New Age For Mungo Man, New Human History

Science Daily ^ | FR Post 2-18-03 | Editorial Staff

[vannrox]

So, Mungo Man is quite young!

[seams2me]

He's 22,000 years younger than previously thought? Hang on, lemme grab my lipstick. He's DATING material.

[blam]

Date For First Australians

[Lurking Libertarian]

One good ping deserves another.

Patrick, would you mind pinging the rest of your list?

[VadeRetro]

The 62,000 year age had been controversial from the beginning. Most scientists are probably relieved that Mungo fits the expected settlement pattern better now.

The Associated Press version of this story quoted one of the scientists who did the earlier dating as calling for yet another set of measurements as a tie-breaker, saying that his was just as scientific as the new one. (I think he's ignoring that the first dating on Mungo Man preceded his and came back in the 40K range, so if you want to be picky there's no tie.)

[PatrickHenry]

Mungo Man (who?) ping.

[This ping list is for the evolution -- not creationism -- side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. To be added (or dropped), let me know via freepmail.]

[f.Christian]

The geolgic column proves a much younger earth.

There are no precambrian fossils --- how come ?

[Lurking Libertarian]

There are no precambrian fossils --- how come ?

There actually are precambrian fossils.

[John Valentine]

I don't understand why you biblical creationists have to drag your fantasies into every discussion that implies that the Earth is older than Semour's uncle.

It just makes you look insecure, and maybe with very good reason. You don't have a single shred of hard evidence to back up what is in essence a creation legend no more or less believable than any other.

[f.Christian]

... worms and shells !

[f.Christian]

Just calling evolution a theory is an overstatement . . .

only an idea // mood // feeling - - -

an ideology === perverse oddity ! ! !


To: f.Christian

Conjecture masquarading as science might be more appropos - I agree.


71 posted on 01/21/2003 12:04 PM PST by Havoc ((Evolution is a theory, Creationism is God's word, ID is science, Sanka is coffee))

DOGMA masquarading as science might be more appropos - I agree.

Main Entry: dog·ma
Pronunciation: 'dog-m&, 'däg-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta /-m&-t&/
Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem -- more at DECENT
Date: 1638
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets < pedagogical dogma > c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

Main Entry: 1con·jec·ture
Pronunciation: k&n-'jek-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin conjectura, from conjectus, past participle of conicere, literally, to throw together, from com- + jacere to throw -- more at JET
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete a : interpretation of omens b : SUPPOSITION
2 a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved

[LiteKeeper]

bump

[John Valentine]

You guys are as hopeless as the New York idiots that postulated a completely outrageous scenario, that they called a "theory" for a horrific crime that if believed, would exonerate the guilty. When it was pointed out that thee was not a single piece of evidence to support this flight of fancy, they responded with the canard, "That's why we call it a theory!"

A theory is far more than unsupported conjecture. Ant that is emphatically true of the fact of evolution. It is not mere conjecture. It is a well built edifice based on solid research, study, revision, refinement, advancement and insight. It is resilient, responsive, and utilitarian. It answers questions and gives results.

What is creationism? Where are it's researchers? Where are it's facts? Where are it's results?

Nowhere. Creationism is a morally an intellectually bankrupt dead end that has to rely on distortion and outright lies to make its feeble points.

As a creation myth, you are welcome to it. But please don't insult us all by expecting us to take it seriously.

[gore3000]

It answers questions and gives results.

Really? Name one significant biological discovery which does not tend to disprove evolution. Just one.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[John Valentine]

Well, that's a stumper, because I'm sure that whatever response I give, you'll say that it tends to disprove evolution.

But I'll toss this in and see where you take it.

The structure and function of the genetic "code", i.e. DNA and RNA.

[Aric2000]

Here we go, Blueskipping placemarker.

[Aric2000]

Ask him to name ONE Biological find that disproves Evolution, JUST one, and make sure that he doesn't give you any of his ID Behe Crap either.

I asked him that question once and never got a response, I wonder why. HMMM, Maybe because G3K is CLUELESS, yeah, I think that clueless is the right word.

[John Locke]

Ask him to name ONE Biological find that disproves Evolution

Creationists. They are clear proof that not all of us have evolved from monkeys.

[f.Christian]

Creation -- existence // science is not a myth but evolution is an urban legend --- cult // ideology !