.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You’ve just recited some famous controversies or frauds from 100+ years ago, as if they happened yesterday.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You act like we don’t use theories from 100+ years ago.

Science is science, or so I’m told.

The methods by which those hoaxes permeated and endured in scientific academia is the most instructive part of those incidents.

Many of those methods that allowed those hoaxes to be foisted onto scientists of the time are still in place. For example, most of the Devonian fish fossils (with a very small number of notable exceptions) are small bone fragments extrapolated into entire creatures.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In fact, in every case, science worked just as it is supposed to: errors were reviewed, exposed & corrected eventually, by other scientists.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You mean they asked questions about “settled science”? Imagine that! Oh no, wait, they found other evidence of outright tampering, but never questioned the premise upon which the fossils themselves were based.

“Your Honor, Mr. Jones is most assuredly a murderer, but this knife was planted at the scene. However, I’m sure the REAL knife will turn up, and possibly some other weapons he used to kill the victim with, if we just search another 150 years or so.”

Angryoldfatman: “...after all of the junk science I’ve seen (’climate change’ being the most recent and prominent of it), and seeing the similar arguments used to support neo-Darwinian evolution (percentage of scientists’ consensus, settled science, evidence provided by vested interests, etc.), it leads me to my conclusion.”

In the world of scientific terminology, AGW — anthropogenic global warming — qualifies as an unconfirmed, or at best, weakly confirmed **hypothesis**, since it has not yet accurately predicted future climate.

By sharp contrast, Darwin’s basic evolution **theory** is confirmed daily by many scientists working in related fields.
So, the fact that you can concoct questions which have not been answered does not negate the theory, just points to areas for future research.

The scientific term for disproving a theory is “falsification” and generally refers to new evidence which is contrary to the theory ‘ s predictions.
Basic evolution theory has never been falsified scientifically.

Angryoldfatman: “How much study do you need to answer some of the most basic questions that underpin the theory?”

OK... let me ask you a favor.
Please take a few minutes to write down what you imagine are these “basic questions”, and then rank them in your mind from most important on down.
I’ll answer them, and let’s see where that leads.

Angryoldfatman : “Should we be calling academics â€œscientistsâ€ when they simply pull â€œsexual selectionâ€ out of their hats when they canâ€™t explain a trait that (logically) should have been eradicated by natural selection?”

Can you be more specific?

Angryoldfatman : “the methods by which those hoaxes permeated and endured in scientific academia is the most instructive part of those incidents.”

In fact, you mentioned three examples, all from 100+ years ago, two of which were frauds, one a controversy since resolved.
Of the two frauds, one was very quickly exposed, the other, Piltdown Man, took some years to fully understand, but 8n the end had no effect on our overall picture of prehistoric times.
So I don’t “get” why you still think it’s such a big deal.

Now I’m out of time, more later....

In the world of scientific terminology, AGW â€” anthropogenic global warming â€” qualifies as an unconfirmed, or at best, weakly confirmed **hypothesis**, since it has not yet accurately predicted future climate.

By sharp contrast, Darwinâ€™s basic evolution **theory** is confirmed daily by many scientists working in related fields.
So, the fact that you can concoct questions which have not been answered does not negate the theory, just points to areas for future research.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I know the difference between “theory” and “hypothesis”, thanks. You’re not talking to some bucktoothed hick off of the street in Bugtussle, South Alabamissipina. So no need to bring up old saws you’ve pulled from the Website Talking Point Handbook of Arguing with Bible-Thumping Chucklechumps.

Your claim of climate change predicting nothing can also be applied to Neo-Darwinism. Darwinian theory has predicted nothing that has been observed in realtime.

Selection pressures on microorganisms, yes. Speciation? There’s not even an agreed upon definition of species, much less an observation of one emerging in realtime.

Hell, there’s not even evidence of one in the fossil record, strictly speaking. If there was, Gould and Eldredge would not be (or have been) considered scientists.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The scientific term for disproving a theory is â€œfalsificationâ€ and generally refers to new evidence which is contrary to the theory â€˜ s predictions.
Basic evolution theory has never been falsified scientifically.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It’s never been falsified, like climate change, because as soon as you kick the football through the goalposts, the referees move the goalposts and declare your touchdown null and void.

The Pre-Cambrian rabbit is the old saw you’re looking for here. If we found rabbit bones underneath trilobites, there goes Darwinism, right?

