Milk-Drops
Member
Thanks Sinthesis, it makes a lot more sense that Radon would seep into granite after it formed and decay into Polonium.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
[_ Old Earth _] Science
- Thread starter Corn Pop
- Start date
Barbarian
Member
The whole structure of Gentry's argument falls apart on one simple fact.
He claims the polonium halos are there because the granite in which they are found is the primordial granite, from the moment of creation.
Unfortunately for his argument, the granite turned out to be intrusive, flowing into faults in earlier sedimentary rock (rock formed by the accumulation of eroded particles of rock.
Obviously, such granite cannot be primordial, unless God habitually fakes evidence of things that never were.
So either Gentry is right, or God is truthful. Not much of a choice, is it?
He claims the polonium halos are there because the granite in which they are found is the primordial granite, from the moment of creation.
Unfortunately for his argument, the granite turned out to be intrusive, flowing into faults in earlier sedimentary rock (rock formed by the accumulation of eroded particles of rock.
Obviously, such granite cannot be primordial, unless God habitually fakes evidence of things that never were.
So either Gentry is right, or God is truthful. Not much of a choice, is it?
brother Paul
Member
I think you meant Charles Hammond, the guy who thinks we were invaded by aliens. Pardon me if I don't accept this as reliable.
Watch out my friend…aside from the subtle attempts to insult me this is the second time (first time the Nebraska Man comment) you are putting words in my mouth I never even implied (a possible strategy for avoiding admission). The inference is found in A.L. Hammond’s article in Science. If you find articles published in Science as unreliable where are you coming from, post-modernism? The facts are that many allegedly RELIABLE scientists accepted Piltdown, many also were skeptical, and it was in Textbooks for decades until thoroughly discredited in 1953. If you cannot handle truth that’s fine let’s move on.
Choose a year Paul, was it 1983 or 1953?
I think you may have a problem following consistent thoughts. 1983 referred to an article that inferences how long the Piltdown ran in textbooks and also states it was debunked in 1953.
Java wasn't a hoax, it was originally thought to be another link in ancestry, but instead was found to just be a variation on Homo Erectus. Paul do you actually look into what you post?
Sorry to hear you have again been misinformed! Everyone knows now that Dubois mingled an ape-like artifact with a human one (albeit due to its size it was probably a large Neanderthal), and that he had hid the two human skulls he had found with them for nearly 30 years.
You are talking about one of the skeletons, you are aware they found more than one skeleton right? Please tell me you are aware that several Homo Habilis have been found by the Leaky family, and several other anthropologists have done research and escavations in that gorge and found more homo habilis skeletons. Are you aware of that Paul?
See there is a perfect example…you entirely missed the point. Of course there were other apes of that variety in Africa. That is a fact I never denied and know well, and I NEVER SAID they did not find such fossils. In fact that had ZERO relative value. That also has absolutely nothing to do with the points I had made. MD I am beginning to think you may not be able to process the logic. Perhaps the program is too deeply ingrained.
No Paul, its not an assumption, there was no evidence at that time that humans existed 1.5 million years ago.
Besides the fact that that in itself may have been such evidence (but interpreted to fit the pre-conceived hypothesis), absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I agree that there is no accepted evidence and that is why I included the second very logical and reasonable explanation of the evidence that it is entirely possible that humans even a million years later (around 500,000 years ago) passed through this site (you cannot date a footprint made in soil that is itself much older). Secondly NOTHING there proves the stone tools were made by any of these apes.
Can you show us the work that said the footprints were from the family, or are you asserting things that the research didn't actually say?
Please are you really that naïve? Have you ever read Mary Leaky’s conclusions? Who do you say made the stone tools? Seriously….provide an answer….Besides her own book on Early Man the Tie article and the one in New Science all agree this is what was concluded.
Paul, you are making assertions and not linking us to anything to verify what you are saying. You've already misused the words assumed and hoax. You also sourced a guy who thinks the Earth was colonized by Aliens. So forgive me if I don't believe you.
No I did not do any such thing about some guy who favors aliens. A. L. Hammond never mentions Aliens and listen, Sagan and Crick were both believers in the panspermia theory (and I would say Dawson as well). And you were the one who first made such an unfounded assertion so why would it be okay for you but not me. This IS a discussion, correct? Not a debate, correct?
