The Hobbit and Evolution: So What's Up With That?

by AGuest 125 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  whereami

  And yes, we all get the point. Science changes and that smacks of "new light" and you consider it untrustworthy. That's how science works. If you don't make mistakes, you're doing it wrong. If you don't realize you made mistakes, you're doing it wrong. If you can't admit your mistakes, you're not doing it at all.

  Hey what's the big idea pal? Give credit where credit is due. LOL

  
• 

  sizemik

  Science by definition is a process . . . normally, the result of scientific process goes through scrutiny, criticism, concensus and finally accetptance . . . even at that point many scientist continue with further investigation to deepen understanding.

  The origins of the world based on a religious or biblical viewpoint is just men peering at words and deciding what they mean . . . the arguments over that never change . . . or stop.

  It's comparing apples and oranges.
• 

  NomadSoul

  The origins of the world based on a religious or biblical viewpoint is just men peering at words and deciding what they mean . .

  hahaha Isn't that the truth?
• 

  watersprout

  No need to act like a b*tch, Shelly

  HEY! Thats uncalled for! Shelby put's up with lot of crap off some of you...She makes a defense and shes a b*tch??? You lot are allowed to defend yourselves and what you believe...Why can't Shelby???

  Anyway regardless there no need for name calling!

  Peace
• 

  NomadSoul

  Yeah, ASSHOLES!
• 

  james_woods

  GOOD LORD - what a worthless waste of three pages this thread has been.
• 

  NomadSoul

  No it hasn't James, it has SOME entertainment value.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  whereami, I knew I had seen that pic, just couldn't find it. great picture, consider credit given :)

  watersprout, I don't see what was wrong with that. Shelby WAS acting rude toward cofty with regard to his name. Yeah, she puts up with a lot, but hey, when you tell people your Lord is whispering in her ear about them, what do you expect? Call a spade a spade and move on.
• 

  NomadSoul

  Yeah, she did say this:

  Otherwise, I'll be forced to consider you a nasty slang name for the male genital appendage.

  Oh she's kinky!
• 

  bohm

  Shelby (peace to you), i wanted to give you a more thoughtfull reply than this but here goes:

  I see your point that I (and others) have (to put it frankly) rediculed you proposing eg. the australiphicus (AU) fossils is really the result of eg. illness or other deformities, and now the same explanation is being proposed to explain certain homo floresiensis (FL) fossils.

  now, what i am thinking is this:

  • why are they proposing this idea? Who are "they"? I mean there may be strong indication this is the case of deformities (or not), and it may be a fringe idea without much traction (or not). These are central questions i would need to clear up before i could evaluate your critisism. secondly:
  • Is it fair to compare the "disease" explanation for the FL fossils to that of AU fossils? this again depend on the actual findings: as i wrote to you when we discussed this the last time, i would accept the disease explanation as quite plausible were it only a matter of few fossils, the problem is that there are may many, many AU fossils. How many FL fossils are there which need this (admittedly) a-priori slightly strained explanation? Are the FL fossils confied to one location and one age making the disease explanation more likely? Are they found with other (normal) homonoid fossils unlike the AU fossils? and so on and so on. Much more research.
  • What is the impact of this? So if this is true, there is a subspecies of homo-sapiens which apparently evolved in asia. well... how does that falsify evolution? I got no idea. i didnt watch the show. more reading would need to be done to even understand the problem.

  As you can see there are hours of research just here. I have done hours of research before when answering other questions you raised to make sure i was on solid ground, and every time i have felt your answer was basically just one you made up on the spot: "Could you be wrong? [yes, ofcourse] Does this proove evolution? [no, it is only evidence for one aspect of evolution]" and so on and on.

  Quite frankly that is not a very rewarding experience. It seem to me that you are looking for cracks in the evolutionary evidence, when you find cracks -- and there is cracks in all types of evidence for any idea -- you mention this crack and conclude you may be right, and there is no reason for you to discard what God tells you personally.

  Well, its not how science work. Science build conclusions by compounding evidence of all kinds, and even though all individual evidence is subject to crisisism (does your particle collider really work? [well i think so...] Is there a problem with its detectors? [not so far as i know...] Are you absolutely sure you did the calculations right and took all relevant effects into account? [no.. i only took the effects into account i believed was relevant...]), by compounding the evidence you get very trustworthy conclusions. This is what people have been doing with evolution for the past 150 years and particulary genetics provide very very strong evidence man share common ancestry with the other animals.

  So rather than finding the relevant articles, i think i will refrain from going into details on this discussion before you show some interest in digging forth the evidence the particular finding for FL really present a problem for the evolutionary history of man. Im not asking you to proove a negative, simply to formulate your hypothesis in a narrow way and build it on the actual evidence rather than a 50 min. popular rendition you saw on TV and the questions that popped into your mind.