Naraoia
Apprentice Biologist
Yes. Especially the part where he addressed the exact same claim you then repeated. To clarify...Yes i did i am the one having the conversation. did you read the rest of the conversation.
This is precisely what Biggles was addressing. I quote:Where as gods truth and laws are the same always and i am referring to the teachings of Christ if you are wondering, not some extreme man made religion that allows killing and all sorts of stuff.
biggles53 said:I see.........so, it's still ok to take slaves from the foreigners around us...? How about stoning adulterers..? Kill kids that are disobedient...? You still revere these "truths" that don't ever change...?
I think his point was that these are all stated in the Bible as God's laws. Not as those of changing human society. But today, most Christians (or Jews, for that matter) wouldn't argue that this is truly God's law, would they? And indeed, about stoning adulterers, Jesus himself said something about sin and casting stones.
Did God's unchanging laws change between books, then? Or is the Bible not God's truth but that of fallible humans? There's a whole lot of complexity to this question from where I sit, and your only response at that point was to repeat an assertion - that God's laws don't change - that can only be true if the Bible doesn't reflect God's truth.
I don't believe in life after death, and I have no trouble with the idea of an internal moral compass. I feel bad about doing bad things. I can empathise with other people, and because I'm not a cackling comic book villain, I also feel bad about making them feel bad. Simple as that.Actually noticed a few atheists on here and i was wondering what you believe. do you believe in life after death. how do you judge what is right and what is wrong.
"Right" and "wrong" are human constructs, but they have very good reasons to exist. Namely, they allow us to work together as a society.
From your point of view, that could mean God made us in that way because, well, does an all-powerful God really need a reason? From mine, morality is an outcome of evolution - being able to cooperate helped our ancestors succeed at some point in their history, and having a concept of right and wrong enhances cooperation.
Yes. And indeed, the Taung Child was much closer to the chimp-human split than anything previously known.The Taung Child was regarded as a chimpanzee ancestor right up until the time of Piltdown's demise.
"Every indication" now? Where?There has been a mosaic of hominid ancestors since then even though there is every indication that chimpanzee ancestors are being mixed into the mythology.
If you read the actual quote, you'd notice that "the famous Dart find" was interpreted by critics as a gorilla when it was originally described. In the 1920s. So it's not "now" by any stretch. I don't think the hominin status of australopiths is in any serious doubt today.Ok, now the famous Dart find is a gorilla, Orrorin is a gorilla and both of these finds have been celebrated by Darwinians as human ancestors for decades. Must be nice to just change the interpretation with the weather and never have your underlying premise questioned.
Orrorin was described in 2001, and that quote says nothing about it being a gorilla. So how exactly is it a gorilla celebrated as a human ancestor for decades?
Thirdly, you can't have it both ways. You can't complain that all manner of apes are being "passed off as human ancestors" and then complain again when some of them are reinterpreted as chimp or gorilla ancestors.
It was the other way round. The big brain is the whole point, the reason why things like the Taung Child had difficulty getting accepted as human ancestors.They have been doing it for decades, Piltdown was an orangutan with a human jaw.
That makes no sense. How does a genome devoid of mutations differ from a genome riddled with mutations? Genomes are all made of the same four bases, mutations just change their order and number. If someone sent me a "pristine" human genome and one that isn't, how could I tell the difference?It's the opposite of a genome riddled with mutations and bottlenecks.
And, since you failed to answer the second part of my question, how does an "unmutated" genome result in greater variation?
No, you're not sucking me into this again. A basic compound interest calculation reveals that you only have to shift average brain size by a fraction of one per cent per generation to achieve this growth. Brain size is a trait affected by many genes that displays considerable variation in modern humans; there is no reason to assume that the same wasn't the case for our ancestors.Yet the three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes has no viable cause.
It proves that your claim, I quote, "It does seem reasonable to at least consider whether a cranial capacity much closer to the of Chimpanzees might possibly be their ancestors. For some reason this possibility is never explored..." is quite simply false.I've done considerable reading on the subject, what's this paragraph fragments from Nature's 'Brief Communications', supposed to prove? Violia huh? Don't you mean, Presto!, anything proves everything.
You said the possibility is "never" explored. The Wolpoff letter proves you wrong. It's that simple.
You would seem a lot less like a raving conspiracy theorist and a lot more like you've actually "done considerable reading" if you didn't make factually wrong claims all the time.
Upvote
0