- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,060
- 51,500
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
New human-like species discovered in S Africa
- Thread starter Jimmy D
- Start date
JonFromMinnesota
Well-Known Member
Again, there isn't "2 types of evolution". This is something that you made up in your head to ignore what has been demonstrated to you with several lines of evidence that you don't bother looking at. Science doesn't make guesses, it makes predictions and then confirms those predictions through a series of observations and tests. This has been demonstrated to you but again, you don't desire to learn. I have asked you three times to provide a source from the scientific community that supports your claims. You have failed to do so because you can't.
Just as I predicted in my previous post that stated you would reply with "No evidence" even after it has been provided to you several times over. Thanks for confirming that I knew how you'd reply.
It's not a switcheroo as you claim. It is another line of evidence that you requested. However, your demonstrate your incredulity AGAIN. A complete lack of understanding of what evolution is. You're making up definitions in your head to support your world view. If you can't demonstrate with a credible source that supports what you are saying, then you are wrong. It's that simple.
Yes, you are correct, you are making the claim. The burden of proof lies with you. Please explain how in your mind the scientific method is not being used to explain the evolution of humanity. Please do so with credible sources to support this claim. I will once again make a prediction that you will use "It doesn't use the scientific method because no evidence!" in some form again. I will not accept this answer as you have argued it ad nauseam for this entire thread even after the evidence has been presented to you. Your argument of "no evidence" will be dismissed and ignored for the remainder of this thread. Please submit a sound explanation for your claims.
It is not a "needle in a haystack". You do realize that evolution is a very complex subject that takes a lot of research to understand right? You have clearly demonstrated you have NO DESIRE to learn or research. You wanted it handed to you in the most simplest of terms, which I provided to you last night with short and educational youtube links, which you demonstrated that even that was too much effort for you. The answers you are looking for are there. You are CHOOSING to be willfully ignorant by not taking the time to study and research for yourself.
I predicted in my previous post you would argue ad nauseam with "no evidence" and you proved me right by saying it three times in one reply. Is this how you acted when you were in school when you were being taught certain subjects?
Upvote
0
- Jul 23, 2007
- 55,909
- 10,822
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
I've given examples more than once now. Simply ignoring them will not make them go away.
This is why the particular evolutionary view that humanity is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form of long ago is a pseudo-scientific view. It has no foundation in the scientific method.
I cannot provide evidence which doesn't exist.
You can offer 'find the needle in the haystack' as evidence, but we both know it's not evidence.
Yes, it's the typical switcheroo. I ask for evidence HOW humanity was created from an alleged single life form of long ago and your immediate switcheroo response is to common ancestry. Very very common in these threads.
The scientific method isn't used in HOW humanity was produced from an alleged single life form of long ago. You, nor anyone else, has offered such evidence. We have nothing more than faith-based, pseudo-scientific guesses and suppositions. A series of could be's, maybe so's and possibly's.
When you have an answer concerning the HOW of humanity, supported by the scientific method, let me know. Until then, I'm not buying your faith-based guesses and suppositions.
Please provide the evidence, based on the scientific method, for HOW humanity was created per Darwinism.
I watched one of the youtube links. Typical switcheroo common ancestry non-answers to the question of HOW humanity was produced from an alleged single life form of long ago.
And I predict that you'll either try a switcheroo to something other than HOW humanity was produced from an alleged single life form of long ago or you'll completely fail to provide evidence, based on the scientific method, for HOW humanity was produced.
Upvote
0
JonFromMinnesota
Well-Known Member
All you've done is argue ad-nauseam throughout the entire thread. Judging by your post history, there is nobody here that takes you seriously. You're complete lack of understanding of what evolution is and what it explains, inability to use scientific terms correctly, incredible ignorance to what constitutes evidence and the scientific method and no desire to look through provided sources with the simple excuse that you think it's some rabbit hole is absolutely astounding. The mental gymnastics you do is almost comical. Maybe you're afraid of what you'll learn. I don't know. Anyway, you're going on ignore. Have a great weekend.
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
Which view of evolution? The view supported by the scientific method or the view supported by various guesses and suppositions?
Ah yes, the scientific method. The death knell of the particular evolutionary view that humanity is the result of only naturalistic method acting on an alleged single life form of long ago. Nothing exposes the fakery of such a view more than the scientific method.
Of course it's a rabbit hole. You post a link with maybe hundreds of sub-links and say, there it is, find it. You're playing the link game which results in a complete lack of evidence for the HOW of humanity, based on the scientific method. You've completely and totally failed.
Bye.
Upvote
0
- Jul 23, 2007
- 55,909
- 10,822
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
I wish I had you for a science teacher growing up.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,060
- 51,500
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
We have apes and we have man. Did apes de-evolve? Did evolution forget the apes? Where is the living bridge? If you have apes and you have modern man where is the living bridge between the species?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
seeking633
Kingdom Seeker
There is no issue here. To me, it looks like a new homonide species has been discovered buried in an area covered with aeons of rock and dirt with only the most excruciatingly tight squeezes of tunnels accessible only by professional contortionists. I can say this as a Christian for the following reason....<sigh>....
I started following Christ about 3 years ago and, as a science-minded individual, one of the first dilemmas I wanted to resolve for myself was the seeming contradiction between Genesis and scientific evidence. I say "seeming" (as opposed to the Shakespearean "seems") because in my understanding and faith, there is no contradiction. Whenever a person reads Genesis with an open mind, unprejudiced by rebellion or unreason, I believe God is saying to the reader; "This is why I had to sacrifice my only-begotten son". There's nothing there making any claim about what date the universe came into being, or how the Creator went to great lengths to fool the simple-minded human into believing that the earth is older than 6000 years.
It is a shame that many Christians are not simply content that God did Create, and that He has paid the greatest price to save the greatest part of His creation.
Science, in my estimation, is discovering some amazing sh...er stuff..., leaving me in a pleasant state of wonder. But it is not my god. I will not replace Christ with evolution. But I will not question irrefutable evidence of a world far more complex than we can ever imagine.
Oh Lord, how great you are.
I started following Christ about 3 years ago and, as a science-minded individual, one of the first dilemmas I wanted to resolve for myself was the seeming contradiction between Genesis and scientific evidence. I say "seeming" (as opposed to the Shakespearean "seems") because in my understanding and faith, there is no contradiction. Whenever a person reads Genesis with an open mind, unprejudiced by rebellion or unreason, I believe God is saying to the reader; "This is why I had to sacrifice my only-begotten son". There's nothing there making any claim about what date the universe came into being, or how the Creator went to great lengths to fool the simple-minded human into believing that the earth is older than 6000 years.
It is a shame that many Christians are not simply content that God did Create, and that He has paid the greatest price to save the greatest part of His creation.
Science, in my estimation, is discovering some amazing sh...er stuff..., leaving me in a pleasant state of wonder. But it is not my god. I will not replace Christ with evolution. But I will not question irrefutable evidence of a world far more complex than we can ever imagine.
Oh Lord, how great you are.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
JonFromMinnesota
Well-Known Member
No such thing as "de-evolve" It's just evolution. We are apes. Our closet cousins are chimpanzees and bonobos. We share a common ancestor that lived roughly 6 million years ago that created the two branches. One modern day chimps and the other, humans.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Furthermore, it became apparent in the last decades of the 20th Century that DNA sequences often evolved in ways that reduced the fitness of the organisms that bore them.
-The new biology beyond the Modern Synthesis.htm
Upvote
0
JonFromMinnesota
Well-Known Member
The peer reviewed paper: http://elifesciences.org/content/4/e09560
Was reviewed by senior editors and two peer reviewers, one which identified themselves. Located at the bottom of the paper along with the requested revisions from the senior editor.
Upvote
0
i'm sorry, but i don't consider this source objective because it's an organ of the funding parties.
IOW, the people that paid for the research also owns the review process.
edit:
furthermore, i find it odd that this find has been all over the media, but sources such as nature and science hasn't mentioned it.
no paleontology sources are offered.
also, how were these bones IMMEDIATELY given a scientific name without due process?
Upvote
0
JonFromMinnesota
Well-Known Member
Do you know how peer-review works? It is the goal of the reviewers to point out problems in the paper and attempt to disprove it. Often, peer review is anonymous to avoid any bias, although the reviewers can choose to give their identity. One of the two did so in this case.
Sure, i'd imagine that whoever funded this (National geographic, I think. I could be wrong about that though) would choose the journal they'd want it to be published in. It has nothing to do with a bias. E-life's papers are free to the public and they also get a lot of media exposure. They most likely wanted to maximize the press they'd get on this discovery.
The paper isn't published in Nature and Science, so why would it appear there? Their papers cost $32 to get the full PDF.
It wasn't immediately given a name. The findings were made in 2013. Two total years before the paper was published and news made public. Is there a ton of research left to go? Yes, absolutely. The fossils aren't even dated yet, as explained in the press release, it still needs a proper dating method applied to it. It's exciting what we might find out after further research and rigorous peer review.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
