• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

1.8M-year-old skull gives glimpse of our evolution[w67,72]

Funny, how people will worry about the Wording in the Bible and what chronology it implies. The Document is not written like a history book and does not really seem useful as such.

Actually, the "funny" part is how 99.9% of all bible believers will pick and chose which parts to believe or not, which parts are literal or not, and which parts to follow or ignore.
It's a very hypocritical ideology in many ways.

Forget the fact that over the thousands of years of interpretations and re-writings that many of the "stories" have changed, either purposefully to fill a "need", or accidentally based on how some words don't even exist any more.

I do find the people who take the bible as an accurate, historical/factual and literal "word of god" rule book to be some of the most frightening people in the country.
 
It looks like an australopithecus skull without the mandible. Not sure why this is big news, there is already a substantial amount of evidence that points to early hominids originating in what would now be Africa, about 50 million years ago. What would interest me is evidence on how the early hominids reached North and South America. Advanced primates came into play about 70 million years ago, about 20-30 million years prior to that, the Americas had already significantly split westward.

I described the reason it is news earlier on page 2 or so. But so far we have the only two topical replies....
 
Actually, the "funny" part is how 99.9% of all bible believers will pick and chose which parts to believe or not, which parts are literal or not, and which parts to follow or ignore.
It's a very hypocritical ideology in many ways.

Forget the fact that over the thousands of years of interpretations and re-writings that many of the "stories" have changed, either purposefully to fill a "need", or accidentally based on how some words don't even exist any more.

I do find the people who take the bible as an accurate, historical/factual and literal "word of god" rule book to be some of the most frightening people in the country.


A common critique, and some people do that yes, however... in reality it isn't a matter of picking and choosing. It is a matter of understanding that there is a separation of covenants or dispensations; that some promises and requirements are specifically levied on a certain people operating in a certain culture and period of time, and interpreting scripture in the proper context.

It is complicated, so no surprise some just want to characterize it as "picking and choosing".
 
Actually, the "funny" part is how 99.9% of all bible believers will pick and chose which parts to believe or not, which parts are literal or not, and which parts to follow or ignore.
It's a very hypocritical ideology in many ways.

Forget the fact that over the thousands of years of interpretations and re-writings that many of the "stories" have changed, either purposefully to fill a "need", or accidentally based on how some words don't even exist any more.

I do find the people who take the bible as an accurate, historical/factual and literal "word of god" rule book to be some of the most frightening people in the country.

Maybe I just don't take these things seriously enough. But I do know a good number of very religious Protestants and Catholics none of whom seems to see a real problem with these discrepancies in chronologies nor with evolution vs the Bible for that matter.
 
A common critique, and some people do that yes, however... in reality it isn't a matter of picking and choosing. It is a matter of understanding that there is a separation of covenants or dispensations; that some promises and requirements are specifically levied on a certain people operating in a certain culture and period of time, and interpreting scripture in the proper context.

It is complicated, so no surprise some just want to characterize it as "picking and choosing".

It's not "complicated".

The OT is in many ways a completely opposite of the NT.

Yet they're both in the same book.

Very much a yin and yang. (Not really a coincidence either in my opinion.)

Is god an all loving and all forgiving god, or is god a violent and vengeful god?

All depends on which part of the bible you chose to defend your position doesn't it?
 
It's not "complicated".

The OT is in many ways a completely opposite of the NT.

Yet they're both in the same book.

Very much a yin and yang. (Not really a coincidence either in my opinion.)

Is god an all loving and all forgiving god, or is god a violent and vengeful god?

All depends on which part of the bible you chose to defend your position doesn't it?



This isn't really the venue for a theological discussion, but again you're oversimplifying something that is an involved field of study. It is a common misconception among nonbelievers that OT and NT are at odds.
 
These scientists are idiots:



The medieval era wasn't 1.8 million years ago, you can't have an ancient skull in an old village, it makes no sense. Betcha these people do global warming theories in their spare time.

Lets hope anthropologists are not researching climatology. But it would not surprise me if they were considered experts just for being scientists and signing the IPCC's list of paid employees.
 
Are you ****ting me? In post 3 of this thread, you brought religion in, and then whine and cry that we're all off topic when we correct you about how insanely wrong you are?

Stop trolling.

He wasn't trolling, and he didn't "bring in" anything that wasn't there. The OP himself baited the exact response mak gave. It was the OP who brought in religion, from the get-go.

1.8M-year-old skull gives glimpse of our evolution




And yet some believe the above is all just a fairy tale .....

The OP picked the fight, intentionally.
 
Are you serious? He spent this entire thread telling us what he believes, so I gave him the analysis of it. Plain and simple, you can't remain logically consistent and believe both in the bible and evolution.

If you'd like to make some arguments instead of crappy little one liners, I'll be here.

I think that is why they call it "Faith". Perhaps, and I am not thinking for them, they believe in the message, and God, but not the literal interpretation of the Bible.

Don't ask me . . . I don't have the answers.
 
It doesn't say it was created 6,000 years ago, but it implies it from the series of events. You can follow the lineages down from Adam and Eve to Moses, Abraham, and other major biblical characters, which we can historically place.

