An example about why I don't trust Evolutionism

[political hack]

The following link is a story, briefly put, about several skulls found near Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia (a former Russian satellite nation, I believe). These skull pre-date skulls found in Africa which only recently (last 40 years or so) and up till now was considered the cradle of life.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/a-skull-that-rewrites-the-history-of-man-1783861.html

If I had tried to make an argument that Adam and Eve were 'dumped' out of Eden in the areas now known as Iraq and Iran I would have been laughed out of the discussion. Furthermore, if I were to meet an Evolutionist today and tell him I thought the beginning of life was in that area, he would scoff at me, until he read the article. Then....Whoops.

Beyond that, any Evolutionist who attempted to convince another Evolutionist of this point would be publicly discredited before these skulls had been found.

The 'fact' that human life began in Africa would remain a fact until shown otherwise. Then when the new 'fact' was found the old 'fact' would no longer be a 'fact'.

This is why I don't trust Evolutionism. Facts are continually changing from decade to decade and generation to generation. You can't hang your hat on that.

What I do know is that the first humans were driven from Eden. Their remains and those of their progeny would only sensibly be found in the middle east and the surrounding neighborhood. How long ago? I have no idea. It's hard for me to believe 6,000 years. But, 3 million (or whatever it is now), that's just as hard. Evolutionists conveniently change their time frames to fit their theories. They then call them facts.

If you did that in a court of law you'd lose.

[Stantz]

much like your "arguments" against Evolution, this link seems to be dead.

[Mikko]

The following link is a story, briefly put, about several skulls found near Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia (a former Russian satellite nation, I believe). These skull pre-date skulls found in Africa which only recently (last 40 years or so) and up till now was considered the cradle of life.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/a-skull-that-rewrites-the-history-of-man-1783861.html

If I had tried to make an argument that Adam and Eve were 'dumped' out of Eden in the areas now known as Iraq and Iran I would have been laughed out of the discussion. Furthermore, if I were to meet an Evolutionist today and tell him I thought the beginning of life was in that area, he would scoff at me, until he read the article. Then....Whoops.

Beyond that, any Evolutionist who attempted to convince another Evolutionist of this point would be publicly discredited before these skulls had been found.

The 'fact' that human life began in Africa would remain a fact until shown otherwise. Then when the new 'fact' was found the old 'fact' would no longer be a 'fact'.

This is why I don't trust Evolutionism. Facts are continually changing from decade to decade and generation to generation. You can't hang your hat on that.

What I do know is that the first humans were driven from Eden. Their remains and those of their progeny would only sensibly be found in the middle east and the surrounding neighborhood. How long ago? I have no idea. It's hard for me to believe 6,000 years. But, 3 million (or whatever it is now), that's just as hard. Evolutionists conveniently change their time frames to fit their theories. They then call them facts.

If you did that in a court of law you'd lose.
It only shows that early humans left Africa earlier than previously thought.
Evolution stands.

[Greyclouds]

Just as a bit of friendly advice... technical discussions of the Theory of Evolution often get moved to the General Interests forum. The religious aspects of the theory apparently are ok to discuss, so long as the discussion doesn't degrade into actual technical details.

Having said that, your OP seems to BEG for technical details... and I'm really really tempted to explain some things to you...

The following link is a story, briefly put, about several skulls found near Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia (a former Russian satellite nation, I believe). These skull pre-date skulls found in Africa which only recently (last 40 years or so) and up till now was considered the cradle of life.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/a-skull-that-rewrites-the-history-of-man-1783861.html

If I had tried to make an argument that Adam and Eve were 'dumped' out of Eden in the areas now known as Iraq and Iran I would have been laughed out of the discussion. Furthermore, if I were to meet an Evolutionist today and tell him I thought the beginning of life was in that area, he would scoff at me, until he read the article. Then....Whoops.

Beyond that, any Evolutionist who attempted to convince another Evolutionist of this point would be publicly discredited before these skulls had been found.

Ah what the hell, I'll briefly address your points.

Of course this is the case. The theory of Common Ancestry is supported by DATA. Uncover new data and we check to see if the theory predicts such data, or if the theory needs revision/rejection.

As for Adam and Eve being dumped out of the garden of eden in Iraq... mitochondrial evidence seems to suggest otherwise. Homo habilis fossils still predate this early species of the genus Homo.


The 'fact' that human life began in Africa would remain a fact until shown otherwise. Then when the new 'fact' was found the old 'fact' would no longer be a 'fact'.

This is why I don't trust Evolutionism. Facts are continually changing from decade to decade and generation to generation. You can't hang your hat on that.

Isn't that more honest? I mean, INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible have been changed fairly constantly throughout the centuries! Remember Galileo? Well, the Christian church took one interpretation of the order of the universe and stuck by it until it was proven definitively incorrect. Now, the many denominations of Christianity accept that their prior notions of geocentricity are incorrect.


What I do know is that the first humans were driven from Eden. Their remains and those of their progeny would only sensibly be found in the middle east and the surrounding neighborhood. How long ago? I have no idea. It's hard for me to believe 6,000 years. But, 3 million (or whatever it is now), that's just as hard. Evolutionists conveniently change their time frames to fit their theories. They then call them facts.

If you did that in a court of law you'd lose.

Science isn't playing a "reputation game." Instead, it only seeks to uncover data to elucidate natural phenomena.

Consider this: the main argument of Darwin's Origin of Species has yet to be physically undermined. The main argument is that beneficial traits in certain environments will be better propagated due to the host organism's increased ability to mate. Change "traits" to alleles and that's about all that we've altered.

[Thor]

The following link is a story, briefly put, about several skulls found near Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia (a former Russian satellite nation, I believe). These skull pre-date skulls found in Africa which only recently (last 40 years or so) and up till now was considered the cradle of life.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/a-skull-that-rewrites-the-history-of-man-1783861.html

If I had tried to make an argument that Adam and Eve were 'dumped' out of Eden in the areas now known as Iraq and Iran I would have been laughed out of the discussion. Furthermore, if I were to meet an Evolutionist today and tell him I thought the beginning of life was in that area, he would scoff at me, until he read the article. Then....Whoops.

Beyond that, any Evolutionist who attempted to convince another Evolutionist of this point would be publicly discredited before these skulls had been found.

The 'fact' that human life began in Africa would remain a fact until shown otherwise. Then when the new 'fact' was found the old 'fact' would no longer be a 'fact'.

This is why I don't trust Evolutionism. Facts are continually changing from decade to decade and generation to generation. You can't hang your hat on that.

What I do know is that the first humans were driven from Eden. Their remains and those of their progeny would only sensibly be found in the middle east and the surrounding neighborhood. How long ago? I have no idea. It's hard for me to believe 6,000 years. But, 3 million (or whatever it is now), that's just as hard. Evolutionists conveniently change their time frames to fit their theories. They then call them facts.

If you did that in a court of law you'd lose.

So, you don't trust an objective, peer-reviewed scientific theory that has stood the test of time for 150 years? A theory that no one has been able to falsify?

Do you "trust" the germ theory of disease? Or how about gravitational theory? Or the theory of electromagnetism? Why would you not trust evolutionary theory (which has mountains of evidence to support it) but accept other scientific theories?

[Apatriot]

The following link is a story, briefly put, about several skulls found near Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia (a former Russian satellite nation, I believe). These skull pre-date skulls found in Africa which only recently (last 40 years or so) and up till now was considered the cradle of life.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/a-skull-that-rewrites-the-history-of-man-1783861.html

If I had tried to make an argument that Adam and Eve were 'dumped' out of Eden in the areas now known as Iraq and Iran I would have been laughed out of the discussion. Furthermore, if I were to meet an Evolutionist today and tell him I thought the beginning of life was in that area, he would scoff at me, until he read the article. Then....Whoops.

Beyond that, any Evolutionist who attempted to convince another Evolutionist of this point would be publicly discredited before these skulls had been found.

The 'fact' that human life began in Africa would remain a fact until shown otherwise. Then when the new 'fact' was found the old 'fact' would no longer be a 'fact'.

This is why I don't trust Evolutionism. Facts are continually changing from decade to decade and generation to generation. You can't hang your hat on that.

What I do know is that the first humans were driven from Eden. Their remains and those of their progeny would only sensibly be found in the middle east and the surrounding neighborhood. How long ago? I have no idea. It's hard for me to believe 6,000 years. But, 3 million (or whatever it is now), that's just as hard. Evolutionists conveniently change their time frames to fit their theories. They then call them facts.

If you did that in a court of law you'd lose.

Science is based on the latest knowledge. Yes, that changes, but that's the nature of science. Science is not the same as religion, nor do the two really have much to do with each other. Science attempts to explain the natural world. Religion attempts to explain our relationship with God. They rarely intersect.

[James-Jacob-Yaqub]

Dear Political Hack,

Others have answered your post most adequately but....

Please let me add to those answers by stating that science is always ready to modify it's position when it must. Indeed it has done so countless times in the past when new evidence in a certain area was found to be of such importance that it could not be ignored. If, someday, something new were discovered that required a change to the "out of Africa" model I am very sure that the change would be made. These changes are made largely by consensus before which there is much discussion and testing done by scientists from all around the world. There has to very wide agreement and attempts at disproving before a new theory is adopted.

Note: Some scientists are liberal minded and will entertain all sorts of ideas. Some are more conservative and focused from the outset. But when it comes to publishing their findings and arguing new data however, they are all very conservative and careful about what they put forward. They want to get it right! Most important is they follow the trail of discovery even when it leads where they did not think it would.

Note: Does this mean Adam and Eve were Black instead of White after all? That question should have no part in a scientific discussion. When we look to science to verify the Bible we must be mature enough to accept disappointment from time to time.

last note: My personal belief is that there is much more to be learned about the "decent of man on Earth" but I can wait for those things to be unearthed mainly because this is not my area and I do not have an authoritative voice. I still revere the Holy Bible though....

Last, last note: This recent skull finding is interesting for me because that part of the world is where my immediate family line comes from.... But I'm not going to draw any hasty conclusions or start doing back flips....

JJY

[captusa]

....../science/a-skull-that-rewrites-the-history-of-man-1783861.html[/url]

This is why I don't trust Evolutionism. Facts are continually changing from decade to decade and generation to generation. You can't hang your hat on that.

And that should be the same reason you shouldn't trust gravity.

And that should be the same reason you shouldn't trust chemistry.

And that should be the same reason you shouldn't trust medicine.

And that should be the same reason you shouldn't trust physics.

And that should be the same reason you shouldn't trust ......

[captusa]

So, you don't trust an objective, peer-reviewed scientific theory that has stood the test of time for 150 years? A theory that no one has been able to falsify?

Do you "trust" the germ theory of disease? Or how about gravitational theory? Or the theory of electromagnetism? Why would you not trust evolutionary theory (which has mountains of evidence to support it) but accept other scientific theories?

Sorry typed a redundent reply before reading all the others again.

[Aaron1122]

Look, the truth is Science is a business too. They get paid to further the research that matches the agenda of the contributors. Period. Why do think there are scientist who say there is global warming, and then there are scientist who say that there isn't.

But when it comes to bones, I don't even consider digging in the dirt a science at all. Most of it is a bunch of guesses based on a collection of information that was based on guesses as well. Its not like the study of medicine, where you know if its working by whether or not its curing diseases.

The theory's have merely been compiled on each other over the course of many years. The dirty little secret is, its impossible to say for certain if any of them are right. And if it can't be proven, is it even science at all?

This is why they'll always have to go back to the drawing board when there is a new discovery. They need to find a way to make it fit into their already existing research. Or in other words, find a way to keep their jobs. And if it doesn't fit? They mock, and ignore it....until of course, they find a way to make it fit. A good example of this is the discovery of the "hobbits" in Indonesia 2007.

[ChangeYouCanChokeOn]

It's my understanding that Darwin and his cousin or brother (can't remember which) promoted eugenics (ie ethnic "cleansing"). Has anyone ever heard this about Darwin? Is this a fact about him that has become buried in history and/or conveniently ignored? Or is this an open secret and people don't care about the message they are giving when they put those little Darwin morphed-fish thingies on the backs of their cars? I'm curious about this.

[biggles53]

Look, the truth is Science is a business too. They get paid to further the research that matches the agenda of the contributors. Period. Why do think there are scientist who say there is global warming, and then there are scientist who say that there isn't.

