Two quick articles on human evolution:

[Subduction Zone]

‘Lucy’s baby’ suggests famed human ancestor had a primitive brain

This is based on rather limited data points, but it appears that young Australopithecus had brains more similar to that of chimps than man and it developed more as it grew.

And the second deals with a clarification on the placement of Homo antecessor:

Mysterious human ancestor finds its place in our family tree

By analyzing peptides in teeth of the fossil they were able to determine aspects of its relation to modern man.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

‘Lucy’s baby’ suggests famed human ancestor had a primitive brain

This is based on rather limited data points, but it appears that young Australopithecus had brains more similar to that of chimps than man and it developed more as it grew.

And the second deals with a clarification on the placement of Homo antecessor:

Mysterious human ancestor finds its place in our family tree

By analyzing peptides in teeth of the fossil they were able to determine aspects of its relation to modern man.

So a thread that is labeled "The demise of evolution" has a first response like this "As long as Satan is free, evolution will be believed along with other scientific lies." and is discussed for 47 pages so far.

You post articles with real science in them you get crickets.

 

[Kylie]

So a thread that is labeled "The demise of evolution" has a first response like this "As long as Satan is free, evolution will be believed along with other scientific lies." and is discussed for 47 pages so far.

You post articles with real science in them you get crickets.

It's almost as though the people who want to disprove evolution aren't interested in science, they're more interested in badmouthing evolution...

 

[solid_core]

So a thread that is labeled "The demise of evolution" has a first response like this "As long as Satan is free, evolution will be believed along with other scientific lies." and is discussed for 47 pages so far.

You post articles with real science in them you get crickets.

Its simple. They do not believe that conclusions of such articles are true. Therefore they are not interested.

While when you use words like "satan", "scientific lies", then its a good click bait and everybody, both for and against the title, will go there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's almost as though the people who want to disprove evolution aren't interested in science, they're more interested in badmouthing evolution...

As I like to say: They are not interested in knowing. They merely want excuses to believe.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

It's almost as though the people who want to disprove evolution aren't interested in science, they're more interested in badmouthing evolution...

I agree. I was like that until after 15 years of denying evolution I finally studied it for about 6 months and became convinced that it was true. That was a hard thing at the time. I am in no way an expert in evolution but it is clear when most Christians deny it they do not know the evidence for it or how it actually works.

 

[Kylie]

I agree. I was like that until after 15 years of denying evolution I finally studied it for about 6 months and became convinced that it was true. That was a hard thing at the time. I am in no way an expert in evolution but it is clear when most Christians deny it they do not know the evidence for it or how it actually works.

Gotta say well done for being able to reconsider your beliefs like that. So many people aren't able to do it.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Gotta say well done for being able to reconsider your beliefs like that. So many people aren't able to do it.

Well, it wasn't after believing for about 15 years and not willing to consider anything else. I was a young earth creationist and believed what I was told about geological and biological science by apologists. Not too proud of that now but we all grow and learn. I went into it trying to debunk evolution only to find the evidence is overwhelming.

It is so much easier for me as an atheist to be wrong than when I was a Christian.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, it wasn't after believing for about 15 years and not willing to consider anything else. I was a young earth creationist and believed what I was told about geological and biological science by apologists. Not too proud of that now but we all grow and learn. I went into it trying to debunk evolution only to find the evidence is overwhelming.

It is so much easier for me as an atheist to be wrong than when I was a Christian.

I did not approach it from a Christian versus atheist perspective but I used to have a similar denial about AGW. I actually read the papers of those that debated against me on forums and eventually realized my errors. For years I still had people that were surprised that I had changed. I easily admitted that I was wrong. Once one learns how to admit that they are wrong doors immediately open for further learning.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I did not approach it from a Christian versus atheist perspective but I used to have a similar denial about AGW. I actually read the papers of those that debated against me on forums and eventually realized my errors. For years I still had people that were surprised that I had changed. I easily admitted that I was wrong. Once one learns how to admit that they are wrong doors immediately open for further learning.

I agree. As an atheist when I find out I am wrong I have little to lose and more to gain. As a Christian I had a lot to lose if I was wrong about my faith. That is a hard spot to be in and it was emotionally painful at times for me, so I understand when Christians don't want to do their homework so to speak.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

‘Lucy’s baby’ suggests famed human ancestor had a primitive brain

This is based on rather limited data points, but it appears that young Australopithecus had brains more similar to that of chimps than man and it developed more as it grew.

And the second deals with a clarification on the placement of Homo antecessor:

Mysterious human ancestor finds its place in our family tree

By analyzing peptides in teeth of the fossil they were able to determine aspects of its relation to modern man.

If Evolution is true, then we are just a bag of molecules put together by time and chance. There is no evidence that we have a logical brain although many of us think we have. There is no evidence that we are even here, or that we actually exist, and that the authors of the article know whether their views are fact or not because they might not even be sure what the questions are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If Evolution is true, then we are just a bag of molecules put together by time and chance. There is no evidence that we have a logical brain although many of us think we have. There is no evidence that we are even here, or that we actually exist, and that the authors of the article know whether their views are fact or not because they might not even be sure what the questions are.

Evolution is true, but your description of it is false.

And you do not understand the concept of evidence. Perhaps we should start there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Software glitch. Double post.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Software glitch. Double post.

I'm not going to get myself sucked into a pointless debate about evolution. There are plenty of others on the thread who are doing that. My contention is that logics has to be the product of intelligent design and not through time and chance. For something to be scientific it has to be directly observed and able to be replicated through laboratory testing. Science can describe how the universe works, and that the world and all in it exists in all its variations. But science cannot describe origin because it cannot be observed or tested. Also, all that we can see around us being created out of absolutely nothing is scientifically impossible. Also, science tells us that explosions create disorder and chaos, therefore the Big Bang could not create an orderly, functioning universe. No scientific observation and testing has ever been able to show that any type of explosion can result in design and order.

So, evolution cannot produce logical thinking, so a person who believes in evolution cannot speak of order and logic, because these things cannot be proved to have occurred through time and chance. Therefore an evolutionist cannot ask logical questions, or come to any ordered conclusion about anything because he would be using a logical mind that he doesn't have. Therefore he can't really say that evolution is true or not, because he can't use intelligence to answer the question because intelligence has to come through design, and not through time and chance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not going to get myself sucked into a pointless debate about evolution. There are plenty of others on the thread who are doing that. My contention is that logics has to be the product of intelligent design and not through time and chance. For something to be scientific it has to be directly observed and able to be replicated through laboratory testing. Science can describe how the universe works, and that the world and all in it exists in all its variations. But science cannot describe origin because it cannot be observed or tested. Also, all that we can see around us being created out of absolutely nothing is scientifically impossible. Also, science tells us that explosions create disorder and chaos, therefore the Big Bang could not create an orderly, functioning universe. No scientific observation and testing has ever been able to show that any type of explosion can result in design and order.

So, evolution cannot produce logical thinking, so a person who believes in evolution cannot speak of order and logic, because these things cannot be proved to have occurred through time and chance. Therefore an evolutionist cannot ask logical questions, or come to any ordered conclusion about anything because he would be using a logical mind that he doesn't have. Therefore he can't really say that evolution is true or not, because he can't use intelligence to answer the question because intelligence has to come through design, and not through time and chance.

Your post demonstrates that you do not understand what science is either.


That is two subjects that we need to discuss. Like it or not evolution is scientific, it is supported by evidence. There is no point debating with you until you learn the basics. Your "logic" is terribly faulty.

I did not offer to debate evolution with you. I offered to discuss the nature of evidence.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Your post demonstrates that you do not understand what science is either.


That is two subjects that we need to discuss. Like it or not evolution is scientific, it is supported by evidence. There is no point debating with you until you learn the basice.

I did not offer to debate evolution with you. I offered to discuss the nature of evidence.

That's what I'm asking of you. Show me evidence that you actually exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's what I'm asking of you. Show me evidence that you actually exist.

Sorry, repeating bad arguments does not help you. The burden of proof is another concept that you do not understand.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Sorry, repeating bad arguments does not help you. The burden of proof is another concept that you do not understand.

So you can't answer the question? I knew you couldn't, because a brain which is just a collection of molecules would not understand what the question is, let alone the answer.

But you seem to have a logical mind, and that is contradictory to the principle of evolution where time and chance cannot produce order and design.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Y

So you can't answer the question? I knew you couldn't, because a brain which is just a collection of molecules would not understand what the question is, let alone the answer.

But you seem to have a logical mind, and that is contradictory to the principle of evolution where time and chance cannot produce order and design.

You are asking poorly formed questions. People that know that they are wrong often do this.

Once again, lets go over the basics. Right now it is beginning to look as if you are trolling. I hope that is not your intent.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

‘Lucy’s baby’ suggests famed human ancestor had a primitive brain

This is based on rather limited data points, but it appears that young Australopithecus had brains more similar to that of chimps than man and it developed more as it grew.

And the second deals with a clarification on the placement of Homo antecessor:

Mysterious human ancestor finds its place in our family tree

By analyzing peptides in teeth of the fossil they were able to determine aspects of its relation to modern man.

Where did those brains come from?