another blow to atheists

[emprworm]

If i was mean, I would do a search and find all the times Acriku, Ace, and Miles (and others here) valliantly proclaimed with verbal force the "facts" of neanderthal man being our ancestors. Of course, the ignorance of atheists who speak outside of scientific facts only gets exposed as time moves on.

everytime an atheist says another "fact" of evolution, in time his ignorance will be brought to light as the facts disentigrate. And now for the part that is going to hurt you atheists- answer this question honestly:

was there ever a time when you thought it factual or even likely that neanderthal man was a human ancestor?

A fact that turns out not to be true was never a fact to begin with, but only a false belief. ;) ;D

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030513/sc_afp/us_genetics_prehistory_030513005118

[Miles]

If i was mean, I would do a search and find all the times Acriku, Ace, and Miles (and others here) valliantly proclaimed with verbal force the "facts" of neanderthal man being our ancestors. Of course, the ignorance of atheists who speak outside of scientific facts only gets exposed as time moves on.

everytime an atheist says another "fact" of evolution, in time his ignorance will be brought to light as the facts disentigrate. And now for the part that is going to hurt you atheists- answer this question honestly:

was there ever a time when you thought it factual or even likely that neanderthal man was a human ancestor?

A fact that turns out not to be true was never a fact to begin with, but only a false belief. ;) ;D

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030513/sc_afp/us_genetics_prehistory_030513005118

First of all, I don't think I ever proclaimed that neandethal man was a direct ancestor. He would represent something more like a cousin, and in some senses, since he shows characteristics of ape and man, would show transtional features. That doesn't make him a direct ancestor.

Yes. At one time I think all of science believed that it was likely that neanderthal man was a direct ancestor. We were prove wrong. So what?

I think that what you are getting at is that the "faith" of evolutionists has been proven wrong, therefore it discredits evolution as a whole. Then you are attempting to broaden this to atheistic beliefs. I have no idea how you manage that leap, but I'll accept it for now.

Science is not based on faith, as you so adamantly argue. That is why no explanations are accepted as anything but theory. Unlike fundamentalist theists, we recognize the fact that we do not have perfect knowledge, and always leave room for new discoveries that might revolutionize our thinking. This leaves room for progress, and true learning. Your point only shows the openness of science to admit it's fallabiltiy. This is a virtue, not a flaw.

[Caid Ivik]

Darwin's theory maybe has some common points with the reality. But it couldn't evolve soul, that's for sure. As bubbling water cannot evolve life.

[Gobalopper]

He would represent something more like a cousin...

The title of the article is "We may not be cousins to Neanderthals, after all."

[DukeLeto]

The study was carried out at the University of Florence, Italy.

This would be in Italy, near the Vatican...I wonder who financed the study...? ::)

If Heinz funded study on whether or not ketchup was good for you, what would they find? ::)

[Caid Ivik]

This is again generalisation. Florence is about 300 km from Rome. But i.e. Darwin lived in England, where were many protestantic christians too, as the Queen is a head of church, I can say there is a theocracy. And you see, he had no problem with writing such nonsense. It's an argument like all Germans are nazists, because Hitler lived between them...

[emprworm]

lol miles. We aren't even cousins.

poor miles embarrassed himself by not even reading the article.

evolution = faith pure and simple. you are no different than me miles.

[Acriku]

Ah empr, the slave to Atheism, will you ever realize that science BEGS to be proven false? That's what we want! If this story is true, and the Neanderthal isn't at all our ancestor, this is great news! It means science has now progressed further! This isn't a blow, but a celebration.

[emprworm]

acriku always using the term "science" as a pseudo-mask to hide his blind faith.

call your faith whatever you want Acriku- call it "science" call it "a cup of hot chocolate on a winter night"...i really don't care. your faith is intense, and it is blind. the only difference between you and me is that I have the honest humility necessary to publicly admit that I have faith, while you cower behind your curtain of "science" to hide the undisputed fact that you possess as much, if not more faith than anyone else.

[emprworm]

It means science has now progressed further! This isn't a blow, but a celebration.

it means that millions of atheists yesterday were using a false belief to argue against theism that today has been proven to be wrong.

it means that every single element of "proof" you claim to have that somehow "proves" evolution may ALSO be shown to be wrong tomorrow. Basically, you know nothing. You only believe, and then science later shows you that your beliefs were wrong. ANd all those theists you argued against suddenly win their arguments, because your "evidence" turned out to be empirically false after all. I am celebrating too.

[Navaros]

evolution has been proven wrong long ago. it's gentically impossible to gain new genetic data "naturally", as "evolution" claims happens. all real scientists have verified this. a being can only *lose* genetic data over time, sort of "de-evolution", never gain it --- that would be scientifcally impossible! evolution is malarky, and does not exist.

[King-Mega]

What is this topic about .

???

[Acriku]

If you want to think that Empr, by all means 8)

Also, how does this debunk evolution?

Arohk, Arohk, Arohk. You're missing a few key points about evolution. Evolution is the change in a gene pool of a population over time. Not addition to the gene pool.

When a mutation occurs, it either codes for a different amino acid, codes for the same amino acid (many codons code for the same amino acids, often), or acts as a "stop" to end the polypeptide chain (protein) of amino acids. Different amino acid makes a different protein that has a different function.

