Stranger In A New Land (Archaeology)
"Stunning finds in the Republic of Georgia upend long-standing ideas about the first hominids to journey out of Africa."
Posted on 11/18/2004 3:41:57 PM PST by Willie Green
Hyperbole. Even among evolutionists there is not 100% agreement.
You can't really confirm these "Human-Chimp" skeletons, since you can never get any DNA evidence from them proving that they're the real missing link.
Chalk this one up in the "Junk Science" category.
The presence of evolution doesn't preclude design, nor would the existence of a Designer preclude evolution.
No one has claimed that Pierolapithecus is the missing link, only that it has characteristics and the right age that one would expect to find in a missing link. Words like "proof" and "proving" don't have a place in this conversation. No one can prove anything here, they can only assemble evidence. Then we look at the preponderance of evidence and assess reasonable doubts. There is never a final verdict, only strongly indicated conclusions, on an investigation that remains a work in progress. That's not junk science.
Thanks for the ping!
Thanks WG. Similar, newer topic linked below. Will add 'em and ping from this one after I get home.
Fossil Ape May Be Ancestor of All Apes - Report
Science - Reuters ^ | Thu Nov 18, 2004 | Maggie Fox
Posted on 11/18/2004 7:00:02 PM PST by Pharmboy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1283460/posts
Creationists have no room to talk about 100% agreement. How old is the world? 6000 years? 4 billion years? Some unknown number?
The Creationists are made up of innumerable religious denominations. Methodists, Catholics, Episcopalians, Jews, Gentiles, even Islamics. None of you can agree on what the Bible says. You have no room to criticize science for a few minor disagreements, none of which deal with abrogating the basic tenents of Evolution.
I've stated my opinion innumerable times on these threads. I think that Creationists are creating an artificial stumbling block for young people by insisting on contesting science over an issue that isn't central to their faith. It matters none exactly HOW God created the universe and life. Just that He did it. Just as God can work in your life and you might write it off as "chance", Evolution works exactly the same way. There is no contradiction between Genesis and science.
And those Creationists who promote the idea that Creationism should be taught side-by-side with Evolution in schools are being particularly stupid. Getting government schools to present two sides and forcing kids to discuss which they must pick is a guarantee that many of them will reject God forever in their lives. Had you agreed with me that there is no contradiction between Evolution and Genesis and taught your children that fact, that half of the classroom that rejected God might someday come to know Him.
You fools.
Design cannot be disproven. Neither can it be disproven that when you walk out of a room, its contents including everyone in it vanish. It cannot be disproven that your waking life is a dream and your dream life real. Some ideas just aren't as useful as others. Creation, whether billions of years ago, six thousand years ago, or last Thursday, is not a usefully tight hypothesis.
By comparision, evolution might have been disproven, but hasn't been. It might have failed to accumulate an impressive volume of positive evidence, but it didn't fail.
Then you have the obvious nature of where the evolution skeptics are coming from: religious horror. It's not really about science.
Now, strictly speaking it is a fallacy to rebut an argument by pointing out the motivation of the person making the argument. In theory, it's irrelevant to the science questions that some huge percentage of evo skeptics are either Protestant evangelicals or fundie Muslims. However, you also never get any good arguments from the evo skeptics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics thing: just bogus. The "no transitional forms" mantra: unadulterated BS. Irreducible complexity: a spurious claim that a poorly defined set of features cannot have evolved. (The standard for what is IC and what is not is vague. At any rate such features could evolve by scaffolding effects.)
And where is the controversy being fought out? Not in the scientific journals and halls of academe. It's in school boardrooms and courthouses around the country. We have a political movement to damage science education without the consent of science.
It's obvious what's going on.
I agree. That is because there aren't any.
That would be a neat trick -- has each generation been hatched anew from fairy eggs, then?
It's fought on the margins on both sides. Gould often fancied himself a theologian. His adherence to evolution spilled over from scientific evidence into the realm of unimaginative hubris.
You fall into the hole he dug when you say "That's important because an intelligent designer wouldn't have to mimic evolution so precisely."
If evolution is scientific, it has nothing to say about God. Nor does it have to.
So... You're saying that they might have found a fossil that was never at one time an animal? Fascinating...
Forget your long ad hominem, I posted "Even among evolutionists there is not 100% agreement."
Do you deny it?
Oh, it's a fossil.
I thought they found a living monkey...only really old.
Fossils too crunchy for Muttly to properly enjoy.
Just stick with these yummy Do-Dos. Good eats is good eats.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest -- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
This is more in line with my thinking on the subject.
And I countered that Creationists and IDers have even less agreement on issues between them. What's your point?
I posted "Even among evolutionists there is not 100% agreement."
Agreement about what? Paper or Plastic?
Do you deny it?
Why would I deny what is in the HTML? What's your point... again?
You're missing his point. His point is that any conceivable evidence can (and has) been declared as consistent with an omnipotent Creator (since he/she/it might have just "felt like" making things that way), but that this line of argument is unparsimonious, *and* strongly begs the question of why the Creator seems to have chosen to make all life *look* like it's the product of evolution (if allegedly it is not).
Read this old post of mine for a lengthier treatment of the same point: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/902550/posts?page=984#984.
If evolution is scientific, it has nothing to say about God. Nor does it have to.
Nor does it, nor is he. He is making a point about epistemology, not evolution.
Stranger In A New Land (Archaeology)
"Stunning finds in the Republic of Georgia upend long-standing ideas about the first hominids to journey out of Africa."
Charleton Heston:
Take this stinking pouch off me, you ****** dirty ape!
"If this is the best they've got, in six months we'll be running this planet."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.