And one of the best ways to shine in that 'business' is to bring forward strong evidence to overturn a current theory. So, forget about "agenda"s - you falsify a theory with EVIDENCE and the "agenda" is all yours!

But when it comes to bones, I don't even consider digging in the dirt a science at all. Most of it is a bunch of guesses based on a collection of information that was based on guesses as well. Its not like the study of medicine, where you know if its working by whether or not its curing diseases.

Hmmmm....done a lot of science have you...?

The theory's have merely been compiled on each other over the course of many years. The dirty little secret is, its impossible to say for certain if any of them are right. And if it can't be proven, is it even science at all?

Ummm...yes it is! NOTHING is EVER "proven" in science! The 'door' is always left open for advances in knowledge to be admitted.

This is why they'll always have to go back to the drawing board when there is a new discovery. They need to find a way to make it fit into their already existing research. Or in other words, find a way to keep their jobs. And if it doesn't fit? They mock, and ignore it....until of course, they find a way to make it fit. A good example of this is the discovery of the "hobbits" in Indonesia 2007.

Again, your knowledge of how science works seems to be very poor. The best way to make a name for yourself and to "keep your job" is to find a means of disproving a current theory. The world will beat a path to your door, you'll probably win a Nobel Prize, and never have to worry about paying your bills again...!

[biggles53]

It's my understanding that Darwin and his cousin or brother (can't remember which) promoted eugenics (ie ethnic "cleansing"). Has anyone ever heard this about Darwin? Is this a fact about him that has become buried in history and/or conveniently ignored? Or is this an open secret and people don't care about the message they are giving when they put those little Darwin morphed-fish thingies on the backs of their cars? I'm curious about this.

OR, could it simply be a re-hash of a common lie peddled by the
pro-creationism crowd......?

[davetexas]

The following link is a story, briefly put, about several skulls found near Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia (a former Russian satellite nation, I believe). These skull pre-date skulls found in Africa which only recently (last 40 years or so) and up till now was considered the cradle of life.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/a-skull-that-rewrites-the-history-of-man-1783861.html

If I had tried to make an argument that Adam and Eve were 'dumped' out of Eden in the areas now known as Iraq and Iran I would have been laughed out of the discussion. Furthermore, if I were to meet an Evolutionist today and tell him I thought the beginning of life was in that area, he would scoff at me, until he read the article. Then....Whoops.

Beyond that, any Evolutionist who attempted to convince another Evolutionist of this point would be publicly discredited before these skulls had been found.

The 'fact' that human life began in Africa would remain a fact until shown otherwise. Then when the new 'fact' was found the old 'fact' would no longer be a 'fact'.

This is why I don't trust Evolutionism. Facts are continually changing from decade to decade and generation to generation. You can't hang your hat on that.

What I do know is that the first humans were driven from Eden. Their remains and those of their progeny would only sensibly be found in the middle east and the surrounding neighborhood. How long ago? I have no idea. It's hard for me to believe 6,000 years. But, 3 million (or whatever it is now), that's just as hard. Evolutionists conveniently change their time frames to fit their theories. They then call them facts.

If you did that in a court of law you'd lose.

Well they actually have found an ape woman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7GZCgjE2H0&feature=related

[davetexas]

here is an example of modern science and new information taking evolution science into a new level

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yety93hLtys&NR=1

[Aaron1122]

And one of the best ways to shine in that 'business' is to bring forward strong evidence to overturn a current theory. So, forget about "agenda"s - you falsify a theory with EVIDENCE and the "agenda" is all yours!



Hmmmm....done a lot of science have you...?



Ummm...yes it is! NOTHING is EVER "proven" in science! The 'door' is always left open for advances in knowledge to be admitted.



Again, your knowledge of how science works seems to be very poor. The best way to make a name for yourself and to "keep your job" is to find a means of disproving a current theory. The world will beat a path to your door, you'll probably win a Nobel Prize, and never have to worry about paying your bills again...!


Almost everything you just wrote is completely wrong sir. Which leads me to believe you have some stake somewhere in the scientific community and are completely uninformed or...your just not intelligent enough to understand how a business that is powered by a small number of fellow colleagues actually works...... I'm going to share your comments with the rest of my family. They'll get a kick out of it. Thanks for the laugh.:lol:

[biggles53]

Almost everything you just wrote is completely wrong sir.

Then, by all means, please educate me......

Which leads me to believe you have some stake somewhere in the scientific community

your "belief" is unfounded...

and are completely uninformed

again, you're way off mark....

or...your just not intelligent enough to understand how a business that is powered by a small number of fellow colleagues actually works......

I've had my intelligence measured several times, and I run a small business quite successfully - sorry but your batting average so far qualifies you as water boy.....

I'm going to share your comments with the rest of my family. They'll get a kick out of it. Thanks for the laugh.:lol:

Always happy to oblige....

Come back anytime you have something worthwhile to contribute......:rolleyes:

[biggles53]

here is an example of modern science and new information taking evolution science into a new level

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yety93hLtys&NR=1

Dave, you do your 'case' no service at all by trotting out one of the more discredited of the creationists ploys.

A couple of things you should realise....

1. Those frauds were discovered and corrected by SCIENTISTS! That's how science works. It doggedly keeps testing and re-testing data, and if that data is found to be at fault, or is countered by new data, then science rejects the earlier proposition. This is what happened with the so-called Piltdown Man, et al....

2. Creationists can point to maybe a half dozen cases of where fraudulent activity was used as an attempt to steer scientific thought in a particular direction. Weigh that against the (literally) hundreds of thousands of published peer-reviewed papers that make up the collected thought on biological study. Your 'gotcha' moments look pretty puny don't they....?

[Aaron1122]

Then, by all means, please educate me......



your "belief" is unfounded...



again, you're way off mark....



I've had my intelligence measured several times, and I run a small business quite successfully - sorry but your batting average so far qualifies you as water boy.....



Always happy to oblige....

Come back anytime you have something worthwhile to contribute......:rolleyes:

Sir...You've challenged me with contributing something worthwhile. But you haven't contributed anything other than name calling, while having some kind of weird unearned arrogant attitude. If I wanted to talk to somebody like that I'd call my teen nephew. Wait....is this Cody?

