Posted on 04/16/2006 11:29:43 AM PDT by JCEccles
Recently I highlighted how the coverage of Tiktaalik revealed the fascinating phenomenon that only after discovering a new "missing link" will evolutionists acknowledge the previously paltry state of fossil evidence for evolution. This behavior is again witnessed in coverage of the discovery of Australopithecus anamensis fossils in Ethiopia. The media has also exaggerated and overblown claims that this evidence supports "human evolution."
The latest "missing link" is actually comprised of a few tooth and bone fragments of Au. anamensis, an ape-like species that lived a little over 4 million years ago. Incredibly, claims of "intermediacy" are based upon 2-3 fragmented canines of "intermediate" size and shape. This has now led to grand claims in the media of finding a "missing link." Because some bone fragments from Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus afarensus were also found in the area, MSNBC highlighted these finds on a front-page article calling this "the most complete chain of human evolution so far." Media coverage of this find thus follows an identical pattern to that of Tiktaalik: incredibly overblown claims of a "transitional fossil" follow stark admissions of how previously bleak the evidence was for evolution. Moreover, claims that this find enlightens "human evolution" are misleading, as these fossils come from ape-like species that long-predate the appearance of our genus Homo, and thought to be far removed from the origin of "humans."
(Excerpt) Read more at evolutionnews.org ...
Darwin was the product of a certain cultural mileiu, one already disposed to racism and other notions of social hierarchy. Herbert Spencer was already famous, so "social darwinism" was simply his appropriation of natural selection. His theory was appreciated by Carnegie and the industrialists since it justified their practices. But it was the Gedrmans who created "darwinism" as an overarching theory. As Darwin himself admitted, he was not much on theory. Natural selection was less a theory an operational devise. The Germans turned it into a theory of humanity.
That's funny. I thought people on this site would try to get sympathy by conflating Darwin and Marx, not Darwin and the capitalists. First you are pro-choice and pro-gun-control, and now you are an anti-capitalist commie... are you sure you didn't mean to go to dailykos?
The Germans turned it into a theory of humanity.
Actually, Hitler was a creationist. Also, Godwin's law.
Some nice Hitler quotes for you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html
this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men
Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise
What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, . . . so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe.
the task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission
"Festival of anti-Capitalist Claptrap" placemarker
????
What are you trying to say? That Darwinism is bad because Germany was like Marxism? Darwinism is bad because Germany was more fit than Belgium and that's why they invaded? Maybe you should actually say what you mean instead of insinuating a bunch of random garbage.
Anyway, like I already said, Hitler was a Creationist Christian. So what? That doesn't prove that Creationism is wrong. The tons of evidence in the world around us proves it is wrong. Even though Hitler used his Creationist beliefs to kill millions of people, saying that Creationism is therefore evil is a logical fallacy. It would be just like saying that the Theory of Relativity is evil because it leads to Da Bomb, which is also not necessarily evil, although people like you probably think it is. Saying Creationism is evil because of Hitler the same logical fallacy as saying astronomy is evil because it means the earth isn't really the center of the universe or that Germ Theory is evil because it leads to the ideas of biological warfare.
I am talking about the uses of darwinism, which is something more than Darwin's theory of evolution. Darwin's theory buttressed a radical nationalism who was the natural conclusion of a theory of a hierarchy of races that was developed long before Darwin and to which Darwin himself subscribed. You can find it in the Descent of Man. As to the theory that Hitler was a creationist Christian, that has elements of truth. The German Christian Church, consisting mainly of Germany Protestants, did further the Nazi ideology. But Mein Kampf has little good to say about traditional Christianity. and the Nazi leadership despised it, because of the unavoidable fact that Jesus was a Jew.b But Laissez faire capitalism and Marxism have commonalities. Marx's notion f the inevitability of a proletariat is based on Ricardo's theory of wages and Malthus's population theory.
Trigonometry is a tool of the Great Deceiver.
So how did the 'variations' come about?
You know, the lion, cheetah & wolf kind ...
Which is why he stated:
0.808 arcseconds = 0.000224 degrees
The circle could not be measured in one night.
The supernova was detected Feb 23 (IIRC) and the illumination of the ring was seen in September.
... I do know trig. I was top in my class.
Whew. You had me worried that you rejected trigonometry ...
It appears that some can not grasp that God would have created things with precieved age for us to look at and wonder at his abilities
Lemesee if I got this straight ...
God creates the appearance of a supernova, then twiddles his thumbs (or noodly appendages) for nine months, then creates the appearance of light hitting the first ring?
Just to confound humans into thinking it was plain old physics?
So you admit you're posting material you don't understand, in the hope that the site you're quoting know more about it than you do.
Let me assure you they don't. They don't address the issue of the fact that radiogenic (U,Th)/Pb ages use two and sometimes three independent pairs of nuclides, which give mutually consistent ages; and they state falsely that the data could be compromised by non-radiogenic lead, which in fact is corrected for.
You will only begin to understand when you have given in to Jesus.
Good try but you are wrong. The title only impresses girls
Leaching can't differentially affect two isotopes of the same element whose mass differs less by 0.5%. Because the U-238 and U-235 decay rates are so different, it would cause the two isotopes to give dramatically different ages. But they give the same age, to within 1%.
"In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth,
2
2 the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This happens before God separates Light from Dark and then calls it the first day. There is room there for trillions of years. We simply do not know because it doesn't say.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"3
Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
4
God saw how good the light was. God then separated the light from the darkness.
5
God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." Thus evening came, and morning followed--the first day."
best to you,
ampu
You seem not to know what is a scientific theory. Of 6.7 billion people on earth no two have ever been found to be a exact clone or without differences. BY DNA and observation most agree that that all have some slight variation or difference. However philosophy might say that's proof that all have some differences. Science accepts it as a theory. Science simply says that all of the population is slightly different by observation and evidence but that a clone might appear in the future or may have appeared in the past. Proof would then be false. A scientific THEORY is of a higher order than either proof or a fact. Instead of wanting proof of a thing you might want to request the scientific explanation or theory. Its why the term proof is not used in science, it is of a lesser determination and a tool of philosophy that argues unknowns.
Revelation 4:11
Constantly searching for objectivity in the evolution debate...
See my profile for info
You really insult religion when you equate it with the effects of drugs. Or perhaps the effects of Islam. Submission.
I find it difficult to believe that God would go to the trouble of creating minds, only to punish those who use them.
Actually when one claims a MS and several accreditations toward a PHD and still does not know the difference between a scientific theory and proof I would suspect he is more of the lesser IQ and his attempts at education wasted. You would be of the higher IQ and better education.
That's spooky!
I have noticed that Helen Thomas resembles Emporer Palpatine from Star Wars in drag.
Well, aren't all men pigs? ;-)
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.