Replies

You've missed part of the thread.

And, you and he both must have mised it too...

The perplexing question of human origin from a common ancestor to apes is even more problematic. According to evolutionary theory, humans (homo sapiens) did not descend from apes, but from some “missing link.” Although Dr. Louis Leaky spent decades searching and found zinjanthropus and homo habilis, Olduvai Gorge gave no answers. Logic also suggests in order to “descend,” there has to be something you descend from and something you ascend to.

Evolutionary theory, rooted in the universal human dissatisfaction for mortality is a vain search for human origin(s), an attempt to rationalize a yearning for connection to something eternal.

Now, since nobody really knows the answers, it is only a scientific method to consider all points of view on the issue in educational settings. To do otherwise would be like students dancing around totems, with professors as witch doctors proclaiming intellectual taboos and making sacrifices.

This is far worse than what the ersatz secularists accuse the creationists of doing!

In this sentence:

"And, you and he both must have mised it too..."

Who's "he"

The rest of your post is a repeat and is wrong (no missing link, no complex motivations other that the usual one of scientists exploring)

The perplexing question of human origin from a common ancestor to apes is even more problematic.

Oh?

According to evolutionary theory, humans (homo sapiens) did not descend from apes, but from some “missing link.”

Wrong. See the material in post #203.

Although Dr. Louis Leaky spent decades searching and found zinjanthropus and homo habilis, Olduvai Gorge gave no answers.

Wrong again. See the material in post #203. <> Logic also suggests in order to “descend,” there has to be something you descend from and something you ascend to.

Wow, that's incredibly stupid -- it confuses one meaning of "descend" (i.e., to pass through descendants, meaning offspring) with another (i.e. "to go downwards").

Sheesh. Is this really the best you can manage?

Evolutionary theory, rooted in the universal human dissatisfaction for mortality

Could I have that again, in a coherent sentence?

is a vain search for human origin(s), an attempt to rationalize a yearning for connection to something eternal.

Wrong again. It's following the evidence where it leads.

Now, since nobody really knows the answers,

I do. Or at least I know a lot more of them than you do.

it is only a scientific method to consider all points of view on the issue in educational settings.

ROFL!!!!!!! Honestly, that's just about the most dimwitted thing I've heard in a long time. "Yes, it's scientific to teach 'all points of view', let's not bother with the fact that some have been spectacularly validated by the evidence and others have been embarrassingly falsified by it..."

Um, you're confusing "science" with "empty-headed relativism". Are you sure you have any clue what in the hell you're talking about?

To do otherwise would be like students dancing around totems, with professors as witch doctors proclaiming intellectual taboos and making sacrifices.

Oooookay... Run along and play, the adults are trying to have a conversation.

This is far worse than what the ersatz secularists accuse the creationists of doing!

What is? Wanting to follow the evidence where it leads, and not treating "all points of view" as equally valid? Son, you're entitled to your own opinion, but you are *not* entitled to your own "facts".

Yes, Virginia, some opinions *are* more informed and supportable than others. And it's not "dancing around totems" to point this out. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Did you learn *nothing* from The Enlightenment? What have you been doing for the past 350 years, napping?

The perplexing question of human origin from a common ancestor to apes is even more problematic. According to evolutionary theory, humans (homo sapiens) did not descend from apes, but from some “missing link.” Although Dr. Louis Leaky spent decades searching and found zinjanthropus and homo habilis, Olduvai Gorge gave no answers. Logic also suggests in order to “descend,” there has to be something you descend from and something you ascend to.
Evolutionary theory, rooted in the universal human dissatisfaction for mortality is a vain search for human origin(s), an attempt to rationalize a yearning for connection to something eternal.

Now, since nobody really knows the answers, it is only a scientific method to consider all points of view on the issue in educational settings. To do otherwise would be like students dancing around totems, with professors as witch doctors proclaiming intellectual taboos and making sacrifices.

This is the fourth or fifth time I have seen you post this today. But you never responded to my post concerning it about 10 AM this morning. So I will respond to a different part of your post than I did earlier.

Although Dr. Louis Leaky spent decades searching and found zinjanthropus and homo habilis, Olduvai Gorge gave no answers.

Louis Leakey (1903-1972) hasn't been searching for decades, he searched decades ago. He passed the search on to others, including Mary and Richard Leakey, Don Johanson, and Tim White, who have been working throughout Africa, with particularly good results from both Kenya and Ethiopia.

For example, AL 129, "Johanson's Knee", found by Don Johanson at Hadar, Ethiopia in 1973, dated to 3.4 million years ago. This find consisted of portions of both legs, including a complete right knee joint which is almost a miniature of a human knee, but apparently belongs to an adult. The bones are the proximal distal and distal femur.

The point of including this cute fossil is to contradict the implication of your post, that Louis Leakey's search in Olduvai has "given no answers." His work, and the work of many others before and since, has indeed provided a lot of good evidence. These are part of the "facts" part of evolution. Leakey, and the others, have also been advancing the theory part of evolution.

Still others are working with DNA and biology and a host of other fields, some of which didn't even exist when Louis Leakey started working. Can you imagine how much fun he would have with our current capabilities in radiometric dating and genetics, and the advances in theory, which have been made since he left the field?