New Homo erectus Skull Shakes up Palaeontology

by cofty 192 Replies latest social current

  • tec
    tec

    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".

    Please tell that to those who mock, intellectually sneer at, those who DO look at scientific theories and findings with a 'grain of salt'... knowing that they may change.

    Because there are some on this board who will do this to any person of faith who does not consider science the end all/know all. In fact, I am not allowed to keep an open mind or doubt science, or even disagree with anything science says... without being accused of holding science in contempt.

    Not just me, but others as well... who actually do get excited at new discoveries, etc, and who also respect the scientific process... but who simply do understand that the conclusions can and do change.

    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 ?

    I hope that you can understand what I said to your former point. The sneering is coming from some atheists on this board, toward those who DO know that scientific conclusions are not set in stone, and so science cannot and does not affect their faith.

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

    I have never said that or even implied it. I simply keep an open mind, take conclusions that have not been proven beyond any resaonable doubt, with a grain of salt. So do others, and they are criticized for it. For their faith because their faith does not match the 'current science'... even though the facts in science can change.

    Peace,

    tammy

  • tec
    tec

    That is plainly untrue. Please refer to my post on this very subject:

    I was leaving your thread alone because it is your personal journey and I didn't want to disrespect that, but if you want me to comment on it, I will.

    Peace,

    tammy

  • braincleaned
    braincleaned

    Of course Tec — I value your opinion, and we are both richer to understand each other's journey.
    I personally do not trust my biases... never did. Maybe I'm a masochist! LOL!

  • braincleaned
    braincleaned

    Also, please read on what a scientific "theory" means. It is not a synonym to "hypothesis"...

    I'm sure you will enjoy this video, as it explains "theory"...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdddbYILel0

  • Phizzy
    Phizzy

    I think the place for discussion on arguments against "god" is maybe your thread Vince, this one is fast going off topic, my fault as much as anybody's.

    Getting back on topic, it is exciting the new discoveries, and of course, as Tammy says, we have to use due caution with drawing conclusions. I think in the near future we will have a much clearer undersatnding of human evolution, and too of the spread of humans across the globe.

    Long may Cofty, and Cantleave and others kep us up to date with it all !

  • braincleaned
    braincleaned

    True Phizzy... Guilty as charged. Thanks for pointing it out.

  • adamah
    adamah

    TEC said-

    Science is a journey of discovery. But to use a current theory to make an absolute statment (even when that current theory could be overturned)... is what makes no sense.

    I suspect you're misintereting the importance of this new finding, as it's not challenging or disproving evolution: it's confirming it by providing YET MORE evidence. The theory of evolution is the most-foundational theory in ALL of science, as evidence is coming from various unrelated disciplines (animal/plant physiology, fossil records, DNA evidence, etc). In fact, biology makes NO SENSE without evolution, and would simply be a collection of random facts that for some unknown reason inexplicably become untrue with time, since that observational change in the phenotypes of organisms is exactly WHAT the theory explains so well!

    Hence the controversy is not over the theory of evolution being true, but the categories that others have placed homo species in, WHERE new evidence challenges the prior categorization.

    It's like completing a jig-saw puzzle, and realizing that the pieces you assembled fit well near the edge, rather than in the middle. So you simply move them, and you're one step closer to completing the puzzle. You DON'T simply give up and throw the half-completed puzzle in the trash, saying you'll never figure it out, so you hang a painting of God up instead! Others will attempt to cheat by drawing what they want in between the missing pieces (AKA God of the gaps), since the puzzle is too hard.

    Both approaches are dishonest.

    Adam

  • tec
    tec

    Also, please read on what a scientific "theory" means. It is not a synonym to "hypothesis"...

    I know that. Can't be on this site and NOT know ; )

    I think in the near future we will have a much clearer undersatnding of human evolution, and too of the spread of humans across the globe.

    I don't have an opinion on whether that is the near future or farther future, but I agree with your statement, and that is something that makes this discovery so exciting.

    Peace,

    tammy

  • cofty
    cofty

    Tammy stop playing silly games.

    You exclude humans from evolution don't you? Stop pretending you have the slightest respect for science.

    The discovery of these 5 fossil skulls in Georgia is very exciting. It adds significantly to the picture of human origins.

  • tec
    tec

    Stop pretending you have the slightest respect for science.

    Ah... there it is, lol.

    Peace,

    tammy

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit