Posted on 07/21/2009 8:37:13 PM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
On May 19 the world met a most unlikely celebrity: the fossilized carcass of a housecat-size primate that lived 47 million years ago in a rain forest in what is now Germany. The specimen, a juvenile female, represents a genus and species new to science, Darwinius masillae, although the media-savvy researchers who unveiled her were quick to give her a user-friendly nickname, Ida. And in an elaborate public-relations campaign, in which the release of a Web site, a book and a documentary on the History Channel were timed to coincide with the publication of the scientific paper describing her in PLoS ONE, Ida’s significance was described in no uncertain terms as the missing link between us humans and our primate kin. In news reports, team members called her “the eighth wonder of the world,” “the Holy Grail,” and “a Rosetta Stone.”
If the detractors are right, Ida is irrelevant to the question of anthropoid—and thus, human—origins.
(Excerpt) Read more at scientificamerican.com ...
Where'd 99% come from and since when did scientists educated at Harvard, Princeton Johns Hopkins, etc. etc. etc. not count and meet the definition of scientists?
See, it's painfully obvious to the normal peolple where the agenda comes in here on this thread, when making these kinds of wild and bizarre and ludicrous assertions.
Those are interesting statistics. Where did you hear that? My experience with other meteorologists is that very few really believe in AGW, or global warming of any kind. The only one that I know of that does, was just a TV meteorologist anyway.
The guys at the NWS office I dealt with certainly didn't buy it.
I've wondered before if any of the anti-evolutionists here do anything themselves that requires training or expertise, because they seem so quick to discount it in science.
You two sound like Bubba and algore snickering at the rest of the world pointing out your obvious problems and you respond by saying "just exactly who are these people to suggest to us they know anything more about shameless politics than WE do"?
Well you two sure do make a point, but probably not exactly the one you were counting on!
Silly science defender my eye, that's the entire point! It was that there was no science to begin with, more like silly establishment of cult of evolution masquerading as science defender and even people with no training can see it a mile a way, in fact most 5 year olds know BS when they see it!
You two could just as easily be two hollyweirdos making fun of people who don't know how to "propely" make movies, or journalists making fun of reporters that don't suck up to the zerrhoid or lawyers ridiculing lawyers that "don't know anything" about the law...in short, liberals defending liberalism that's hi-jacked everything around them and only you two seem unable to grasp the obvious, as you're so helplessly and wantonly and so deeply entrenched into the liberal cult.
BTW goodusername I look forward to answering (or dismantling as it were) your latest post on our other thread! I'm just rolling back into to town.
Whatever an evolutionist digs out of the ground, it sets him a-shrieking Darwin Proved True!, even if it's a mouldy potato. If the mouldy potato is classified as an ancestor of man, it's "Darwin Proved True!". If the mouldy potato is not classified as an ancestor of man, it's "Darwin Proved True" anyway.
Remember Bathybius? Huxley discovers sludge under the ocean and then it becomes "a vast sheet of living matter enveloping the whole earth beneath the seas" and the shrieking begins: "DARWIN PROVED TRUE, there is no God, Ha Ha Ha, Hoo Hoo, Hee Hee..."
==There really isn’t such a thing as an “Evolutionist.”
Just because evolution isn’t true doesn’t mean that there aren’t people who actually believe Darwin’s fanciful creation myth.
Wait. You mean this scientific discovery was *gasp* wrong?
But, but, but,..... it's science. How could it be wrong?
could it be an X-ray of Pelosi?
Missing links are a dime a dozen.
For all then hysteria about them when they claim to have found one, you hear NOTHING when it turns out to be a bust.
Now when I hear about one,.... Yawn, let me know if it’s genuine.
That is, of course, because they're not missing links. The only way I can conceive of money changing hands is if the Evos payed people to haul all their “missing links” to the dump.
Considering the past record of it--a century of bogus science (Haeckel, Bathybius, Piltdown, eugenics, sociobiology, ev psych, etc), it's reasonable to say that the burden is on the evolutionist to prove that his stuff is real. I don't see why you should be the one to go track down that supposedly vanished box full of Peking Men and prove it was all fake... I mean, it's their box-full-o-evidence, their story, their problem. Not mine. There's no reason on earth why we should be compelled to believe in such stuff.
But thats not how the evolutionist sees it. Their view is remarkably like that of the flying saucer enthusiast or alien abductee. He'll show you pictures of cigar-shaped UFOs and photos of interplanetary vegetables and maybe bits of metal thingies. But if you say, look mate, that's nice but I'm not really buying it... he'll get uppity and challenge you to PROVE that these vegetables did not come from outer space, and so on.
>>Just because evolution isn’t true doesn’t mean that there aren’t people who actually believe Darwin’s fanciful creation myth.<<
Just because there are people who understand science doesn’t mean there aren’t people who try to drag other people down with their vapid combination of arrogance and ignorance.
Your trite continued attempts at “look at me, Mommy and Daddy, you never looked at me so now I need to look like a modern Conspiracy Theorist” are always amusing, if a bit pitiful.
