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 ...
It is, of course, people like you, who parade ignorance as a virtue, that turn ordinary peoply against religion. It's a shame, really, that you score so many self goals.
Well, so far you've revealed that you're a conspiracy-minded kook whose brain began to addle at the age of eleven. I sense that you're yearning to tell us about the childhood trauma which began to cloud your thinking. Do tell all. Reveal those demons. Loose those delusions.
And let the healing begin!
It was a passing fancy. I'm always surprised when people older than eleven think it's a convincing argument.
May I use the same rule to judge you intelligence?
Placemarker
Awww, I was going to suggest we judge them on their spelling in addition to their ignorance, illogic, and emotional rants.
Those who can't prevail in debate check spelling.
BTW did you miss "peoply"? in #17 or or intentionally overlook it because you surmised the genius author to be a kindred spirit?
Very!!! Some think it a desease.
RESPECT FOR IGNORANCE...A DISEASE by William Edelen
June 9, 2002
H.L. Mencken was one of the most respected scholars, writers and nationally syndicated columnists in American journalism. He wrote for the Baltimore Sun. His observations on "religious opinions" should be on everyone's fridge door
"The most unbelievable social convention of the age in which we live is the one to the effect that all religious opinions should be respected, no matter how ignorant."
The insidious and seductive cliche that seems to saturate our society is..."you should not be critical of another person's religious belief...they all deserve "respect". No matter how ignorant...how bigoted...how ugly...how destructive...how false...how cruel...how superstitious...they all deserve "respect".
It reaches the absurd point where a person cannot even write a scholarly critique on a religious belief without being labeled and attacked. Distinguished scholars such as Joseph Campbell, or Dr. James Bennett Pritchard who was the biblical advisor to National Geographic magazine and Time-Life books, write about the myth of the Hebrew patriarchs and the monumental exaggeration of Old Testament events and they are immediately attacked as being anti-semitic.
An illustration from my own life. About a year ago I wrote a book review on "Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel". Only a book review, mind you, and one that received excellent reviews in the New York Times.
Letters to the Editor came in calling me "anti-semitic" for reviewing the book.
We are so pathologically afraid of stepping on other people's toes that truth is unknown. This thing called "tolerance" can only be an excuse to avoid dealing with the truth head-on. For instance, "creationism" is NOT science. The earth is billions of years old, not thousands. That is a FACT. When are more school boards going to have the guts to say it? Or bible "history" classes in public schools in Florida that have "lesson questions" such as"Who according to Jesus, is the father of the Jews? The devil..."
"Tolerance" and "respect" for ignorance and bigotry should have no place in our lives. The disease that is spreading in our society is the feeling that you should accept and respect an individual's belief's, no matter how ignorant or destructive. This is a most dangerous principle in that it threatens free inquiry, even science and truth itself. The danger is that far too many, in apathy, are dozing while this cancer spreads.
Public criticism in the only way to decide what is right and what is true, no matter whose toes get stepped on and flattened.
A fundamentalist education official in Arizona said this: "If fundamentalist parents tell their children the earth is flat, teachers have no right to contradict them."
Under pressure from Christian fundamentalists, the Oklahoma State Textbook Committee voted that all science textbooks should include a disclaimer against evolution.
This pathology of "acceptance" and "respect" for ignorance in our society even motivated nationally syndicated conservative columnist George Will to write: "The principle on which all intellectual freedom depends is this: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH OFFENDING SOMEONE IN THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH."
Put that on your fridge door...with spotlights on it.
Why all the screaming from those being "offended?" The answer is so simple. Ignorance cannot abide informed and intelligent criticism. Any, and I repeat "any". organized religious community or religious tradition is always in danger of collapse through dissent. And so they stigmatize dissent by crying how "offended" they are.
There was a teacher once who had no respect or tolerance for the hypocrisy or the superstition of the religious leaders of his day. His name was Jesus. To the Pharisees, he said it loud and clear "woe to you hypocrites...on the outside you look clean but inside all are unclean and full of dead men's bones...you go over land and sea to make a single proselyte and then make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves." (Matthew: chapter 23)
Poor Jesus. Nobody ever gave him that pathetic, naive and pathological advice that he should be "tolerant" and show "respect" for the hypocrisy and bigotry of the Pharisees.
I am not unhappy that there is no Nebraska man.
It's more than sedimentary, isn't it. I scanned your 'about' page but didn't find anything. A brief elucidation, please?
Me neither. That type of critter does not belong in the New World (except maybe Bigfoot, but he's a different case entirely).
No, its sedimentary, my dear Watson.
From Merriam - Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition 2003
Science =
1: The state of knowing knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.
2 a: A department of systematized knowledge as an object of study < the~ of theology>
2 b: something ( as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a ~>
3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or operations of general laws. Esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method.
(Evolution nor creation has or can be proved through scientific methods, you will confess that it has but that would not be true. There is nothing that proves evolution that is tangible only speculation, assumption, what if, could have happened, might have happened, all those statements are used in high school text books and published articles they are religious in nature for they take faith to believe.) (And do not barf out a comment that Christians do not believe in science of the physical world for we do we just do not use secular interpretations of the visible evidence of the world. Everything can be see from more than one perspective)3 b: such knowledge or such system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE.
4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <culinary ~>
5 cap: CHRISTIAN SCIENCE.
So with the definition of science clear that it does cover creationism, it is a science. Believe it or not. Denial is a river in evolution.
The physical observable evidence of this planet have been studied by those who believe in Jesus as the one True God and they are erudite men. They have observed this evidence and using the Holy Bible as their foundation are able to determine that the earth is not billions of years old but is only thousands. That is a fact.
These same erudite men and women pray daily for those who have hardened their heart to anything that would involve those who believe in evolution from getting to know Jesus Christ as the one true God who Created everything in the Universe in 144 hours about 6000 years ago.
Philippians 2:10,11
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
What are their views or are they permited?
It is a fact that they have determined this, yes.
However, that does not make it accurate. They are off by some 4.5 billion years.
Most Christians agree that the earth is old. The following website, for example, discusses the merits of radiometric dating, the primary technique which is used to date the earth:
The American Scientific Affiliation: Science in Christian Perspective Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. WiensI am not an expert in that field, but if you have questions about radiocarbon dating, perhaps could answer them. I do a lot of that type of dating.
First, science cannot "prove" anything. That has been discussed many times on these threads. Science can, and does, pile up huge amounts of evidence in support of some of its theories. The theory of evolution is one example.
Second, it is primarily an anti-evolutionist contention, and wrong, that a science has to replicate all experiments. Physics and chemistry require it in many cases--this is where the cold fusion claim of a few years back has been found wanting. But nobody can replicate plate tectonics, ice ages, meteor strikes, or many other well-supported aspects of science. It is disingenuous to imply that this is a necessary condition in science, and that the theory of evolution is the weaker because of it.
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.