(January 27, 2015 at 4:05 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(January 27, 2015 at 3:55 pm)SteveII Wrote: I would like to know a few Bible claims that are contradicted by scientific facts. Leave out miracles for a second because of God exists (which is kind of the theme of the Bible) then miracles exist and therefore would not be a contradiction.

Why bother? You're just going to blindly assert that your interpretation of whatever we say conveniently sidesteps the obvious contradiction.

But the easiest one would just be that the creation account is contradicted by what we know of biological evolution; the bible makes an unambiguous claim that all life was created, in pairs where humans are concerned. This is, quite simply, wrong: life evolved gradually as part of a complex, interconnected series of speciations from common ancestors. If your response is to appeal to interpretation then you're essentially saying that the bible says one thing, but means the exact opposite of the words it says, and I don't know why you expect any of us to take that seriously at all.

One issue I have with evolution is the interpretation of skulls. There is enormous variation of size and shape in the human skull.

For example, look at the following comparisons:

Modern Aboriginal vs Slavic skull [1]
"its morphology (the Modern Aboriginal skull) could be described as archaic" (Jim Vanhollebeke - Paleoanthropologist)

Neanderthal vs Homosapien skull


Note the protruding eye ridge and 'bun' are similar features in both Neanderthal and modern Aboriginal skulls.

To claim that Neanderthal was a less evolved human is simply not objective science.

(January 27, 2015 at 4:45 pm)bob96 Wrote:

(January 27, 2015 at 4:05 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Why bother? You're just going to blindly assert that your interpretation of whatever we say conveniently sidesteps the obvious contradiction.

But the easiest one would just be that the creation account is contradicted by what we know of biological evolution; the bible makes an unambiguous claim that all life was created, in pairs where humans are concerned. This is, quite simply, wrong: life evolved gradually as part of a complex, interconnected series of speciations from common ancestors. If your response is to appeal to interpretation then you're essentially saying that the bible says one thing, but means the exact opposite of the words it says, and I don't know why you expect any of us to take that seriously at all.

One issue I have with evolution is the interpretation of skulls. There is enormous variation of size and shape in the human skull.

For example, look at the following comparisons:

Modern Aboriginal vs Slavic skull [1]
"its morphology (the Modern Aboriginal skull) could be described as archaic" (Jim Vanhollebeke - Paleoanthropologist)

Neanderthal vs Homosapien skull

Note the protruding eye ridge and 'bun' are similar features in both Neanderthal and modern Aboriginal skulls.

To claim that Neanderthal was a less evolved human is simply not objective science.

(January 27, 2015 at 4:45 pm)bob96 Wrote:

(January 27, 2015 at 4:05 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Why bother? You're just going to blindly assert that your interpretation of whatever we say conveniently sidesteps the obvious contradiction.

But the easiest one would just be that the creation account is contradicted by what we know of biological evolution; the bible makes an unambiguous claim that all life was created, in pairs where humans are concerned. This is, quite simply, wrong: life evolved gradually as part of a complex, interconnected series of speciations from common ancestors. If your response is to appeal to interpretation then you're essentially saying that the bible says one thing, but means the exact opposite of the words it says, and I don't know why you expect any of us to take that seriously at all.

One issue I have with evolution is the interpretation of skulls. There is enormous variation of size and shape in the human skull.

For example, look at the following comparisons:

Modern Aboriginal vs Slavic skull [1]
"its morphology (the Modern Aboriginal skull) could be described as archaic" (Jim Vanhollebeke - Paleoanthropologist)

Neanderthal vs Homosapien skull

Note the protruding eye ridge and 'bun' are similar features in both Neanderthal and modern Aboriginal skulls.

To claim that Neanderthal was a less evolved human is simply not objective science.

Err, so?

What do you mean 'less evolved'? 9x out of 10 'more or less' evolved is nonsensical when we consider evolution.

Is a goose more or less evolved than a human, for example?

(January 27, 2015 at 4:45 pm)bob96 Wrote: One issue I have with evolution is the interpretation of skulls. There is enormous variation of size and shape in the human skull.

For example, look at the following comparisons:

Modern Aboriginal vs Slavic skull [1]
"its morphology (the Modern Aboriginal skull) could be described as archaic" (Jim Vanhollebeke - Paleoanthropologist)

Neanderthal vs Homosapien skull
Note the protruding eye ridge and 'bun' are similar features in both Neanderthal and modern Aboriginal skulls.

To claim that Neanderthal was a less evolved human is simply not objective science.

So, in other words, your problem is your lack of education and understanding of comparative anatomy.


Thanks for clarifying.

(January 27, 2015 at 4:45 pm)bob96 Wrote: One issue I have with evolution is the interpretation of skulls. There is enormous variation of size and shape in the human skull.

Well, then it's a good thing that Neanderthals are more than just skulls, and that we use more than simply cranial morphology to determine that they're different from humans, isn't it? It's a good thing that there's actual thought going into these determinations, that we have a record of the Neanderthal's genetics with which to clarify these things, and a detailed morphological analysis of entire specimens and not just the skulls to go off of.

It's also a good thing that major scientific theories, especially the ones most supported by mountains of evidence across multiple disciplines and species, aren't thrown into doubt because a layman takes issue with a single example using little more than an intuitive "this looks like this, therefore it's the same," reasoning that falls so far below the standards of the sciences that it would be almost laughable, if the layman making this an issue wasn't totally serious.

Quote:To claim that Neanderthal was a less evolved human is simply not objective science.

Where did you get your science degree, again?

Oh, and while I'm at it, I'd surely love to know why you thought that attempting to circumvent our 30/30 rules the way you did here, after we've had this issue with you before, while replying to a moderator directly, seemed like a good idea to you.

(January 27, 2015 at 3:55 pm)SteveII Wrote: I would like to know a few Bible claims that are contradicted by scientific facts. Leave out miracles for a second because of God exists (which is kind of the theme of the Bible) then miracles exist and therefore would not be a contradiction.

Exodus: There is no evidence of large numbers of Hebrew slaves in Egypt, let alone for hundreds of thousands wandering Sinai for 40 years.

Noah's Ark: Absolutely no evidence found for a global flood. In fact almost every part of the story has been shown to be impossible.

Oh my god....my post was edited...BY A MODERATOR.

I hate you 'bob'.

(January 27, 2015 at 5:04 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Oh my god....my post was edited...BY A MODERATOR.

I hate you 'bob'.

Feels like maybe I should be giving you more shit for that than I have.

I blame bob.

(January 27, 2015 at 5:04 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Oh my god....my post was edited...BY A MODERATOR.

I hate you 'bob'.

They're plotting against you now . . .