Oh, so now its a cult, Paul do you actually believe half the stuff you post here?
A cult in the sense of a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing. In this case a hypothesis that apes evolved into men, as opposed to sharing a common ancestor or having evolved separately.
No Paul, its not an assumption, there was no evidence at that time that humans existed 1.5 million years ago.
Unless evidence such as these are interpreted to be possible evidence for early humans (even from a later time)! Also once again, absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.
Can you show us the work that said the footprints were from the family, or are you asserting things that the research didn't actually say?
Surely you must have read about this controversy. I merely offered two quite reasonable alternate interpretations of the same data! How do you think the footprints got there, and how or by who were they made? Honestly no one really knows…any conclusion must be assumption based even the two possibilities I proposed. And listen, “I can’t be sure” is a totally suitable response (and probably the most honest and objective) if you have no opinion. Could be or may have been does not equal did or is. Could be/might be is subjective opinion not fact even if a million people share that opinion.
You can upset the apple cart if you have evidence, however you are trying to discredit the foot prints by saying they don't resemble ape or human foot prints, now you are trying to assert that humans could have made them anyway. Choose one Paul, you can't have it both ways.
On the contrary…you are putting words I did not say in my mouth again. Are you unable to follow the consistency of thought? I said they do not resemble ape feet in any way….I NEVER said they do not resemble human footprints….they are somewhat marred but no separated big toe or rear thumb common to apes. Must members of your camp always twist? If you do not comprehend just ask for clarification.
No they aren't possibilities since you didn't do anything but assert that those 2 things could happen. There is no reason to accept what you are saying without any evidence.
For you to make such an assumption is absurd and irrational because the consensus conclusion that these are Habalis footprints also have zero evidence to confirm it. I do not ask you accept either equally plausible possibility, you are free to agree with whatever assumptions you wish.
No Paul its not a fallacy to not accept your fallacious assertions. You don't have evidence, just speculation.
Argumentum ad populum is most definitely a logic fallacy (Philosophy 101 dude). That Habalis made these footprints is also “Speculation”….there is no evidence that such an assumption is a true fact. I presented two other POSSIBILITIES….remember this IS a discussion (the action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.) I am not insisting the other possibilities are fact, but they should not be discarded from consideration. Human origins were once postulated (and believed by many) to be around 40,000 years, then Mitochondrial studies brought it to 120,000, now most accept more probably 195,000 and some SPECULATE possibly 400,000…but MD NO ONE REALLY KNOWS yet. As more and more evidence is unfolded the goal post moves (as it should among objective thinkers)…..maybe humans 200,000 years ago walked through this area that’s origin dates back millions….
Now for a second example via analogy:
Nope, I'm not going to address your straw man. You can call it an analogy, but we both know its just you making up a scenario for you to beat down.
No strawman and I will not attempt to “beat it down”. The analogy is exact and precise and it stands.
It literally looks like you just went to a web site and read maybe a paragraph on each thing.
I have been studying since the early 70’s. I was invited to the dinner cruise celebrating the success of the Human Genome group from Whitehead Institute…I subscribed to Science and Nature for years….read thousands of pages on many many things. I was a vehement agnostic for 30 years…now I just view things with a mind open to other possibilities. I look at all the arguments for and against a given issue and the alleged evidence these arguments are based on and then….I THINK FOR MYSELF and do not just believe what I have been told to believe is true (my studies of propaganda methods and the use of rhetorical technique have taught me this objectivity is an essential MUST). So your judgment of me personally is not only incorrect and unfounded but also rejected. Now if you would like to “Discuss” some of these things that’s fine but try and think outside the box.
Watch out my friend…aside from the subtle attempts to insult me this is the second time (first time the Nebraska Man comment) you are putting words in my mouth I never even implied (a possible strategy for avoiding admission). The inference is found in A.L. Hammond’s article in Science. If you find articles published in Science as unreliable where are you coming from, post-modernism? The facts are that many allegedly RELIABLE scientists accepted Piltdown, many also were skeptical, and it was in Textbooks for decades until thoroughly discredited in 1953. If you cannot handle truth that’s fine let’s move on.
Choose a year Paul, was it 1983 or 1953?
I think you may have a problem following consistent thoughts. 1983 referred to an article that inferences how long the Piltdown ran in textbooks and also states it was debunked in 1953.