Wrong.

There’d be an ad hoc explanation of why those bones were there which would consist of some wacky improbable narrative, at which point the data point could be safely discarded and confirmation bias could once again reign supreme.

Just like climate change.

And then anybody who points out how wacky or improbable the narrative is then gets called stupid, ignorant, and/or insane, declared persona non grata in anything to do with science, unlike “97% of scientists who agree this is true and properly scientific because... science!”.

Just like climate change.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK... let me ask you a favor.
Please take a few minutes to write down what you imagine are these â€œbasic questionsâ€, and then rank them in your mind from most important on down.
Iâ€™ll answer them, and letâ€™s see where that leads.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, you’re the one who claimed that I asked questions that were unanswerable (or didn’t have an answer). So list and handle those.

In addition to that, I’ve implied a couple above. Like, what is a species? What has neo-Darwinism predicted for a particular species (pick one, if you can find a hard definition)?

But this is fairly boring, how-many-angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin type of stuff. My next post will change the focus a bit onto the true crux of the issue, in my opinion.

But let’s say for the sake of argument that Darwinian theory is solid and true. Where does that leave us?

We are mere animals, doomed to extinction at some point in the course of our universe’s continued churning.

This is inevitable. If our lives were ultimately formed by the bumping together of atoms and molecules (and the products thereof) for eons upon eons, then it will end the same way.

Thus, science is futile and ultimately useless.

Therefore, your arguing about whether this little sticking point or that little mote of science is absolutely and positively precise and accurate is a futile, useless gesture that is a waste of time and space.

And if science is the crowning achievement of mankind, then that makes mankind essentially a waste of time and space, as is anything and everything that exists. Existence falls to non-existence, thus waste.

Too bad, so sad. Must be a real bummer to believe all that. And if you don’t agree with even a small part of that, you are either inconsistent or delusional.

Hmmm, that last part sounds familiar, doesn’t it? ;-)

angryoldfatman: "If you have to use the Dawkins trifecta -- anyone who doesn't believe what I do is either 'stupid, ignorant, or insane' -- to upgrade your hypothesis to theory, it's not very good science."

So, it seems, you do know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory?
You may know that a hypothesis is a scientifically confirmable idea, while a theory is a hypothesis which has been strongly confirmed.

AGW -- anthropogenic global warming -- is an unconfirmed, or at best weakly confirmed, hypothesis.
It cannot qualify as strongly confirmed theory until its predictions -- measurable global warming caused by other than natural factors -- are demonstrated accurate.
Since that has not yet happened, AGW remains an interesting hypothesis which has, unfortunately, grabbed the imaginations of Big Government politicians.

By sharp contrast, Darwin's basic evolution hypothesis is confirmed daily by many, many working scientists in fields related to it.
Of course, "confirmed theory" doesn't mean you are required by law to believe it -- you're not.
You're not required to believe anything from science, just so long as you don't label your own contrary beliefs "science".

angryoldfatman: "Many of those methods that allowed those hoaxes to be foisted onto scientists of the time are still in place.
For example, most of the Devonian fish fossils (with a very small number of notable exceptions) are small bone fragments extrapolated into entire creatures."

And this is a problem because you suspect there were no Devonian fish?
Or is it that you tremble at the thought that sometime, somewhere, somehow some scientist may have got his/her interpretation of a particular fossil wrong?
This causes, what, a crisis of faith in your soul?
Why?

Scientists do the best they can with the data they have.
When new data comes along, or new ideas, then the science changes -- that's the way science is supposed to work.
So what exactly is your problem with that?

angryoldfatman: "You mean they asked questions about 'settled science'? Imagine that!
Oh no, wait, they found other evidence of outright tampering, but never questioned the premise upon which the fossils themselves were based."

No, of the three items you mentioned, only Piltdown Man was a serious hoax, created for the purpose of filling in the supposed "missing link" between humans & apes.
It was immediately suspected by some, as being too odd to be accepted, but it took nearly 40 years for formal investigations to utterly debunk it.

In the mean time, thousands of real fossils from hundreds of individuals in dozens of pre-human or early human populations were uncovered, each one providing a clearer & more precise picture of prehistoric times.
So, by the time Piltdown Man was formally overthrown, it had long since become an anomaly, outside the mainstream of science.

