Feb 24, 2012 -- 9:33AM, Erey wrote:

Feb 23, 2012 -- 11:24PM, jane2 wrote:

Feb 23, 2012 -- 9:46PM, Erey wrote:

Feb 23, 2012 -- 8:56PM, TemplarS wrote:

Feb 23, 2012 -- 5:57PM, Erey wrote:

Templar if I were forced to answer I would say God created man in his current form.  I don't believe we came from ameobas and then developed gills then lungs then legs then hair and then thumbs then humans.  Guess what science GUESSES at this but really does not appear to have hard proof.  There is no missing link.  Lucy is not believed to be an early form of homosapian. 

I guess my thoughts horrify you but there is something of a blind faith in science too.  When it comes to humans these are guesses. There is no direct ancestor to humans that is agreed upon.

www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Th...

"She is not the oldest member of the extended human family, but she is by far the most complete of the early hominids;"

Read more: www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Th...

The article goes on to point out yada yada Java man MAY have been our earliest ancestor, this fossil was thought perhaps is WAS an early human but now we dont' think it was, etc. and so on.

It is easy to disparage other people's beliefs if you don't even understand them yourself

I am going to point out one more thing, because I think it is a very typical fallacy used in arguing these matters. 

"There is no direct ancestor to humans that is agreed on".

I am not going to dispute that.  It is  natural that as work continues in the field,  ideas will change and disagreements occur, as new evidence becomes available. That is how science works. Anthropology is not physics, you cannot run a lab experiment on evolution, you must get your evidence as you find it. 

But not one of the scientists mentioned in your article takes such disagreements to mean that humans are therefore not descended from a previous hominid species,  and not one of them therefore holds the opinion that the first human was set down on the planet ancestorless.  

That would be analogous to arguing that because scholars cannot agree as to whether Shakespeare or any one of a few dozen other gentlemen actually wrote "Shakespeares" plays- they must not have had an author at all, but must have magically appeared one day fully composed on his desk.  

You really seem fixated on how people view our origins.  I don't think it is all that pertinent as you seem to. 

I will go further from your statement and say there does not appear to be a specimine that the MAJORITY of the scientific community is ready to hail as our ancestor.  It doesn't exist like the early form of the horse or the early form of the elephant, sloth, tiger, etc.    But you think I should take it on faith that it does?  That somewhere in all that digging we just missed the ancestor?It has to be there if we keep digging.   I don't know.  I am not asking anyone on this board to believe that God created man as he is today.  However you are telling me that I should believe that despite a lack of hard evidence that we came up through the primordial pool of muck and developed from a single cell into something like a ape into a human.  Now who is the evangelist? 

Science damn you!

Erey

This will go nowhere. You are off-base.

1956--Sister Roberta Joseph (Scanlon), CSJ stood in front of our theology 101-102 class and stated that the RCC has no problem with the theory of evolution. We went on to study the Penteteuch (sp?). Our entire class spent an afternoon with the chief rabbi and cantor in a very large Temple Israel where the rabbi showed us the scrolls from the temple ark and the cantor sang for us.

Most truly educated Chrisitians have no problem with the theory of evolution. Not all Christians think that Scripture is literal. In fact, on the Discuss Catholicism board today we discussed religious thought as poetry and I concur.

My home city, the Capital of New York State, had a population of about 45% Catholics and 35% Jewish. There were so many colleges in the area it was almost scary but also a delight for many of us. Private college kids were invited to so many mixers, yada, yada we didn't even know public college students. I met a few who went to state colleges as a young teacher, but they tended to be rather behind and too influenced by one or two profs; they weren't taught how to think-more what to think.

Just my experience--private college grads danced rings around most.

(And my children are all grads of GA TECH, but GT tends to the very bright. And my grandson is tearing it up at MIT, tres private.)

 

Jane, I don't think you understand the conversation Templar and I are having.  You seem to be jumping to some errant conclusions on this.  I am glad you are satisfied with the education you recieved but that is not making your comments here any more applicable. 

I addressed your post, which I find pretty OTL.

I agree with much that Templar has posted.

Science has hard proof of evolution, including human evolution. The fact that it occurred is no more controversial than the fact that the earth orbits the sun. By now it's isn't even an especially interesting fact. I'm amazed that people still get worked up about it. Who wants to be descended from dirt? I'd rather have a long and distingushed ancestry leading back to an elegant amoeba.

Feb 24, 2012 -- 1:36PM, Ken wrote:

Science has hard proof of evolution, including human evolution. The fact that it occurred is no more controversial than the fact that the earth orbits the sun. By now it's isn't even an especially interesting fact. I'm amazed that people still get worked up about it. Who wants to be descended from dirt? I'd rather have a long and distingushed ancestry leading back to an elegant amoeba.

Can you please point out to me which non-homosapien fossil remains are our direct ancestors?

Thanks

Feb 24, 2012 -- 3:06PM, rabello wrote:

Feb 24, 2012 -- 2:37PM, Erey wrote:

Feb 24, 2012 -- 1:25PM, rabello wrote:

What does

"Science damn you!"

mean?

You have to watch South Park but first you need a sense of humor or you won't be able to watch the episode.

I was asking what you meant by including it in a post that is excoriating evolutionary biologists and physcial anthropologists.

Sorry I was not clear, it was a joke based on a South Park episode. 

Feb 24, 2012 -- 3:10PM, TemplarS wrote:

Feb 24, 2012 -- 2:38PM, Erey wrote:

Feb 24, 2012 -- 1:36PM, Ken wrote:

Science has hard proof of evolution, including human evolution. The fact that it occurred is no more controversial than the fact that the earth orbits the sun. By now it's isn't even an especially interesting fact. I'm amazed that people still get worked up about it. Who wants to be descended from dirt? I'd rather have a long and distingushed ancestry leading back to an elegant amoeba.

Can you please point out to me which non-homosapien fossil remains are our direct ancestors?

Thanks

Homo Ergaster and/or Homo Erectus ; Homo Heidelbergensis...

 

OK T, I will consider it