That means for you to accept this skull isn't a hoax, you have to accept that somehow at least 1.8 million lost years occurred between Adam and Eve and Jesus. Why would the bible magically omit 1.8 million years? How could any society, much less the jews, survive 1.8 million years?

Then you'd have to admit that Adam and Eve looked something like Australopithecus.

Lucy-reconstruction.jpg


Which then would require you to believe that god was somehow unpleased with his first models of humans, destroyed them and created hundreds of new versions until he finally got it 'right' about 6,000+ years ago.

If you can fit all these things into a nice, logical model, then I applaud your mental gymnastics.



As you can see above, the history of the homo genus spans millions of years, which no matter how you count it, doesn't match with the biblical lineages traced from Adam and Eve. Either they weren't actually the first humanoids god created, or there's a massive 1.8 million+ year gap in the bible and the lineages are just wrong.

Adam and Eve are not described as the first humanoid.
 
These scientists are idiots:



The medieval era wasn't 1.8 million years ago, you can't have an ancient skull in an old village, it makes no sense. Betcha these people do global warming theories in their spare time.


loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

is this serious? this might be the greatest post in the history of the internet if this guy is serious
 
I don't care what people think. I am fine that people believe man is 6000 years old (or what ever the number is) with 2 caveats

1) Don't expect others to believe what you do

2) In public school teach best available science and scientific theories in science class.
 
It's not "complicated".

The OT is in many ways a completely opposite of the NT.

Yet they're both in the same book.

Very much a yin and yang. (Not really a coincidence either in my opinion.)

Is god an all loving and all forgiving god, or is god a violent and vengeful god?

All depends on which part of the bible you chose to defend your position doesn't it?


Jesus really hates fig trees.
 
loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

is this serious? this might be the greatest post in the history of the internet if this guy is serious

And if not, you might be the front runner!
Glad I could get in the photo.
 
And if not, you might be the front runner!
Glad I could get in the photo.

Well, naturally, after all of mine on every website.

I try not to mingle with the peons, ya know.
 
1.8M-year-old skull gives glimpse of our evolution




And yet some believe the above is all just a fairy tale .....

Fact remains, we didn't bring up that ****, mak did. And no, I won't go debate you in the religious forum because you'll just cry to a mod to get me infracted for criticizing your religion. You inserted yourself into a conversation, then decided you didn't like the topic.

Stop being a child.

The fairy tell line is from post one, what is wrong with you? Do you think your discussion points are so weak you have to be an obnoxious jerk to get them across? In any case I will go with that and treat you as such.
 
Oh really? There's a forum where religious can be dinged for critiquing the irreligious? Strange I must've missed that one. Why do you think you're criticized? Do I want an argument about religion? Meh. I argue it enough as it is, so what's one more? If you don't need protection, why'd you tell him to go to the religious sub-forum where he'll surely be dinged?
I've never reported anyone here for anything. Probably never will. If I want to argue religion, there's a forum specifically for it. I generally avoid it because I simply don't have the time to devote to it. Nah, what I see is apparently a couple of guys out trolling, which is fine, and just dying to jump in with both feet at the first hint of an opening regardless of context. No doubt you see it differently. It's impossible to tell you how little I care.
 
I've never reported anyone here for anything. Probably never will. If I want to argue religion, there's a forum specifically for it. I generally avoid it because I simply don't have the time to devote to it. Nah, what I see is apparently a couple of guys out trolling, which is fine, and just dying to jump in with both feet at the first hint of an opening regardless of context. No doubt you see it differently. It's impossible to tell you how little I care.

You don't have to report it - it just happens.

If you want to argue religion, better do it in Philosophy or else someone will get their feelings hurt. Calling Rabid and I trolls? Uh huh.
 
This thread is in breaking news, not in science, and the OP did start by saying some consider it (presumably evolution) a fairy tale, which is true.

Why get all bent out of shape if someone wants to bring up the real fairy tale of young Earth creationism?
 
The Catholic Church has all but given up on trying to attack it.

No high-level Church pronouncement has ever attacked head-on the theory of evolution as applied to non-human species. Catholic Church and evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The church made no pronouncement whatsoever about the theory of evolution until 1950, when Pope Pius XII declared that evolution had no intrinsic disagreement with Christianity. Wall Street Journal says: Pius XII deserves credit for having the foresight to openly address the science when so many other denominations were either in deep denial or not interested in the challenge evolution poses for Christianity.

In fact, Gregor Mendel, father of genetics, was an Augustinian friar. Nicolas Steno in the 1600's, who became a Catholic bishop, was one of the first people to seriously doubt that fossils grew in rock formations. In fact Steno's landmark theory that the fossil record was a chronology of different living creatures in different eras was a sine qua non for Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Nicolas Steno - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
This is kristyun trickery, trickery, trickery. they buried a monkey's skull themselves and now they are going to say it's Adam and it's only six thousand years old.

Thank you baby jeeeeeezzzzuuuuzzzz.
 
Back
Top Bottom