Your thoughts on this story....

[crawfish]

By the way -- If you really think I have called TEs names -- then report my post. I want us to be free to discuss the flaws in the belief systems but respectful regarding the people. I think I have been walking that fine line. If you think attacking the TOE is attacking the folks that hold it, I'm sorry that you identify so much with it. The TOE is either true or false. If it is false, then it is a falsehood that came from somewhere. Since it has such negative impact on people's worldviews, I see it as a lie from satan. Crawfish made a similar statement about creationism and literalism. We need to be able to discuss the theology and even the physical evidence without implying the other side is stupid, ignorant, uneducated, etc.

You didn't call anyone names. I don't take any offense to what you say, although I do think you're deluding yourself.

I'm sorry, but it shames me that it's the Christians who seem to feel it's ok to ignore and distort information even after they're disproved, while it's the godless scientists who can admit when they're wrong and move on.

 

[laptoppop]

Crawfish, I believe the rules say you aren't supposed to call names like that (ignore and distort information even after they're disproved) without major evidence to support it.

 

[laptoppop]

Well, vossler was never able to pin down for me just where the conjecture in the theory of evolution is. Perhaps you can. Would you like to try?

How about the developmental sequence for just about anything? Lets start with the trilobite eye.

(snipped a bit to concentrate on issues instead of bantering (which can be fun - just don't feel like it now))

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=10768618&postcount=2

This post contains a list of many CF threads dealing with evidence about the flood. I'd be willing to go over any one of them you choose.

Tell you what -- I'm very busy, and I shouldn't even be doing this right now. Choose one -- your best shot -- and I'll try to get to it.

But you don't accept that it is your fallible opinion as to what is and is not explicit.

Oh, I accept that I may be wrong. In this case, I believe I have a strong case. I do NOT accept the concept of relative truth.

Probably because the existence of a kind (in the creationist sense) has never been demonstrated.

Actually there have been some interesting studies lately which seem to be indicating that some of the "junk" DNA is being used to produce limits on change -- such that generations later the plant reverts.

In the first place it is your unsupported opinion that it is presented as real history. What are the criteria that distinguish a narrative of real history from a narrative of mythical/allegorical history?

I feel like I'm going over VERY old ground here. Is this an honest question, or do you really want to hear it again and again and again?

First, and one of the strongest -- unbroken genealogy from Adam to Jesus. Genesis told as historical - unbroken from Adam through Noah through Abraham. Festivals, altars, piles, wells, etc. used to commemorate and remember specific events.

In the second place, even if it is "presented" as real history, if the facts of God's creation show what is presented as real history is in error then it is the history that is in error not created nature.

The "facts of God's creation" do not include the theory of evolution. There is a huge difference between repeatable experiments and the speculation that this is how man came about -- contrary to the Scriptures.

All history, after all, is basically human interpretation of events and their significance, just as filled with fallibility as any interpretation of physical nature. Certainly so when there is no independent documentation of the event.

There are independent confirmations of many things in Scripture. But yes, after a certain point one must have faith. It is unlikely we will find specific physical evidence that God shut the door of Noah's ark as He claims.

True. Remember none of us denies that scripture does contain some real history.

Absolutely -- if not we'd be having a much stronger discussion about the resurrection! It is, of course, the qualifier "some" that is the line of demarcation.

In fact, most of us also believe there is real history involved even when it is clothed in mythical trappings. The dispute is not over whether the bible contains history or allegory. We both agree it contains both. So it is really a question of whether these stories (creation/fall/flood) are more in the area of straightforward history or are mostly, if not wholly, told in the form of allegory and myth.

Tell you what. Get 100 people off the street. Have them read Genesis. Ask them if they think Genesis teaches a global flood as history.

That too is interpretive opinion based on a fallible human choice of hermeneutic.

So you deny all foretelling prophecy? There are literally hundreds of examples in the Old Testament. Are you really sure you want to go there?

Just to start out - Jesus of the line of Adam/Eve, of the line of Abraham, of the line of David, etc. Born in Bethlehem. Presented in Jerusalem at the exact time. Born before Judah lost ruling power. Born of a virgin. Came to bear sins. Not a bone broken. On and on and on.

Choice of hermeneutic? Not hardly.

 

[Jase]

Tell you what. Get 100 people off the street. Have them read Genesis. Ask them if they think Genesis teaches a global flood as history.