Oh, I own several businesses.....so....nah nah nah...nah...nah...nah:rolleyes: :dance:

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I can't wait to share that one with my family as well.... thanks for the chuckle, I needed that today.

[biggles53]

Sir...You've challenged me with contributing something worthwhile. But you haven't contributed anything other than name calling, while having some kind of weird unearned arrogant attitude. If I wanted to talk to somebody like that I'd call my teen nephew. Wait....is this Cody?

Uncle Ernie....??? Oh my god..........!!

Contributed nothing? I've briefly pointed out to you how the scientific process works, particularly with regard to peer review. If you choose to gloss over it.....well.....

Oh, I own several businesses.....so....nah nah nah...nah...nah...nah:rolleyes: :dance:

Good for you. So the comment about being ignorant of how business works would be equally inapplicable to BOTH of us....wouldn't it?

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I can't wait to share that one with my family as well.... thanks for the chuckle, I needed that today.

Love to see a man happy in his work........

[Thor]

Sir...You've challenged me with contributing something worthwhile. But you haven't contributed anything other than name calling,

I don't see where he called you a name.

[Apatriot]

It's my understanding that Darwin and his cousin or brother (can't remember which) promoted eugenics (ie ethnic "cleansing"). Has anyone ever heard this about Darwin? Is this a fact about him that has become buried in history and/or conveniently ignored? Or is this an open secret and people don't care about the message they are giving when they put those little Darwin morphed-fish thingies on the backs of their cars? I'm curious about this.

Darwin knew that traits were inherited. His half-cousin Francis Galton coined the term Eugenics after Darwin's death. Darwin was disturbed by his cousin's suggestion that a caste of gifted people stick to having offspring with others in the caste. Darwin recognized that education and environment were an important factor in human upbringing, not just heredity. In other words, Darwin rejected the idea of eugenics.

It sounds to me like creationists are using the ad hominem attack to great effect.

[Apatriot]

Almost everything you just wrote is completely wrong sir. Which leads me to believe you have some stake somewhere in the scientific community and are completely uninformed or...your just not intelligent enough to understand how a business that is powered by a small number of fellow colleagues actually works...... I'm going to share your comments with the rest of my family. They'll get a kick out of it. Thanks for the laugh.:lol:


I have no stake in the scientific community any more (I was once a grad student in science, though). The earlier poster was right. The best way to make a name for yourself as a scientist is to prove others totally wrong. On the other hand, the best way to ruin a career as a scientist is to attempt but fail in proving others wrong. It's a balance. However, that said, in general, if you have the evidence to support it, science supports changing theories.

I went to college in the early/mid 80s. I took a geology class during my senior year. Plate tectonics was the major unifying theory in geology at that time (and still at this time). I like used book stores, and I bought a used geology text from about 1978. It had no mention of plate tectonics. The advent of plate tectonics did not cause it's discoverers any problems, despite the fact that they did turn things on their heads. Why? Evidence. The plate tectonics folks had plenty of evidence to prove their points, and from being an almost heretical view in the 1950s, it became the prevailing view by the 1980s.

[davetexas]

Dave, you do your 'case' no service at all by trotting out one of the more discredited of the creationists ploys.

A couple of things you should realise....

1. Those frauds were discovered and corrected by SCIENTISTS! That's how science works. It doggedly keeps testing and re-testing data, and if that data is found to be at fault, or is countered by new data, then science rejects the earlier proposition. This is what happened with the so-called Piltdown Man, et al....

2. Creationists can point to maybe a half dozen cases of where fraudulent activity was used as an attempt to steer scientific thought in a particular direction. Weigh that against the (literally) hundreds of thousands of published peer-reviewed papers that make up the collected thought on biological study. Your 'gotcha' moments look pretty puny don't they....?


So,the science of placing a pig jaw on a human skull for effect is science?
The human hands and feet ascribed and molded erroneously onto Lucy is science?

[Apatriot]

So,the science of placing a pig jaw on a human skull for effect is science?
The human hands and feet ascribed and molded erroneously onto Lucy is science?


Science is what discovered the fraud about the pig jaw on a human skull, and pointed it out.

[davetexas]

Science is what discovered the fraud about the pig jaw on a human skull, and pointed it out.


I am now convinced.
So much trouble to undo something so silly.

When that one "scientist" hid those bones under his bed,did some scientist find them?

I am having trouble understanding how scientists exposing fraudulent scientists is science,and then that somehow adds credibility?

Am I a scientist?

[Greyclouds]

Look, the truth is Science is a business too. They get paid to further the research that matches the agenda of the contributors. Period. Why do think there are scientist who say there is global warming, and then there are scientist who say that there isn't.

There's academic research and there's private industry research. Academia has some leeway to study model organisms whereas industry demands more pressing subjects be studied. There are climatologists working for NASA and climatologists who are professors at college, for example.

The climatologist that provides evidence that current climate models predicting global warming are wrong, gets published and recognition. It's how science works.


But when it comes to bones, I don't even consider digging in the dirt a science at all. Most of it is a bunch of guesses based on a collection of information that was based on guesses as well. Its not like the study of medicine, where you know if its working by whether or not its curing diseases.

Most drug targets are cell surface receptor proteins; many of which are still hypothetical. We still know only a little about secondary messenger systems in the human body, so medicine is not quite so black and white as you claim it is.

Also, evolutionary biology has progressed FAR beyond "digging bones." We have mountains of genetic evidence, including the 40% of your genome that encodes mobile genetic elements that are remnants from the common ancestor we have with apes.


The theory's have merely been compiled on each other over the course of many years. The dirty little secret is, its impossible to say for certain if any of them are right.

Hence the term, "theory." It shows a willingness on the part of scientists to apply constant scrutiny to existing theories to test their validity in the face of new data.


And if it can't be proven, is it even science at all?

Yep. Quantum theory is a very involving scientific pursuit. We have yet to fully observe all of the dynamics of electrons and subatomic particles. We might never be able to accurately conceptualize the Higgs Boson.



This is why they'll always have to go back to the drawing board when there is a new discovery. They need to find a way to make it fit into their already existing research. Or in other words, find a way to keep their jobs. And if it doesn't fit? They mock, and ignore it....until of course, they find a way to make it fit. A good example of this is the discovery of the "hobbits" in Indonesia 2007.

