A bone to pick: Missing link is evolutionists' weakest

Houston Chronical via WorldNetDaily ^ | July 26 | Jeff Farmer

[Tribune7]

This is type of thing that has made me skeptical of evolution.

[VadeRetro]

This is type of thing that has made me skeptical of evolution.

So it's nothing to do with, say, your religious views.

[Tribune7]

Not really.

[general_re]

Time out for a list ping...

...we now return you to your regularly scheduled catfight...

[moneyrunner]

One’s worldview does pre-dispose an individual toward the belief in a number of things. It is only logical that religious people should question an entirely naturalistic explanation of the beginnings and development of the universe. Just as it is imperative for atheists to require a totally naturalistic explanation for things as they are. After all, what other explanation (with the exception of space aliens) can an atheist use to explain the existence of the universe as we know it? Do you disagree with this analysis?

[That Subliminal Kid]

told ya so

[That Subliminal Kid]

Don't mind VadeRetro. He's just a broad minded "Free thinker" /snicker/

[That Subliminal Kid]

One has to wonder if Vade's anti-religious views have any particular impact on his ability to be objective?

[Tribune7]

Oh, I don't mind.

[moneyrunner]

Exactly. Atheists are required by their faith to find naturalistic explanations for the existence and development of the universe. Of course they will deny it, and claim that their reasons preceded their faith, but their fierce defense of naturalism and ad-hominem attacks on people of faith belies their protestations.

[VadeRetro]

One’s worldview does pre-dispose an individual toward the belief in a number of things. It is only logical that religious people should question an entirely naturalistic explanation of the beginnings and development of the universe.

But vast numbers of religious people accept evolution. And a lot of the people who say their objections to evolution come from a "scientific" scepticism just don't pass the sniff test.

Just as it is imperative for atheists to require a totally naturalistic explanation for things as they are. After all, what other explanation (with the exception of space aliens) can an atheist use to explain the existence of the universe as we know it? Do you disagree with this analysis?

It is the job of science to figure out what is going on. By now, naturalistic explanations should have earned the privilege of being the default assumption in cases in which we don't know the explanation. Assuming anything else amounts to punting.

[moneyrunner]

I had the same kind of reaction. With nothing but an old skull, we are now required to believe that there is enough evidence that the skull is that of a human – not an ape. By the way, I’m curious how it can be deduced from a skull fragment whether the creature walked upright?

[DallasMike]

Agreed. Finding a partial skull and deducing that it belonged to a critter who walked upright is embarassingly unscientific. And to think that I snicker at those who believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. I guess I owe them an apology.

[VadeRetro]

Of course they will deny it, and claim that their reasons preceded their faith, but their fierce defense of naturalism and ad-hominem attacks on people of faith belies their protestations.

EsotericLucidity, banned for being a troll shortly before Subliminal_Kid was, once pointed out that there's Naturalism, the Method, and Naturalism, the Philosophy. The first simply uses physical techniques to investigate the real world; it's the only effective way. The other is a doctrine which says that natural physical causes are all that exist and all that are needed to explain the world. Many scientists reject the second even as they employ the first. Luddites who despise science for contradicting their creation myth attack the first for being the second.

[VadeRetro]

And to think that I snicker at those who believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. I guess I owe them an apology.

[Takes a drink of the potion, throws away crutches, does a little dance. Crowd cheers.]

[Gladwin]

Due to walking upright, the attachment points for muscles on the skull are different for humans compared to chimpanzees.

[Ahban]

Luddites who despise science for contradicting their creation myth attack the first for being the second.

And Naturalists who despise Creationists for contradicting their creation myths often masquarade as merely practicing a methodolgy of naturalism while actually advancing the unprovable philosophy of natualism.

Agreed?

[G Larry]

Nothing in the reporting of this recent skull indicated evidence of muscel attach points, in concluding it's linage to humans.

[VadeRetro]

And Naturalists who despise Creationists for contradicting their creation myths often masquarade as merely practicing a methodolgy of naturalism while actually advancing the unprovable philosophy of natualism. Agreed?

There are philosophical naturalists, yes. They're a subset of the people who despise creationists.

So, does materialistic naturalistic science reveal it's Godless agenda by

1) sticking to its story despite the evidence or

2) revising its story every so often to fit the evidence?

[moneyrunner]

” But vast numbers of religious people accept evolution.”

Some do, some don’t and many are not sure. I would say that says a lot about the open-minded attitude of religious people. How about the reverse? Would you say “vast numbers of atheists accept creation?” If not, can’t we conclude that atheists are close minded on this subject? And that is exactly my point. Thank you for helping me make it.

”And a lot of the people who say their objections to evolution come from a "scientific" scepticism just don't pass the sniff test.”

That is a totally subjective and unproven assertion on your part, not doubt driven primarily by your belief system.

” It is the job of science to figure out what is going on. By now, naturalistic explanations should have earned the privilege of being the default assumption in cases in which we don't know the explanation. Assuming anything else amounts to punting.”

If “science” has a “job” it is to question everything. Unfortunately for the atheist faithful, the theory of evolution is …. evolving. For those who’s faith is atheism I have no doubt that they would wish that people would stop questioning their faith in the naturalistic explanation of everything. Unfortunately, not everyone is so easily cowed into the easy acceptance of the theory-du-jour by snide remarks. By the way, how can one determine – from a hominid skull whether the creature walked upright?