New Homo erectus Skull Shakes up Palaeontology

by cofty 192 Replies latest social current

• 

  tec

  Where is Tammy when she could be some fun?

  How so?

  I think this article is great. Shows just how quickly the details of human evolution can be changed... one small piece of evidence and the whole thing can change. So-called "facts" can change. Conclusions can change. AND all of these things DO change. Science is not solid on this, nowhere near solid on this, as this discover (and/or others in the future) will show.

  I have realized the last couple of years that it is a mistake to try and adjust 'God' to fit with what science says. Because the science is continuously changing. Not just moving forward, which it DOES do, but also reversing as well. That is not a knock against science. I truly do find this article interesting, and also just the tip of the iceberg toward what Christ has taught others who have heard Him, and will teach those who are willing to listen. (I seem to also recall someone else making the comment some time ago that what science says are different species of hominids are actually the same... but a result of variations/mutations. This article and thread reminded me of that.)

  You can be sure there will be some robust arguments among palaentologists over this. Nobody who discovered a new species will give it up easily.

  Yeah, because scientists (not science) are as human as anyone else. Some might not be invested to the point of allowing bias in... but some don't want to lose something they have invested in either... their 'baby' so to speak.

  Peace!

  tammy
• 

  cofty

  one small piece of evidence and the whole thing can change.

  Nonsense.

  Humans evolved over millions of years from non-human ancestors. This will never change.

  There was no Adam and Eve, no perfection, no fall.

  The only slight change is the discussion over how many different boxes the hominid fossils should be put in. That's all.
• 

  tec

  Can you not see a bigger picture? How many others are not other species, but simple variations and/or mutations? It becomes kind of clear from the outside looking in.

  This article is not a strike against creationists as you OP comments suggest. Not at all. Evolution was already present. This discovery shows what some have been saying all along... evolution occurs, yes... but if the details are wrong or incomplete, then so are the conclusions. But time will tell...

  In the meantime, why in the world would a person base their entire world-view or faith in God (including a loss of faith in Him)... on what science says about evolution?

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  Terry

  I realized long ago that I'm not smart enough to understand certain things well enough to have an informed opinion.

  Now, that either leaves me with the choice of spouting an uninformed opinion or a disinformed opinion or shutting the hell up

  and letting smarter people do all the talking.

  When it comes to evolution versus creation I listen to debates and watch YouTube videos and I'm frequently embarassed I was

  ever a JW.
• 

  Phizzy

  "evolution occurs, yes... but if the details are wrong or incomplete, then so are the conclusions. But time will tell...

  In the meantime, why in the world would a person base their entire world-view or faith in God (including a loss of faith in Him)... on what science says about evolution?"

  The detailos we have about the Theory of Gravity are incomplete, so what ? does that make the conclusion I draw from the incomplete information we have, that if I throw myself off a cliff, I will surely end up in a bloody at the bottom, WRONG ?

  And who bases their view about God on the Theory of Evolution ? I see no connection between the two.

  I can have a faith in god, or that there is a god, and still be sensible and rational enough to accept facts, hypotheses, and Theories, for what they are, without conflict.

  I think Tec, that you still have a lot of the JW about you. They expect a Scientific Theory to be static, and absolute truth, the clue is in the name.

  As new knowledge comes to light, theories are modified, some, very rarely are discarded. But that does not call in to question the Scientific Method, rather it dignifies it with common sense and rationality.

  The world-view of anyone, like yourself, who rejects 150 years of study and discovery simply on a piece of faulty logic is not based on anything....... at all.
• 

  KateWild

  Why do you think that the answer to something that is not yet understood shold be "god-did-it"? cofty

  I don't think it should be for everyone, but I like that answer for me for now. Who knows I am new, in time I might need a more satisfiying solution than filling in the gaps with God.

  That is just a placeholder. It seeks to stop further enquiry.-cofty

  I really like this this point you make cofty, very insightful, I think stifiling anyones thirst for knowlegde is bad. We should always ask questions and find satisfying answers, when we stop asking we then stop learning and stop living life to the full. Very nice point, thank you very much indeed.

  Is your very first, initial post, evidence of no creator in your veiw?

  kate xx
• 

  cofty

  Is your very first, initial post, evidence of no creator in your veiw?

  No its just a thread about a new fossil discovery. Evolution is a fact beyond resaonable dispute but that doesn't prove there is no god.

  It does leave me wondering what we would need a god for though. What is there for her/him to do?
• 

  tec

  In the meantime, why in the world would a person base their entire world-view or faith in God (including a loss of faith in Him)... on what science says about evolution?"

  The detailos we have about the Theory of Gravity are incomplete, so what ? does that make the conclusion I draw from the incomplete information we have, that if I throw myself off a cliff, I will surely end up in a bloody at the bottom, WRONG ?

  Of course not... you have evidence of it everyday. But what does that have to do with what I said? The details of human evolution are a bit more sketcy than that, as this discovery and article proposes.

  And who bases their view about God on the Theory of Evolution ? I see no connection between the two.

  You may not see a connection between the two because they may not be connected to you... but I have read many comments on this forum alone about how someone states that they learned evolution was true, and so God was not. Or how learning about evolution helped them to leave belief in God behind. Many comments abound also about the god of the gaps... and how evolution closes that gap, so no need for God. So some DO see a connection between the two. I do not. But some do.

  I can have a faith in god, or that there is a god, and still be sensible and rational enough to accept facts, hypotheses, and Theories, for what they are, without conflict.

  Of course you can. So can anyone. I never said otherwise. In fact, I have constantly said that science and God are not in conflict. Only our (mis) understandings of one or both are in conflict.

  I think Tec, that you still have a lot of the JW about you. They expect a Scientific Theory to be static, and absolute truth, the clue is in the name.

  I don't expect that. In fact, I know it is not going to be that. Science is a journey of discovery. But to use a current theory to make an absolute statment (even when that current theory could be overturned)... is what makes no sense.

  As new knowledge comes to light, theories are modified, some, very rarely are discarded. But that does not call in to question the Scientific Method, rather it dignifies it with common sense and rationality.

  I didn't call into question the scientific method. Just called into question treating its ongoing results as "gospel".

  The world-view of anyone, like yourself, who rejects 150 years of study and discovery simply on a piece of faulty logic is not based on anything....... at all.

  Can you show me what I rejected please?

  Thanks!

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  cofty

  I have read many comments on this forum alone about how someone states that they learned evolution was true, and so God was not.

  Anyone who says that has not thought it through or you are misrepresenting them.

  The evidence for god is absent. The evidence against god is compelling. That is before we even start to think about evolution.
• 

  tec

  There is no evidence against God... certainly not the same category of evidence that you expect believers to provide FOR God.

  Peace,

  tammy