new fossils found recently are challenging long-held theories on human evolution.
interesting news story for anyone interested in the evolution/creationism debate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6937476.stm
Full Version: new fossils challenge evolution
Just wait for awhile, give peer review a chance to work. This could only be a false alarm and the fossils misidentified. That is what peer review is for, to identify mistakes or to change current understanding. Either way, it does nothing to undermine the theory of evolution or to strengthen it either.
QUOTE(Lucius Cornelius Sulla @ Aug 10 2007, 02:09 PM) 
Just wait for awhile, give peer review a chance to work. This could only be a false alarm and the fossils misidentified. That is what peer review is for, to identify mistakes or to change current understanding. Either way, it does nothing to undermine the theory of evolution or to strengthen it either.
No surprise. There's no such thing as "human evolution".
The article has been peer reviewed. As the BBC story says in its second paragraph:
"The broken upper jaw-bone and intact skull from humanlike creatures, or hominids, are described in Nature."
Nature is a peer-reviewed journal. And then some. Their free web version of the story resides at:
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070806/full/070806-5.html
The find has no bearing on any scientist's thoughts concerning whether human beings evolved from other animals, but rather affects theorizing about what the specific line of descent was.
Hope that helps.
"The broken upper jaw-bone and intact skull from humanlike creatures, or hominids, are described in Nature."
Nature is a peer-reviewed journal. And then some. Their free web version of the story resides at:
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070806/full/070806-5.html
The find has no bearing on any scientist's thoughts concerning whether human beings evolved from other animals, but rather affects theorizing about what the specific line of descent was.
Hope that helps.
QUOTE(WalkingWithFire @ Aug 10 2007, 06:32 PM)
No surprise. There's no such thing as "human evolution".
Hello there, I was wondering when you would show up.
QUOTE(Skim Milky @ Aug 10 2007, 07:48 PM)
new fossils found recently are challenging long-held theories on human evolution.
interesting news story for anyone interested in the evolution/creationism debate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6937476.stm
interesting news story for anyone interested in the evolution/creationism debate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6937476.stm
Yes, interesting story but it is a theory. Even I, not being a paleontologist could blow a few holes into it.
And you will be surprised, I agree that evolution was not about creating human beings. Evolution is about survival. Every time an organism adapts to the changing environment it takes a step in evolution. Sometimes these steps are even seemingly backwards. Human beings are a by-product of evolution.
The problem that most people have with evolution is that on the 8th day of creation they created god to their image and liking. Evolution does not fit there.
ED:TYOPO
QUOTE(Cradle of Fish @ Aug 10 2007, 03:12 PM)
Hello there, I was wondering when you would show up.
Sure you were.
Interesting... sister species... AGAIN!
Anyone keeping count of who DIDN'T evolved from who after all?
Anyone keeping count of who DIDN'T evolved from who after all?
Any one keeping count of the creationists clinging to an article in an effort to discredit evolution, without doing research? The article is extremely misleading.
Here is a current proposed evolutionary tree of man:
Hint: Look at H. habilis, now look at H. erectus. See how they don't directly link to each other?
Would you look at that?! We have more evidence to support an evolutionary theory!
Here is a current proposed evolutionary tree of man:
Hint: Look at H. habilis, now look at H. erectus. See how they don't directly link to each other?
Would you look at that?! We have more evidence to support an evolutionary theory!
QUOTE(WalkingWithFire @ Aug 10 2007, 06:32 PM)
No surprise. There's no such thing as "human evolution".
uhh.....yeah
so where did that come from? i assume youre basing it off something good.
*Edit - i may know the answer here
So Raptor. This new finding just suggests that habilis lived longer than thought?
I've always thought, that whoever we evolved from, we would have lived alongside them. Evolution isn't instantainious like creationists like to assume - why wouldn't they, seeing as we just appeared in a cloud of smoke one sunny saturday morning - the newer speices would be more effective in the envirnment than the previous would be. Thus dwindling the former speices to lower and lower numbers, whilst the newer speices thrive.
Look at mollusks. They literally reigned the sea's while all other sea life dwindled. Why? They're suited to both the calm and the harsh climate changes.
Oh, Raptor.
For putting the feet in the creationists mouths there 
I've always thought, that whoever we evolved from, we would have lived alongside them. Evolution isn't instantainious like creationists like to assume - why wouldn't they, seeing as we just appeared in a cloud of smoke one sunny saturday morning - the newer speices would be more effective in the envirnment than the previous would be. Thus dwindling the former speices to lower and lower numbers, whilst the newer speices thrive.
Look at mollusks. They literally reigned the sea's while all other sea life dwindled. Why? They're suited to both the calm and the harsh climate changes.
Oh, Raptor.
For putting the feet in the creationists mouths there
QUOTE(Chokmah @ Aug 10 2007, 10:00 PM)
So Raptor. This new finding just suggests that habilis lived longer than thought?
Yeah. Just imagine the H. habilis box on the image I posted, being stretched upwards until it meets H. erectus. That's all the finding suggests.
If past experiences are anything to go by, the creationists will now probably ignore this and wait for the next misleading article to pop up so that they can say "See? Evolution is completely wrong!" all over again. So the cycle continues...
QUOTE(Raptor X7 @ Aug 10 2007, 10:12 PM)
Yeah. Just imagine the H. habilis box on the image I posted, being stretched upwards until it meets H. erectus. That's all the finding suggests.
If past experiences are anything to go by, the creationists will now probably ignore this and wait for the next misleading article to pop up so that they can say "See? Evolution is completely wrong!" all over again. So the cycle continues...
If past experiences are anything to go by, the creationists will now probably ignore this and wait for the next misleading article to pop up so that they can say "See? Evolution is completely wrong!" all over again. So the cycle continues...
Well. I'm sure you or I (I stole the chart
) Can just post it back up.
Obviously some of you know nothing about proto-types. I watch alot of National Geographic.
Heres the article, Read very carefully !
Fossils challenge old evolution theory
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Thu Aug 9, 10:33 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Surprising research based on two African fossils suggests our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, challenging what had been common thinking on how early humans evolved.
ADVERTISEMENT
The discovery by Meave Leakey, a member of a famous family of paleontologists, shows that two species of early human ancestors lived at the same time in Kenya. That pokes holes in the chief theory of man's early evolution — that one of those species evolved from the other.
And it further discredits that iconic illustration of human evolution that begins with a knuckle-dragging ape and ends with a briefcase-carrying man.
The old theory is that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became human, Homo sapiens. But Leakey's find suggests those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years. She and her research colleagues report the discovery in a paper published in Thursday's journal Nature.
The paper is based on fossilized bones found in 2000. The complete skull of Homo erectus was found within walking distance of an upper jaw of Homo habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis, researchers said.
It's the equivalent of finding that your grandmother and great-grandmother were sisters rather than mother-daughter, said study co-author Fred Spoor, a professor of evolutionary anatomy at the University College in London.
The two species lived near each other, but probably didn't interact, each having its own "ecological niche," Spoor said. Homo habilis was likely more vegetarian while Homo erectus ate some meat, he said. Like chimps and apes, "they'd just avoid each other, they don't feel comfortable in each other's company," he said.
There remains some still-undiscovered common ancestor that probably lived 2 million to 3 million years ago, a time that has not left much fossil record, Spoor said.
Overall what it paints for human evolution is a "chaotic kind of looking evolutionary tree rather than this heroic march that you see with the cartoons of an early ancestor evolving into some intermediate and eventually unto us," Spoor said in a phone interview from a field office of the Koobi Fora Research Project in northern Kenya.
That old evolutionary cartoon, while popular with the general public, is just too simple and keeps getting revised, said Bill Kimbel, who praised the latest findings. He is science director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University and wasn't part of the Leakey team.
"The more we know, the more complex the story gets," he said. Scientists used to think Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthals, he said. But now we know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals.
Now a similar discovery applies further back in time.
Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist and co-author of the Leakey work, said she expects anti-evolution proponents to seize on the new research, but said it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory.
"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous self-testing process."
For the past few years there has been growing doubt and debate about whether Homo habilis evolved into Homo erectus. One of the major proponents of the more linear, or ladder-like evolution that this evidence weakens, called Leakey's findings important, but he wasn't ready to concede defeat.
Dr. Bernard Wood, a surgeon-turned-professor of human origins at George Washington University, said in an e-mail Wednesday that "this is only a skirmish in the protracted 'war' between the people who like a bushy interpretation and those who like a more ladder-like interpretation of early human evolution."
Leakey's team spent seven years analyzing the fossils before announcing it was time to redraw the family tree — and rethink other ideas about human evolutionary history. That's especially true of most immediate ancestor, Homo erectus.
Because the Homo erectus skull Leakey recovered was much smaller than others, scientists had to first prove that it was erectus and not another species nor a genetic freak. The jaw, probably from an 18- or 19-year-old female, was adult and showed no signs of malformation or genetic mutations, Spoor said. The scientists also know it isn't Homo habilis from several distinct features on the jaw.
That caused researchers to re-examine the 30 other erectus skulls they have and the dozens of partial fossils. They realized that the females of that species are much smaller than the males — something different from modern man, but similar to other animals, said Anton. Scientists hadn't looked carefully enough before to see that there was a distinct difference in males and females.
Difference in size between males and females seem to be related to monogamy, the researchers said. Primates that have same-sized males and females, such as gibbons, tend to be more monogamous. Species that are not monogamous, such as gorillas and baboons, have much bigger males.
This suggests that our ancestor Homo erectus reproduced with multiple partners.
The Homo habilis jaw was dated at 1.44 million years ago. That is the youngest ever found from a species that scientists originally figured died off somewhere between 1.7 and 2 million years ago, Spoor said. It enabled scientists to say that Homo erectus and Homo habilis lived at the same time.
One more time:
Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist and co-author of the Leakey work, said she expects anti-evolution proponents to seize on the new research, but said it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory.
___
Heres the article, Read very carefully !
Fossils challenge old evolution theory
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Thu Aug 9, 10:33 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Surprising research based on two African fossils suggests our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, challenging what had been common thinking on how early humans evolved.
ADVERTISEMENT
The discovery by Meave Leakey, a member of a famous family of paleontologists, shows that two species of early human ancestors lived at the same time in Kenya. That pokes holes in the chief theory of man's early evolution — that one of those species evolved from the other.
And it further discredits that iconic illustration of human evolution that begins with a knuckle-dragging ape and ends with a briefcase-carrying man.
The old theory is that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became human, Homo sapiens. But Leakey's find suggests those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years. She and her research colleagues report the discovery in a paper published in Thursday's journal Nature.
The paper is based on fossilized bones found in 2000. The complete skull of Homo erectus was found within walking distance of an upper jaw of Homo habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis, researchers said.
It's the equivalent of finding that your grandmother and great-grandmother were sisters rather than mother-daughter, said study co-author Fred Spoor, a professor of evolutionary anatomy at the University College in London.
The two species lived near each other, but probably didn't interact, each having its own "ecological niche," Spoor said. Homo habilis was likely more vegetarian while Homo erectus ate some meat, he said. Like chimps and apes, "they'd just avoid each other, they don't feel comfortable in each other's company," he said.
There remains some still-undiscovered common ancestor that probably lived 2 million to 3 million years ago, a time that has not left much fossil record, Spoor said.
Overall what it paints for human evolution is a "chaotic kind of looking evolutionary tree rather than this heroic march that you see with the cartoons of an early ancestor evolving into some intermediate and eventually unto us," Spoor said in a phone interview from a field office of the Koobi Fora Research Project in northern Kenya.
That old evolutionary cartoon, while popular with the general public, is just too simple and keeps getting revised, said Bill Kimbel, who praised the latest findings. He is science director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University and wasn't part of the Leakey team.
