Evidence for God from Science

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/ ... t_gdp=true

Pretty wild huh? But at the same time, I'm certainly not surprised.

Article title is certainly deceiving

The issue here seems TWO fold:
On one hand you gave some saying that the bones are Neanderthal and as such they are 300K years old at the most.
And then you have a group saying that are another DISTINCT group, non-related to humans but an ancestor of neandrerthal.
The issue seems to be dating AND identity.
IF the dating is correct and they are not neandrethal bones then they have to account for the similarities.
If they are neandrathal bones AND the dating is correct, then they have to explain how there were neandethals 200K years before.

I don't see why this is really related to an "evolution issue." Even the guys saying the initial dating/identification was incorrect are saying they accept evolution. It just seems to be an issue of getting the timeline right. As far as I can tell, the guys saying the dating was wrong are accusing the first group of claiming they had made a discovery that drastically changed our timeline of hominid evolution. It doesn't even seem like any of this has to do with "homo sapiens" at all.

Ivellious wrote:I don't see why this is really related to an "evolution issue." Even the guys saying the initial dating/identification was incorrect are saying they accept evolution. It just seems to be an issue of getting the timeline right. As far as I can tell, the guys saying the dating was wrong are accusing the first group of claiming they had made a discovery that drastically changed our timeline of hominid evolution. It doesn't even seem like any of this has to do with "homo sapiens" at all.

Well, it depends, IF this is a species distinct from Neanderthal and even older BUT still related to Humans, perhaps humans and their evolutionary timeline is incorrect.
It is is Neanderthal and the timeline is correct then there is an extra few hundreds of thousands of year to account for.
In short the issue of timeline and species and both can effect the timeline and "generational tree" of Humans.
Maybe.

Regardless, neither side thinks this has cast any doubt on human evolution. All I'm saying is that they just seem to be arguing over details and timelines, not whether human evolution is debunked by this new information.

Ivellious wrote:Regardless, neither side thinks this has cast any doubt on human evolution. All I'm saying is that they just seem to be arguing over details and timelines, not whether human evolution is debunked by this new information.

Yep, pretty much.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Ivellious wrote:Regardless, neither side thinks this has cast any doubt on human evolution. All I'm saying is that they just seem to be arguing over details and timelines, not whether human evolution is debunked by this new information.

Yep, pretty much.

Yep, but maybe the link leads to a different article than the original poster intended? That's all I can think of.

LOL

The thread defines the evidence as "evolution distortion". Not one word was said about debunking evolution. It still amazes me how others can interpret plain english. No wonder there are so many religious sects based on a single text.

KBCid wrote:The thread defines the evidence as "evolution distortion".

That's a problem with the web - it's easier for non-English speakers to miss the connotations of words: (from free dictionary)
distortion 2. A statement that twists fact; a misrepresentation.

Yeah, I guess I really didn't read the article carefully enough to see that it was really saying something different than what the title said.

I guess in editing the hip trend currently is to put something down in the title and say something completely different or even the exact opposite thing in the article. Kinda like Time Magazine's article "Was Darwin Wrong"? When people think that by looking at the title that they were going to uncover evidence that would possibly disprove or greatly go against darwinism, they are then slammed with a bunch of pro evolution propaganda to show towards the end of the article that Darwin was "right".

So the article I gave at the top must be such a similar article. I be redfaceded. *Insert random cute kitty cat picture* I's Sorryes!

Umm...... This is a very cool smiley