Java wasn't a hoax, it was originally thought to be another link in ancestry, but instead was found to just be a variation on Homo Erectus. Paul do you actually look into what you post?
Sorry to hear you have again been misinformed! Everyone knows now that Dubois mingled an ape-like artifact with a human one (albeit due to its size it was probably a large Neanderthal), and that he had hid the two human skulls he had found with them for nearly 30 years.
You are talking about one of the skeletons, you are aware they found more than one skeleton right? Please tell me you are aware that several Homo Habilis have been found by the Leaky family, and several other anthropologists have done research and escavations in that gorge and found more homo habilis skeletons. Are you aware of that Paul?
See there is a perfect example…you entirely missed the point. Of course there were other apes of that variety in Africa. That is a fact I never denied and know well, and I NEVER SAID they did not find such fossils. In fact that had ZERO relative value. That also has absolutely nothing to do with the points I had made. MD I am beginning to think you may not be able to process the logic. Perhaps the program is too deeply ingrained.
No Paul, its not an assumption, there was no evidence at that time that humans existed 1.5 million years ago.
Besides the fact that that in itself may have been such evidence (but interpreted to fit the pre-conceived hypothesis), absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I agree that there is no accepted evidence and that is why I included the second very logical and reasonable explanation of the evidence that it is entirely possible that humans even a million years later (around 500,000 years ago) passed through this site (you cannot date a footprint made in soil that is itself much older). Secondly NOTHING there proves the stone tools were made by any of these apes.
Can you show us the work that said the footprints were from the family, or are you asserting things that the research didn't actually say?
Please are you really that naïve? Have you ever read Mary Leaky’s conclusions? Who do you say made the stone tools? Seriously….provide an answer….Besides her own book on Early Man the Tie article and the one in New Science all agree this is what was concluded.
Paul, you are making assertions and not linking us to anything to verify what you are saying. You've already misused the words assumed and hoax. You also sourced a guy who thinks the Earth was colonized by Aliens. So forgive me if I don't believe you.
No I did not do any such thing about some guy who favors aliens. A. L. Hammond never mentions Aliens and listen, Sagan and Crick were both believers in the panspermia theory (and I would say Dawson as well). And you were the one who first made such an unfounded assertion so why would it be okay for you but not me. This IS a discussion, correct? Not a debate, correct?
Oh, so now its a cult, Paul do you actually believe half the stuff you post here?
A cult in the sense of a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing. In this case a hypothesis that apes evolved into men, as opposed to sharing a common ancestor or having evolved separately.
No Paul, its not an assumption, there was no evidence at that time that humans existed 1.5 million years ago.
Unless evidence such as these are interpreted to be possible evidence for early humans (even from a later time)! Also once again, absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.
Can you show us the work that said the footprints were from the family, or are you asserting things that the research didn't actually say?
Surely you must have read about this controversy. I merely offered two quite reasonable alternate interpretations of the same data! How do you think the footprints got there, and how or by who were they made? Honestly no one really knows…any conclusion must be assumption based even the two possibilities I proposed. And listen, “I can’t be sure” is a totally suitable response (and probably the most honest and objective) if you have no opinion. Could be or may have been does not equal did or is. Could be/might be is subjective opinion not fact even if a million people share that opinion.
You can upset the apple cart if you have evidence, however you are trying to discredit the foot prints by saying they don't resemble ape or human foot prints, now you are trying to assert that humans could have made them anyway. Choose one Paul, you can't have it both ways.
On the contrary…you are putting words I did not say in my mouth again. Are you unable to follow the consistency of thought? I said they do not resemble ape feet in any way….I NEVER said they do not resemble human footprints….they are somewhat marred but no separated big toe or rear thumb common to apes. Must members of your camp always twist? If you do not comprehend just ask for clarification.
No they aren't possibilities since you didn't do anything but assert that those 2 things could happen. There is no reason to accept what you are saying without any evidence.
For you to make such an assumption is absurd and irrational because the consensus conclusion that these are Habalis footprints also have zero evidence to confirm it. I do not ask you accept either equally plausible possibility, you are free to agree with whatever assumptions you wish.
No Paul its not a fallacy to not accept your fallacious assertions. You don't have evidence, just speculation.
Argumentum ad populum is most definitely a logic fallacy (Philosophy 101 dude). That Habalis made these footprints is also “Speculation”….there is no evidence that such an assumption is a true fact. I presented two other POSSIBILITIES….remember this IS a discussion (the action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.) I am not insisting the other possibilities are fact, but they should not be discarded from consideration. Human origins were once postulated (and believed by many) to be around 40,000 years, then Mitochondrial studies brought it to 120,000, now most accept more probably 195,000 and some SPECULATE possibly 400,000…but MD NO ONE REALLY KNOWS yet. As more and more evidence is unfolded the goal post moves (as it should among objective thinkers)…..maybe humans 200,000 years ago walked through this area that’s origin dates back millions….
Now for a second example via analogy:
Nope, I'm not going to address your straw man. You can call it an analogy, but we both know its just you making up a scenario for you to beat down.
No strawman and I will not attempt to “beat it down”. The analogy is exact and precise and it stands.
It literally looks like you just went to a web site and read maybe a paragraph on each thing.
I have been studying since the early 70’s. I was invited to the dinner cruise celebrating the success of the Human Genome group from Whitehead Institute…I subscribed to Science and Nature for years….read thousands of pages on many many things. I was a vehement agnostic for 30 years…now I just view things with a mind open to other possibilities. I look at all the arguments for and against a given issue and the alleged evidence these arguments are based on and then….I THINK FOR MYSELF and do not just believe what I have been told to believe is true (my studies of propaganda methods and the use of rhetorical technique have taught me this objectivity is an essential MUST). So your judgment of me personally is not only incorrect and unfounded but also rejected. Now if you would like to “Discuss” some of these things that’s fine but try and think outside the box.
Barbarian
Member
Since we are apes, it's pretty hard to deny the fact. By every classification scheme possible, humans fit within the apes. More precisely, chimpanzees and humans are genetically and anatomically closer to each other than either of us is to any other living thing. But it is quite true that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, with neither evolving from the other.
turnorburn
Member
Another false doctrine.. we are not apes. we are made in Gods image.
I Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
Barbarian
Member
The "image" is not of our bodies. God has no body, being a spirit, as the Bible says. Rather, it's in our minds and spirits that we are in the image of God.
We are apes, and genetics as well as anatomy shows this to be true.
Barbarian
Member
Ironically, Piltdown has some relevance here. Piltdown, as many people know, was an embarrassment for biology because it didn't fit the theory. Evolutionary theory predicted that bipedalism and a smaller face would precede large brains, and Piltdown just didn't fit anywhere. So it was with considerable relief that biologists learned it was a fraud.
Later, as we found more and more hominins, the prediction proved to be correct. Bipedalism began long before hominins evolved a large brain.
Later, as we found more and more hominins, the prediction proved to be correct. Bipedalism began long before hominins evolved a large brain.
brother Paul
Member
Within the man made taxinomical classification system the EBs simply changed the meaning of the term Hominidae to include Pongidae....Politicians do the same thing for their agenda based purposes...also Psychiatry....the changing of the common meaning of words to advance an agenda...
We are only NOW considered to be apes by some because someone monkeyed around with the goal posts in man made classification system game....
We are only NOW considered to be apes by some because someone monkeyed around with the goal posts in man made classification system game....
Sinthesis
Member
Barbarian
Member
Actually, the Hominoidea (manlike organisms) include the African species, the pongids, (orangutans) and the hylobatids (gibbons and saimangs)
The African apes are the Hominidae, including gorillas, humans, and chimps. And the Hominini are humans and chimps. Genetic data confirmed the anatomical evidence; the classification is consistent with that evidence, first noted by Linnaeus long before Darwin's discoveries:
It matters little to me what name we use; but I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character — one that is according to generally accepted principles of classification — by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none, I wish somebody would indicate one to me, But, if I had called man an ape, or vice versa, I should have fallen under the ban of all the ecclesiastics.
Carol Linnaeus, Fauna Suecica (1746)
If only. Few politicians care much about evidence when it comes to their public remarks.
Rather, genetic evidence shows humans and chimpanzees to be most closely related to each other of the other Hominids. In science, evidence counts.
And we know genetic data indicates relationships, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.
Milk-Drops
Member
I used Google scholar to look up your source. It kept referring me back to Charles Hamond. Your source actually says Alien Hammond not Al. I did a regular google search on Al Hammond and found an apologist who was published in a religious journal for missionaries, not science. Also I'll like to point out that the whole Nebraska man thing was resurrected by you. You are offended by something I retracted.
I can't find this said article you are claiming, do you have a link?
Paul you didn't back up any of this, if you don't back any of that up, I don't have to believe it.
When you say text books Paul, how exactly was it mentioned in Textbooks, and which ones was it in? This actually matters allot.
Ok, Paul if everyone knew this, then you should have no problem providing me sources that says what you are claiming. No credible source I've come across says such a thing.
Paul, whenever anyone here engages you you talk down to them and accuse them of not being educated enough to talk about the subject. Paul you rarely source any of your statements, and when you do its either outdated or a dead end. You ommit tons information and straw man scientists' positions. In this conversation alone you have accused me of not being bright enough to have this conversation, linked me to a dead end article, made tons of claims you won't back up, and resurrected retracted posts to pick at them and their grammar. You even whined about being picked on in this response to me, while insulting me and threatening me. I would love to continue having a conversation with you, but if you choose to continue like the above, I will cut off disscussion.
You are aware that science is based on empiracle evidence, and since there was no evidence that humans lived at the time, there was no reason to assert. The findings gave a evidence to the notion.
Paul, you are arguing against arguments I haven't made and you are not sourcing your claims. Why should I accept anything you say?
So you are going to hand wave this away, demand I locate a book you didn't source, and shift the goal posts to me. You made the claims Paul, it is your job to support them.
Paul when I searched him on Scholar I get either the Apologist AL Hammond ( not a scientist), or I get Charles ( who was published in Science, but for a different subject.) Either way your source doesn't check out.
I don't care what Sagan or Crick said because it has nothing to do with Leakey. Stop with the smoke and mirrors.
Now you are rephrasing again.
There is no evidence that we aren't cats that think we are human in an alternate dimension that makes us believe for all purposes that we are human. That means science should consider that right? Remember absence of evidence doesn't mean its not true.
You're side stepping again. Moving on.
trolling again.
For you to make such an assumption is absurd and irrational because the consensus conclusion that these are Habalis footprints also have zero evidence to confirm it. I do not ask you accept either equally plausible possibility, you are free to agree with whatever assumptions you wish.
No Paul its not a fallacy to not accept your fallacious assertions. You don't have evidence, just speculation.
Argumentum ad populum is most definitely a logic fallacy (Philosophy 101 dude). That Habalis made these footprints is also “Speculation”….there is no evidence that such an assumption is a true fact. I presented two other POSSIBILITIES….remember this IS a discussion (the action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.) I am not insisting the other possibilities are fact, but they should not be discarded from consideration. Human origins were once postulated (and believed by many) to be around 40,000 years, then Mitochondrial studies brought it to 120,000, now most accept more probably 195,000 and some SPECULATE possibly 400,000…but MD NO ONE REALLY KNOWS yet. As more and more evidence is unfolded the goal post moves (as it should among objective thinkers)…..maybe humans 200,000 years ago walked through this area that’s origin dates back millions….
You claimed in a differnt thread yo worked in a lab. Is that true Paul, what did you do in that lab?
So what, did you work on the Human Genome project?
So what?
That is why you accuse people of not being able to think on your level when they disagree with you right? And that is also why when I took some of you first threads here and threw them into a google search I would find them word for word on other forums posted by other users?
I don't believe anything you say.
Barbarian
Member
Fact is, whatever the academic credentials each of us has, it's completely immaterial to the quality of our arguments, which only base on our logic and documented facts.
I once knew a body repairman who put in the time and effort to become knowledgeable about evolutionary theory (primarily so that he could refute it), and he was an engaging and formidable opponent. So I'm not impressed by anyone's credentials. Even Dobzhansky, Mayr, Darwin, et al made mistakes.
I once knew a body repairman who put in the time and effort to become knowledgeable about evolutionary theory (primarily so that he could refute it), and he was an engaging and formidable opponent. So I'm not impressed by anyone's credentials. Even Dobzhansky, Mayr, Darwin, et al made mistakes.
Milk-Drops
Member
To be clear I'm not ragging because of credentials. I want Paul to know I don't have anything personal against hi and that I am listening to what he is saying. I just get tired when I see a ton of random tangents or when I see some really out there sources.
brother Paul
Member
Paul you didn't back up any of this, if you don't back any of that up, I don't have to believe it.
A simple google on the history of Piltdown will suffice. It is common knowledge…many rejected it right off, many also accepted it. It was in Textbooks for decades and was finally officially refuted in 1953...now it still is in texts but rightly placed in the category of a refuted hoax.
Paul, whenever anyone here engages you you talk down to them and accuse them of not being educated enough to talk about the subject.
No! When someone insults me or makes me out to say things I did not say or even intended, then I do this….and I never accuse anyone of not being educated enough (ever)…you are putting words into my mouth.
Yes, I do challenge some of the status quo conclusions and offer alternative plausible scenarios, sometimes demonstrating what I see as weak spots in their conclusions (what does the actual data say, NOT the interpretation of the data?)
You are aware that science is based on empirical evidence, and since there was no evidence that humans lived at the time, there was no reason to assert. The findings gave a evidence to the notion.
Yes I am well aware of this, but in the field of paleoanthropology what the evidence means is sometimes a matter of personal perspective (hypothesis based opinion). This also happens elsewhere (unfoubtedly in the field of theology). For an example from another area of science take the work of Craig Ventor. It is being hailed as Ventor “Creating Life in the Lab” when in fact is all he has proved is that with Intelligent Intervention one can take an already extant hardware and see it perform its NORMAL function by inserting a new program…and even all this was engineered by Intelligent Design. It was masterful and I appreciate its potential use but because a mechanism for replication replicates is simply no surprise and “replication” alone does not define life. So what we have are many fine scientists appreciating this great stride for what it is and others making more of it than what they ought (IMO because such an interpretation could be used to fit the predetermined theoretical perspective)
and since there was no evidence that humans lived at the time, there was no reason to assert.
Not assert but rather consider! Looked at objectively this very well may have been some of that very evidence (it all depends on how you theorize its meaning) and my second equally plausible consideration was that the stone tools and the footprints could have been laid down at a much later time (which was the original point I made in the example).
Just saying, the surrounding geology cannot always accurately date the fossils. The footprints were visible, and thus COULD HAVE BEEN much younger by millennia then the ape fossils found so many yards away and much younger than the date the gorge was established. Is this illogical in some way? I am not saying this is a true fact, but neither is the assumption based conclusion.
Paul you rarely source any of your statements, and when you do its either outdated or a dead end.
It’s a discussion not a debate! And you have not sourced ANY yourself….and I have not strawman-ed any scientist’s positions as you accused. I have critiqued their conclusions. Asking more questions and presenting other possible explanations until proof is irrefutable is legitimate critical thinking. Many things good science once thought to be impossible are now, by science, shown to actually be true. Because one does not accept something is no reason to dismiss something as a possibility. I do not doubt that it is possible that some varieties of ape (though unsuccessful by natural selection) could have evolved to such a point but I see no proof just conjecture and hypothesis based interpretation. In other words, it COULD BE….it MIGHT BE….but that still does not merit the assumptive cross over.
Paul, you are arguing against arguments I haven't made and you are not sourcing your claims. Why should I accept anything you say?
And you likewise have not sourced any of your arguments (and that’s okay because this is a discussion not a debate). I am not arguing against arguments you have not made, I am defending my right to see the data from a different perspective (which I believe is equally reasonable and worthy of consideration even if one disagrees)
I don't care what Sagan or Crick said because it has nothing to do with Leakey. Stop with the smoke and mirrors.
YOU are the one that brought up the “believes in Aliens” scenario implying no legitimate scientist would propose this (it had nothing to do with my points about Mary Leaky’s conclusions)…I merely gave their names to show that some renowned legitimate scientists DO believe such things (you are the one who used such a belief to question credibility)
A cult in the sense of a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing. In this case a hypothesis that apes evolved into men, as opposed to sharing a common ancestor or having evolved separately.
Now you are rephrasing again.
Just explaining what you misunderstood. There is a group today within the scientific community that have a different approach/theory/hypothesis than Darwin’s. They IMO a possibly misplaced excessive admiration for an unproven theory that MIGHT BE (not is) true and that is that ape’s evolved into humans and I happen to hold to the view that says they are distinct and evolved separately.