Bottom line: science moved-on beyond Piltdown Man, long before the "fossil" itself was formally debunked.

So what, exactly, is your problem with it?

angryoldfatman: "You'[re not talking to some bucktoothed hick off of the street in Bugtussle, South Alabamissipina."

So you say.

angryoldfatman: "Your claim of climate change predicting nothing can also be applied to Neo-Darwinism. Darwinian theory has predicted nothing that has been observed in realtime."

No, Evolution Theory makes many confirmed predictions, none ever scientifically falsified.

Here is a listing of some confirmed evolution predictions

angryoldfatman: "Selection pressures on microorganisms, yes.
Speciation?
There's not even an agreed upon definition of species, much less an observation of one emerging in realtime."

But biological classifications (i.e., Kingdom, Phylum, Order, Class, etc.) have been around for centuries, with steadily improving definitions and sorting.
To cite one example, just in recent years it was discovered there are not two but three basic domains of life: Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya.
At the detailed end of the scale, DNA analysis has shuffled many populations from separate species to sub-species or even genera, based on the percentages of similar DNA and their ability (or lack of) to interbreed.

Point is, as the data becomes more finite, classifications steadily improve.
So why is that a problem for you?

angryoldfatman: "Hell, there's not even evidence of one in the fossil record, strictly speaking."

Of course there is, the fossil record is chock-full of such evidence.
Of course, if you refuse to see it, that's your choice, see whatever you wish -- or don't wish -- to see.
Just don't call what you do see "science".

angryoldfatman: "The Pre-Cambrian rabbit is the old saw you're looking for here.
If we found rabbit bones underneath trilobites, there goes Darwinism, right?
Wrong.
There'd be an ad hoc explanation of why those bones were there which would consist of some wacky improbable narrative..."

Wacky, improbable?
How improbable is it that on a hillside, rabbit fossils wash down the hill and get reburied below those of trilobites?
Sounds to me entirely ordinary & common, and evidence for it should be looked for in any fossil dig.

So far from being a challenge to the fundamentals of science, its just one of those things you have to watch for.

Less common, but also frequently noted, when landmasses collide -- i.e., Italy with Europe (Alps), or India with Asia (Himalayas), younger strata are sometimes forced underneath older geological layers.
Again, this does not challenge science itself, it's just one of those things you have to watch and account for.

angryoldfatman: "And then anybody who points out how wacky or improbable the narrative is then gets called stupid, ignorant, and/or insane, declared persona non grata in anything to do with science, unlike '97% of scientists who agree this is true and properly scientific because... science!'."

Well, well....
You know, don't you, that science is a discipline, a school of thought, and to some degree at least, a brotherhood.
Science accepts pretty much anybody who will accept the discipline, learn the schools and join the brotherhood.
People who do that can be called "scientists" almost regardless of how humble their scientific work may be.

But people who don't will be dismissed outright and ridiculed if they persist in the public error of calling their own ideas "scientific".
As you might imagine, scientists feel obligated to both define what they consider valid science, and defend it against non-scientific claims.

Which is far from saying that all of science is "doctrine" or that "settled science" can never be unsettled.
Of course it can be, and frequently is, but only by other scientists with better data or ideas.

angryoldfatman: "Well, you're the one who claimed that I asked questions that were unanswerable (or didn't have an answer). So list and handle those."

I did that, so now all your questions are answered, right?
;-)

angryoldfatman: "Like, what is a species?"

That's easy: consider the three biological classifications together: sub-species, species and genus.

Sub-species within a single species can and often do interbreed with other subspecies, producing viable offspring.
It is now said, for example, that Neanderthals were a sub-species of homo-sapiens.
Species are defined as similar populations which do not normally interbreed in the wild, but can sometimes be forced in captivity.
The Zebra genus, for example, includes three different species with eight sub-species among them.
Sub-species do interbreed, species do not, normally.
Different genera of the same biological family will not only refuse to interbreed, they cannot be forced to in captivity, because their DNAs are just too different.
A good example is African versus Indian Elephants.

angryoldfatman: "What has neo-Darwinism predicted for a particular species (pick one, if you can find a hard definition)?"

See my link posted above.

angryoldfatman: "My next post will change the focus a bit onto the true crux of the issue, in my opinion."

