Posted on 03/07/2005 3:19:42 PM PST by Truth666
A joint Ethiopian-US team of palaeontologists announced on Saturday they had discovered the world's oldest biped skeleton to be unearthed so far, dating it to between 3.8 and four million years old.
"This is the world's oldest biped," Bruce Latimer, director of the natural history museum in Cleveland, Ohio, told a news conference in the Ethiopian capital, adding that "it will revolutionise the way we see human evolution".
The bones were found three weeks ago in Ethiopia's Afar region, at a site some 60 kilometres from Hadar where Lucy, one of the first hominids, was discovered in 1974. Researchers at the site in northeast Ethiopia have in all unearthed 12 hominid fossils, of which parts of one skeleton were discovered.
So, at last, we know how you define your perjorative "creationist". Any one who doesn't fantasize that everything came from nothing for no reason. You are in a very small minority, insect.
My perspective is fine. There is no one, including ICR associates, doing real research that does not support evolution. In twenty minutes I found three articles by the first ICR guy on your list, and all the articles describe classic experiments in adaptive evolution. what is it you think evolution is, other than modification and differential reproduction?
P.H., would you please post, in your own words, what you believe to be the most convincing evidence for your belief that lobsters and humans have a common ancestor?
Listen. You can't get grant money unless you are an evolutionary suck-up. It's like saying "Buddhists can't sing because none of them are in the Baptist Church choir.
Besides, I have a cousin who heads biology research in a very major eastern university and does not believe in "Evolution*." He's somewhat shy about speaking out publicly (though his name has been linked in a few places), because then he would be in violation of the Evolutionary Suck-Up Rule for Tax-Funded Grants (the controlling ESURT-FG) and he and some of his cohorts would find themselves unfunded which means they'd have to work in a pharmaceutical factory or sell furniture.
* "Evolution," which has many, often contradictory definitions, in this case is capitalized to distinguish it as the concept that all living things descend from a common ancestral life form through the processes of genetic variation and natural selection via "survival of the fittest."
Well, that would be a lie. Why do you want to lie to schoolchildren?
Oh, Boo Hoo. Millions of dollars are being spent by creationists on propaganda. Ten percent of that could be funding research if you had a research program or even a research proposal. The simple fact is that neither creation science not ID has any such proposals, nor any ideas about what would support their theories.
It doesn't cost anything to publish proposals. What would creation science be doing if it had money, and why isn't it raising funds in the Christian community instead of blowing smoke?
Yep. In my daughter's high school Biology text, it explains that lipids are found in oil, and how lipids in chains easily form into bi-layers and the authors (Evolutionary Suck-Ups all) present this as as an explanation of where cell membranes came from!!!!
It was a good chance to explain to the kids the dangers of circular reasoning, which puts them intellectually ahead of 99% of the Evolutionists.
You know Darwin's theory doesn't bug me so much, nor do the scientists who think it valid. It was the political writers and social science types who seized upon Darwin's theories as a way to change the age old concepts of morality and religion holding sway in the western world at the time. Thus you have terms such as "social darwinism" to describe the nature of culture and businesses in much the same terms as a biologist would discuss the evolution of a snake and of the mutations needed for its contiunued survival.
Darwinism simply attempts to study the change of organisms via adaptations over millions of years. Many social commentators, ignorant of the science itself, have attempted to socially expand upon its theoretical implications to the point that God himself had no existence,or if there ever was a God, having had no existence in nor was he necessary for the creation of a material universe. Darwinism was to be the crow bar by which religious minded men could be wrested from the teats of classically Rational Philosophy and the "givens" of Judeo-Christian morality and ethics.
The scientists who hold that Darwinian science has some creedence aren't really the issue. It was always the scoffers and vain philosophers, who hating the notion of personal resposibility to a higher being than themselves, inaccurately used Darwin's work to attack the very structure of church, society, and family!
Male Nipples
1) They do generate pleasure for the man. I'll attest to that as well as the first article below.
2) They are ornamental. Although as with all art, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And evolutionists routinely deny that anything is ornamental.
3) They are a design feature inherent in the way humans develop where the same tissues can develop into either sex based on hormones.
Why men have nipples(put cursor on pic to see man without nipples)"
Straight Dope on Nipples
Don't mess with my nipples. I like them. And I like them better when a woman kisses them or drapes her hair across them.
Please name the amount of grant money available for research specific to creation science or ID, and the addresses to apply for said grant money.
Can you name anyone doing unfunded evolutionary research in their garage?
Cookcounty, you're up against a gaggle of fanatical darwinites on these threads. They don't want to consider evidence or facts. They get cheap thrills from denigrating anyone who disagrees with their hollow religion.
Cookcounty, you're up against a gaggle of fanatical darwinites on these threads. They don't want to consider evidence or facts. They get cheap thrills from denigrating anyone who disagrees with their hollow religion.
Firs, I gave you a perfectly good source of funds. If private individuals can support research, surely the Christian community can afford a bit of research.
But no sane person or agency will support research in the absense of proposals. where are the proposals.
I would like to add just one more thought. Most university research is conducted simply to solve problems that happen to be accessible with current tools and methods. They aren't really after any earth shaking paradigm changes. Any person with any competence can find a problem that nibbles at any theory they are interested in. They don't have to disclose their personal beliefs.
The reason that creation science isn't being done is that every time science is done honestly it supports naturalistic interpretations of phenomena. And that's the reason ICR doesn't raise funds for research. It would be ideological suicide.
That is the same question, as I assume you know, which Philip Johnson claims he put to Dawkins. Their exchange (Johnson's version of it) is described here. Dawkins' purported response seems correct:
... the reason we know for certain we are all related, including bacteria, is the universality of the genetic code and other biochemical fundamentals.Johnson then waves it all away (like a good creationists) and, in effect, says: "You have no proof! Nyaaaa nyaaa, nyaaaaa!" [That's not a fake quote, it's my own interpretation of Johnson's silly position.]
Am I confused? A truly "objective" person can never take sides, he can only see both sides to an arguement. He will never call another a "fool" for then he ceases to be an "objective" person, having taken a moral and personal decision against another based on his own biases.
You are not an objective person nor are you arguing rationally; using ad hominems against those you disagree with while polishing your own gilded cage. You need to make a better case for your position than just calling names and labeling labels.
"A fool says in his heart there is no God!" Proverbs
Note for the record I am not calling you a name here, this proverb is one of those..."if the shoe fits" statements!
Pearls before swine my friend ... I do however appreciate your attempt to educate people who have their fingers in their ears yelling lalalalalal.
It is probably it is your little limited god that is the thing of fools.
It would also cut into their Mercedes budget.
Bull Puckey. According to that parasite, Matthew Lesko, he can get you government money for just about anything. I'm also sure a special collection at fundamentalist churches would fund at least a few lines of research. The truth of the matter is creationist need something to hide behind, and "lack of grant money" provides a convenient foil for lack of research.
Actually, insects are in a majority. There are billions of them. I think there are several hundred thousand species.
Your little design god must have had a lot of drafting boards going to design all those!
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.