Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Lol, that's your opinion. Which is worth exactly what I paid for it.
Because the theory of evolution was developed without regard to human evolution and the subsequent evidence gathered in support of it has only a tiny percentage related to human evolution. Frankly, apart from anthropologists most biologists have very little interest in the possibility of human evolution. It only get discussed so much on forums like this because you chaps keep bringing it up. I'd far rather be talking about the latest info. on on graptolite extinction, or suture evolution in ammonites.If supposed human ancestors aren't that at all, why would I believe that the ToE is legitimate?
Many, many years ago I came across a thread in the Usenet group sci.anthropology about the aquatic ape theory. In it the professional scientists were schooling a clueless newbie about some of the finer points of anthropology and why they showed the AAT to be wrong. I found it very educational because I was a clueless newbie concerning anthropology - and still am.
I was many messages into the thread before I realized the clueless newbie, one Elaine Morgan, had actually written an entire book advocating the Aquatic Ape Theory, despite being completely clueless. Every time I see the AAT mentioned I think back to that thread and say to myself, fairly or not, "clueless newbie!"
It looks like her book The Aquatic Ape came out in 1982. I probably was reading the thread in the early 1990s.
For example, Owen Lovejoy, who worked with Johanson analyzing the Lucy fossils disagree with his assessment of them.
The bones they point to are fragmented and incomplete skeletons often mixes of human and primates bones.
For example, Owen Lovejoy, who worked with Johanson analyzing the Lucy fossils disagree with his assessment of them.
You might be among God's elect without even realizing it yet. But you will not receive the gift of faith until you soften your heart, and then the Holy Spirit will do the rest.
Get back to us when you have something more than a little bit stronger. This appears to be rather "weak tea" since there does not to be any real evidence for this WAG.This article is the most stunning admission for the lack of fossil evidence for human evolution that I've ever read. The author presents his own alternative, the aquatic ape theory, which he admits cannot possibly be demonstrated by fossil evidence.
It seems really desperate that he would even present an alternative to the mainstream view, while admitting that it cannot be supported by the evidence, just to maintain his belief in human evolution.
Acclaimed fossils might not depict human evolution
Those who believe in special creation aren't ignorant or stupid. They just look at the evidence without a presupposition of naturalism and reductionism, and as a result, it comes up lacking.
This is called a black and white fallacy.Um, wrong. If a find isn't legitimate, then obviously nothing connected to it is legitimate.
Big deal. You totally missed the point. If the evolutionary scientists can't agree on much of anything, it casts doubt on the whole find and on the whole ToE paradigm.You guys keep missing the blazingly obvious fact that if you offer up a genuine scientist to deny a particular facet of the evolutionary process, that scientist's work - the very reason why he or she gets out of bed in the morning, will be directly opposed to what you are trying to propose.
If one part is incorrect, why would I accept the same idea about another species. Perhaps the whole paradigm is what is actually incorrect.Because the theory of evolution was developed without regard to human evolution and the subsequent evidence gathered in support of it has only a tiny percentage related to human evolution. Frankly, apart from anthropologists most biologists have very little interest in the possibility of human evolution. It only get discussed so much on forums like this because you chaps keep bringing it up. I'd far rather be talking about the latest info. on on graptolite extinction, or suture evolution in ammonites.
Big deal. You totally missed the point. If the evolutionary scientists can't agree on much of anything, it casts doubt on the whole find and on the whole ToE paradigm.
There is only debate on relatively minor details. And this one does not appear to be well accepted yet. There is far less diversity of opinion in evolution than there is in Christianity. By your standards that casts extreme doubt on the whole Christian paradigm.Big deal. You totally missed the point. If the evolutionary scientists can't agree on much of anything, it casts doubt on the whole find and on the whole ToE paradigm.
I love it how by your standards Christianity is false. It would help you quite a bit if you reasoned consistently. You need to apply the same standards.If one part is incorrect, why would I accept the same idea about another species. Perhaps the whole paradigm is what is actually incorrect.
Look it up.
Again you miss the point.They were disagreeing on a very minor point in how upright one of our ancestors walked. One of our ancestors which they both agreed came from a common ancestor we share with chimpanzees.
Leakey: I think she walked upright most of the time.
Lovejoy: No, Louis. I don't think it was that often. But here's another example which did.
Rennicks: Hah! They can't agree. Therefore the evolutionary paradigm crumbles!
Sometimes it needs a condensed version of your argument to show how nonsensical it actually is. You should become a flat earther. You'd kill it.
A: The planet is an irregularly shaped ellipsoid.
B: Actually, I'd say it was more an oblate spheroid.
Rennicks: Hah! They can't agree. Therefore the earth is flat!
The question is whether Lucy was really a human ancestor. So, yes, it does matter whether she was a biped or not.There is only debate on relatively minor details. And this one does not appear to be well accepted yet. There is far less diversity of opinion in evolution than there is in Christianity. By your standards that casts extreme doubt on the whole Christian paradigm.
Maybe it will now if I repeat it:It made no sense and still makes no sense.
Of course everything is contested in science. That's how advances are made, by contesting things.
But they're never contested in the way you are implying they are.
It's when they win that contest, causing others to lose (some dramatically), that science can take a hike.
Is there a fallacy for excessive accusations of fallacies?This is called a black and white fallacy.
The question is whether Lucy was really a human ancestor. So, yes, it does matter whether she was a biped or not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?