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.
It appeals to those who dress up philosophies of history in scientific terms. It has a more sophisticated ring to it than "godidit."
Hmmm.. You seem to be having coherence difficulties. Please rephrase and try again.
PS. It might help for you to meditate on your tagline: "eschew obfuscation"..
It wasn't death that was introduced, it was the realization that each of us will die. An animal is often repulsed by something dead, but it has no realization that it will die as well. We are the only species that understands this much of our own fate. And it is because of our more well developed intellect that we realize this. Thus, the "apple" from the "tree of knowledge" introduced "death" into the Garden of Eden.
If you think I'm a ranter, what do you think of the name calling intolerant darwin zealots who want to put christians in zoos and teach their children atheism?
I appreciate your efforts, DannyT, but the darwinites will treat you like the church treated heretics. Maybe a concentration camp is preferable to burning at the stake.
I certainly never said otherwise. The notion of Common Design merely attributes the existence of everything to a deity. Everything is what it is regardless.
All evolutionists have is an assumption.
Umm.. No, they have a tremendous framework of supporting evidence. But, you already have been informed of that multiple times.
Evolutionionists have made numerous predictions that have not been true and new observations are routinely incorporated as "predictions" after the fact.
That's the way all sciences work and you can say that about any science. That's what science is. It's a bit sad that you don't comprehend that.
Vestigial organs and junk DNA are just some of the bad predictions.
You claim so, and no one, including myself, appears to think it worthwhile to waste time on a futile endeavor to educate you otherwise.
You throw out enough predictions and eventually something matches the data.
What matches the data becomes scientific theory. That happens to be evolution. Creationism has thrown out plenty of theories as well. They consistently haven't matched the data. That's why you are left with untestable supernatural conjecture and nothing more.
You observe from the fossil record what you think is a pattern of progression and then you incorporate that as a prediction.
The prediction actually preceded the observation. By contrast, the long-standing prediction of creationism was contrary to what has since been observed, and so has been tossed out and replaced by unverifiable, unfalsifiable ID.
If it doesn't match your predictions you coin fancy terms and adjust your positions such as "punctuated equilibrium" and "convergent evolution".
That's how science works. It adjusts to match the factual evidence as best it can. By contrast, creationism doesn't care about facts.
And then those things become "predictions" as though you had thought of them all along.
Umm.. no. Those things do then become "predictions" as if they were valid all along - that's what reality is, and science is about describing reality - but they are not presented as though they had been thought of all along. The development of evolutionary theory is well-known and hardly kept a secret from anyone.
When someone lies as you have, and posts manufactured quotes which are shown to be false, and then CONTINUES to profess them as "truth", there can be no good intent.
You have ZERO credibility, honor, or even common decency. If you had, you'd have apologized, corrected the record, or at least ceased lying. You might have even ceased posting for a while out of shame.
That you have NOT, and simply repeat the Bravo Sierra, speaks volumes about YOU, Slick.
I guess you can take solace in the fact that you are not alone. There are at least a half-dozen OTHER brazen BS artists with whom you run.
What I find hilarious is the belief you seem to have that we should actually TRUST people such as yourself when it comes to educating our children on scientific matters, or even that we should allow you to link yourselves with the GOP.
Rest assured, your lies will be just as easily exposed by the MSM, if it comes to that, and to the total detriment of the Republican party and conservatism in general.
To be absolutely precise, science is about describing verisimilitude.
I've posted this a few times before, but it seems to fit in again right here:
Here are the few creationist predictions. Because -- according to creationism -- all species were specially created at virtually the same time, and did not gradually evolve from earlier forms:
1. There should be no transitional species.I call these The Five Failed Predictions of Creationism.2. There are most certainly no pre-human (but still humanoid) species.
3. There should be no evidence, whether in fossils or DNA, showing the chronological evolution of life.
4. There must surely be at least one species, and probably several, having no genetic similarities with any other life on earth. This isn't a direct prediction, but it's inferred by the concept of special creation. There is no reason at all for each to be so similar to the others in their molecular structure. For example, there's no creationist reason why a lion can eat animals from all over the globe.
5. The fossil record must show all kinds of species (such as dinosaurs and humans) living together at the same time.
In fairness to the creationists, although the first three have already been disproved (for example: #1 -- Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, #2 -- Human Ancestors, more #2 -- Comparison of all skulls, #3 - - Tree of Life Project ), the last two (#4 and #5) can't yet be considered to be totally failed predictions. All we can do is point out that the predicted evidence has not yet been discovered. Given the lack of actual research being conducted by creationists, it is unlikely to be discovered.
I cannot imagine what he/she is hoping to accomplish with this BS. It certainly is scoring negative points for his professed "side" of the debate.
I knew what I meant...I agree with your thinking. Surprise!
I can only regret that I am not a telepath. ;^)
amidst you blather...a question occured to me:
what is your primary evidence that species originated on their own? Let's see if you can talk sense...
That's creationism. Why do you expect anything other than what you're getting?
Honey they dont want us in zoos, they want our heads on the walls of their dens
Only the pretty heads..
well then I'm out, whew!
"Beauty" is indicative of health, and health is what individuals look for in mates -- hence our efforts to appear healthy (makeup, cosmetic surgery, cosmetic dental work) even if we are not.
If you are now claiming that you've never been presented with any evidence, well, we can just chalk up another lie in a string of them. Oh, and another attempt to change the subject when caught in your own web of BS.
Oh, there are only two sides to this debate?
Typical shallow thinking from your side.
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.