Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A new skull discovery made in the African republice of Chad now has Bernard Wood, of George Washington University, Washingtone DC, now suggesting that this new discovery is giving strength to the arguement that humans (DID NOT EVOLVE IN A LINEAR PROGRESSION FROM APES THAT ROAMED THE PLANET 10 MILLION YEARS AGO.)
Uh, if course it's giving strength to the argument that humans did not evolve from apes. Because humans didn't evolve from apes, according to the evidence. Apes, of which humans are one species, evolved from something pre-ape.
So what, other than the fact that this skull found in 2002 (old news) dated at 7 million years old, puts another nail in the coffin of the bible. What exactly do you think a "missing link" is anyway? Unless we find a fossil of every creature that ever lived, there will always be "missing links"
Nobody is even sure that this skull is human... (From your link)... Professor Colin Groves, from the Australian National University's Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, was equally enthusiastic about the discovery, but less convinced the skull is human. He places Toumaï at the point in evolution before humans and chimpanzees diverged, believed to be around five million years ago. One reason for doubt is Toumaï's small canine teeth.
I find it interesting that you of all people would attempt to use something like this (science) to refute evolution.
According to believers in Evolution, a missing link refers to gaps in knowledge between homo sapiens, and the presumed beast we evolved from. And according to Nature magazine's editor Henry Gee. Such a belief in a 'missing link' (IS BUNK). Why do you find it interesting that I would use science to refute evolution? You see, I knew Evolution was false because of the Bible, science is just beginning to learn that evolution is false because they ignored the Bible. Yet, given enought time, science is starting to see the error of their way.
And what is becoming more obvious now, is that some of your die hard believers in Evolution are starting to sound more like Creation scientist. Bernard Wood, of George Washington University states. Indeed, the discovery strengthens the argument that humans did not evolve in a linear progression from apes that roamed the planet 10 million years ago.
If you really believe this discovery puts another nail in the Bibles coffin, why are hard line believers in Evolution distancing themselves now from one of Evolutions main beliefs?
Uh, if course it's giving strength to the argument that humans did not evolve from apes. Because humans didn't evolve from apes, according to the evidence. Apes, of which humans are one species, evolved from something pre-ape.
Well, perhaps you should write Evolutionist Bernard Wood. Maybe if you tell him he does not know what he's talking about, he will change his wording when asked again about the reality of linear progression from ape to man.
Let me get this straight, a 7 million year old human scull is a proof of what???? Well, ain't this just dandy Campbell, what the hell happened to 6 thousand years old earth?
Oh, I myself don't believe the 7 million years for a minute. I'm more in the 15,000 year camp. Yet it's fun to watch believers in Evolution trip over themselves trying to explain the nonsense they themselves have created.
And with so much new evidence coming in that nolonger adds up, they are all looking for a way to jump ship scientifically. LOL
Well, perhaps you should write Evolutionist Bernard Wood. Maybe if you tell him he does not know what he's talking about, he will change his wording when asked again about the reality of linear progression from ape to man.
Sure we can, I would be interested in what he actually has to say, here is his profile and email is there too.
According to believers in Evolution, a missing link refers to gaps in knowledge between homo sapiens, and the presumed beast we evolved from. And according to Nature magazine's editor Henry Gee. Such a belief in a 'missing link' (IS BUNK).
You're either lying or misinformed about what the ToE is about, and you obviously do not understand what Henry Gee is saying. He is arguing against your erroneous idea of evolution as linear, orderly progression and in favor of the current scientific theory of evolution as happening haphazardly, in fits and starts, with more dead-ends than succeses.
Or, in his own words - my bolding:
Quote:
The term ‘missing link’, however, speaks to an idea in which evolving organisms are following predestined tracks, like trains chugging along a route in an entirely predictable way. It implies that we can discern the pattern of evolution as something entirely in tune with our expectations, such that a newly found fossil fills a gap that we knew was there from the outset. Quite apart from the impossibility of knowing whether any particular fossil we might find is our ancestor or anyone else’s — a theme I explored a few years ago in a book (http://www.chiswick.demon.co.uk/books_deep_time.html - broken link) — this is a model of evolution that is at once entirely erroneous, and also rather sad
He's not arguing against evolution. Ok? He's arguing against the false impression of evolution as a "linear progression".
I can't tell whether you're misunderstanding or willfully twisting his words, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.
Quote:
Why do you find it interesting that I would use science to refute evolution?
It's not that interesting, frankly. You're mining a quote out of context and using it to argue against a strawman based on your own misconceptions of biology. It's an old creationist trick and it's been done much better.
Quote:
If you really believe this discovery puts another nail in the Bibles coffin, why are hard line believers in Evolution distancing themselves now from one of Evolutions main beliefs?
Linear evolution is not really a main tenet of the ToE - hasn't been for decades. (It's a very minor argument, anyway.) Now try this thought out: If the ToE was undisputably, unarguably overturned tomorrow, the Biblical version would be no more strengthened than, say, the old Norse creation myth with Odin creating the world out of the body of the giant Ymir.
Of course, that isn't what is happening here. You might as well argue that when Kepler proved that Galileo was wrong about the planets being in circular orbits around the Sun, it supported the case for Geocentrism. (It didn't.)
If this new discovery forces a change in the ToE (although it doesn't look like it does, at all, to be honest), that still does not make a better case for Biblical creation.
I suggest you argue the Biblical version on its own merits - such as they are.
According to believers in Evolution, a missing link refers to gaps in knowledge between homo sapiens, and the presumed beast we evolved from. And according to Nature magazine's editor Henry Gee. Such a belief in a 'missing link' (IS BUNK).
Uhm, yes "missing link" is a woefully outdated term that hasn't been used in evolutionary science for decades. Anyone using it is definitely showing their ignorance of evolutionary theory, as it does not accurately reflect the way biologists and paleontologists think about fossils.
The idea of evolution being a linear progression with "steps" or "links" is also a common mistake made by the uneducated. These days, evolution isn't viewed as a tree - more like a dense, tangled bush.
According to believers in Evolution, a missing link refers to gaps in knowledge between homo sapiens, and the presumed beast we evolved from. And according to Nature magazine's editor Henry Gee. Such a belief in a 'missing link' (IS BUNK). Why do you find it interesting that I would use science to refute evolution? You see, I knew Evolution was false because of the Bible, science is just beginning to learn that evolution is false because they ignored the Bible. Yet, given enought time, science is starting to see the error of their way.
And what is becoming more obvious now, is that some of your die hard believers in Evolution are starting to sound more like Creation scientist. Bernard Wood, of George Washington University states. Indeed, the discovery strengthens the argument that humans did not evolve in a linear progression from apes that roamed the planet 10 million years ago.
If you really believe this discovery puts another nail in the Bibles coffin, why are hard line believers in Evolution distancing themselves now from one of Evolutions main beliefs?
And I thought that you respected creation "scientists" You certainly quote them often enough..It sort of looks like this thread backfired on you doesn't it?
Evolution in a linear fashion has never been a core belief, and as I've pointed out to you in the past humans did not evolve from apes, but are one of the seven species of ape. Just the fact that you are attempting to use a 7 million year old fossil to buttress your young earth opinion makes your biblical belief contradictory....You say you do not accept the age of the fossil, but accept the rest?
In any case you don't seem to even accept the bible on the age of the earth...You say 15,000 years which is more than double what most think the bible says....Perhaps you are the only person able to interpret the bible correctly, is that it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
