The Faith & Religion mega Thread

OK sundialsvcs, while I still do disagree about the universality of "the still small voice" this argument does seem to have reached an impasse that serves nobody. Also while your observations about primary experience regarding ancient ancestors (and thus Evolution) are basically true, it is also true that nowhere in that PNAS article is there a conclusion that AU aforensis is not a hominid. Not only is that not in that specific article but all articles posted after are still based in the conclusion that Au aforensis is hominid but further study is needed to improve the margin of error for direct ancestor. We do know there were several "dead ends". There, in a nutshell, is the difference between cautious, strict Science and bold, blind faith. Their findings do not prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Au aforensis is a direct ancestor but nor does it disprove that, let alone Evolution. Other later species have very high levels of confidence. Thus it follows that had the conclusion been as was stated here, the later articles would not exist or be very different.

It is one thing to assume out of context or "make a personal leap" and quite another to include that in a quote as if it were stated outright in that article. There are numerous sentences that outright deny any refutation of hominid status and it is there for all to see. It only concludes that questions are raised and that is the 'small step", responsible way. Even if one gives massive leeway for both Science and Faith, when is it OK to knowingly deceive others? I say that is only justified in "Lifeboat Situations". Is this one?

So let me pose a question for all to ponder - Why do you suppose there is a cliche about "sacred cows" and none about "scientific cows"? Hopefully all can see that a scientist can be convinced when the necessary and sufficient work has been completed but no amount of work, short of subjugation, will satisfy the zealously faithful. Science is stiff but fluid. Faith is static.

If anyone is interested in knowing what the cited NAS article did actually say about hominin relationships, here is a summary created by yours truly after actually reading the article, which clearly OregonJim has not done.

The authors accept without question that hominins as a group (including all australopithecines) are related to chimpanzees and not to gorillas. However they point out that the jaw morphology of Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) is more gorilla-like, as is that of australopithecines like A robustus. These robust australopithecines have never been regarded as human ancestors; they are clearly a side branch of the hominid family tree. However Lucy is generally regarded as the common ancestor of both robust australopithecines and our own genus Homo. The authors propose instead that Lucy and her conspecifics be regarded as the ancestors of robust australopithecines only and not of gracile australopithecines and humans.

They also point out that the earliest hominin fossil known (Ardipithecus ramidus) has a chimpanzee-like jawbone and therefore probably is the direct ancestor of all later hominins including us.

Originally Posted by hazel If anyone is interested in knowing what the cited NAS article did actually say about hominin relationships, here is a summary created by yours truly after actually reading the article, which clearly OregonJim has not done. The authors accept without question that hominins as a group (including all australopithecines) are related to chimpanzees and not to gorillas. However they point out that the jaw morphology of Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) is more gorilla-like, as is that of australopithecines like A robustus. These robust australopithecines have never been regarded as human ancestors; they are clearly a side branch of the hominid family tree. However Lucy is generally regarded as the common ancestor of both robust australopithecines and our own genus Homo. The authors propose instead that Lucy and her conspecifics be regarded as the ancestors of robust australopithecines only and not of gracile australopithecines and humans. They also point out that the earliest hominin fossil known (Ardipithecus ramidus) has a chimpanzee-like jawbone and therefore probably is the direct ancestor of all later hominins including us.

I did read the article, fully (I was the one who introduced it, remember?) - and I fail to see how our conclusions are substantially different, excepting the level of verbosity. Could you perhaps clue me in on what I am missing?

Yes, I can. You claim that the authors classify Lucy as a gorilla. In fact they classify her as a hominin like us (as does everyone else who has ever written about her), only not our direct ancestor. All australopithecines form a single genus but some members of that genus are ancestral to humans and some are not. Lucy may not be after all.

There's a good parallel in the evolution of dogs. All members of the genus Canis are closely related but wolves are directly ancestral to the domestic dog and jackals are not, though Konrad Lorenz thought they were. The discovery that jackals are not, after all, ancestral to dogs does not mean that jackals ought to be reclassified as cats!

Originally Posted by enorbet So let me pose a question for all to ponder - Why do you suppose there is a cliche about "sacred cows" and none about "scientific cows"?

Possibly because your question presupposes that there ISN'T such a thing. However, here is but one example:

"Science's Sacred Cows": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-p...b_2392381.html

An interesting insight from the above, dealing with "scientific cows":

"Scientism (or scientific materialism), on the other hand, adds to science a statement of faith: The universe is only material. Moreover, given the spectacular successes of science over the past three centuries, it is more than fair to acknowledge that science represents a powerful way to learn about the world. But scientism ups the ante: Science is the best (or only) way to make sense of the world. In short, scientism is to science what fundamentalism is to religion: cocksure and inflexible."

