Human evolution (A quick response to GriffGriff)

A brief, response to the video posted by GriffGriff, This video corrects some of the myths and lies promoted by creationists on the subject of human evolution and includes fossil replicas of Homo heidelberensis, (Broken hill) Homo erectus (Sangiran 17), Homo ergaster (Turkana boy), Homo habilis (KNM-ER 1813) Homo Rudolfensis (KNM-ER 1470). This video offers a brief glimpse of some of the fossils creationists have no serious explanation for. They waste their time doubting the quality of artists reconstructions and reminding us all of the power of science when it comes to uncovering frauds like Piltdown, or mistakes lie Nabraska man.
At no point do they ever have anything more than quote mining and laughable taxonomic categorization, and GriffGriff's video is about as accurate as a creationist video gets on the subject.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Human
• Evolution
• missing
• link
• hominid
• australopithecus
• afarensis
• heidelbergensis
• habilis
• erectus
• creationism
• Homo
• Creationism
• quote
• mining
• creationist
• debate

[RandomVortex]

sorry for asking a bit of a semi-pointless question but are all of those skulls(apart from the human one)real or just models?(just curious.)

[KennyTew2]

@RandomVortex Alas they are replicas. I got them from boneclones.

[RandomVortex]

@KennyTew2

Fair enough(they do look cool and what with you being a lecturer and stuff I did not think it was 100% beyond the realm of possibility.)

I'm interested in most wings of science but particularly psychology and some of the reality deniers on Youtube would make wonderful case studies!(that said they do quickly become tiresome,although I maintain that many of their replies are utterly priceless!)

Anyway all the best!

[thesongtowoody]

@KennyTew2 I'd like to explore the evidences for evolution from the perspective of fossils and bones and the interpretation of what and why certain bone features mean this or that to see how strong those arguments are or are not.

What features does one look for in bones to decide if a animal was bipedal or not or had the capacity for high cognition or not? Is there a site that goes deeply, with great detail into this subject? ie, "why this bone feature = this or that AND why"?

[thesongtowoody]

@KennyTew2 My current conflicts/problems are the Noah account, (the logistics of it), the interpretation of fossil evidence and the age of the earth. The first two are to my mind the bigger challenges than the latter.

I like to joke that i am about 60 percent christian, 30 percent agnostic and 10 percent atheist. (smile)

Overall, after weighing all the evidence and the arguments and the possibility of errors on both sides, i would say the preponderance of the evidence points to theism.(smile)

[thesongtowoody]

@KennyTew2 Here's my favorite Author, teacher , philosopher and theologian. I enjoy his sober approach in everything he says and does and he has a good sense of humour. Since you suggested a youtube link, i will post the name of his site where you can hear him speak on many topics. It is Ligonier.org. His name is RC Sproul (not jr.) By the way. I just want to say that i do have some doubts about my christian faith. I have looked at the arguments for evolution and some of them have some merit.

[thesongtowoody]

@KennyTew2 RE: quiz show(bible contradictions

I would not want a layman to defend me in the court of law if he is not skilled in the meaning and interpretation of those laws. He is unskilled and doesnt understand "law" . Lawyers are skilled at interpreting what the law SAYS. So too with the bible. I see alot of people pretending to know what a passage is saying when really they have no background,experience or skill in its proper interpretation. Remember people go to universities for scripture.

[thesongtowoody]

@KennyTew2 I watched a bit of the "quiz show(bible contradictions". Honestly? I thought that it must have been put together by someone who hasnt done his homework, doesn't understand the law of non-contradiction, especially the latter part as i mentioned previously and who takes scriptures always and in every instance in a wooden literal fashion, with no thought given to context or which literary form or tool is used. I am sure the unaware gobbled up that video as blowing the lid off bible lies!

[thesongtowoody]

@KennyTew2 So, if you relax the definition of the law of non-contradiction and you add extraneous info about what the use of the word "headlong" means and doesn't mean, then it will cross a threshold so as to constitute a contradiction but if you do the opposite of this and are honest you are forced to admit there is no actual contradiction. But being dogmatic that headlong means and ONLY can mean "jumping off a cliff", you are reading INTO the text something that in reality is not there?

[thesongtowoody]

@KennyTew2 Kenny, Following the strict definition of The law of non-contradiction and strictly only using the words utilized, those passages do not constitute a contradiction. The casual reader must not attach external scenario's to the word "headlong". If he does then he is adding something that is in fact not stated and therefore he will swear a contradiction but ultimately that contradiction is based on extraneous info which is not good science. No wonder he will swear...contradiction.