Really...

Why was it that Richard Dawkins made a huge name for himself when he redefined evolutionary theory to better use the GENE instead of the ORGANISM as prior conceptions of the theory were short-sighted?

Why was it that Hershey and Chase made a huge name for themselves when they discovered that DNA instead of protein (as it was popularly thought) was the hereditary material? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hershey-Chase_experiment

Theories get smashed all the time; scientists don't lose their jobs in those cases, nor do they try to save the theory in every regard.

[Apatriot]

I am now convinced.
So much trouble to undo something so silly.

When that one "scientist" hid those bones under his bed,did some scientist find them?

Who hid bones under his bed?

I am having trouble understanding how scientists exposing fraudulent scientists is science,and then that somehow adds credibility?

This is a basic part of the scientific method as usually taught in middle school.

Part of science is repeatibility. In the case of Piltdown man or Nebraska man (not sure which you're talking about, as Piltdown involved a fraudulent orangutan jaw and a human skull, while Nebraska man was built from a pig tooth), scientists reexamined the evidence, and came out with a different conclusion. In case of Piltdown, the fossils (and the faked fossils )were examined 40 yrs later, and found to be a fraud. In the case of Nebraska man, it only took about 5 yrs to come to the conclusion that without a doubt it was a pig molar. The "reconstruction" of Nebraska man was not a scientific one, but done for a magazine. Also, from the start many doubted Nebraska man.

Science, as you see, polices itself, by the reexamination of evidence. Mistakes are corrected by science, not by outside forces.

Am I a scientist?

At times you probably are.

[ChangeYouCanChokeOn]

Darwin knew that traits were inherited. His half-cousin Francis Galton coined the term Eugenics after Darwin's death. Darwin was disturbed by his cousin's suggestion that a caste of gifted people stick to having offspring with others in the caste. Darwin recognized that education and environment were an important factor in human upbringing, not just heredity. In other words, Darwin rejected the idea of eugenics.

It sounds to me like creationists are using the ad hominem attack to great effect.

Thanks for the info; I'll consider it. Want to do some additional research. I don't think "creationists" used anything to great effect. Heck, if it was THAT impressive, I would've remembered more.

[captusa]

Who hid bones under his bed?



This is a basic part of the scientific method as usually taught in middle school.

Part of science is repeatibility. In the case of Piltdown man or Nebraska man (not sure which you're talking about, as Piltdown involved a fraudulent orangutan jaw and a human skull, while Nebraska man was built from a pig tooth), scientists reexamined the evidence, and came out with a different conclusion. In case of Piltdown, the fossils (and the faked fossils )were examined 40 yrs later, and found to be a fraud. In the case of Nebraska man, it only took about 5 yrs to come to the conclusion that without a doubt it was a pig molar. The "reconstruction" of Nebraska man was not a scientific one, but done for a magazine. Also, from the start many doubted Nebraska man.

Science, as you see, polices itself, by the reexamination of evidence. Mistakes are corrected by science, not by outside forces.



At times you probably are.

One famous hoax was the Cardiff Giant where someone planted a granite statue claiming it was a fossil from the time in the Bible when their were giants.
LOTS OF PEOPLE COMMIT FRAUDS.

[cobra]

Rofl, Wow the scrubs of the scientific realm continue to amaze me with thier ignorant logic, talking points and rank rhetoric. The theory of gravity can be tested, doesn't take a Einstein to do that. The theory of evolution can not be tested to prove its accurate, it can only be tested to prove it as major failage. Try taking a fish out of water for 10 mins, ...... what's next? grow lungs and legs and run on land? hmmm not a chance. Death is what happens next, now take that fish out of water for millions of years. What do you have then? A rotting carcuss, exactly. Insects grew wings to escape reptiles, so they then chased the insects for millions of years so they could turn into birds, to then just turn around and hunt mice, worms, and other ground restricted insects? Come on Now my 5 year old has a more inteligent imagination than that. If it takes reptiles a million years of chasing insects in order to grow wings to fly, then how did they survive that long w/o food? Oh let me guess chasing flying insects was just a hobby of thiers that turned into a sport, that turned them into a bird. meanwhile they ate grubs to sustain thier body? Nope they ate insects then just as they do now, birds are a totally different creation. Yes different animals do have similar traits, but doesnt Picaso's work look alike? and Bethoven's music sound alike? Creations from the same creator tend to have similar characteristics, because well they came from the same mind. If evolutionist want to believe some man's imagination thats fine with me, just dont say its fact, the same way the God I believe is based of faith. There is evidence that I assume for myself to support God but others may not, but the bottom line is that it is based on faith. And so it is with evolution, it requires faith to believe in. Atleast with God you'll find out one day whether he exist or not, unless ofcourse he doesnt and you just cease to exist after life, but with evolution, it will never be proven true.

[markd]

Rofl, Wow the scrubs of the scientific realm continue to amaze me with thier ignorant logic, talking points and rank rhetoric. The theory of gravity can be tested, doesn't take a Einstein to do that. The theory of evolution can not be tested to prove its accurate, it can only be tested to prove it as major failage. Try taking a fish out of water for 10 mins, ...... what's next? grow lungs and legs and run on land? hmmm not a chance. Death is what happens next, now take that fish out of water for millions of years. What do you have then? A rotting carcuss, exactly. Insects grew wings to escape reptiles, so they then chased the insects for millions of years so they could turn into birds, to then just turn around and hunt mice, worms, and other ground restricted insects? Come on Now my 5 year old has a more inteligent imagination than that. If it takes reptiles a million years of chasing insects in order to grow wings to fly, then how did they survive that long w/o food? Oh let me guess chasing flying insects was just a hobby of thiers that turned into a sport, that turned them into a bird. meanwhile they ate grubs to sustain thier body? Nope they ate insects then just as they do now, birds are a totally different creation. Yes different animals do have similar traits, but doesnt Picaso's work look alike? and Bethoven's music sound alike? Creations from the same creator tend to have similar characteristics, because well they came from the same mind. If evolutionist want to believe some man's imagination thats fine with me, just dont say its fact, the same way the God I believe is based of faith. There is evidence that I assume for myself to support God but others may not, but the bottom line is that it is based on faith. And so it is with evolution, it requires faith to believe in. Atleast with God you'll find out one day whether he exist or not, unless ofcourse he doesnt and you just cease to exist after life, but with evolution, it will never be proven true.Welp, that'll be the thread killer du jour.