There is no evidence that we aren't cats that think we are human in an alternate dimension that makes us believe for all purposes that we are human.
I won’t even respond to that…that is nothing like anything I have been saying.
That means science should consider that right?
That? Not even close…it’s absurd….
Remember absence of evidence doesn't mean it’s not true
Finally you get it! Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence….by the way that argument comes straight from most every scientific atheist I have ever talked to. Funny how they react when the same standard is applied to them….(they always default to it when confronted with issues of a lack of real evidence of their hypothesis)
You claimed in a different thread you worked in a lab. Is that true Paul, what did you do in that lab?
At first just various tests, but later I got to work in Protein quantitation (making assays) and cell culturing.
So what, did you work on the Human Genome project?
No actually it was my niece Robin, but the statement was in response to your comment about how I allegedly just go on the internet and grab things to talk about (I was just showing how long I have been around having such discussions)
I subscribed to Science and Nature for years….
So what?
Again it was not a boast or anything that arrogant…it was merely a response to that same dig (see above). I even believe original thought is valuable and leads to discovery and progress and that pedagogic exclusivism is a hindrance to real education. People should be trained to question everything and swallow nothing whole just on some one's (or a whole groups) say so.
you accuse people of not being able to think on your level when they disagree with you
First I never said that, and secondly that is exactly how I feel that I am very often treated because I see things differently and do not accept the common view without definite proof….
a google search I would find them word for word on other forums posted by other users?
Most likely all me though they may have assumed my words….I have been and am on dozens of forums…I even had one person accuse me of plagiarizing an article from Yahoo Answers that I myself had written (lol)…feel free to provide examples...
The whole point was that I can see that dating by the geology of the surounding ENVIRONMENT has its short comings (though a very useful tool it is not always accurate)....you do not have to agree....its a discussion.
A simple google on the history of Piltdown will suffice. It is common knowledge…many rejected it right off, many also accepted it. It was in Textbooks for decades and was finally officially refuted in 1953...now it still is in texts but rightly placed in the category of a refuted hoax.
Paul, whenever anyone here engages you you talk down to them and accuse them of not being educated enough to talk about the subject.
No! When someone insults me or makes me out to say things I did not say or even intended, then I do this….and I never accuse anyone of not being educated enough (ever)…you are putting words into my mouth.
Yes, I do challenge some of the status quo conclusions and offer alternative plausible scenarios, sometimes demonstrating what I see as weak spots in their conclusions (what does the actual data say, NOT the interpretation of the data?)
You are aware that science is based on empirical evidence, and since there was no evidence that humans lived at the time, there was no reason to assert. The findings gave a evidence to the notion.
Yes I am well aware of this, but in the field of paleoanthropology what the evidence means is sometimes a matter of personal perspective (hypothesis based opinion). This also happens elsewhere (unfoubtedly in the field of theology). For an example from another area of science take the work of Craig Ventor. It is being hailed as Ventor “Creating Life in the Lab” when in fact is all he has proved is that with Intelligent Intervention one can take an already extant hardware and see it perform its NORMAL function by inserting a new program…and even all this was engineered by Intelligent Design. It was masterful and I appreciate its potential use but because a mechanism for replication replicates is simply no surprise and “replication” alone does not define life. So what we have are many fine scientists appreciating this great stride for what it is and others making more of it than what they ought (IMO because such an interpretation could be used to fit the predetermined theoretical perspective)
and since there was no evidence that humans lived at the time, there was no reason to assert.
Not assert but rather consider! Looked at objectively this very well may have been some of that very evidence (it all depends on how you theorize its meaning) and my second equally plausible consideration was that the stone tools and the footprints could have been laid down at a much later time (which was the original point I made in the example).
Just saying, the surrounding geology cannot always accurately date the fossils. The footprints were visible, and thus COULD HAVE BEEN much younger by millennia then the ape fossils found so many yards away and much younger than the date the gorge was established. Is this illogical in some way? I am not saying this is a true fact, but neither is the assumption based conclusion.
Paul you rarely source any of your statements, and when you do its either outdated or a dead end.