I'll wait.

angryoldfatman: "We are mere animals, doomed to extinction at some point in the course of our universe's continued churning."

I think what you're missing is a clear idea of the boundry line separating science and religion.
Today's word "science" is short for the term our Founders used: "natural-science" which they derived from the ancient term "natural-philosophy".
Today's science -- natural-science -- is based on some hugely important assumptions including: 1) there are natural explanations for natural processes, and 2) natural processes we see today operated the same way in the past.

So, the importance of science's natural assumption is that as soon as you attempt to answer your welt-angst questions by leaving the natural realm, now you've also left science for the realms of philosophy, theology and religion.
Science, by definition, cannot answer, stubbornly refuses to answer, such questions.

angryoldfatman: "Thus, science is futile and ultimately useless."

Philosophically... religiously, of course, since science was never intended to address such matters.
But science is vastly greater than "futile" or "useless" in devising methods for feeding, clothing, housing & finding employment for now seven point something billion human beings.

And anybody can easily see that while science continues to advance by orders of magnitude every generation, philosophically we are still stuck in the 1848 Revolution and Marx's Communist Manifesto, while any religious ideas are poisoned by political correctness and therefore are withering on our spiritual vine.

All of that is true, but the fault is not science, it's our own fallen natures, and our eagerness to close our eyes to the light of theological truth. </metaphor>

angryoldfatman: "And if science is the crowning achievement of mankind, then that makes mankind essentially a waste of time and space, as is anything and everything that exists.
Existence falls to non-existence, thus waste."

These are lessons most people first learn in their sophomore year, hence the term: sophomoric.
No, mankind's "crowning achievement" is not science, but rather long before there was such a thing as "science", in a place called "Golgotha", the crown was made of thorns.

Doubtless you remember it, FRiend.

I think what you’re missing is a clear idea of the boundry line separating science and religion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think you truly have not thought out the full implications of your position. You can’t have an isolated belief; all beliefs come with a set of supporting a priori beliefs.

An isolated belief without support is incoherent.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, the importance of science’s natural assumption is that as soon as you attempt to answer your welt-angst questions by leaving the natural realm, now you’ve also left science for the realms of philosophy, theology and religion.
Science, by definition, cannot answer, stubbornly refuses to answer, such questions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Science, theology, religion, it all ends when we end.

If we had all the answers to all of the questions we asked of the universe, whether that is via science, theology, religion, or some combination thereof, those answers would be extinct as soon as we are extinct.

Is Darwin wrong? Do we not share flesh and blood with other animals that have gone extinct?

If he is wrong, that puts your entire premise into question. If he is wrong, then you are wrong.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All of that is true, but the fault is not science, it’s our own fallen natures, and our eagerness to close our eyes to the light of theological truth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What happens when “theological truth” contradicts science? Does science “win”? In that case, theology is wrong. In that case, if you tout theology as being superior somehow to science, you are wrong.

Otherwise, you believe the same type of things that bucktoothed rednecks from South Alabamissipina do. Except for that whole nagging litmus test for intelligence called Darwinism.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
These are lessons most people first learn in their sophomore year, hence the term: sophomoric.
No, mankind’s “crowning achievement” is not science, but rather long before there was such a thing as “science”, in a place called “Golgotha”, the crown was made of thorns.

Doubtless you remember it, FRiend.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There are lessons people learn in their pre-school years as well. To call seemingly forgotten philosophy “sophomoric” is the same as calling belief in God and Jesus Christ “pre-school”.

You may have not meant it as insulting, but it seems to me that you did.

But really, it doesn’t matter anyway.

The life of one man - a short one, not even forty years - will be consigned to oblivion like the entirety of mankind will. At the present rate, with more people realizing that they were NOT created, but formed as products upon products initially assembled by chance, the man’s life is doomed to oblivion long before Homo sapiens is.

His life, your life, my life, all life - gone. Science, gone. Theology, gone. Philosophy, gone.

Good, gone. Evil, gone. Fairness, gone. Justice, gone. Truth, gone. Falseness, gone.

So Darwin wasn’t even wrong. He, like all of us, is inconsequential and irrelevant.

angryoldfatman: "I think you truly have not thought out the full implications of your position.
You can't have an isolated belief; all beliefs come with a set of supporting a priori beliefs.
An isolated belief without support is incoherent."

