|
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
 Posted - 07/05/2002 : 18:04:24
|
Just as we get used to throttling the cretinists, those buggers with the trowels muddy the waters again;
http://www.msnbc.com/news/776334.asp?0dm=N14JT
"UNCERTAINTY!" the fundies will cry, "THIS PROVES EVOLUTION IS WRONG! PRAISE JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZUS!!!"
'Six days' will be all over this like a slug on a lettuce leaf.
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
|
|
|
Physiofly
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2002 : 00:21:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Just as we get used to throttling the cretinists, those buggers with the trowels muddy the waters again;
http://www.msnbc.com/news/776334.asp?0dm=N14JT
"UNCERTAINTY!" the fundies will cry, "THIS PROVES EVOLUTION IS WRONG! PRAISE JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZUS!!!"
'Six days' will be all over this like a slug on a lettuce leaf.
It's not uncertainty, it's science. I doubt the creationists will touch this. All the paleontolgist is saying is that different species of the genus Homo co-existed 1.7 million years ago. Creationists believe Homo sapiens were created in our present form about 6000 years ago. If they tried to use this to support their cause they would have to accept the existence of H. ergaster, H. erectus, et al, and that the Earth is much older than 6000 years, which they certainly won't do.
"Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs that a
deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions." - Niccolo Machiavelli
|
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2002 : 04:16:33 [Permalink]
|
What I find interesting is the possible H. hablis fossil. If it should turn out to indeed be hablis, some learned papers will have to be re-written. But, that's science for ya. Re-writes goes with the territory.
I seem to remember reading that everyone is not in agreement with H. ergaster / H. erectus, putting forth the claim that they are one in the same. No big deal. Happens all the time.
Sixdays might think that he has an argument here, but believe me, he does not. Even a rank amature like myself could flay, flense, and fillet him with this one. 
Where's ol' Six taken himself off to, anyway?
It's gotten mighty quiet without him stirring things up. Could it be that there's a sort of on-line, fundie rehab center for beat-up Creationists? If so, I'm hoping for his quick recovery and a speedy return.
f
Evolution is a bankrupt speculative philosophy, not a scientific fact. Only a spiritually bankrupt society could ever believe it.... Only atheists could accept this Satanic theory.
-- Rev. Jimmy Swaggart (source unknown)
|
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2002 : 04:40:25 [Permalink]
|
Interesting article, but I wonder what brought the creationist aspect into it. The article itself does not go into, but the link box and the poll do. One link to a creatinist site and one link to a site concerned with refuting creationist neither of wich is specially about human-evolution. The poll did not work for my browser, probably because it is a Microsoft site.
I think the creationist stuff was added to the AP article by an incompetent editor who just saw the words 'human evolution' and thought that it was natural to bring the creationism views into it.
Is this a new trent? Next time there is an article about research of new cancer treatments will they have links to homepathy and prayerhealing sites? Articles about Nasa will in the future be accompnied by links to Moonhoaxers and a link to BadAstronomy to so they can pretend to be neutral?
|
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2002 : 07:05:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It's not uncertainty, it's science.
Believe me, cretinists will trumpet anything new as uncertainty. They've done it repeatedly in the past, and we all know how predictable they are. But I sincerely hope you're right.
quote:
I doubt the creationists will touch this.
Got any children? Cretinists are like a four-year-old, without the charm. They will get their grubby little hands on everything.
quote:
All the paleontolgist is saying is that different species of the genus Homo co-existed 1.7 million years ago. Creationists believe Homo sapiens were created in our present form about 6000 years ago. If they tried to use this to support their cause they would have to accept the existence of H. ergaster, H. erectus, et al, and that the Earth is much older than 6000 years, which they certainly won't do.
Maybe it's one of those demon thingys that died in the flood. You know, satan's minions? Kinda like cath-o-lics, only older.
;^)
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2002 : 09:33:29 [Permalink]
|
Since Homo erectus was so well traveled, found in Africa, Europe, Asia and even Java,
and if Homo hablis ranged as far north as Europe, might that throw in to question the African origins of Homo erectus? Of course, I'm sure they would have to find a few more H. hablis fossils up there to even consider that. And I suppose no one is actually saying they have an H. hablis...
Just a thought. I'm not ready to publish....
The Evil Skeptic
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Sixdays
New Member
20 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2002 : 10:22:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Filthy said: But, that's science for ya. Re-writes goes with the territory.
I find it kind of ironic that the evolutionist hold onto a ..theory...with fervent desire, arguing it to the point of despair as if it were the truthfull facts...only to change then at a later date and then denouncing the theories that they held so precious.
Six days |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2002 : 10:36:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Filthy said: But, that's science for ya. Re-writes goes with the territory.
I find it kind of ironic that the evolutionist hold onto a ..theory...with fervent desire, arguing it to the point of despair as if it were the truthfull facts...only to change then at a later date and then denouncing the theories that they held so precious.
Six days
If you look a bit further you will find that it are not just evolutionists that are doing what you attempted to describe. All scientists are doing it. What you describe is in fact the scientific method.
Try it sometimes. You make a theory wich fits the facts. When new facts are observed, you try to fit them into your theory. Now comes the important part about the scientific method: If you can't fit the facts into your theory, change your theory to accommodate the facts and not the other way round.
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2002 : 15:26:28 [Permalink]
|
"I find it kind of ironic that the evolutionist hold onto a ..theory...with fervent desire, arguing it to the point of despair as if it were the truthfull facts...only to change then at a later date and then denouncing the theories that they held so precious."
-------------------------
I can't improve on Lars' reply except to remark upon how humorus it is to observe Creationists trying to twist facts to fit their hypothesis. Pretty pathetic, really. Those they can't twist, they either lie about or ignore. Check out Kent Hovind's site.
f
Evolution is a bankrupt speculative philosophy, not a scientific fact. Only a spiritually bankrupt society could ever believe it.... Only atheists could accept this Satanic theory.
-- Rev. Jimmy Swaggart (source unknown)
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2002 : 15:42:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I find it kind of ironic that the evolutionist hold onto a ..theory...with fervent desire, arguing it to the point of despair as if it were the truthfull facts...only to change then at a later date and then denouncing the theories that they held so precious.
As Lars says, that's the Scientific Method.
As for this particular finding, nothing changes with regard to evolution. Evolution is not jeopardized each time a family tree has to be rethought, based on new evidence. The tree itself is based on whatever the current information is. The new information, or evidence that has come along so far has only added to a body of knowledge that supports evolution.
Fact is, this new piece of evidence shouldn't even exist if the Biblical Model is correct. The only hominid fossil should be homo sapian if the biblical model is correct. And there shouldn't be many of those given the short period of time new earthers have calculated the earths age at, and given the very special circumstances it takes for an animal to be fossilized.
If you require absolute certainty, go ahead and believe that genesis is an accurate account of how we and all life happen to exist on this rock. I don't care. But if you want to throw stones at science, do us a favor and learn a bit about how science works. It's not up to us to teach you about science. That's up to you. If you want to look silly, that's your choice....
The Evil Skeptic
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Robert
New Member
Korea
21 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2002 : 06:02:18 [Permalink]
|
I find it ridiculous that no matter how much scientific evidence you produce, any creationist will say its all part of Gods plan or something like it!.. They think the Burdon is on the non-believer only because they themselves are to frightened of the imaginary man in the sky or because they are to afraid of their parents to dissagree with the families tradition!!
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