It’s a discussion not a debate! And you have not sourced ANY yourself….and I have not strawman-ed any scientist’s positions as you accused. I have critiqued their conclusions. Asking more questions and presenting other possible explanations until proof is irrefutable is legitimate critical thinking. Many things good science once thought to be impossible are now, by science, shown to actually be true. Because one does not accept something is no reason to dismiss something as a possibility. I do not doubt that it is possible that some varieties of ape (though unsuccessful by natural selection) could have evolved to such a point but I see no proof just conjecture and hypothesis based interpretation. In other words, it COULD BE….it MIGHT BE….but that still does not merit the assumptive cross over.
Paul, you are arguing against arguments I haven't made and you are not sourcing your claims. Why should I accept anything you say?
And you likewise have not sourced any of your arguments (and that’s okay because this is a discussion not a debate). I am not arguing against arguments you have not made, I am defending my right to see the data from a different perspective (which I believe is equally reasonable and worthy of consideration even if one disagrees)
I don't care what Sagan or Crick said because it has nothing to do with Leakey. Stop with the smoke and mirrors.
YOU are the one that brought up the “believes in Aliens” scenario implying no legitimate scientist would propose this (it had nothing to do with my points about Mary Leaky’s conclusions)…I merely gave their names to show that some renowned legitimate scientists DO believe such things (you are the one who used such a belief to question credibility)
A cult in the sense of a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing. In this case a hypothesis that apes evolved into men, as opposed to sharing a common ancestor or having evolved separately.
Now you are rephrasing again.
Just explaining what you misunderstood. There is a group today within the scientific community that have a different approach/theory/hypothesis than Darwin’s. They IMO a possibly misplaced excessive admiration for an unproven theory that MIGHT BE (not is) true and that is that ape’s evolved into humans and I happen to hold to the view that says they are distinct and evolved separately.
There is no evidence that we aren't cats that think we are human in an alternate dimension that makes us believe for all purposes that we are human.
I won’t even respond to that…that is nothing like anything I have been saying.
That means science should consider that right?
That? Not even close…it’s absurd….
Remember absence of evidence doesn't mean it’s not true
Finally you get it! Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence….by the way that argument comes straight from most every scientific atheist I have ever talked to. Funny how they react when the same standard is applied to them….(they always default to it when confronted with issues of a lack of real evidence of their hypothesis)
You claimed in a different thread you worked in a lab. Is that true Paul, what did you do in that lab?
At first just various tests, but later I got to work in Protein quantitation (making assays) and cell culturing.
So what, did you work on the Human Genome project?
No actually it was my niece Robin, but the statement was in response to your comment about how I allegedly just go on the internet and grab things to talk about (I was just showing how long I have been around having such discussions)
I subscribed to Science and Nature for years….
So what?
Again it was not a boast or anything that arrogant…it was merely a response to that same dig (see above). I even believe original thought is valuable and leads to discovery and progress and that pedagogic exclusivism is a hindrance to real education. People should be trained to question everything and swallow nothing whole just on some one's (or a whole groups) say so.
you accuse people of not being able to think on your level when they disagree with you
First I never said that, and secondly that is exactly how I feel that I am very often treated because I see things differently and do not accept the common view without definite proof….
a google search I would find them word for word on other forums posted by other users?
Most likely all me though they may have assumed my words….I have been and am on dozens of forums…I even had one person accuse me of plagiarizing an article from Yahoo Answers that I myself had written (lol)…feel free to provide examples...
The whole point was that I can see that dating by the geology of the surounding ENVIRONMENT has its short comings (though a very useful tool it is not always accurate)....you do not have to agree....its a discussion.
Milk-Drops
Member
Paul here is the problem. I deleted a post within seconds of uploading it because I didn't want to insult you. You chose to resurrect and respond to it. Everything after that is direct cause of you resurrecting that post. Don't push your choices back on me.
Except the 3 time in this thread alone where you said I didn't have the mental capacity to understand this topic. Paul I'm not going to let you troll me anymore. Good day.
Edward
2024 Supporter
I . Googled it and read it. Apparently it was above me because I don't get it.
Barbarian
Member
Paleontologists were always a little embarrassed about it, because it was contrary to the predictions of evolutionary theory. A manlike brain should have come last, not first. (Subsequent finds verified that prediction, and when Piltdown was shown to be a fraud, there was a collective sigh of relief)
And that doesn't take a PhD to figure out. Anyone who came of age in science in those days would know it.
brother Paul
Member
You misrepresented what I said at least a few times and made out I said things I do not say? You also have a good day....!