What's "incoherent" is your babbling here.
I don't have "isolated beliefs" lacking "supporting a priori beliefs".
So you must be fantasizing & projecting your own confusions, FRiend.

angryoldfatman: "Science, theology, religion, it all ends when we end.
If we had all the answers to all of the questions we asked of the universe, whether that is via science, theology, religion, or some combination thereof, those answers would be extinct as soon as we are extinct."

Only if you believe nothing transcends the natural world.
And most people don't believe that, nor do they believe in a meaningless eschatological demise of human life.
Of course, such beliefs are not scientific, but rather are theological & religious.

angryoldfatman: "Is Darwin wrong?
Do we not share flesh and blood with other animals that have gone extinct?
If he is wrong, that puts your entire premise into question. If he is wrong, then you are wrong."

Was Darwin wrong about what?
Wrong about some small detail of his evolution theory, or wrong about its basics?
Sorry FRiend, but you have descended into babbling incoherence here.
It time for you to get a grip on your brain, and spit out a cogent idea.

angryoldfatman: "What happens when 'theological truth' contradicts science?
Does science 'win'?
In that case, theology is wrong.
In that case, if you tout theology as being superior somehow to science, you are wrong."

But in one sense, theology, by design & definition does contradict science, in every way, all the time.
That's because science, also by definition and design, only relates to the natural realm, while theology specifically studies the supernatural.

Science -- natural science -- per se does not deny the supernatural, simply by definition, cannot study or evaluate it.
Science -- natural science -- leaves such work to philosophy, metaphysics, theology & religion.

The term which incorporates this scientific outlook is: "methodological naturalism", and it refers to the basic scientific assumption of: natural explanations for natural processes.
All scientists, to work as scientists, must accept the methodological naturalism assumption.
Simultaneously, when they hang up their scientific coats, leave their labs and go home to family, they are free to believe whatever supernatural religion they chose.

But there is also a different form of naturalism, which goes by various names, including "philosophical naturalism", "ontological naturalism", and "metaphysical naturalism" and it refers to the atheistic belief that there is, in fact, no supernatural realm.
It is not scientific, but rather a religious belief which denies the existence of anything beyond the natural realm, and we have seen it publicized widely by such famous scientific atheists as Richard Dawkins.

Philosophical naturalism is widely accepted by many scientists, but unlike methodological naturalism, it's not required to be a scientist, and is very far from universal.
For example, on Free Republic threads we sometimes see astonishing lists of famous scientists, both modern and pre-modern, who were also devout Christians.

So, in a larger sense of separate definitions and realms, natural-science does not conflict with spiritual Christianity, and the Bible is not at war against science.

angryoldfatman: "Otherwise, you believe the same type of things that bucktoothed rednecks from South Alabamissipina do.
Except for that whole nagging litmus test for intelligence called Darwinism."

I'd call your comment here a brain malfunction, mindless stream-of-conscious rubbish.
So I'll say it again: you need to get a grip on your mind, force it to think in coherent, logical & connected sentences.
Otherwise you're just wasting everybody's time, FRiend.

angryoldfatman: "There are lessons people learn in their pre-school years as well.
To call seemingly forgotten philosophy 'sophomoric' is the same as calling belief in God and Jesus Christ 'pre-school'."

Nothing wrong with lessons learned in pre-school, as widely popularized by such books as:

"Sophomoric", on the other hand refers to half-baked, immature but highly pretentious expressions of the kind we'd expect from a "wise fool".
Nothing about them is attractive, illuminating or instructive, but that is nearly always overlooked, considering the youth & immaturity of the person expressing them.

However, if sophomoric ideas emanate from somebody old enough to know better, then we get a bit... concerned.

angryoldfatman: "His life, your life, my life, all life -- gone. Science, gone. Theology, gone. Philosophy, gone.
Good, gone. Evil, gone. Fairness, gone. Justice, gone. Truth, gone. Falseness, gone."

Here you write like someone suffering some deep crisis, perhaps in your health at a premature age?
If so, then my suggestion is to seek spiritual help from somebody well qualified to provide it.

Incoherence:
of an ideology, policy, or system) internally inconsistent; illogical.

http://www.academia.edu/10834367/What_Do_Philosophers_Mean_By_Incoherent

Wrong. Try again.

About evolutionary scientists “hanging up their scientific coats, leave their labs and go home to family, [choosing] to believe whatever supernatural religion they [do}”, it’s not my fault they’re not consistent.

If you believe in a God after believing that we don’t have a Creator, then your God is essentially unemployed and unworthy of existence.

Now, finally...

I’m not your FRiend, and it looks like I finally gotten your ire up enough to continually insult me. So congrats, you’ve done a great job in convincing me. I now believe that Darwin was absolutely correct.

We were not created. We are basically evolved apes with big brains that help us avoid predation and get nourishment. The big brains also make us sexier to each other with things the brains invent, like theology, philosophy, the “supernatural”, and other things that are purely imaginary. Hallucinations and shared hysteria, in other words.

Being apes, we will eventually go extinct, to either be replaced by some creature with a radically different phenotype or by another ape that happens to be meaner and/or sexier.

Or maybe we’ll win the evolutionary lottery and continue until the last light in our universe burns out.

Either way, our brains and the recordings thereof will be lost. Like tears, in rain. Time to die.

Sorry about your irrelevance and all.

angryoldfatman: "Incoherence: of an ideology, policy, or system) internally inconsistent; illogical."

As your very attentive reader, examining carefully every word and phrase you've posted, I pronounce some of it utterly incoherent, babbling nonsense, sophomoric at best.
So I'll repeat my advice: grab hold of your brain, force it to think coherently, logically, understandably, then proof-read your words before posting, and replace any which don't meet that high standard with others which do.

angryoldfatman: "...it's not my fault they're not consistent.
If you believe in a God after believing that we don't have a Creator, then your God is essentially unemployed and unworthy of existence."

FRiend, listen carefully: the eternal Creator of the Universe is also the Creator of everything in it, including Earth and us, regardless of how long it took, or what methods He used.
It's impossible for us to know how much of what we see in the Universe was designed by God from the very beginning and how much He accomplished through miraculous interventions.
One suspects that a perfect God would design a perfect Universe, with which he was well pleased, and which was designed to evolve without much Divine Intervention.
Regardless, it is still His plan, His design and His Universe, regardless of how much, how often or how loudly "angryoldfatman" declares otherwise.

angryoldfatman: "I'm not your FRiend, and it looks like I finally gotten your ire up enough to continually insult me."

Well...
First, by definition, as a fellow poster on Free Republic, you are my FRiend.
Further, if you, like me, contribute regularly to Free Republic, then you are not only my FRiend, you are also my FR-brother.
Of course, if you don't contribute, then you're a worthless POS, and go burn in hell, FRiend. ;-)

Second, I've not "insulted" you in the least, merely told the truth about some of your incoherent babblings.
When the truth hurts, that's on you, sir, not on me.

angryoldfatman: "We were not created.
We are basically evolved apes with big brains that help us avoid predation and get nourishment... "

But of course we were created, regardless of how God did it, it's still His work, and we still His creations.
To think otherwise, imho, is simply self-defeating lunacy.
So none of the rest of your "logic" follows.

angryoldfatman: "Being apes, we will eventually go extinct, to either be replaced by some creature with a radically different phenotype or by another ape that happens to be meaner and/or sexier.
Or maybe we'll win the evolutionary lottery and continue until the last light in our universe burns out."

Such are possible scientific conclusions, but are hugely contradicted by the teachings of, for example, Christianity.

angryoldfatman: "Sorry about your irrelevance and all."

No, you're not "sorry", just incoherent.

I’ve told you I believe Darwin now. Why won’t you accept that?

My conclusions from Darwin are the same conclusions made by much smarter people than both of us, and from mere logic.

The only illogical stance is yours.

You propose some sort of “supernatural” world which cannot be observed, measured, or scientifically analyzed.

So, as you have written, none of the rest of your “logic” follows.

Your proposed world is non-existent and belief of its existence is stupid. You can’t prove your extraordinary claim that such a world exists. Therefore, it doesn’t.

Claim louder. I’ll post Tinkerbell from “Peter Pan” every time you do, because https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6IKaLF4Fqc LOL!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Such are possible scientific conclusions, but are hugely contradicted by the teachings of, for example, Christianity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So what. These “teachings” are invented delusions. Hallucinations. Mass hysteria. These are irrelevant. As they are stupid.

Science is not delusional, it is verifiable, measurable, and (most of all) believed by smart people who have worked very hard in it.

You are stupid. Darwin was smart. I believe Darwin.

angryoldfatman: "I've told you I believe Darwin now. Why won't you accept that?"

You are, of course, free to believe whatever you wish, but your arguments are incoherent.

angryoldfatman: "My conclusions from Darwin are the same conclusions made by much smarter people than both of us, and from mere logic."

And disputed by many others just as smart, based on their own experiences & logic.

angryoldfatman: "You propose some sort of 'supernatural' world which cannot be observed, measured, or scientifically analyzed.
So, as you have written, none of the rest of your 'logic' follows."

In fact, throughout history it has been experienced, reported & recorded by many people, both great and average.
There's no objective reason to doubt such reports.

angryoldfatman: "Your proposed world is non-existent and belief of its existence is stupid."

So you say, but your opinion is disputed by many.

angryoldfatman: "Science is not delusional, it is verifiable, measurable, and (most of all) believed by smart people who have worked very hard in it."

All of modern science -- natural science -- is based on assumptions which can neither be proved nor demonstrated, including: 1) Only natural explanations for natural processes and 2) processes we see today acted the same in the distant past.

These are perfectly reasonable assumptions, but they are not demonstrable facts.

angryoldfatman: "You are stupid. Darwin was smart. I believe Darwin."

Believe whatever you wish, FRiend, but plenty of people just as smart as Darwin do not agree with your conclusions.
Darwin himself believed in God as Creator and law-giver, though his philosophically-natural assumptions ruled out the possibility, for Darwin, of miraculous Divine Interventions.

My view is that plenty-enough such interventions have been reported throughout history, indeed, in the lives of millions, that they cannot be ruled out categorically, and we should maintain an open mind, with humble spirit, for such events in our own lives.

Even when, or especially when, we reach the point in life where we each are reduced to the impotent raging of an angry old fat man.

angryoldfatman: "There's hundreds, if not thousands, of these quotes that prove you wrong.
Better yet, declare these evolutionary scientists 'incoherent' and shoot yourself in the foot."

Those quotes prove only what I've already explained to you, at great length, for example, in post #30 above.
And yes, they are incoherent, because they assert, as fact, what cannot be observed or confirmed, namely that: the methodological naturalism of modern science necessitates a corresponding philosophical naturalism -- a.k.a. atheism.

Since philosophical naturalism cannot be observed or confirmed, and since it denies the existence of something many people personally experience in their lives, it falls into the category of "faith" and "religion", not science.

So to review, I'll ask you once again, grab hold of your wandering mind, and force it to think logically:
Modern science (including evolution) is methodologically natural science, meaning a search exclusively for natural explanations to natural processes.
Such methodology does not deny the existence of a supernatural realm, simply refuses, by definition, to examine it.

So people with scientific day-jobs are perfectly free to go home to their families at night and practice whatever religion they wish, and indeed, huge numbers do just that.

But your quotes, angryoldfatman, all come from believers in, in effect, an atheistic philosophy/religion called, among other things: "philosophical naturalism", or "ontological naturalism" or "metaphysical naturalism".
It simply means they have made the choice to deny the existence of anything outside the natural realm.
That's their free-will choice, it's not science.

So, how many times do I need to repeat this before the basic concept sinks into your, excuse me, fat head, FRiend?

angryoldfatman: "Keep posting, REMF. You're doing exactly what I want you to do."

And you keep blathering more & more insanely with each post.

angryoldfatman quoting: "The kindly God who lovingly fashioned every one of us (all creatures great and small) and sprinkled the sky with shining stars for our delight - that God is, like Santa Claus, a myth of childhood..."

Actually, the Old Testament shows that God was extraordinarily fierce and willing to destroy civilizations (i.e., Babel, Sodom, Noah's flood, etc.) which did not meet His high standards.
So there was nothing necessarily "kindly" about God's creative processes.

And that's just what evolution theory tells us.
Concepts like forgiveness, redemption and salvation for imperfect beings come much later in God's creative process.

angryoldfatman: "my screen name was chosen to be ineffectual 3rd-grade-level low hanging fruit for idiots. Good going, REMF!"

So you fully confess to insanely assaulting Free Republic by posting deliberately obnoxious drivel, beginning with your own screen name.

Have you no decency, have you no self respect?
What exactly is your major malfunction?

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.