A simple challenge for atheists

[bob96]

It's not my degree:
"its morphology (the Modern Aboriginal skull) could be described as archaic" (Jim Vanhollebeke - Paleoanthropologist)

So, did you read the entire article, or just stop at the point where you could dishonestly quote mine it? Because the full article goes into a bit more detail, and the person you're quoting comes to the conclusion that the ancestry of Australian native humans was different than previously thought, and older too; he cites numerous pieces of evidence to show that this is the case. At no point does he come to the conclusion that this skull is evidence against evolution. So, I guess you were lying, then? Or did you just stop reading three lines in for fear of seeing the man disagree with you?

Also, no comment on the rule breaking, then?

Edit: Oh, can I also mention that the quote you're using is thirteen years old, and not at all from a peer reviewed scientific work, so even if you weren't lying through your teeth, your source wouldn't be as good as you think it is.

Of course the statement about the skull being "described as archaic" would never be accepted in a peer reviewed journal. It was just his personal professional opinion.

"At no point does he come to the conclusion that this skull is evidence against evolution."

I never said he did.

[FatAndFaithless]

So, did you read the entire article, or just stop at the point where you could dishonestly quote mine it? Because the full article goes into a bit more detail, and the person you're quoting comes to the conclusion that the ancestry of Australian native humans was different than previously thought, and older too; he cites numerous pieces of evidence to show that this is the case. At no point does he come to the conclusion that this skull is evidence against evolution. So, I guess you were lying, then? Or did you just stop reading three lines in for fear of seeing the man disagree with you?

Also, no comment on the rule breaking, then?

Edit: Oh, can I also mention that the quote you're using is thirteen years old, and not at all from a peer reviewed scientific work, so even if you weren't lying through your teeth, your source wouldn't be as good as you think it is.

Of course the statement about the skull being "described as archaic" would never be accepted in a peer reviewed journal. It was just his personal professional opinion.

"At no point does he come to the conclusion that this skull is evidence against evolution."

I never said he did.

But you used his quote as an example of one the 'problems' you have with evolution, when the scientist himself that you're quoting doesn't even imply that it is a problem at all.

What was the point of quoting him at all? What exactly were you trying to say?

[bob96]

Why are there no fossilized chimpanzee skeletons? They are conspicuously absent from the fossil record.

[The Grand Nudger]

There are Bob.....and they aren't...conspicuously or otherwise.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

[FatAndFaithless]

Are you just going to keep stumbling from bald assertion to bald assertion without even responding to the points that we bring up? There's a rule about this being a discussion too, you know.

Also, there are chimpanzee fossils.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Come on Bob, time to come clean.

You're impersonating a silly person right? Because if you come clean now it will be better for you in the long run.

[FatAndFaithless]

I'm expecting either a sudden jump to a new point -again-, or a link to a creationist shill-site.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm wondering, at the moment, what would be conspicuous about the absence of chimp fossils if this were so (or any other fossil)- specifically? Fossils aren't all that rare, but fossils of specific species often are. Whole range of reasons for this, and it would definitely be nice if everything that had ever lived fossilized from the pov of inquiry......obviously that's not how it works.....just, wondering where that leads is all?

[bob96]

Of course the statement about the skull being "described as archaic" would never be accepted in a peer reviewed journal. It was just his personal professional opinion.


I never said he did.

But you used his quote as an example of one the 'problems' you have with evolution, when the scientist himself that you're quoting doesn't even imply that it is a problem at all.

What was the point of quoting him at all? What exactly were you trying to say?

A scientist who believes in evolution is obviously never going to come to the conclusion that anything he find is evidence against evolution. The point is that evolution is a highly subjective science.