As always, I will pray for you to be given comfort to overcome your upbringing. And that you will find Christ again and stop bathing in the lies Satan provides for you.
>>Where’d 99% come from and since when did scientists educated at Harvard, Princeton Johns Hopkins, etc. etc. etc. not count and meet the definition of scientists?<<
Easy. All modern mainstream life sciences rely on an understanding of TToE. It is the foundation in the same way that Trigonometry is the basis for Physics.
Please feel free to list — oh, about a hundred thousand solid life scientists who decry TToE. There are, at the moment about 20 to 50 life million scientists practicing in the world today. You have some numbers problems.
>>See, it’s painfully obvious to the normal peolple where the agenda comes in here on this thread, when making these kinds of wild and bizarre and ludicrous assertions.<<
Yep, and you are the one providing the wild and bizarre and ludicrous assertions.
Have you ever even MET a life scientist? A real one and not one of your invented imaginary ones.
>>Considering the past record of it—a century of bogus science (Haeckel, Bathybius, Piltdown, eugenics, sociobiology, ev psych, etc), it’s reasonable to say that the burden is on the evolutionist to prove that his stuff is real. I don’t see why you should be the one to go track down that supposedly vanished box full of Peking Men and prove it was all fake... I mean, it’s their box-full-o-evidence, their story, their problem. Not mine. There’s no reason on earth why we should be compelled to believe in such stuff.<<
So science uses its methodology to ensure fidelity to scientific principles and that proves that science cheats. Or — wait it is proof it doesn’t cheat since its methodology exposes cheats.
Jeeze, with you folks it is always a loss. Your inability to see the scientific method in action in your examples (well, the real ones — eugenics has no relationship to TToE except in the really, really slow amongst you). Piltdown is no more a mark against TToE than a robbery means we must tear down all banks.
Do I need to get started with the Televangelists who have used Christ’s name as a scam? Do they mean that Christ never came down and saved us? (It does by your “logic.”) Let’s go point for point: Televangelists vs. Science scammers. Loser has to change his tagline to anything the winner wants, within FR rules.
(yeah, that’ll be the day)
I am a climate junkie. It affects my job and lifestyle greatly (boating in the great lakes), so I find it important to understand weather forecasting. I have read a lot of articles, and what I said about 50/50 is from the aggregate of them. AlGore and the climate professionals will say it's 98/2 (settled science), but surveys I have read say it's about 50/50, with the deniers now swelling the ranks. I believe the guy from Australia who has been debunking AGW gives that statistic and is bound and determined to change that with his work.
There is a climate AGW ping list on FR, many articles against, some for. Of course, the MSM is all for AGW being true, so most of their articles have that bias.
I also know several science researchers, plus a man who was head of the engineering department at one of the Big Ten universities. He has told me story after story of the grant money for AGW and how it has affected the research. Hint: It ain't a pretty story. He says most of the research is purely political, "peer reviewed scientific garbage". Oh, but the grant money they get.
It is not. The ToE depends on other sciences to support it, but biology can do just fine without the ToE. There were many advances made in the biological sciences and the foundations were laid in genetics by Mendel without the ToE being involved.
One can understand anatomy and physiology without knowing how the species arrived at where it's at today.
Have you ever even MET a life scientist? A real one and not one of your invented imaginary ones.
That's funny, considering who you're talking to.
Piltdown is a mark against the credibility of the scientists who claim to be speaking on the validity of the ToE.
Do I need to get started with the Televangelists who have used Christ’s name as a scam? Do they mean that Christ never came down and saved us? (It does by your “logic.”)
It's not the same thing. We're talking about expressing skepticism against some conveniently perfect fossil find being authentic. The topic isn't about where any fossil that is proved to be authentic adequately supports the ToE; we're discussing the authenticity of the fossil.
So your analogy is wrong. A more correct one would be that since some televangelists are frauds and shysters, then one would be perfectly justified in suspecting that the next one that comes along is likely to be one as well, until it can be demonstrated through careful scrutiny, that he's not.
Evos keep telling us that the burden of proof is on the person making the claims, that it’s up to them to provide enough evidence to support it.
But here, apparently, we’re simply expected to accept their word on it and if we don’t like it, prove them wrong.
Double standard time again.
>>Piltdown is a mark against the credibility of the scientists who claim to be speaking on the validity of the ToE.<<
It was a scam perpetrated by some individuals. It was science itself that exposed it.
>>So your analogy is wrong. A more correct one would be that since some televangelists are frauds and shysters, then one would be perfectly justified in suspecting that the next one that comes along is likely to be one as well, until it can be demonstrated through careful scrutiny, that he’s not.<<
No, your ilk use Piltdown as an attack on TToE itself. Guilt by association is probably the weakest attack that can be made. Your recasting the analogy doesn’t make any sense and is inapplicable.
>>Double standard time again.<<
Your echo chamber is working perfectly. The irony is delicious.
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.