Shalom

[Dan Ben Noah]

Shalom

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

It doesn't turn over human evolution or even call it into question.  It adds new information to make the hypotheses of migration more correct.   It adds context.   

Why try to distort reality like you and these authors are doing?


What is hilarious about this is that the human teeth are CLEARLY, UNDENIABLY older than 6000 years old by all accounts.  So then you'll say the dating isn't reliable?   Oh, the dating is reliable if it can be used to distort facts and try to deny evolution, but if it supports an old earth, then the dating isn't reliable... Oh I get it.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

This shows that scientists are often way off base from what they thought they knew, so they are probably wrong on the whole dating thing too. 

No, that's silly.  It is scientists who found these teeth.   Scientists use the available information and form hypotheses out of them.    Their hypotheses can certainly be wrong, Dead wrong.  But that does not discredit the scientific enterprise or those hypotheses which are confirmed as correct!

This "out of africa" business was based on very little information (all that they had).   Now there is more information.  So the narrative must be altered to accept the new information and incorporate it.  To say that because of this, scientists can't be trusted to say anything correctly, would be a serious logical error.   
  (btw, unlike your evangelical 'friends' at that site, scientists do not reject new information, they have no choice but to consider it all, and changing this theory reflects that).   

I must say, these Evangelical Christians are a bit theologically challenged, but they know their science!

They know the "science" (pseudoscience) that they make up, but they do little else except distort actual science for propaganda purposes because the facts uncovered make them uncomfortable and the conclusions drawn from the facts make them uncomfortable.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Scientists can only be trusted when they're dealing with something they can actually observe to occur over and over again.  They can't observe how the earth was created or how long humans have been around, because they can't go back in time, so they have to make theories.  Since they are continuously making huge "adjustments" with regard to these theories, they clearly didn't know what they were talking about to begin with so there is no reason to trust them with anything regarding Earth's ancient past.  Widely accepted theories will continue to be proven wrong, and eventually scientists will have to keep fine tuning their theories until they line up with creationism.  If creationists were allowed to officially contribute, science would get there faster, but due to the atheistic bias of the establishment, that's not going to happen.

Even if you really think all of that - which I think is completely false and fallacious line of argument but don't feel like arguing right now - still don't you agree that this article they wrote about the teeth was dishonest and/or disingenuous?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Nope.  The only dishonesty comes from the evolutionist side.

 

[wonga66]

Are you going to believe in a PhD scientist who is an actual atheist?

Or are you going to more credence to an equally qualified PhD scientist who not only believes in a Creator, but in the Torah too?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Are you going to believe in a PhD scientist who is an actual atheist?

Or are you going to more credence to an equally qualified PhD scientist who not only believes in a Creator, but in the Torah too?

LOL, this has to be the dumbest argument yet because that scientist you say supposedly 'believes in Torah' actually believes in Yeshu!  (Is that what you call Torah)?    So by your logic, that erodes his credibility entirely.

But supposing it was a religious Jew we were talking about (which it isn't in this case), it's still a terrible argument because having a correct belief or being a righteous or religious person does not make them a good scientist or make them automatically correct about anything.   No one gets an assumption of being flawless just because they practice the correct religion or have good beliefs.    Of course you believe in "daas teyray" so you probably do think that being a great scholar of Judaism makes people infallible, but to me that is idolatry.

[wonga66]

Since you're talking about the jaw and its supposed evolution, re the change from the reptilian jaw bone to the mammalian TMJ:

"....some reptile scrapped the original hinge of its lower jaw and replaced it by a new one at a different point. Then some of the bones on each side of the lower jaw broke away from the biggest one. The jaw bone to which the lower jaw on each side was originally attached is supposed to have forced its way in to the middle part of the ear, dragging with it three of the lower jaw bones, and these together with the reptile middle ear bone formed themselves into a completely new outfit. Evolutionists cannot explain how the incipient mammals contrived to eat while jaw was being rehinged, or to hear while the middle and inner parts of the ear were being rebuilt.....it is indeed pathetic that educated men should believe that changes such as the above took place in the past by the slow action of natural forces."


Since a solid scientific case has been made by theistic PhD scientists for a special creation less than 10,000 years ago, you really shouldn't feel obliged to remain wed to the less than solid case of atheistic PhD scientists for an accidental universe billions of years old, the sole reason for which is that is how long evolution is presumed to even start to operate!

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

LOL