Early Man

[webboffin]

So science is baffled again.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2709797.stm

 

[lithium.]

I don't see science being baffled at all. This is how science IS. New data is found all the time. To me it looks like more evidence for evolution.

 

[UK-Yank]

Just goes to show nothing is definate in science when it comes to historic evidence. It does not prove evolution any more. Does not prove creation either. But nothing can be taken as solid even Darwinism.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by UK-Yank
Just goes to show nothing is definate in science when it comes to historic evidence. It does not prove evolution any more. Does not prove creation either. But nothing can be taken as solid even Darwinism.

Correct. Because nothing will prove evolution. Theories can't be proven.

 

[Noddingdog]

Evolution is not a theory! It's a hypothesis if anything. It does not have substantial supportive evidence. Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.

 

[webboffin]

Though, scientific institutions would like to push it as fact.

 

[Noddingdog]

That's sooo true.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Much of what the article discusses was already known. It seems less a case of science being "baffled" again, and moreso a case of BBC journalists that don't keep up to date with fossil hominid discoveries.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Noddingdog
Evolution is not a theory! It's a hypothesis if anything. It does not have substantial supportive evidence. Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.

Actually, Nodding, this isn't correct. You may not be aware of the substantial supportive evidence for evolution, but it is there, in quantity. There are those (professional creationists) who would like for you to believe that the evidence is missing or is poor in quantity or quality. They are misleading you on that point.

If you would like for some of us to point you in the direction where you can review some of the evidence, many of us would be glad to.

I started a thread for another member here where some of the evidence for human evolution is discussed. You might want to review it.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/32855.html 

There's a link to the thread. The most compelling portion to me is the genetic evidence, which is discussed on page 13 of that thread, particularly, posts #123, #126 & #127.

If you will take the time to review this evidence for human evolution, and some of the other evidence for common descent, you will realize that the theory of evolution is very strongly supported. Then you won't be as likely to believe the mistaken ideas that are being marketed by those who make a living by denying evolution.

 

[Noddingdog]

Jerry Smith,
Of course, finding data to be analysed and then labelling it as "evidence" are two different things. Creationists may take a certain argument or piece of data, etc, and interpret it as creation evidence, whereas evolutionists may interpret it as evolutionary evidence. Looking at both sides of the argument is, of course, important as it is necessary to keep open-minded in this sort of argument.

As far as your argument is concerned, I will analyse it and return with my thoughts on the matter.
Thanks for the genetic info,
Noddingdog

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Noddingdog
Evolution is not a theory! It's a hypothesis if anything. It does not have substantial supportive evidence. Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.

Wrong. It is a Scientific Theory, and a very important one. It has lots of evidence so much that it's accepted all through the science community. Evolution can't be proven; ok! Theories can't be proven.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by webboffin
Though, scientific institutions would like to push it as fact.

Wrong. I have never seen a paper or heard of a scientist say/said that it's a fact.

 

[lithium.]

lol I didn't refresh and Pete, and Jerry have both replied already.

My posts were a waste.

 

[Noddingdog]

Originally posted by seesaw
Wrong. It is a Scientific Theory, and a very important one. It has lots of evidence so much that it's accepted all through the science community. Evolution can't be proven ok! Theories can't be proven.

Not accepted all through scientific community - unless you are saying that creationists aren't scientists. And are the majority always right? As I said, whether it's evidence for creation or evolution depends on how you interpret the data.

Originally posted by seesaw
Wrong. I have never seen a paper or heard of a scientist say/said that it's a fact.

So they don't say that they think it's a fact, but it is taught in most schools, accepted in most institutions, etc, like it is one. They mostly don't even consider other theories.

Noddingdog

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Noddingdog
So they don't say that they think it's a fact, but it is taught in most schools, accepted in most institutions, etc, like it is one. They mostly don't even consider other theories.

What other theories?

 

[Noddingdog]

Sorry if you misunderstood me, Pete Harcoff. What I meant to say was that other arguments concerning the origin of life such as creation are generally not considered in the classroom etc. environment.

 

[lithium.]

Not accepted all through scientific community - unless you are saying that creationists aren't scientists. And are the majority always right? As I said, whether it's evidence for creation or evolution depends on how you interpret the data.

No there are scientists that are creationist (i guess) but I have never met one. But creationists don’t use real science. When they put god into science it no longer is science.

Not always. If a piece of evidence is dated to be millions of years old it rules out creationist 6000 year theory. Well you could say that the dating is wrong like any good conspiracy theorist does.

So they don't say that they think it's a fact, but it is taught in most schools, accepted in most institutions, etc, like it is one.

Backup your claims that it's been taught as a fact. I was taught it in school and it was taught as a theory.

They mostly don't even consider other theories.

Well mostly because there is no evidence for the theories. Or like I said creationist put god into there theories which make it no longer science.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Noddingdog
Sorry if you misunderstood me, Pete Harcoff. What I meant to say was that other arguments concerning the origin of life such as creation are generally not considered in the classroom etc. environment.

Evolution doesn't talk about the origin of life. And one of the problems creation isn't in schools is because it's a belief not a real scientific theory.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Noddingdog
Sorry if you misunderstood me, Pete Harcoff. What I meant to say was that other arguments concerning the origin of life such as creation are generally not considered in the classroom etc. environment.

Creation is a religious concept, not a scientific one.

Personally, I have no problem with creation being discussed in the classroom, as long as it's in the appropriate one (i.e. a theology class). Science class, however, should stick to science.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
Creation is a religious concept, not a scientific one.

Personally, I have no problem with creation being discussed in the classroom, as long as it's in the appropriate one (i.e. a theology class). Science class, however, should stick to science.