[gpd®]

Rofl, Wow the scrubs of the scientific realm continue to amaze me with thier ignorant logic, talking points and rank rhetoric. The theory of gravity can be tested, doesn't take a Einstein to do that. The theory of evolution can not be tested to prove its accurate, it can only be tested to prove it as major failage. Try taking a fish out of water for 10 mins, ...... what's next? grow lungs and legs and run on land? hmmm not a chance. Death is what happens next, now take that fish out of water for millions of years. What do you have then? A rotting carcuss, exactly. Insects grew wings to escape reptiles, so they then chased the insects for millions of years so they could turn into birds, to then just turn around and hunt mice, worms, and other ground restricted insects? Come on Now my 5 year old has a more inteligent imagination than that. If it takes reptiles a million years of chasing insects in order to grow wings to fly, then how did they survive that long w/o food? Oh let me guess chasing flying insects was just a hobby of thiers that turned into a sport, that turned them into a bird. meanwhile they ate grubs to sustain thier body? Nope they ate insects then just as they do now, birds are a totally different creation. Yes different animals do have similar traits, but doesnt Picaso's work look alike? and Bethoven's music sound alike? Creations from the same creator tend to have similar characteristics, because well they came from the same mind. If evolutionist want to believe some man's imagination thats fine with me, just dont say its fact, the same way the God I believe is based of faith. There is evidence that I assume for myself to support God but others may not, but the bottom line is that it is based on faith. And so it is with evolution, it requires faith to believe in. Atleast with God you'll find out one day whether he exist or not, unless ofcourse he doesnt and you just cease to exist after life, but with evolution, it will never be proven true.

Whooah doggy! Welcome to the forum, feel free to chill a bit though.

[AeroEngineer]

Rofl, Wow the scrubs of the scientific realm continue to amaze me with thier ignorant logic, talking points and rank rhetoric. The theory of gravity can be tested, doesn't take a Einstein to do that. The theory of evolution can not be tested to prove its accurate, it can only be tested to prove it as major failage. Try taking a fish out of water for 10 mins, ...... what's next? grow lungs and legs and run on land? hmmm not a chance. Death is what happens next, now take that fish out of water for millions of years. What do you have then? A rotting carcuss, exactly. Insects grew wings to escape reptiles, so they then chased the insects for millions of years so they could turn into birds, to then just turn around and hunt mice, worms, and other ground restricted insects? Come on Now my 5 year old has a more inteligent imagination than that. If it takes reptiles a million years of chasing insects in order to grow wings to fly, then how did they survive that long w/o food? Oh let me guess chasing flying insects was just a hobby of thiers that turned into a sport, that turned them into a bird. meanwhile they ate grubs to sustain thier body? Nope they ate insects then just as they do now, birds are a totally different creation. Yes different animals do have similar traits, but doesnt Picaso's work look alike? and Bethoven's music sound alike? Creations from the same creator tend to have similar characteristics, because well they came from the same mind. If evolutionist want to believe some man's imagination thats fine with me, just dont say its fact, the same way the God I believe is based of faith. There is evidence that I assume for myself to support God but others may not, but the bottom line is that it is based on faith. And so it is with evolution, it requires faith to believe in. Atleast with God you'll find out one day whether he exist or not, unless ofcourse he doesnt and you just cease to exist after life, but with evolution, it will never be proven true.


You CANNOT be serious?

[markd]

You CANNOT be serious?ALways interesting, isn't it?:D

[biggles53]

You CANNOT be serious?



Yep....I'm calling 'poe' on this one....

[natalie addict]

Rofl, Wow the scrubs of the scientific realm continue to amaze me with thier ignorant logic, talking points and rank rhetoric. The theory of gravity can be tested, doesn't take a Einstein to do that. The theory of evolution can not be tested to prove its accurate, it can only be tested to prove it as major failage. Try taking a fish out of water for 10 mins, ...... what's next? grow lungs and legs and run on land? hmmm not a chance. Death is what happens next, now take that fish out of water for millions of years. What do you have then? A rotting carcuss, exactly. Insects grew wings to escape reptiles, so they then chased the insects for millions of years so they could turn into birds, to then just turn around and hunt mice, worms, and other ground restricted insects? Come on Now my 5 year old has a more inteligent imagination than that. If it takes reptiles a million years of chasing insects in order to grow wings to fly, then how did they survive that long w/o food? Oh let me guess chasing flying insects was just a hobby of thiers that turned into a sport, that turned them into a bird. meanwhile they ate grubs to sustain thier body? Nope they ate insects then just as they do now, birds are a totally different creation. Yes different animals do have similar traits, but doesnt Picaso's work look alike? and Bethoven's music sound alike? Creations from the same creator tend to have similar characteristics, because well they came from the same mind. If evolutionist want to believe some man's imagination thats fine with me, just dont say its fact, the same way the God I believe is based of faith. There is evidence that I assume for myself to support God but others may not, but the bottom line is that it is based on faith. And so it is with evolution, it requires faith to believe in. Atleast with God you'll find out one day whether he exist or not, unless ofcourse he doesnt and you just cease to exist after life, but with evolution, it will never be proven true.

You must not be familar with enough of of Beethoven's works then. You wouldn't have to look any further than his string quartets.

