-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Homo floresiensis - The "Hobbit"
- Thread starter UTEOTW
- Start date
What's "meaningless" about claiming that the little people of Flores Island (or the Neanders, for that matter) were intelligently designed?Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Do you have anything factual to add? Or are you just trying to detract from the truth by derailing threads into meaningless chatter?
Ad hominin attacks only serve to distract and derail threads when posters fail to design intelligent responses to others.
Where did I make a personal attack? You might want to look in your previous post about professors for something much closer to a personal attack.
If you want to discuss intelligent design, please use the thread you started for that purpose unless you can somehow make it relevent to whether the hobbits are modern humans or not. As it is, you are just taking the thread down a blind alley not germane to the subject matter.
If you want to discuss intelligent design, please use the thread you started for that purpose unless you can somehow make it relevent to whether the hobbits are modern humans or not. As it is, you are just taking the thread down a blind alley not germane to the subject matter.
That is a rather arrogant approach to intelligent discussions about the little people. Are you so fixated on the pseudoscience of evolution as to preclude the possiblity that the Ebu Gogo were intelligently designed if not also created?Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Where did I make a personal attack? You might want to look in your previous post about professors for something much closer to a personal attack.[qb]
I referred to a lot of biology professors so unless you are one of them I don't see how my remark was directed towards you personally. You only listed your occupation as a researcher.
[qb]If you want to discuss intelligent design, please use the thread you started for that purpose unless you can somehow make it relevent to whether the hobbits are modern humans or not. As it is, you are just taking the thread down a blind alley not germane to the subject matter.
Frankly it does not matter to the thread if they were are not. The question is whether they are modern humans or not. The morphology shows that they were not modern humans. If you disagree, then say why.
To go down the ID path on this subject is beside the point. They may or may not be ID, but that does not change whether they can be shoe-horned into a YE paradigm or not.
The ID path adds nothing to the discussion. It is only a distraction to avoid the subject.
To go down the ID path on this subject is beside the point. They may or may not be ID, but that does not change whether they can be shoe-horned into a YE paradigm or not.
The ID path adds nothing to the discussion. It is only a distraction to avoid the subject.
UTE:
"The question is whether they are modern humans or not. The morphology shows that they were not modern humans. If you disagree, then say why."
Of course, they weren't "modern humans" any more than Shakespeare, Aristotle or Noah were modern humans. The morphology of skeletal remains which were described as resembling "mashed potatos" can hardly be conclusive of anything except the intelligent design of natural decompositional processes which seem to follow intelligently designed laws of material decomposition.
"To go down the ID path on this subject is beside the point. They may or may not be ID, but that does not change whether they can be shoe-horned into a YE paradigm or not."
The Ebu Gogo can't be "shoe-horned" into an evolutionary pattern either unless of course, it is intelligently designed, naturally.
"The ID path adds nothing to the discussion. It is only a distraction to avoid the subject."
====================================
What is the subject, pray tell, if not an intelligent investigation into the intelligently designed origins of these wee folk and a subsequently intelligent discussion thereof?
"The question is whether they are modern humans or not. The morphology shows that they were not modern humans. If you disagree, then say why."
Of course, they weren't "modern humans" any more than Shakespeare, Aristotle or Noah were modern humans. The morphology of skeletal remains which were described as resembling "mashed potatos" can hardly be conclusive of anything except the intelligent design of natural decompositional processes which seem to follow intelligently designed laws of material decomposition.
"To go down the ID path on this subject is beside the point. They may or may not be ID, but that does not change whether they can be shoe-horned into a YE paradigm or not."
The Ebu Gogo can't be "shoe-horned" into an evolutionary pattern either unless of course, it is intelligently designed, naturally.
"The ID path adds nothing to the discussion. It is only a distraction to avoid the subject."
====================================
What is the subject, pray tell, if not an intelligent investigation into the intelligently designed origins of these wee folk and a subsequently intelligent discussion thereof?
We need to remember that this find is a relatively new find, and is subject to peer review. Also, a single find may not necessarily be sufficient evidence to answer many of the questions that arise, which may only be answered by the discovery of additional similar finds and subsequent peer review.Originally posted by Gup20:
This is a brief update to our article on “Flores man,” also nicknamed “The Hobbit”...
"Of course, they weren't "modern humans" any more than Shakespeare, Aristotle or Noah were modern humans."
Shakespeare and Aristotle had morphology consistent with modern humans. The hobbit do not. Their bodies, even in scale, are not the same as yours and mine. There are much like H. erectus. H. erectus bodies are well outside the range of extant humans.
"What is the subject, pray tell, if not an intelligent investigation into the intelligently designed origins of these wee folk and a subsequently intelligent discussion thereof? "
The discussion is whether they have a morphology consistent with modern humans or not. They do not. Bringing ID into the picture adds nothing. Even with ID, they are still not modern humans and are still evidence, though a side line to the main evidence, of the evolution of humans.
Shakespeare and Aristotle had morphology consistent with modern humans. The hobbit do not. Their bodies, even in scale, are not the same as yours and mine. There are much like H. erectus. H. erectus bodies are well outside the range of extant humans.
"What is the subject, pray tell, if not an intelligent investigation into the intelligently designed origins of these wee folk and a subsequently intelligent discussion thereof? "
The discussion is whether they have a morphology consistent with modern humans or not. They do not. Bringing ID into the picture adds nothing. Even with ID, they are still not modern humans and are still evidence, though a side line to the main evidence, of the evolution of humans.
The discussion, as first begun by you in your original post, was open to anyone interested and didn't specify any framework or reference within which the topic might be discussed.Originally posted by UTEOTW:
The discussion is whether they have a morphology consistent with modern humans or not. They do not. Bringing ID into the picture adds nothing. Even with ID, they are still not modern humans and are still evidence, though a side line to the main evidence, of the evolution of humans.
I happen to see much more evidence of the apparently intelligent design of these tiny people than I see any evidence of evolution, and see no need to limit the discussion to your favorite one-sided "side-line" of evo hypotheses.
You certainly seem to have an imperialistic attitude about science. Might I suggest that you temper some of your high-fallutin opinions about your scientific omnipotence and open your mind to the reasonable opinions of some others on this forum?
The Galatian
Active Member
Now's the time to show us. Don't tell us how great it is; show it to us.I happen to see much more evidence of the apparently intelligent design of these tiny people than I see any evidence of evolution,
You'd be a whole lot more effective for your point of view, if you could present some evidence, instead of personal attacks.You certainly seem to have an imperialistic attitude about science. Might I suggest that you temper some of your high-fallutin opinions about your scientific omnipotence and open your mind to the reasonable opinions of some others on this forum?
Look for yourself. If you can't see intelligent design in nature without my assistance, how can I possibly show it to you any more than you can possibly show me evolution if I can't see it?Originally posted by The Galatian:
Now's the time to show us. Don't tell us how great it is; show it to us.
You'd be a whole lot more effective for your point of view, if you could present some evidence, instead of personal attacks. [/QB]
It is not in my interest to make personal attacks any more than it is to present evidence in order to be "effective."
The Galatian
Active Member
Well, you haven't changed any,karl. When you learn some facts, come on back and we can talk about them.
Ok, Karl.Originally posted by The Galatian:
Well, you haven't changed any,karl. When you learn some facts, come on back and we can talk about them.