Further, here is an entire book written on the subject of "Science as Sacred Cow":

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Is-Sac...N%3D0525470166

From one of the reviews:

"Certain people (called "science fiends" later in the book) suppose that because science has penetrated the structure of the atom it can solve all the problems of the universe. ... They are known in every ... college as the most insufferable, cocksure know-it-alls. If you want to talk to them about poetry, they are likely to reply that the "emotive response" to poetry is only a conditioned reflex .... If they go on to be professional scientists, their sharp corners are rubbed down, but they undergo no fundamental change. They most decidedly are not set apart from the others by their intellectual integrity and faith, and their patient humility in front of the facts of nature.... They are uneducated, in the fullest sense of the word, and they certainly are no advertisement for the claims of science teachers."

Originally Posted by hazel Yes, I can. You claim that the authors classify Lucy as a gorilla. In fact they classify her as a hominin like us (as does everyone else who has ever written about her), only not our direct ancestor. All australopithecines form a single genus but some members of that genus are ancestral to humans and some are not. Lucy may not be after all.

All right, I see the technical distinction you are making. My only point was that Lucy is not considered a human ancestor according to the evidence in this paper. As it was barely a passing side point in the overall discussion, I wasn't trying to make an argument out of it, other than to point out that fact. Thanks for clarifying.

A brief sidestep from this discussion:

I noticed that 44% of the people in this thread identify themselves as atheists. Yet the latest Gallup polls show that only 9% of Americans are atheists (including agnostics), and only 20% of the EU. The rest of the world is generally in the low teens.

Further, this thread shows 29% are 'firm believers', while Gallup shows 90% for America (though I wouldn't call them all 'firm') and 51% for the EU. The rest of the world is generally 50% to 90%.

I highly doubt that there is any correlation between Linux and religious views, so one is left to speculate that atheists are drawn to religious discussions far more than believers. I find that interesting. From personal experience, I doubt that they are 'searching' for anything, or looking for answers (maybe I'm wrong), so what could be the motivation?

Originally Posted by OregonJim [...] I highly doubt that there is any correlation between Linux and religious views, so one is left to speculate that atheists are drawn to religious discussions far more than believers. I find that interesting. From personal experience, I doubt that they are 'searching' for anything, or looking for answers (maybe I'm wrong), so what could be the motivation?

For me, it's because it is a fascinating human subject, and because I rather enjoy water-cooler conversation.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs For me, it's because it is a fascinating human subject, and because I rather enjoy water-cooler conversation.

Wait...you identified yourself as a Christian earlier...and now an atheist?

Do you mean to say that cherry-picking certain philosophical ideas from Christianity while denying that a God exists qualifies you to call yourself an...atheist Christian?

Some religions set you in there stone! ROTFL!

Originally Posted by jamison20000e "Y"our kids learn best at 2 so get them to e d u ! ! !

Nope. The "terrible 2's" is when a child's innate sense of rebellion comes into full swing. It is one of the WORST times for learning (other than to learn obedience).

According to the analysis on the development of nerve tissues, the development and growth of the nerve tissues begins in 4 to 6 year old children at a rapid speed, and the progress will slow down and growth reaches 75%. The greatest growth of human brain is during 4 to 14 years and during this period, the frequency of the brain wave increases gradually from theta (relaxing stage) to alpha level ( relax but conscious ). Children in alpha level have plentiful imagination and quicker learning ability. As they grow into their juvenile (the beta level, the sober period), they will become more rational and they mainly think with left brain. Therefore, as a parent to your child, in order to explore and enhance the children's intelligence, the best learning time for your child is the age before 15 years.

http://abacuskidsacademy.weebly.com/...rning-age.html

SSSsss...$$$$$$

Your kids learn opinions about the devils to fear hells and punishments, our kids learn not to be so stupid but like a child I won't tell you NO let's make it a game? Ouch that hurts okay kiss it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWb4SHdfpJM

Originally Posted by jamison20000e Your kids learn opinions about the devils to fear hells and punishments, our kids learn not to be so stupid

Interesting thought pattern. You don't believe in Hell, so you teach your children not to believe as well. You are so absolutely convinced that you're right, you're willing to send your own children to Hell if you're wrong. Did your parents ever teach YOU something that was wrong?

You'd better be sure beyond the shadow of a doubt, because you are in a small minority. I wouldn't want my children suffering for eternity because of my own self-arrogance. Let alone being there myself to watch them suffer. How many other things are you THIS sure of? And how weighty are the consequences of being wrong?

Where do you think our whole concept of 'punishment' comes from? Did we invent it (why?), or does it come from God? While we're at it, where did we get the idea of 'eternity', since it is clearly not something that is evident in the world around us? We see everything die, plants, animals, humans - so where did the idea come from?

LOL it's evolution baby! https://youtu.be/1g8SnP5teRg