[RayMan]

Rofl, Wow the scrubs of the scientific realm continue to amaze me with thier ignorant logic, talking points and rank rhetoric. The theory of gravity can be tested, doesn't take a Einstein to do that. The theory of evolution can not be tested to prove its accurate, it can only be tested to prove it as major failage. Try taking a fish out of water for 10 mins, ...... what's next? grow lungs and legs and run on land? hmmm not a chance. Death is what happens next, now take that fish out of water for millions of years. What do you have then? A rotting carcuss, exactly. Insects grew wings to escape reptiles, so they then chased the insects for millions of years so they could turn into birds, to then just turn around and hunt mice, worms, and other ground restricted insects? Come on Now my 5 year old has a more inteligent imagination than that. If it takes reptiles a million years of chasing insects in order to grow wings to fly, then how did they survive that long w/o food? Oh let me guess chasing flying insects was just a hobby of thiers that turned into a sport, that turned them into a bird. meanwhile they ate grubs to sustain thier body? Nope they ate insects then just as they do now, birds are a totally different creation. Yes different animals do have similar traits, but doesnt Picaso's work look alike? and Bethoven's music sound alike? Creations from the same creator tend to have similar characteristics, because well they came from the same mind. If evolutionist want to believe some man's imagination thats fine with me, just dont say its fact, the same way the God I believe is based of faith. There is evidence that I assume for myself to support God but others may not, but the bottom line is that it is based on faith. And so it is with evolution, it requires faith to believe in. Atleast with God you'll find out one day whether he exist or not, unless ofcourse he doesnt and you just cease to exist after life, but with evolution, it will never be proven true.




Are you familiar with the concept of the paragraph?

[biggles53]

Are you familiar with the concept of the paragraph?

And the dictionary....??....."failage"?????

[Meriweather]

We get to keep this thread here if it remains civil. I'll feed it and brush it and pet it; take it for a run, maybe...

Can I keep it, huh? Huh? Please? It followed me home.

[RayMan]

And the dictionary....??....."failage"?????

He may be a progressive neologist.

From the Urban Dictionary:

1. failage

A mass amount of fail that can happen anywhere at anytime that is being watched, talked about, and or made fun of by someone or something.

[biggles53]

We get to keep this thread here if it remains civil. I'll feed it and brush it and pet it; take it for a run, maybe...

Can I keep it, huh? Huh? Please? It followed me home.

Weeeellll.......OK. But it's up to you to give it 3 squares and to make sure its paper is changed regularly.....!

[Meriweather]

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/resources/online/2003/grade10/math/p41no13.gif

Here we go then. Three squares on clean paper.

[natalie addict]

We get to keep this thread here if it remains civil. I'll feed it and brush it and pet it; take it for a run, maybe...

Can I keep it, huh? Huh? Please? It followed me home.

This is as civil as taking someone behind the woodshed and saying this is going to hurt me more than you...

[biggles53]

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/resources/online/2003/grade10/math/p41no13.gif

Here we go then. Three squares on clean paper.

Nyuk, nyuk......

[Meriweather]

Someone gets my sense of humor. ;)

[Clintville]

Evolutionists conveniently change their time frames to fit their theories. They then call them facts.

Sorry, that is the way science works.

And no, their are fossils of the predecessors of man much older than this.

[Clintville]

And if it can't be proven, is it even science at all?

You don't understand science, do you?

[Clintville]

Rofl, Wow the scrubs of the scientific realm continue to amaze me with thier ignorant logic, talking points and rank rhetoric. The theory of gravity can be tested, doesn't take a Einstein to do that. The theory of evolution can not be tested to prove its accurate, it can only be tested to prove it as major failage. Try taking a fish out of water for 10 mins, ...... what's next? grow lungs and legs and run on land? hmmm not a chance. Death is what happens next, now take that fish out of water for millions of years. What do you have then? A rotting carcuss, exactly. Insects grew wings to escape reptiles, so they then chased the insects for millions of years so they could turn into birds, to then just turn around and hunt mice, worms, and other ground restricted insects? Come on Now my 5 year old has a more inteligent imagination than that. If it takes reptiles a million years of chasing insects in order to grow wings to fly, then how did they survive that long w/o food? Oh let me guess chasing flying insects was just a hobby of thiers that turned into a sport, that turned them into a bird. meanwhile they ate grubs to sustain thier body? Nope they ate insects then just as they do now, birds are a totally different creation. Yes different animals do have similar traits, but doesnt Picaso's work look alike? and Bethoven's music sound alike? Creations from the same creator tend to have similar characteristics, because well they came from the same mind. If evolutionist want to believe some man's imagination thats fine with me, just dont say its fact, the same way the God I believe is based of faith. There is evidence that I assume for myself to support God but others may not, but the bottom line is that it is based on faith. And so it is with evolution, it requires faith to believe in. Atleast with God you'll find out one day whether he exist or not, unless ofcourse he doesnt and you just cease to exist after life, but with evolution, it will never be proven true.

Please go pick up a ninth grade textbook and then come back.

[biggles53]

This is going to sound snobbish, but I honestly don't intend it to be so...

But, really, is the level of science education in your country, particularly the biological sciences, as poor as the comments of some posters here would indicate....??

Apart from dishonest types like Ken Ham pushing their own agenda, I don't see the same level of misunderstanding here in Oz....?

[captusa]

This is going to sound snobbish, but I honestly don't intend it to be so...

But, really, is the level of science education in your country, particularly the biological sciences, as poor as the comments of some posters here would indicate....??

Apart from dishonest types like Ken Ham pushing their own agenda, I don't see the same level of misunderstanding here in Oz....?

Why has India surpassed us in science degrees per capita and filling our engineering schools when there are an insuffciency of qualified American applicants ?

How often have you heard Conservatives complain about the educated elitists ?

[captusa]

Originally Posted by cobra
Rofl, Wow the scrubs of the scientific realm continue to amaze me with thier ignorant logic, talking points and rank rhetoric. The theory of gravity can be tested, doesn't take a Einstein to do that.
...............
I am not amazed by statements made about science by people ignorant of the subject.
If they knew a little bit about science they probably would not make ignorant statements.
Its history and methods they would not make statements that demonstrate their ignorance.


It did take an Einstein to develope the present theory of gravity.
Einstein proved his theory of gravity logically.
It required several astronomers around the world observing the eclipse of the sun to provide an experimental example of it and that was long after Einstein developed it.

It took a Newton to develop Newton's theory of Gravity.

Atristole's theory of gravity was tested and his theory was confirmed by testing.
Unfortunately it was wrong.
If you are not familiar with Aristotle's theory of gravity it explained why heavier things fall faster than than lighter things.
It took a Galelio to disprove Aristotle's theory of Gravity.
It took a Pasteur to disprove Aristotle's observed theory of spontaneous generation of insects.

