Posted on 02/21/2005 9:44:35 AM PST by FNU LNU
You and shubi and some other extremist evos have the nasty habit of assuming that someone who does not see the evidence the same way you do MUST BE LYING.
So scientists never have any other agenda than discovering the truth?
Without "scientists", where would "science" be?
Your lame arguments are becoming tiring.
Yes they do. It is a serious character flaw.
> extremist evos
Translation: anyone who recognizes that evolution happens.
How can anything be believed coming from these "scientist" where truth and facts do not matter but ingraining a lie to prove God wrong does. This field has become a sad joke.
Without "scientists", where would "science" be?
What exactly is the whole theory of humanity in Europe?
The skull fragment discovered in a peat bog near Hamburg was more than 36,000 years old - and was the vital missing link between modern humans and Neanderthals.
...
Prof Protsch's work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together.
...
His discovery appeared to show that Neanderthals had spread much further north than was previously known. But his university inquiry was told that a crucial Hamburg skull fragment, which was believed to have come from the world's oldest German, a Neanderthal known as Hahnhöfersand Man, was actually a mere 7,500 years old
...
Another of the professor's sensational finds, "Binshof-Speyer" woman, lived in 1,300 BC and not 21,300 years ago, as he had claimed, while "Paderborn-Sande man" (dated at 27,400 BC) only died a couple of hundred years ago, in 1750.
OK, he got the dates wrong. But do the bone fragments still belong to Neanderthal? Including the ones from 5,500 B.C., 1,300 B.C. and 1750 A.D.?
If so we have a HUGH and SERIES discovery of monumental proportions.
Everything I can find says that Neanderthal became extinct around 30,000 years ago. Does this article say that they survived till as recently as 1750? Even redating their extinction to 5,500 B.C. (7,500 years ago) would be a discovery worthy of a Nobel Prize.
Or is it simply as badly written as most other MSM tripe about science?
Enquiring minds want to know. And they'll probably believe whatever drivel Dan Blather and Peter Jennings shove down their throats.
We thought your posts defined the term pretty well.
> just one more in a very long list of frauds in the anthropology field
A shorter list than that of religious frauds, to be sure.
> their fanaticism to prove God wrong
Ah. I *love* that! I'm sure there were those who thought Galileo, Kepler, Newton, et al. were out to "prove God wrong" too.
Hey, you got the last word. Congratulations.
Oh, jeez, now it's me.
Well, that just reeks, don' it?
See you down the road.
Maybe this prof can team up with Ward Churchill and make a double header.
You might want to study most of these early scientist and what motivated them. I think you might be in for a huge supprise, they were not out to prove God wrong.
> they were not out to prove God wrong
And *AMAZINGLY* neither are the vast majority of modern scientists. That anti-God conspiracy only exists in the fevered imaginations of those whose weak faith causes them to seek out opportunities to act the victim.
Yes there have been many religious frauds but the difference, the Christian world does not back them (once the Bible was in the language of the people) they demand proof.
At this point I am not sure that the list is that much longer for the religious frauds having spent time studying the Anthropology frauds. Both are an interesting study though, for the honest.
> Yes there have been many religious frauds but the difference, the Christian world does not back them
Uh-huh. One word: Televangelists.
No, they were not until recently say the past century, getting worse as the century and indoctrination went on. The "fevered imaginations" do not have to have those imaginations taxed very hard when they come across fraud after fraud all in one field. Weakness of faith has nothing to do with it, just common sense. I do not need to be Christian to want a science field to work in provable facts.
If you think that they are seeking out opportunities to act the victim would be misreading the situation (quite obvious), I would say they are seeking to know the truth not fall for lies....but then this is the one "scientific" field that has seen the need to present so many lies where as the other fields work in facts.
When this field begins to work in provable facts not crack science and frauds, then it might be given the respect of the other scientific fields. Until then it deserves all the skepticism years of history and false claims and practical jokes have given it. So far this field of "science" has needed more faith to believe in it than Scientology.
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.