[Egeides]

evolution has been proven wrong long ago. it's gentically impossible to gain new genetic data "naturally", as "evolution" claims happens. all real scientists have verified this. a being can only *lose* genetic data over time, sort of "de-evolution", never gain it --- that would be scientifcally impossible! evolution is malarky, and does not exist.

Do you include mutations when you say this? Even if you have less genetical material, mutations still can bring new stuff (good or bad) to a biological entity.

[Davidu]

I haven't read the article.

Emprworm, I don't think you hve heard me saying that the Neanderthal was the ancestor of man. Because HE WASN'T!!!

His species was a separate branch. That's all. We've killed all of them, or they've all died out - doesen't matter - they weren't our ancestors.

Oh, and please tell me if there's any passage in the Bible that states the Neanderthal existed. The facts show he existed. What did the Bible stated?

[Acriku]

The article doesn't say whether or not the features of the Neanderthalensis species are homologous or analogous to the CroMagnon. Humans have gone through adaptive radiation, just like any other species, so variations in genes can mean that they are on a separate branch.

[Warlord Ripskar]

The study merely proves that the Cro-Magnon samples tested lacked the characteristic Neanderthal genetic markers, This is about a theory that when Neanderthals disappeared from the fossil record they interbred with Cro-Magnon producing a hybrid strain. This was an attempt to explain the Neanderthal characteristics found in a couple of skeletons dated to after the disappeareance of the Neanderthal populations.

The report has nothing to do with the validity of evolution whatsoever, worm simply let his bias read too much into the report.

[Egeides]

Who cares the exact branches... Science will of course draw bad conclusions once in a while, as it done for physics, chemistry and so on since its beginning. The more data they'll gather and the more time they get to study all this, the more precise and secure scientific conclusions will be.

[DukeLeto]

Empr, I would like to make a not on the topic: "another blow to atheists". Not only is that hideously bad grammer, but what was the first blow? ::)

[nemafakei]

Hahahahahaaa!

Read the flipping article, Empr! Understand what it means. Then discuss its implications.

[emprworm]

"Evolution is the change in a gene pool of a population over time. Not addition to the gene pool. "

lie. you know as well as I do that according to abiogenesis and your little faith-based religion called "evolution", that life began without a gene "pool", so to go from no gene pool to huge gene pool necessitates additions to the gene pool. lol acriku.

hmmmm

first we have 0 genes....then we have many genes....and you say "no addition?" ::) uhhhhh...ok

"Posted on: Today at 13:19:27 Posted by: Nema Fakei

Hahahahahaaa!

Read the flipping article, Empr! Understand what it means. Then discuss its implications. "

I did. The implications are that everything you cite as "proof" of human evolution may turn out to be an embarrassing fallacy. How many poor teenagers (yourself included?) were spoonfed the Neanderthal lie as if they were our ancestors. I am willing to bet 10 to 1 that you were handed this nonsense while you were in school and that you saw neanderthal as a human ancestor and thought it was "scientific". Well...looks like you held a false belief. And as time moves on, many other things you call "scientific" will turn out to be false as well.

"Posted on: Today at 13:04:39 Posted by: Warlord Ripskar The report has nothing to do with the validity of evolution whatsoever, worm simply let his bias read too much into the report"

The report has everything to do with over-zealous evolutionists who proclaim things like this as fact, yet turn out to be false belief. Maybe if they taught us in school the TRUTH?

How about a school teaching us: "Neanderthal might actually be nothing more than an extinct ape, as many scientists believe. Also there is evidence contrary to what the brainwahsed evolutionist atheists think about Neanderthal, but because we are a biased school and we want to shove our dogma down your prepubescent teenage throats and brainwash your wide open minds, we will only teach lobsided science; that is, you will only learn ONE side to the theory, and we will keep hidden all the counterevidence. We like to produce mini-acriku's who are churned out factory style to ignore counter evidence and proclaim things as fact, even when they turn out to be false"

[Acriku]

Abiogenesis and evolution are two very different things. NEXT!

[emprworm]

Abiogenesis and evolution are two very different things. NEXT!

sorry, i wont let you out of it. regardless of whether or not you subscribe to abiogenesis (and I'd like you to come up with something different)...you STILL go from no gene pool to gene pool....from few genes in the pool to many genes in the pool and thus, you LIED or you are just plain IGNORANT of evolutionary theory. Honestly, I am not too sure which one it is, but it is one of them.

[emprworm]

Abiogenesis and evolution are two very different things. NEXT!

furthermore, I stated abiogenesis and evolution as seperate entities, so your false placade of a pseudo-intellectual attempt to slither your way out of your massive blunder FAILS. I said (exact words): that according to abiogenesis and your little faith-based religion called "evolution". I did not confuse abiogenesis with evolution, and you are STILL WRONG about the gene pool. Evolution is an ADDITION to genes, simply due to the fact that at this time there are many genes in the gene pool, and at one time there were few, and at one time there were none.

you are wrong, acriku. and this is nothing new, to be honest.

[Acriku]

Evolution is not a part of abiogenesis, so it still is the changing of a gene pool. Evolution: the development of life. Not the creation of it. Pretty big difference in the context of things, I would have to say.