You'll get far different answers depending on whether you ask in the U.S. or Europe. Considering most Americans don't even know the name of our 3 branches of government or anyone on the Supreme Court, I don't find polling American citizens to be a useful endeavour. Compared to the rest of the 1st world, Americans are rather poorly educated.

 

[laptoppop]

You'll get far different answers depending on whether you ask in the U.S. or Europe. Considering most Americans don't even know the name of our 3 branches of government or anyone on the Supreme Court, I don't find polling American citizens to be a useful endeavour. Compared to the rest of the 1st world, Americans are rather poorly educated.

It might have been clearer if I specified 100 people who have had no previous exposure to Genesis.

 

[KerrMetric]

It might have been clearer if I specified 100 people who have had no previous exposure to Genesis.

Are we talking before Peter Gabriel left or the Phil Collins years?

 

[Mickey1953]

But what are you supposed to do when the other side exhibit those traits? I say spare the rod and spoil the child.

Years ago I used to try to hand hold creationists through the science but I long ago realised that this is almost fruitless. A combination of being either stubborn or dumb just makes it near impossible.

I really don't think you Creationists realise just how dumb the scientific arguments you make are. It's not like you guys are just missing to make contact - they are complete whiffs that get nowhere near the ball.

We have shared posting on threads before. And I have always been impressed with what you have shared on your web page.

But, why would a Christian Professor ‘teach’with a condescending attitude? I teach and again, I do not compare in education etc., but I do not understand….

Christian Scientists' names have been shared before: They are scientists in the field of Physics that believe in Creation….
Russel Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics, is just one:

http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_physci_humphreys.
He is considered dumb?

“A combination of being either stubborn or dumb just makes it near impossible.
I really don't think you Creationists realise just how dumb the scientific arguments you make are. It's not like you guys are just missing to make contact - they are complete whiffs that get nowhere near the ball.”

My knowledge is others hard work…
I see that the same science is looked at and something different is inferred….I know you are an intelligent man, KerrMetric…but so is Russel Humphrey and many others that believe in Creation….I admire your knowledge, but not always how it is shared....

 

[gluadys]

How about the developmental sequence for just about anything? Lets start with the trilobite eye.

The theory of evolution only predicts that there will be a developmental sequence. By the nature of the process, it cannot predict what path the developmental sequence will follow.

Only when one already has some evidence of the general trend of the developmental sequence can one begin to make some tentative predictions on how existing gaps in the sequence will be filled.

On the trilobite eye check out the Light Bulb hypothesis. I have the book at home and can give additional detail to what you will find on a web site.

The question itself betrays the problem I am working on in my Common Misconceptions threads

http://www.christianforums.com/t5819158-common-misconceptions-1-scope.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t5892304-common-misconceptions-2-process.html

The creationist tendency is to focus on history rather than process as if the theory of evolution stands or falls on how correctly the history is reconstructed.

The theory of evolution is basically about process, not history. Of course, it implies that there will be a history and a history of a certain pattern. But any history that yields a nested hierarchy will do.

History can be retrodicted, but not predicted in advance. And it is the nature of history (and the fossil record) that we will always have some gaps where we are left guessing about exactly what happened.

The other thing the question betrays is the creationist tendency to focus on the gaps in the fossil record instead of looking at the fossil record. If you want to show evolution is wrong, it would be better to point to something in the existing fossil record that contradicts evolutionary theory.

How do you like my new signature?

Tell you what -- I'm very busy, and I shouldn't even be doing this right now. Choose one -- your best shot -- and I'll try to get to it.

Will do.

Oh, I accept that I may be wrong. In this case, I believe I have a strong case. I do NOT accept the concept of relative truth.

I am with you there. I believe God made a real world and an intelligible world and that the application of sense and reason to our experience of creation can lead to objectively true statements about it.

Actually there have been some interesting studies lately which seem to be indicating that some of the "junk" DNA is being used to produce limits on change -- such that generations later the plant reverts.

I've heard vaguely about this and am looking forward to further developments. But it may not be the key you are looking for. There is a lot of discussion among evolutionists about constraints on evolution, both constraints set by the particular historical development of a species and the design constraints on adaptive functions. Ironically, one of the chief promoters of the existence of constraints on evolutionary development, including design constraints, is Richard Dawkins.

I feel like I'm going over VERY old ground here. Is this an honest question, or do you really want to hear it again and again and again?

Yes, I think it is a very important question and I have never seen a satisfactory answer. I really do not know how, in the absence of external clues, one can distinguish a fictional from a historical narrative. If you think it can be done, you must have criteria by which you can make the distinction.

First, and one of the strongest -- unbroken genealogy from Adam to Jesus.

We do not know that it is unbroken. The fact that Matthew apparently fudges with his genealogy to create his three groups of fourteen generations suggests that his at least is not unbroken. We do not know that either gospel genealogy is accurate. We do not know that they do not include legendary heroes of dubious historicity. While parts of the gospel genealogies have counterparts in the OT, we have no confirmation that Jesus can really be linked historically to those lineages.

Genesis told as historical - unbroken from Adam through Noah through Abraham.

Just as it would be if it were an entirely fictional narrative. Writers do know how to create the illusion of history. And even how to blend fiction and history as in historical novels.

Festivals, altars, piles, wells, etc. used to commemorate and remember specific events.

How many of these altars, piles, wells, etc. still exist? How many of them were named at the time of the event? How many were actually named years later because legend said an important event occurred here? As for festivals, one would also need to investigate how the festival connects with the alleged historical event. Nothing prevents holding a festival to commemorate a legend.

If this is the best you can do, these are incredibly weak criteria. You have to assume the historical accuracy of the text to appeal to these criteria, so it is really begging the question.

The "facts of God's creation" do not include the theory of evolution.

I think you are probably confounding the theory of evolution with the history of evolution. The history of evolution is something that has to be reconstructed from evidence and we will always be short of enough evidence to manage a perfect reconstruction.

But the theory of evolution is about the mechanisms of evolution: mutations, natural selection, etc. and how they interact to produce species change. The "facts of God's creation" certainly do include both the fact that species do change over time and the facts about the mechanisms which produce these changes.

Imperfect knowledge about the historical pathways of evolution does not contravene the theory of evolution as embedded in nature. Especially as none of the evidence contradicts the theory or suggests a history that would.

There is a huge difference between repeatable experiments and the speculation that this is how man came about -- contrary to the Scriptures.

The fact that species change has been repeatedly observed. The fact and effect of mutations has been repeatedly observed. The operation of natural selection has been repeatedly observed. So that takes us back to the history of human evolution. And in that case we have more than enough evidence for a nearly complete reconstruction of the history such that it cannot be called speculation. It may be that we still have some details to correct (as the story in the OP suggests), but these are details. The evolutionary ties of humankind to the rest of the animal kingdom are at this point, indisputable.

Whether the evolutionary history of humankind contradicts the scriptures takes us back to one's choice of hermeneutic.

There are independent confirmations of many things in Scripture. But yes, after a certain point one must have faith. It is unlikely we will find specific physical evidence that God shut the door of Noah's ark as He claims.

We can certainly agree on that. I just think that most Christians seriously underestimate how much of scriptural "history" they have to take on faith. They are very unaware of how little actual confirmation of sacred history really exists.

I tore your criteria to shreds. Please be assured that does not mean I disbelieve all of the items referred to. But I am not afraid to acknowledge that my belief is belief and has few acceptable historical underpinnings.

Tell you what. Get 100 people off the street. Have them read Genesis. Ask them if they think Genesis teaches a global flood as history.

Argumentum ad populam and argumentum ad ignoratiam rolled into one. Such a survey would establish absolutely nothing about the actual nature of the Genesis narratives.

So you deny all foretelling prophecy? There are literally hundreds of examples in the Old Testament. Are you really sure you want to go there?

Pretty much. I wasted too much time on horoscopes when I was younger. I know how very easy it is to find whatever predictions you need when you are looking for them.

Just to start out - Jesus of the line of Adam/Eve, of the line of Abraham, of the line of David, etc.

Not historically confirmed. You have to assume the historical accuracy of the genealogies to assume the predictions point to Jesus of Nazareth. Also you have to assume he was the only person with this pedigree. So even if you could confirm the genealogy, it doesn't necessarily connect the predictions to Jesus.

Born in Bethlehem.

Not confirmed. You have to assume the historical accuracy of the gospel birth stories to assume the prediction points to Jesus.

Presented in Jerusalem at the exact time.

Not confirmed. There is no record of which children were presented in the Temple on which days. And the OT numerical figures have so many different interpretations there is no saying what the "exact time" was. You have to assume the correctness of your preferred analysis of figures that are actually highly ambiguous.

Born before Judah lost ruling power.

Judah lost ruling power when Rome conquered the Maccabees. Herod was a puppet king, and in addition, an Idumean, not a Jew.

Furthermore, we have no confirmation of when Jesus was born, or even if he was born.

Born of a virgin.

Not confirmed, and I doubt it is even confirmable.

Came to bear sins.

Neither confirmed nor confirmable. This is 100% a statement of faith.

Not a bone broken.

Not confirmed. There is no record other than the gospels of Jesus' trial and execution.


Let me reiterate that when I say these events are not confirmed, it doesn't mean I personally dispute that they happened.

I am just saying that given the lack of real historical evidence about Jesus' life, we cannot really tie any prediction to him. And in many cases the predictions themselves are far too vague to indisputably connect them with particular people and events.

Consequently, the predictions do not really make a substantive case for the gospel claims about Jesus as Messiah.

Yet, I continue to believe in the gospel message that he is the Messiah sent by God to redeem us. I am just not going to try and strengthen that faith with false illusions of "prophetic" support.

Choice of hermeneutic? Not hardly.

Absolutely!

 

[crawfish]

Crawfish, I believe the rules say you aren't supposed to call names like that (ignore and distort information even after they're disproved) without major evidence to support it.

I thought it was just for specific accusations...mentioning a person or group by name. If I'm wrong, please delete the post.

 

[laptoppop]

I thought it was just for specific accusations...mentioning a person or group by name. If I'm wrong, please delete the post.

Wow. So we can slam each other all we want as long as we don't use names? I don't know if that fits the letter of the rule or not -- but it sure seems like it violates the spirit of it.

 

[KerrMetric]

We have shared posting on threads before. And I have always been impressed with what you have shared on your web page.

But, why would a Christian Professor ‘teach’with a condescending attitude? I teach and again, I do not compare in education etc., but I do not understand….

I'm not a Christian Professor - I'm a Professor who happens to be a Christian. And I don't teach with a condescending attitude. It may sound immodest but I am an excellent lecturer in my environment.

But on websites like this teaching is very often a waste of time. I have often been called incompetent, a liar, close minded, spawn of Satan, godless - you name it, usually by people who couldn't get past high school science and certainly cannot remember it. So - I do get condescending to those people because to be honest they usually deserve it.

Christian Scientists' names have been shared before: They are scientists in the field of Physics that believe in Creation….

Russel Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics, is just one:

http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_physci_humphreys.
He is considered dumb?

I'm going to start a rip Russell Humphreys thread soon on here. In my opinion, backed up by his record, he is not a scientist anymore and seems not to have been one for a long time. I think he is a fraud and I can demonstrate this - he will fake data and lie for his cause. He writes claptrap for ICR that shows he is woefully out of his depth in those areas, so far out of his depth at times that I do question whether he ever had any ability whatsoever. He has a PhD in physics from LSU but he seems incapable of learning physics (or any science) outside of his area (if he even has an area anymore.)

I see that the same science is looked at and something different is inferred….I know you are an intelligent man, KerrMetric…but so is Russel Humphrey and many others that believe in Creation….I admire your knowledge, but not always how it is shared....

Just a question - how do you know Humphreys is competent? Because ICR's biography of him tells you this? He is most famous probably for a book he wrote (non-peer reviewed I might add) called Starlight and Time. Do you know how incompetent that book is? It's a complete embarrassment but since he puts a few equations in it and the message is pro-YEC the creationist book buying public lap it up because they don't know any better.

 

[Deamiter]

A great example is the bacterium flagellum. They accept the wildest speculative stories as "proof" that it evolved -- despite no physical evidence to support it in all its complexities. The best story they come up with (TTS/TT3) has been shown to be a degredation of the flagellum, not its precursor. Oh well -- their mind is made up, don't confuse them with facts.

Wait a second, I've never seen a SINGLE evolutionist claim that any possible evolutionary path (of flagella or any other structure) is even EVIDENCE much less proof of evolution. You are severely twisting our position by claiming that we think any evolutionist calls this "proof." (And that's totally aside from the fact that science doesn't deal with proof in the first place -- only creationists would discuss proof in this context).

What evolutionists HAVE said is that Behe's argument that the flagella could not have evolved is disproven by the discovery of just one POSSIBLE path. Note, this is in no way evidence that the possible path is what actually happened and is not evidence against creationism in any way. It is solely directed toward disproving Behe's argument that the flagella COULD NOT have evolved.

You've mentioned a couple of times in this thread how annoying it is to have your words twisted. Please grant us the same respect you deserve and refrain from claiming that an evolutionist has claimed a POSSIBLE path as even remote evidence for evolution. It's only ever presented as evidence against Behe's argument.

We can discuss Behe's argument and he may certainly be right, I'm just clarifying that your characterization of the presentation of potential evolutionary paths is incorrect.

 

[Mickey1953]

I'm not a Christian Professor - I'm a Professor who happens to be a Christian. And I don't teach with a condescending attitude. It may sound immodest but I am an excellent lecturer in my environment.

But on websites like this teaching is very often a waste of time. I have often been called incompetent, a liar, close minded, spawn of Satan, godless - you name it, usually by people who couldn't get past high school science and certainly cannot remember it. So - I do get condescending to those people because to be honest they usually deserve it.

I'm going to start a rip Russell Humphreys thread soon on here. In my opinion, backed up by his record, he is not a scientist anymore and seems not to have been one for a long time. I think he is a fraud and I can demonstrate this - he will fake data and lie for his cause. He writes claptrap for ICR that shows he is woefully out of his depth in those areas, so far out of his depth at times that I do question whether he ever had any ability whatsoever. He has a PhD in physics from LSU but he seems incapable of learning physics (or any science) outside of his area (if he even has an area anymore.)

Just a question - how do you know Humphreys is competent? Because ICR's biography of him tells you this? He is most famous probably for a book he wrote (non-peer reviewed I might add) called Starlight and Time. Do you know how incompetent that book is? It's a complete embarrassment but since he puts a few equations in it and the message is pro-YEC the creationist book buying public lap it up because they don't know any better.

[FONT=&quot]I believe you are excellent...why? It does not occur to me that it would not be true...I have read your posts on debates.... your sincere though rough at times and not patient...but you have knowledge. Will I believe that what you know is absolute truth? No.The same as Humphrey.... Not out of disrespect or distrust in your understanding of science, but God is not limited to you or Dr. Humphrey....

I am your high school science person that could not get past high school science...so I research on my own...
Not to the ability of yourself... but I do the best I can.

I have a respect for Dr. Henry Morris. Some of my information are from books he has written... and because of this I trust what I read on his site and his books. Do I believe he has the absolute answers? No.

I read this a long time ago....

“He (God) is still a mystery to me, but that was somehow okay because who, after all, could possibly want to believe in a God small enough to be comprehended?”

And because I am not a scientist, it makes sense to me...

I appreciate you taking the time to be on these posts.
I think about the things you post....and for others to be rude to you is uncalled for...and vice versa...

I am impressed with what you do. I will never have the chance on earth to do what you do or do I have even a diminutive[/FONT][FONT=&quot] ability to do it....
And you teach KerrMetric whether you realize it or not...

Mickey[/FONT]

 

[Assyrian]

First, and one of the strongest -- unbroken genealogy from Adam to Jesus.

The odd thing is, outside of Genesis the biblical authors are rather non commital about the genealogies. The author of 1Chron simply lists the names of the antedeluvian patriarchs with out any of the expansions 'son of' or 'begat' we find further down the list, while Luke simply describes the genealogy as 'supposed'.

Genesis told as historical - unbroken from Adam through Noah through Abraham.

The interesting question for YEC is whether Gen 1 and 2&3 are historical narratives. Gen 1 was written in a style unlike any historical narrative in the bible and much closer to the repetition parallelism and chorus of poetry. Then we have the story of the garden where chapter 3 is all about Adam and Eve's relationship with a talking snake. We discover at the end of the bible that this snake is not actually a literal snake, but it is Satan though the story treats him as an animal all the way through. In other words, Genesis 3 describes mankinds temptation by Satan in form of as story where Satan is represented by a talking snake, who is punished by being made slither on his belly and eat dust until he has his head crushed by the promised seed. An allegory. So no Genesis is not an unbroken historical narrative.

Festivals, altars, piles, wells, etc. used to commemorate and remember specific events.

Interestingly, as far as I can remember, we don't have any of these marks of ancient Hebrew historical narrative until the time of Abraham, X dug a well/raised an altar, it is still there to this day. The nearest we have is Sabbath commemoration, which is linked to God's seventh day rest. But as we have seen, God's seventh day of creation rest is treated allegorically in the NT, and there is no evidence of people keeping the Sabbath in the bible before Exodus.

Tell you what. Get 100 people off the street. Have them read Genesis. Ask them if they think Genesis teaches a global flood as history.

Sure. Can we get them to do the same thing with the geocentric passages, Joshua commanding the sun and moon to stand still, Solomon saying when the sun sets it hurries to the place it rises again, Psalm 93 saying the earth is extablished and cannot be moved, and ask them if the bible teaches the earth is stationary with the sun orbiting around it, or that the earth rotates and goes around the sun?

 

[artybloke]

Just to be very very clear. I believe creationism is a satanic lie designed to deceive.

Corrected for truth.

 

[crawfish]

Wow. So we can slam each other all we want as long as we don't use names? I don't know if that fits the letter of the rule or not -- but it sure seems like it violates the spirit of it.

Please. Enough examples of dishonesty have been mentioned on this board to justify a general statement. I would agree that it's only a small minority of the leadership who does so, and the reason they do it is sometimes a somewhat honest one (they don't want Christians to have their faith shaken by science, so they gloss over/misrepresent/ignore certain evidences or counterarguments that would make their points seem weaker).

Whatever the short-term gain, in the end these tactics will end up making people mistrust Christians. You cannot push one truth while misrepresenting another.

For the record - the people on BOTH sides who typically misrepresent the evidence and what it means are very rarely scientists. They usually have very little understanding of the technical details of the theory, and use given evidence to push their own agenda. I got into trouble before for mentioning that I expect more from Christians - but I do fully expect them to obey the command to not bear false witness, and it hits me harder when they do.

 

[Mickey1953]

BBC NEWS: “Finds test human origins theory”

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/08/11/news-to-note-08112007

Answers in Genesis response to article.....

Evolutionists are busy rewriting the story of the evolution of humankind, reports the BBC’s James Urquhart. Two hominid fossils from Kenya have prompted the revisions, which entail a new hypothesized evolutionary relationship between Homo habilis and Homo erectus, as claimed in the journal Nature.

 

[theFijian]

Of course you're not suggesting that revising a theory in the light of new evidence is wrong in some way are you.

 

[sfs]

BBC NEWS: “Finds test human origins theory”

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/08/11/news-to-note-08112007

Answers in Genesis response to article.....

Evolutionists are busy rewriting the story of the evolution of humankind, reports the BBC’s James Urquhart. Two hominid fossils from Kenya have prompted the revisions, which entail a new hypothesized evolutionary relationship between Homo habilis and Homo erectus, as claimed in the journal Nature.

The AiG piece quotes one of the authors of the Nature paper:

“It’s always possible that Homo habilis lived, let’s say, 2.5 million years ago and then in another part of Africa, away from the Turkana basin, an isolated population evolved into Homo erectus. [...] But that is a much more complex proposition,” Professor Spoor explained, “the easiest way to interpret these fossils is that there was an ancestral species that gave rise to both of them somewhere between two and three million years ago.”

That quote really bugs me, and it annoys colleagues with whom I've discussed the paper as well (I first heard the quote when my office-mate read it to me). The two hypotheses in question are 1) habilis and erectus descend from a very similar common ancestral species, one that looked enough like habilis to be classified by paleontologists as the same species, and 2) habilis and erectus descend from a very similar common ancestral species, one that looked just enough different from habilis to be classified as a different species. Neither of those possibilities is really more complex than the other, and there is no obvious reason for choosing one over the other.

In general, all of these reconstructions about precise relationships between closely related species are going to be quite speculative, which is why this paper was not at all shocking. Previously, it was hypothesized, based on very little evidence, that habilis evolved into erectus without a species split occurring. Now (if the paper is correct), it looks like habilis or its immediate precursor split into two species before erectus evolved. Or maybe there are yet other, as yet unobserved species involved, or maybe erectus is actually two closely related species that we can't tell apart from the fossils, or maybe lots of other things.

This uncertainty is why modern classification methods do not attempt to identify immediate ancestral species, since you can never be sure that the species that happened to be preserved as a fossil was actually the ancestor, or just a close relative of the ancestor. Instead, species relationships are positioned as branches on a tree, without trying to guess what the nodes of the tree were.

One other thing . . . To fit in with the general tone of this thread, I'd like to mention that I consider everyone here to be the spawn of Satan, and I love you all like brothers.

 

[crawfish]

Of course you're not suggesting that revising a theory in the light of new evidence is wrong in some way are you.

That disturbs me about organizations like AiG. I have no doubt that most of them truly understand the scientific method; gather evidence, make theories, adjust theories as new evidence is discovered. I'm also sure that the AiG experts know that this is a minor redirection of ToE, and not a fatal blow.

So, either they don't understand the scientific method, or they're ignoring it and using its inherent openness to make the theory seem groundless. The truth is, it takes a ton of evidence to "prove" something like ToE; it takes far less evidence to rule certain options out.