New Homo erectus Skull Shakes up Palaeontology

by cofty 192 Replies latest social current

  • Phizzy
    Phizzy

    Oh how many times Tec ? Those who propose that something or someone exists are the ones who have to provide proof. There is simply no need for those who do not believe to prove anything.

    For example, if you propose that pink Unicorns with purple spots exist, then fine, you go on beleiving that, but your belief, which simply has no proof of any kind that is acceptable to others, needs no counter argument. You must prove they exist, but if you say only you, and perhaps acouple of others, have "seen" them ,then excuse my not accepting that, unless youcan provide solid proof.

    You asked me what you have rejected , I quote again your words, " evolution occurs, yes... but if the details are wrong or incomplete, then so are the conclusions".

    Perhaps you should expalin which conclusions are incorrect, I took that to mean that you rejected most of the conclusions we have come to based upon the theory of Evolution, but perhaps you only disagree with some ?

  • tec
    tec

    Oh how many times Tec ? Those who propose that something or someone exists are the ones who have to provide proof. There is simply no need for those who do not believe to prove anything.

    I suppose that would depend upon their purpose in speaking or witnessing to begin with, wouldn't it? But I don't know that we were talking about the burden of proof, were we?

    You asked me what you have rejected , I quote again your words, " evolution occurs, yes... but if the details are wrong or incomplete, then so are the conclusions".

    ... so are the conclusions based upon those details. It was a cause and effect statement. (though I do understand that it does not HAVE to be that the conclusion is wrong when the details that one's conclusion is based upon are wrong... one could have come to the correct conclusion by chance)

    No reason to accept a conclusion that is based on details that are wrong or incomplete though. More reason to go back and question all that has been drawn from those wrong or incomplete details.

    Like I said though, time will tell.

    Peace,

    tammy (off to work, so talk more tomorrow)

  • Comatose
    Comatose

    Normally TEC I dont agree with you, but I can understand what you are saying. The last post of yours up there is hard to make out.

    You really took his statement here and avoided it: Oh how many times Tec ? Those who propose that something or someone exists are the ones who have to provide proof. There is simply no need for those who do not believe to prove anything.

    I also don't really get this answer: No reason to accept a conclusion that is based on details that are wrong or incomplete though. More reason to go back and question all that has been drawn from those wrong or incomplete details.

    Evolution itself isn't wrong, the classification of ancient men who existed prior to Adam is in flux.

  • tec
    tec

    Normally TEC I dont agree with you, but I can understand what you are saying.

    Well, that's something : ) Which part though, if I may ask?

    The last post of yours up there is hard to make out.

    Sorry... I know I put a couple of thoughts into one there.

    You really took his statement here and avoided it: Oh how many times Tec ? Those who propose that something or someone exists are the ones who have to provide proof. There is simply no need for those who do not believe to prove anything.

    I didn't avoid it... I just don't know what it has to do with what we're talking about.

    I also don't really get this answer: No reason to accept a conclusion that is based on details that are wrong or incomplete though. More reason to go back and question all that has been drawn from those wrong or incomplete details.

    I was just following up the whole "details wrong or incomplete = conclusion based upon those details wrong or incomplete". I am not meaning anything more than what I actually have said. If scientists have drawn certain conclusions from having found and named various homo species... then those conclusions might need to be reexamined if those separate species are actually just one species after all.

    Evolution itself isn't wrong, the classification of ancient men who existed prior to Adam is in flux.

    I did not say that evolution is wrong. But this discovery that the various species (or whatever the word is supposed to be) of homo... are actually all the same species, is significant - the article itself states the significance of what this may do. How many other homo species are actually the same... but their minor differences had scientists classifying them as separate species?

    Has everyone here read the entire article?

    Peace,

    tammy

  • Twitch
    Twitch

    When I was a kid, Pluto was a planet and the furthest thing out there. Not so anymore.

    I admire those who strive to increase our knowledge of the things behind, around and in front of us.

  • Phizzy
    Phizzy

    Whatever conclusions you draw from a Scientific Theory, you are drawing those conclusions based upon details that are incomplete, as I said, the clue is in the name, i.e "Theory".

    The above example of Cosmology is another good one to illustrate this point.

    What I find objectionable is the kind of intellectual sneer I detect from Tammy, just because "details" are incomplete, we cannot trust our judgements based upon the Theory, whichever one it might be ?

    That is nonsense, there probably does not exist a Theory where all the details are complete, so are we to ignore all Science ?

    Details are totally lacking for the Theory of God.

  • KateWild
    KateWild

    It does leave me wondering what we would need a god for though. What is there for her/him to do?-cofty

    I can understand why you feel that way. Although I am keeping my situation confidential for now, I can see things from your perspective. Many of us have suffering in our lives and do not see God interviening to remove our pain and trials. In as far as your intial post is concerned, if one thinks God is responsible for the evolutionary process, then there is plenty for him to do in evolving new living things, perhaps? Am I making a reasonable suggestion?

    I do see your point though. Some food for thought, I will ponder on it. I have seen you post "if he does exist, that is all he does!" I like your veiw, I haven't come to any solid conclusions yet.

    Thanks for helping us newbies cofty, we need to brainstorm. LOL!

    Kate xx

  • cantleave
    cantleave

    God is like a broken pencil - pointless.

  • tec
    tec

    Oh how many times Tec ? Those who propose that something or someone exists are the ones who have to provide proof. There is simply no need for those who do not believe to prove anything.

    Ah... I see that this was in response to my saying 'there is no evidence for God... certainly not the same category of evidence that you expect believers to provide FOR God." But I did not just default to that position. I was responding to Cofty stating that 'there is compelling evidence against God.' That is his position... and the burden of proof falls upon him in that position. Peace, tammy

  • braincleaned
    braincleaned

    My dear tec, " There is no evidence against God... certainly not the same category of evidence that you expect believers to provide FOR God."

    That is plainly untrue. Please refer to my post on this very subject:
    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/experiences/265723/1/I-wonder#.Umf6DpTF0i8

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit