Really? What caused the Big Bang, then? Something must have existed to facilitate an explosion. And if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes around?

Edit - And how come human remains more than 2 million years old have just been found in Ethiopia?

---

I remember, therefore I am.

The same reason humans evolved from fish, and fish are still around - mostly not in exactly the same form, but closer to it than humans!

I agree about the timing, though. It depends what time you choose

Last common ancestor with protoapes, or development of more modern humans.
I think the 200.000 is looking at that development. Although those recent bones in NW Africa seem too-o have put that back to 300.000!

I would put the divergence of the human line from the chimp line at about 7 million years ago.
(divergence of proto-humans and proto-chimps from proto-gorillas at about 15 million)

200,000 was, until recently, the date for earliest modern humans - Homo sapiens idaltu or Homo sapiens sapiens

But recent finds in Morocco put that back to 300,000 - and the other side of the Sahara! Ya whaat?

I know, JM, you were challenging the whole concept. But I know I can't argue that case, and won't try. So this is just a clarification from the scientific standpoint, my area of interest.

I could recommend you to read Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari.

It's not all proven facts, but very thought provoking.

---

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

The OP was a scientific explanation?

---

I remember, therefore I am.

http://forum.thefreedictionary.com/postsm995843_DOES-GOD-EXISTS.aspx#995843

Come on, guys. You know you are not going to change each other's minds so why go through the whole sniping palaver. Just let it go. Walk away. You are achieving nothing except bad feeling, and where is the pride in that? It is boring and unworthy of you, and disrespects the intent of the original poster.

And there’s the crux of the matter, for me at least. Firstly, your sentiment suggests we are discussing an unsettled issue with equal merit on both sides – which it emphatically is not.
Secondly, the phrase “you know you are not going to change each other's minds” implies that I (or any member who values knowledge, based on honest enquiry and empiricism) am closed-minded, or that science (in this case) is based on entrenched subjective opinion with no good reason.

When people repeatedly fling about the same ignorance, pseudo-science and logical fallacies – for the contentment of their own divine righteousness – before settling for a trite ‘we’ll have to agree to disagree’ -- as we see above -- they do so to bolster this illusion of equivalence.

This is the root of anti-intellectualism and makes the honest and constructive balancing of opinions difficult, if not impossible; it’s not a huge deal, but it’s worth discouraging.

Let’s be clear, Jacobmaximus’ post was not an innocent query, or an honest quest for knowledge. We’ve been over this many times before. Absolutely nothing anyone could have said would have caused him to deviate from his position. I could have politely written a short sentence to explain (again) why his questions were based on flawed premisses, and perhaps a short paragraph to clearly explain (again) both theories as they actually stand… it would not have made one iota of difference, the outcome would have been exactly the same.

Conversely, if there were even a shred of merit to the doubts expressed in Jacobmaximus’ questions, then just about every current scientific theory, in just about every scientific field, would have to change. And not only would I also be intellectually obliged to change my mind, I would embrace that change in the same way as I do with every other piece of new knowledge that brings us closer to an accurate understanding of reality.


Imagine if we took that approach when teaching our children: just believe whatever truth you choose, we don't want to hurt your feelings by promoting critical thinking.

I would argue that objectively probing (forcefully if needed) our collective knowledge is a wonderfully worthy pursuit, and exactly what the Science and Technology sub-forum was intended for. What is boring, in my opinion, is people repeatedly derailing such potentially intelligent discussions with idiotic dogma.

And how idiotic..? I previously set Answers in Genesis as my benchmark for wilful and absurd ignorance. But I’ve just checked and apparently even they now accept the ‘lineal descent’ bastardisation of evolutionary theory won’t wash any more (as if it ever did).

In their most recent guidelines for internet apologists, they advise: This is another argument the Christian should not use.

When a person is one step behind AiG, an intervention is probably the kindest thing. Let’s call it tough love.

Unless of course I’m wrong. If Jacobmaximus actually does have some new theory or data that might cause a paradigm shift in probably the best supported and most widely applied scientific theory we possess, then I for one would love to be corrected. Or if he is prepared to drag his knowledge up to the level of an average primary school leaver and admit his comments were based on ignorance of the subjects, then I will apologize unreservedly.


.

There you go! One of the most interesting topics to read up on, we know quite a lot about this nowadays.

---

Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.

Will -

To be fair, I don't think you were talking to Thar - or the persona we know as "Thar" - as much as using his words to make a point? We all get to pick up on personalities after a while on TFD and nothing I've ever seen written by Thar supports the idea of his being an apologist, or a "snowflake" (am I using that correctly?) or that he believes both arguments have merit.

But he IS a rather laid-back person from a very socially advanced culture; who believes in scholarly argument; facts and truth; and academic debating style. He's been around TFD for a long time and during all that time he refrains from heated exchange, personal comments, drawing lines in the sand, or putting people down. I get the impression that this isn't because he's some sook who runs away from unpleasantly, but just because he's a long-term member.

I read his comments as pertaining to HERE, on this forum, with this cast of characters. We all know how certain people react to certain subjects. We've submitted fact, proof of falsehood, truth, historical records, logic, critical thinking, and common sense to the same people over and over again - and they never even engage, let alone answer or respond to this info. It gets deadly dull and eye-wateringly boring: a repetitive conversation with each person speaking the same parts all over again. It's not just frustrating but it can raise one's hackles to be consistently ignored, not listened to, not having one's questions EVER responded to.....and THAT was what I think he was responding to. It escalates into inanity.

Of course I may be wrong - and that wasn't what was meant. But, then again, I think any plea to refrain from personal animosity is a very typical Thar response.