Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,263 Year: 5,520/9,624 Month: 545/323 Week: 42/143 Day: 4/11 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New Species of Homo Discovered: Homo naledi
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 9 of 85 (768276)
09-10-2015 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
09-10-2015 11:23 AM


They're either human or they're not, and if they're human they are human, they are not "transitionals" but simply humans.
And the great thing about creationism is that you can say that before you've studied their anatomy. The actual facts about the bones don't matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 09-10-2015 11:23 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 09-10-2015 2:52 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 10 of 85 (768277)
09-10-2015 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
09-10-2015 11:04 AM


The credulousness of atheists is breathtaking.
Well, yes. I admit that. We only have fossils that we can see and measure and touch, and we build on that? C'mon.
Whereas you have a story about a talking snake that is documented in actual paintings. Artists don't lie.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 09-10-2015 11:04 AM Faith has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 14 of 85 (768289)
09-10-2015 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Omnivorous
09-10-2015 12:43 PM


If you could apply your native skepticism to your own beliefs, you would have a remarkable mind.
Or, if she could apply her native skepticism to her own beliefs, she would be remarkably crazy.
Her "skepticism" is such that if consistently applied, she wouldn't believe anything. That would be bad skepticism done wrong. She saves herself from this by applying her "skepticism" selectively, only to deny the conclusions of scientists when it suits her, and not so as to apply to her daily needs. If she did extend her principles to how she lives her life, she would, sure, be agnostic. On the other hand she wouldn't know how to tie her shoelaces.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Omnivorous, posted 09-10-2015 12:43 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Omnivorous, posted 09-10-2015 9:45 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 27 of 85 (768324)
09-10-2015 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Faith
09-10-2015 2:52 PM


The actual facts about the bones don't matter to evolutionists either. We never see them, you know, the evidence is almost never given, certainly not when we're being introduced to a new "find." When we are shown the bones they are a pretty pathetic paltry collection of half a dozen fragments some dog must have chewed. But no, normally all we ever get is an artist's rendering designed to persuade the credulous.
What an interesting fantasy. You notice how completely it's contradicted by the facts?
Now, your turn. Show us a talking snake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 09-10-2015 2:52 PM Faith has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 28 of 85 (768325)
09-10-2015 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Faith
09-10-2015 2:46 PM


But of course I did apply it to those beliefs, for years and years and years ...
So there was once a time when you thought: "Because I've seen no evidence for a talking snake, it would be excessively credulous for me to believe in a talking snake". Well, that sounds jolly sensible. And then what happened --- you hit your head on something?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 09-10-2015 2:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 09-10-2015 9:55 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 38 of 85 (768348)
09-10-2015 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
09-10-2015 10:39 PM


Yeah, "Lucy" is a case of an extreme paucity of actual bones.
No, not really. If you want a case of extreme paucity, try counting all the talking snakes you've ever met.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 09-10-2015 10:39 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 09-10-2015 11:59 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 57 of 85 (768374)
09-11-2015 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Faith
09-11-2015 12:36 AM


Re: incredible creationists
Whole arrays of skulls are often presented as if to prove differences between some ancient type of human and today's, but they all just look like normal variations on skulls you see walking down the street every day.
If the folks in your town resemble Homo naledi in having a cranial capacity less than 600 cc ... well, that would explain a lot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Faith, posted 09-11-2015 12:36 AM Faith has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 61 of 85 (768378)
09-11-2015 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Faith
09-11-2015 1:15 AM


Re: incredible creationists
But modern science DOESN'T "show" that at all, it assumes it because the theory requires it. Variation in reality occurs quite rapidly when small numbers are isolated. After the Flood small populations would have been constantly splitting off from the larger groups and moving out geographically, which is the perfect condition for rapid phenotypic variation.
So these are all the results of "rapid phenotypic variation" of humans? (But don't call it evolution, that's a bad word.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 09-11-2015 1:15 AM Faith has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 73 of 85 (768408)
09-11-2015 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Faith
09-11-2015 11:52 AM


Re: incredible creationists
All I'm saying here is that there is variation built into the human genome, a lot of variation, but it will never produce anything but a recognizable human being.
So, again, are these all "recognisable human beings"? If not, please recognize the ones that are.
Speciation is just a point in the microevolution where genetic differences caused by the reduction in genetic variability make breeding impossible. It's still the same creature. The idea that it's a new species is completely bogus, just an assumption based on the theory.
I hardly know what to say, except to direct you to the definitions of "species" and "speciation".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Faith, posted 09-11-2015 11:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 09-11-2015 12:11 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 76 of 85 (768411)
09-11-2015 12:36 PM


Note On Language For Faith
I think we've been through this before, but let me try to explain it again.
In usual scientific terms, I think what you usually want to deny is that evolution can produce new families. That's the technical term, that's more or less what you want to say can't happen.
Instead, you go about declaring that evolution can't produce new species, and then complain about the English language and the technical terms of science when it's pointed out to you that "species" and "family" are different terms, and act like it's a big conspiracy of lexicographers to stop you from saying "species" when you mean "family".
No, it's just what the words mean. If I want to deny that (for example) George W. Bush was behind 9/11, I don't express that by saying "George W. Bush is a big fat aardvark" and then demand, first, that people should figure out what I really mean, and second, that they should agree to change the dictionary so that the sentence I said means what I want it to mean.

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 09-11-2015 12:51 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 77 of 85 (768412)
09-11-2015 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
09-11-2015 12:11 PM


Re: incredible creationists
I don't think A is a human being.
Noted. What about the rest of them?
Please don't do them one post at a time, we'll be here for weeks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 09-11-2015 12:11 PM Faith has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 79 of 85 (768423)
09-11-2015 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
09-10-2015 11:59 PM


Lucy has more bones than I remembered but still a pathetic excuse for a skeleton.
Well, I guess it's the best she could do. If only she had been fossilized by being entirely intact when she was buried suddenly and entirely by the sediment from a global flood, then I'm sure she'd be better preserved.
Why make an issue of talking snakes when the Bible also has water turned to wine, people raised from the dead, Jesus raised from the dead, walking through walls, ascending straight up into heaven, Elijah taken straight to heaven in a chariot, an army of angels revealed surrounding Israel, angels appearing to various prophets, sun standing still or moving backward, dew on fleece when intended to show God's will, not on fleece next day for the same reason, pillar of smoke by day and fire by night to lead the Israelites across the wilderness, manna from heaven, millions of quail dropped on them when they complained about the manna, etc etc etc. And you make a big deal out of a talking snake?
I look at the Bible. I see that it is a compilation of texts. Many of them are specifically ascribed, in their titles, as being written by different people. They are written in three different languages. They are written in a bewildering range of different styles. They seem to me to be mutually contradictory not merely in minor details, but in their portrayal of God and his ways.
So I see that it is impossible to judge that book as a whole. If I rejected one part, it would be stupid and ridiculous to just on that basis dismiss another part, written by a different person at a different time in a different language and all shuffled together into one book with other less reliable texts.
It has therefore never occurred to me that the truth of falsehood of Genesis could have any bearing on the veracity of the Gospels, or vice versa. Without any talking snakes thousands of years earlier, Jesus could have died for my sins, because that is a separate question not logically connected with talking snakes. And without Jesus dying for my sins, a snake might have talked. The Atonement either did or did not happen. This is independent of whether a snake talked.
And this is why when questioning Genesis, I so often refer to the talking snake which is in Genesis, and not to some other story in some other book of the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 09-10-2015 11:59 PM Faith has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 80 of 85 (768425)
09-11-2015 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
09-11-2015 12:51 PM


Re: Note On Language For Faith
I'd have no problem with the term "species" for what happens at the point called "speciation" if it weren't for the fact that that point is also called "macroevolution."
And, indeed, usually called that by creationists.
So either stop or bite it. So far as we have learned here: (1) creationists think that speciation happens (2) but they don't think that new species have arisen (3) yes they do (4) but they don't want to call species "species" they want to call families "species" (5) but at least they must deny "macroevolution" (6) but they defined macroevolution as the production of new species (7) so ...
... and so here you are, not disputing a single fact, but complaining that something you actually admit happens is also called a certain word (usually by creationists).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 09-11-2015 12:51 PM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024