New Species of Homo Discovered: Homo naledi

But of course I did apply it to those beliefs, for years and years and years, before I was finally rightly persuaded to their truth. Funny how y'all think skepticism must be a permanent condition, never yielding to the knowledge of truth. Strange. But of course that article of faith in permanent skepticism is why you never do come to a knowledge of the truth.

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. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hey, they did show the bones this time. There they are at the link in the first post. Not enough skull there though, and the one hand isn't convincingly human, and the ribs are too skimpy for the general heft of the bones. Now I'm doubting it's one skeleton.

If you actually read the article (a strange idea I'm sure) you'd see that they recovered bones from 15 individuals.

Ah, and assembled them into one. Pretty risky method there.

Didn't that circle make you dizzy? Yes, you're right, I am permanently skeptical; you are, too, about some things.Vigilant skepticism is hard to achieve and even harder to maintain--the human mind yearns to relax into belief to relieve the existential tension of not knowing. But once that's done, there is no path to any knowledge at all.The notion of absolute TRVTH is dangerous. People kill and die for that kind of belief. My skepticism tells me that if you need to kill or die for your idea, you need a better idea. It is certainty that most endangers us, and doubt that gets us home.

That's not true. The exact details of the various bones are sometimes argued over for decades. Check out some issues of American Journal of Physical Anthropology. Here is a link to the table of contents of the current issue:Just a moment...I have seen and studied casts of many of the important and some of the not-to-important finds prior to about 1980, the period when I studied fossil man in graduate school. That was an important part of our training.So, for you to claim that the actual facts about the bones don't matter--once again you are entirely wrong. (Don't you ever tire of being wrong?) You won't find those casts at Wal-Mart, as they are expensive to make because they have to be extremely accurate. There's no point in casts that aren't accurate.Here's a link to one of the better sources:pennfossilcasting.com - pennfossilcasting Resources and Information.But you complain about not seeing the actual evidence? It is there if you seek it out. You don't really expect folks to bring it to your door, do you?(Not that you would accept it they did...)

Atheists? How do work that one out. The balance of probabilities make that unlikely. My bet would be Christian.

Yes, because you rather trust a handful of religious extremists with close to zero experience in the field than hundreds of thousands of scientists who have devoted their entire lives to scientific inquiry. And evidently, the below photo of the homo naledi find (one of the more intact skeletons) is "too skimpy" for you. You, Faith, who have zero credentials, knowledge, or experience to back up your baseless accusations. Here are skeleton remains from Jamestown, a mere 400 years ago. Not much more intact than the homo naledi fossils, though much younger. The differences between the two, even to the average person are evident. So stop speaking from ignorance, Faith. Stop drinking the religious extremist/fundamentalist kool-aid. You can believe in a supernatural being and still believe in evolution (I do). They are not mutually exclusive (many Jews, Catholics, and Protestants accept biological evolution as fact).I have been away from this thread for several years, but your utter and deliberate ignorance and obfuscation is ridiculous and embarrasing. At least bring some type of intelligence argument to the table instead of the inane and idiotic banter you display here. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : Sorry, it has been so long, I forgot how to post pictures correctly Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Provide evidence of when paleontologists did not provide evidence of their finds.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Not for people who know what they are doing.Someone who could not identify a finger bone is not likely to make credible criticisms.

What an interesting fantasy. You notice how completely it's contradicted by the facts?Now, your turn. Show us a talking snake.

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?

I chose "native skepticism" with care but perhaps too little explanation.Faith's blanket denial of anything she finds disagreeable differs from the more critical turn of mind she admits she once had: the former, brain worms; the latter, her native skepticism.You may be right. There may be no turning back without breakage.

Couldn't believe the gospel. It was the gospel itself, the claims of Jesus Christ, I had trouble with. Once you believe God is real all of it falls into place. Certainly no problem with talking snakes and talking donkeys once you know God is real.