[AeroEngineer]

I am not amazed by statements made about science by people ignorant of the subject.
If they knew a little bit about science they probably would not make ignorant statements.
Its history and methods they would not make statements that demonstrate their ignorance.


It did take an Einstein to develope the present theory of gravity.
Einstein proved his theory of gravity logically.
It required several astronomers around the world observing the eclipse of the sun to provide an experimental example of it and that was long after Einstein developed it.

It took a Newton to develop Newton's theory of Gravity.

Atristole's theory of gravity was tested and his theory was confirmed by testing.
Unfortunately it was wrong.
If you are not familiar with Aristotle's theory of gravity it explained why heavier things fall faster than than lighter things.
It took a Galelio to disprove Aristotle's theory of Gravity.
It took a Pasteur to disprove Aristotle's observed theory of spontaneous generation of insects.

I guess you're not familiar with Cletus' Theory of Abiogenesis?

[captusa]

I guess you're not familiar with Cletus' Theory of Abiogenesis?

I am unaware of specific theories of ambiogenesis but while large portion of biologists accept ambiogenesis it is not relevent to the theory of evolution which deals with how existing life forms evolved.
Greycloud is the one with the expertise in biology.
My knowledge is relatively eclectic with the main grounding in mathematics.

[Clintville]

But, really, is the level of science education in your country, particularly the biological sciences, as poor as the comments of some posters here would indicate....??

I don't see anything in today's science classes that would make people deny evolution or any other accepted theories. I think the evolution deniers are declining, a dying breed. Only the most stubborn religious kids will deny it (I have never seen anyone actively in school). Of course, I do live in California, things may be different in other states, I know some counties and maybe a state or two have tried and sometimes succeeded in getting "Intelligent Design" (a scientific sounding name for creationism) to be taught along evolution. And there was that whole "sticker on textbook" controversy somewhere.

It isn't so much the education system, just the deeply stubborn religious and conservative people in parts of our country.

Of course, I am not saying our education system is great, it might not be. It just doesn't try and deny evolution.

[AeroEngineer]

I am unaware of specific theories of ambiogenesis but while large portion of biologists accept ambiogenesis it is not relevent to the theory of evolution which deals with how existing life forms evolved.
Greycloud is the one with the expertise in biology.
My knowledge is relatively eclectic with the main grounding in mathematics.

That was a joke. :-P

[biggles53]

I don't see anything in today's science classes that would make people deny evolution or any other accepted theories. I think the evolution deniers are declining, a dying breed. Only the most stubborn religious kids will deny it (I have never seen anyone actively in school). Of course, I do live in California, things may be different in other states, I know some counties and maybe a state or two have tried and sometimes succeeded in getting "Intelligent Design" (a scientific sounding name for creationism) to be taught along evolution. And there was that whole "sticker on textbook" controversy somewhere.

It isn't so much the education system, just the deeply stubborn religious and conservative people in parts of our country.

Of course, I am not saying our education system is great, it might not be. It just doesn't try and deny evolution.

Thanks mate.

[Greyclouds]

This is going to sound snobbish, but I honestly don't intend it to be so...

But, really, is the level of science education in your country, particularly the biological sciences, as poor as the comments of some posters here would indicate....??

Apart from dishonest types like Ken Ham pushing their own agenda, I don't see the same level of misunderstanding here in Oz....?

I don't believe that science education is exactly "absent" in our nation, but it is under-emphasized.

Couple this with the fact that many people feel obliged to express their opinion without any background knowledge (which is their constitutional right, mind you!) and I can see where that misconception comes from.

[Marleysdaddy]

The following link is a story, briefly put, about several skulls found near Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia (a former Russian satellite nation, I believe). These skull pre-date skulls found in Africa which only recently (last 40 years or so) and up till now was considered the cradle of life.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/a-skull-that-rewrites-the-history-of-man-1783861.html

If I had tried to make an argument that Adam and Eve were 'dumped' out of Eden in the areas now known as Iraq and Iran I would have been laughed out of the discussion. Furthermore, if I were to meet an Evolutionist today and tell him I thought the beginning of life was in that area, he would scoff at me, until he read the article. Then....Whoops.

Beyond that, any Evolutionist who attempted to convince another Evolutionist of this point would be publicly discredited before these skulls had been found.

The 'fact' that human life began in Africa would remain a fact until shown otherwise. Then when the new 'fact' was found the old 'fact' would no longer be a 'fact'.

This is why I don't trust Evolutionism. Facts are continually changing from decade to decade and generation to generation. You can't hang your hat on that.

What I do know is that the first humans were driven from Eden. Their remains and those of their progeny would only sensibly be found in the middle east and the surrounding neighborhood. How long ago? I have no idea. It's hard for me to believe 6,000 years. But, 3 million (or whatever it is now), that's just as hard. Evolutionists conveniently change their time frames to fit their theories. They then call them facts.

If you did that in a court of law you'd lose.

I know it sounds crazy, but scientific theories have to change in light of new evidence - that's the core strength of the entire discipline called Science.

[Marleysdaddy]

And if it can't be proven, is it even science at all?

Actually, if it CAN be proven, it most certainly ISN'T science...science can never yield absolute certainty, i.e. "proof"

[captusa]

I don't believe that science education is exactly "absent" in our nation, but it is under-emphasized.

Couple this with the fact that many people feel obliged to express their opinion without any background knowledge (which is their constitutional right, mind you!) and I can see where that misconception comes from.

I repeat myself.
One of man's most basic rights IS the right to be stupid.
Unfortunately too many people take it as a mandate.

I just found some thoughts plagerized from Archie the Cockroach:
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis (1878 - 1937)
An idea isn't responsible for the people who believe in it.
Don Marquis (1878 - 1937)

[Marleysdaddy]

If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you...Don Marquis (1878 - 1937)

This is the main concept propping up the small but growing movement of anti-intellectualism which is gnawing at the foundations of this society.

[RayMan]

This is the main concept propping up the small but growing movement of anti-intellectualism which is gnawing at the foundations of this society.

Or at least you think that it is. :angel:

[captusa]

Or at least you think that it is. :angel:

Or as DesCartes' idiot uncle said,
"I think I think therefore I think I am."

[RayMan]

Or as DesCartes' idiot uncle said,
"I think I think therefore I think I am."

:)) :clap: