New Homo erectus Skull Shakes up Palaeontology (page 18)

cofty

Tammy - I asked whether you exclude humans from your alleged acceptance of evolution.

Do you accept the fact that humans evolved from non-human ancestors over millions of years and that we share a common ancestor with chimps a few million years ago?

tec

No, you didn't actually ask that... you assumed it in the form of a question.

And I have never excluded humans from evolution, no... but I will admit that I am now more open to that. But as in all things, I will wait and listen for what my Lord tells me, and then put my faith in what i hear from Him. I have not been able to hear Him on this matter before, and I think because I have not been able to yet 'bear it'.

Peace,

tammy

cofty

I said you have no respect for science and you objected.

I asked you if you believe in human evolution - which you have denied in the past - and you said, "I will wait and listen for what my Lord tells me"

I rest my case.

tec

I have never denied human evolution in the past.

Regardless, your 'case' is not made.

I just don't treat scientific conclusions as gospel... that does not mean that I do not love or respect science. Just because I keep an open mind and may even disagree with some findings... does not mean that I hold science in contempt (which you have also said to me).

I absolutely hold my Lord above any scientific findings (which can change)... because my Lord and Truth do NOT change. Scientific findings and facts DO change. That does not mean we do not learn anything along the way. But I can also learn from Christ and know that it will NOT change.

Peace,

tammy

adamah

TEC said-

I just don't treat scientific conclusions as gospel... that does not mean that I do not love or respect science.

Heck, TEC doesn't even hold the truths found in the gospel AS gospel!

Adam

cofty

I can also learn from Christ and know that it will NOT change.

Of course not. Once you conclude that the voices in your head are the very words of the almighty you are hardly going ot be open to evidence to the contrary.

Your mind is well and truly closed.

This is what faith does.

And YET ANOTHER interesting science thread ends up as a platform for your incredible hubris.

tec

Oh please.

I commented on the OP, and I never even did that before page 8. Then I answered questions of me... including by YOU. Only your statements about me were wrong to begin with so now you go ahead and beat the old dead horse... oh, tammy, once again you derail a thread. Even though half the time (or more) you're the one who brings it up whenever I make a comment on a topic. Then blame me for the derailment.

And if my mind was closed... then I would not be open to learning something new. But I am. The very fact that I have said that I do not yet know the 'bridge' between Adam and Eve, and evolution, should tell you that. (which is all I have ever said.... you are attributing someone else's statements to me).

For some reason though... you equate not taking science as 'gospel'...and instead taking its conclusions with a grain of salt (since they CAN and DO change)... with close-mindedness.

Peace,

tammy

cofty

taking its conclusions with a grain of salt

Keep talking Tammy, it saves me the bother of making the case.

tec

I have no idea how you can possibly have a problem with that statement.

What if I were to phrase it like this:

... take the conclusions that scientists draw from the evidence at hand, with a grain of salt...

Would you still think that is absurd?

Peace,

tammy

adamah

Cofty said-

taking its conclusions with a grain of salt

Keep talking Tammy, it saves me the bother of making the case.

Cofty, can you explain what you see as so repugnant in TEC's suggestion of taking ALL conclusions with a grain of salt? Seems like pretty rational advice to me, since ALL scientific facts and theories are conditional, and only accepted until/if/when something better comes along (AND is proven).

Adam

New Homo erectus Skull Shakes up Palaeontology

Share this