"The more we know, the more complex the story gets," he said. Scientists used to think Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthals, he said. But now we know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals.
Now a similar discovery applies further back in time.
Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist and co-author of the Leakey work, said she expects anti-evolution proponents to seize on the new research, but said it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory.
"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous self-testing process."
For the past few years there has been growing doubt and debate about whether Homo habilis evolved into Homo erectus. One of the major proponents of the more linear, or ladder-like evolution that this evidence weakens, called Leakey's findings important, but he wasn't ready to concede defeat.
Dr. Bernard Wood, a surgeon-turned-professor of human origins at George Washington University, said in an e-mail Wednesday that "this is only a skirmish in the protracted 'war' between the people who like a bushy interpretation and those who like a more ladder-like interpretation of early human evolution."
Leakey's team spent seven years analyzing the fossils before announcing it was time to redraw the family tree — and rethink other ideas about human evolutionary history. That's especially true of most immediate ancestor, Homo erectus.
Because the Homo erectus skull Leakey recovered was much smaller than others, scientists had to first prove that it was erectus and not another species nor a genetic freak. The jaw, probably from an 18- or 19-year-old female, was adult and showed no signs of malformation or genetic mutations, Spoor said. The scientists also know it isn't Homo habilis from several distinct features on the jaw.
That caused researchers to re-examine the 30 other erectus skulls they have and the dozens of partial fossils. They realized that the females of that species are much smaller than the males — something different from modern man, but similar to other animals, said Anton. Scientists hadn't looked carefully enough before to see that there was a distinct difference in males and females.
Difference in size between males and females seem to be related to monogamy, the researchers said. Primates that have same-sized males and females, such as gibbons, tend to be more monogamous. Species that are not monogamous, such as gorillas and baboons, have much bigger males.
This suggests that our ancestor Homo erectus reproduced with multiple partners.
The Homo habilis jaw was dated at 1.44 million years ago. That is the youngest ever found from a species that scientists originally figured died off somewhere between 1.7 and 2 million years ago, Spoor said. It enabled scientists to say that Homo erectus and Homo habilis lived at the same time.
One more time:
Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist and co-author of the Leakey work, said she expects anti-evolution proponents to seize on the new research, but said it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory.
___
Look the creationists discount evolution but they voted a monkey right into public office.
And we are supposed to trust them and let them run the country their way.
(CBS/AP)
Quote
Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all.
(CBS) (This poll was conducted November 18-21, 2004.)
Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved. But most would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools.
Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all.
There are also differences between voters who supported Kerry and those who supported Bush: 47 percent of John Kerry’s voters think God created humans as they are now, compared with 67 percent of Bush voters.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/...ain657083.shtml
And we are supposed to trust them and let them run the country their way.
(CBS/AP)
Quote
Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all.
(CBS) (This poll was conducted November 18-21, 2004.)
Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved. But most would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools.
Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all.
There are also differences between voters who supported Kerry and those who supported Bush: 47 percent of John Kerry’s voters think God created humans as they are now, compared with 67 percent of Bush voters.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/...ain657083.shtml
QUOTE(momentarylapseofreason @ Aug 11 2007, 12:35 AM)
Look the creationists voted a monkey into public office.
(CBS/AP)
Quote
Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all.
(CBS) (This poll was conducted November 18-21, 2004.)
Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved. But most would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools.
Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all.
There are also differences between voters who supported Kerry and those who supported Bush: 47 percent of John Kerry’s voters think God created humans as they are now, compared with 67 percent of Bush voters.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/...ain657083.shtml
(CBS/AP)
Quote
Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all.
(CBS) (This poll was conducted November 18-21, 2004.)
Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved. But most would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools.
Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all.
There are also differences between voters who supported Kerry and those who supported Bush: 47 percent of John Kerry’s voters think God created humans as they are now, compared with 67 percent of Bush voters.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/...ain657083.shtml
Figures.
But as Asimov said : "Finished products is something for decadent minds" The creationist preach a finished product.
QUOTE(IamsSon @ Aug 10 2007, 02:52 PM)
Interesting... sister species... AGAIN!
Anyone keeping count of who DIDN'T evolved from who after all?
Anyone keeping count of who DIDN'T evolved from who after all?
Science doesn't have a magic wand nor do they claim to know everything. Unlike some gods who we are told know it all but those same gods refuse to share their knowledge despite still claiming to be all knowing.
Amazing how some people can be so pessimistic when we've just found out a bit more about our history. I personally find new findings exciting and wondrous. Believers are seemly just stuck with "my god knows it all, and I worship him so that makes me look and feel smart!" rather then take the time to actually want to learn more about the world no matter where the answers lead to. Where open minded people will look at each new discovery and judge for themselves what it is and what it means... Even if that road leads to disproving other ideas about the history of evolution and ourselves.
We all came from a couple of acorns off the tree of life. 
I read that article, it doesn't challenge evolution. It just tweaks the path a bit. Evolution still stands.
I read that article, it doesn't challenge evolution. It just tweaks the path a bit. Evolution still stands.
QUOTE(Darkwind @ Aug 11 2007, 01:19 AM)
We all came from a couple of acorns off the tree of life.
I read that article, it doesn't challenge evolution. It just tweaks the path a bit. Evolution still stands.
I read that article, it doesn't challenge evolution. It just tweaks the path a bit. Evolution still stands.
It tweaks the path of another homogeneous, not homosapiens.
All it say's is that habilis may have evolved into erectus - homosapiens, related only by habilis via a common ancester 2.4 million years ago.
It really surprises me, in a very sad kind of way, that someone could read that article and come away with evolution being disproved/shown to be lacking/wrong/etc..
QUOTE(camlax @ Aug 11 2007, 03:04 AM)
It really surprises me, in a very sad kind of way, that someone could read that article and come away with evolution being disproved/shown to be lacking/wrong/etc..
They're grasping at straws, they know the facts are against them. You'd think that the logical thing to do would be to wonder why the facts are against them. But instead, they just ignore the science completely (unless they believe it to in their favour of course, then it's the divine truth).
This topic is elsewhere because I've already commented on all this but I'll say this again: I think Maeve Leakey knows her stuff.
QUOTE(__Kratos__ @ Aug 10 2007, 05:51 PM)
Science doesn't have a magic wand nor do they claim to know everything. Unlike some gods who we are told know it all but those same gods refuse to share their knowledge despite still claiming to be all knowing.
Amazing how some people can be so pessimistic when we've just found out a bit more about our history. I personally find new findings exciting and wondrous. Believers are seemly just stuck with "my god knows it all, and I worship him so that makes me look and feel smart!" rather then take the time to actually want to learn more about the world no matter where the answers lead to. Where open minded people will look at each new discovery and judge for themselves what it is and what it means... Even if that road leads to disproving other ideas about the history of evolution and ourselves.
Amazing how some people can be so pessimistic when we've just found out a bit more about our history. I personally find new findings exciting and wondrous. Believers are seemly just stuck with "my god knows it all, and I worship him so that makes me look and feel smart!" rather then take the time to actually want to learn more about the world no matter where the answers lead to. Where open minded people will look at each new discovery and judge for themselves what it is and what it means... Even if that road leads to disproving other ideas about the history of evolution and ourselves.
I don't think anyone here has expressed pessimism.
It's juat ALWAYS good to remember scientists, real scientists, are aware that when it comes to origins no one can really KNOW anything.
QUOTE(IamsSon @ Aug 11 2007, 12:44 AM)
I don't think anyone here has expressed pessimism.
It's juat ALWAYS good to remember scientists, real scientists, are aware that when it comes to origins no one can really KNOW anything.
It's juat ALWAYS good to remember scientists, real scientists, are aware that when it comes to origins no one can really KNOW anything.
Correction, no one currently knows anything. Its simply wishful thinking to say we will or will not know anything.
QUOTE(IamsSon @ Aug 10 2007, 11:44 PM)
I don't think anyone here has expressed pessimism.
It's juat ALWAYS good to remember scientists, real scientists, are aware that when it comes to origins no one can really KNOW anything.
It's juat ALWAYS good to remember scientists, real scientists, are aware that when it comes to origins no one can really KNOW anything.
That wasn't sarcasm in your post then?
I did mention "theory" as I remember... So I do know that. There are many ideas of how we became.
Science allows me that freedom to know. I am not blinded by dogma which narrows my mind. Even as an atheist, I give my own life meaning through learning and understanding. It's a beautiful thing waking up each day knowing my DNA survived countless fights and even my very own person won the lottery just on becoming from sperm being 100+ million to one egg that I won that lottery and even a better number over the million of years my DNA has kept up to the natural selection process. I am the product of trillions+ of sexual, physical and mental challenges... That amazes me... It's a beautiful thing that I live. This new idea in evolution doesn't disprove evolution, just changes how we would look at the timeline and the different branches. Other different animals share the common bloodline even though they slipt millions of years ago... So what really makes this different to you? You just want to take a cheap and uneducated shot at evoltion?
Ya know, there are those of us folks out here, Christians even, who are very very interested in our origins, history, science, and we wait to see what mysteries are solved next. I actually think IamsSon is one of those.
I was certainly VERY interested in seeing the documentary on Jesus' tomb. I'm interested in hearing what is going on with science and the discovery of possibly different humanoids.
I won't deny that science has things wrong or right. For example, I think it's absolutely preposterous to assume that humanity has only been on earth for 5.000 years... it's silly to think there was a global flood. Science does a really good job of proving these claims aren't true.
So, the bottom line is that no matter what science turns up, and can prove... nothing will rock my faith. If science could rock my faith, I wouldn't be very strong or confident in my faith would I? As it happens, I am.
I was certainly VERY interested in seeing the documentary on Jesus' tomb. I'm interested in hearing what is going on with science and the discovery of possibly different humanoids.
I won't deny that science has things wrong or right. For example, I think it's absolutely preposterous to assume that humanity has only been on earth for 5.000 years... it's silly to think there was a global flood. Science does a really good job of proving these claims aren't true.
So, the bottom line is that no matter what science turns up, and can prove... nothing will rock my faith. If science could rock my faith, I wouldn't be very strong or confident in my faith would I? As it happens, I am.
QUOTE(MissMelsWell @ Aug 11 2007, 12:14 AM)
Ya know, there are those of us folks out here, Christians even, who are very very interested in our origins, history, science, and we wait to see what mysteries are solved next. I actually think IamsSon is one of those.
I was certainly VERY interested in seeing the documentary on Jesus' tomb. I'm interested in hearing what is going on with science and the discovery of possibly different humanoids.
I won't deny that science has things wrong or right. For example, I think it's absolutely preposterous to assume that humanity has only been on earth for 5.000 years... it's silly to think there was a global flood. Science does a really good job of proving these claims aren't true.
So, the bottom line is that no matter what science turns up, and can prove... nothing will rock my faith. If science could rock my faith, I wouldn't be very strong or confident in my faith would I? As it happens, I am.
I was certainly VERY interested in seeing the documentary on Jesus' tomb. I'm interested in hearing what is going on with science and the discovery of possibly different humanoids.
I won't deny that science has things wrong or right. For example, I think it's absolutely preposterous to assume that humanity has only been on earth for 5.000 years... it's silly to think there was a global flood. Science does a really good job of proving these claims aren't true.
So, the bottom line is that no matter what science turns up, and can prove... nothing will rock my faith. If science could rock my faith, I wouldn't be very strong or confident in my faith would I? As it happens, I am.
I don't see many of them...
No matter what science turns up?
Science has proven so many faith "facts" wrong it's unbelievable that someone would turn to science and faith as their daily menu. The bible that claims that the earth is flat, bats are really birds, that jews cannot eat meat because all the clean animals were killed, says snakes eat dust, says a flood covered the earth, that perhaps when a child is made in goats whatever the parent sees then at the moment is what the kid will have streaks on the coats, camels don't have split hoofs, says hares and conies eat cud, some birds have 4 feet, beetles really have 4 legs, and that firey serpents existed.
Every single last one of those examples has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt through evidence and research as utterly false; yet the bible states them as facts. Then some of those claims simply have no evidence at all to back them up at all.
So either faith is wrong or science is wrong according to the bible it's self.
If erectus was very sexually dimorphic it may have had multiple mates at a time. This differs from the more monogamous nature of modern humans, indicating that Homo erectus was not as human-like as once thought.
This is so dumb I want to cry. There are alot of cultures that have multiple mates at a time. 80% of the world prefers polygyny(multiple mates). Monogamy may be the most common around the world, it is not the most preferred. In most polygynous societies, a man must be fairly wealthy to be able to afford polygyny. So in other words Homo erectus is alot like modern humans.
This is so dumb I want to cry. There are alot of cultures that have multiple mates at a time. 80% of the world prefers polygyny(multiple mates). Monogamy may be the most common around the world, it is not the most preferred. In most polygynous societies, a man must be fairly wealthy to be able to afford polygyny. So in other words Homo erectus is alot like modern humans.
See, there are a good many (probably most) Christians that don't take the Bible literally.
So we know ,that bats aren't birds, we know that the earth isn't flat (although, I'd be interested to know where the Bible says that specifically), and my belief is that the Biblical authors were trying to put their experience with God into words. That experience and the way it was written came down relevent to the time they lived in.
As a spiritual Christian, I believe that we ALL have the ability to hear God just as the Apostles did... BEFORE the Bible. If I wrote my experience with God down today.... 2000 years from now, that's going to sound mighty odd to the person reading it.
My experience with God, may not be the same as the next persons when it comes down to the details (hence the MANY different sects and denominations of Christianity) and therefore, between me and another Christian, our interpretation of God's word might be different.
Kratos, most Christians ARE realists, regardless of what you like to tell yourself. You're seeing a microcosm here at UM... you have Christians, who are trying to 1. defend themselves 2. trying to communicate incredibly complex ideas and issues. If you've been paying attention, you'll see that not all of us agree with each other. There's a simple explanation for that. The explanation isn't that we're nuts or believe in something false... the explanation is that we interpret the Word differently. Personally... I don't see anything wrong with that... in fact, I think it's fascinating.
So we know ,that bats aren't birds, we know that the earth isn't flat (although, I'd be interested to know where the Bible says that specifically), and my belief is that the Biblical authors were trying to put their experience with God into words. That experience and the way it was written came down relevent to the time they lived in.
As a spiritual Christian, I believe that we ALL have the ability to hear God just as the Apostles did... BEFORE the Bible. If I wrote my experience with God down today.... 2000 years from now, that's going to sound mighty odd to the person reading it.
My experience with God, may not be the same as the next persons when it comes down to the details (hence the MANY different sects and denominations of Christianity) and therefore, between me and another Christian, our interpretation of God's word might be different.
Kratos, most Christians ARE realists, regardless of what you like to tell yourself. You're seeing a microcosm here at UM... you have Christians, who are trying to 1. defend themselves 2. trying to communicate incredibly complex ideas and issues. If you've been paying attention, you'll see that not all of us agree with each other. There's a simple explanation for that. The explanation isn't that we're nuts or believe in something false... the explanation is that we interpret the Word differently. Personally... I don't see anything wrong with that... in fact, I think it's fascinating.
QUOTE(MissMelsWell @ Aug 11 2007, 01:40 AM)
See, there are a good many (probably most) Christians that don't take the Bible literally.
Is this about my post? If so I'm an atheist and agree with Kratos.
QUOTE(Odin11 @ Aug 10 2007, 10:46 PM)
Is this about my post? If so I'm an atheist and agree with Kratos.
No, this was more aimed at Kratos...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.