Skip to comments.
New Age For Mungo Man, New Human History
Science Daily ^
| FR Post 2-18-03
| Editorial Staff
Posted on 02/20/2003 3:51:29 PM PST by vannrox
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
So, Mungo Man is quite young!
1
posted on
02/20/2003 3:51:30 PM PST
by
vannrox
To: vannrox
He's 22,000 years younger than previously thought? Hang on, lemme grab my lipstick. He's DATING material.
2
posted on
02/20/2003 3:54:15 PM PST
by
seams2me
("if they pass the reading test, it means they learned to read" GWB 1/8/03)
To: vannrox
3
posted on
02/20/2003 3:57:34 PM PST
by
blam
To: PatrickHenry; VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; *crevo_list; RadioAstronomer; Scully; ...
One good ping deserves another.
Patrick, would you mind pinging the rest of your list?
To: vannrox
The 62,000 year age had been controversial from the beginning. Most scientists are probably relieved that Mungo fits the expected settlement pattern better now.
The Associated Press version of this story quoted one of the scientists who did the earlier dating as calling for yet another set of measurements as a tie-breaker, saying that his was just as scientific as the new one. (I think he's ignoring that the first dating on Mungo Man preceded his and came back in the 40K range, so if you want to be picky there's no tie.)
5
posted on
02/20/2003 4:16:27 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
To: Lurking Libertarian; VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; *crevo_list; RadioAstronomer; Scully; ..
Mungo Man (who?) ping.
[This ping list is for the evolution -- not creationism -- side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. To be added (or dropped), let me know via freepmail.]
6
posted on
02/20/2003 4:43:18 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas)
To: PatrickHenry
The geolgic column proves a much younger earth.
There are no precambrian fossils --- how come ?
7
posted on
02/20/2003 4:50:25 PM PST
by
f.Christian
(( + God *IS* Truth - love * SCIENCE* // trust -- *logic* -- *SANITY* Awakening + ))
To: f.Christian
There are no precambrian fossils --- how come ? There actually are precambrian fossils.
To: f.Christian
I don't understand why you biblical creationists have to drag your fantasies into every discussion that implies that the Earth is older than Semour's uncle.
It just makes you look insecure, and maybe with very good reason. You don't have a single shred of hard evidence to back up what is in essence a creation legend no more or less believable than any other.
9
posted on
02/20/2003 5:18:54 PM PST
by
John Valentine
(We live in portentious times.)
To: Lurking Libertarian
... worms and shells !
10
posted on
02/20/2003 5:19:32 PM PST
by
f.Christian
(( + God *IS* Truth - love * SCIENCE* // trust -- *logic* -- *SANITY* Awakening + ))
To: John Valentine
Just calling evolution a theory is an overstatement . . .
only an idea // mood // feeling - - -
an ideology === perverse oddity ! ! !
To: f.Christian
Conjecture masquarading as science might be more appropos - I agree.
71 posted on 01/21/2003 12:04 PM PST by Havoc ((Evolution is a theory, Creationism is God's word, ID is science, Sanka is coffee))
DOGMA masquarading as science might be more appropos - I agree.
Main Entry: dog·ma
Pronunciation: 'dog-m&, 'däg-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta /-m&-t&/
Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem -- more at DECENT
Date: 1638
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets < pedagogical dogma > c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
Main Entry: 1con·jec·ture
Pronunciation: k&n-'jek-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin conjectura, from conjectus, past participle of conicere, literally, to throw together, from com- + jacere to throw -- more at JET
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete a : interpretation of omens b : SUPPOSITION
2 a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved
11
posted on
02/20/2003 5:37:10 PM PST
by
f.Christian
(( + God *IS* Truth - love * SCIENCE* // trust -- *logic* -- *SANITY* Awakening + ))
To: vannrox
bump
To: f.Christian
You guys are as hopeless as the New York idiots that postulated a completely outrageous scenario, that they called a "theory" for a horrific crime that if believed, would exonerate the guilty. When it was pointed out that thee was not a single piece of evidence to support this flight of fancy, they responded with the canard, "That's why we call it a theory!"
A theory is far more than unsupported conjecture. Ant that is emphatically true of the fact of evolution. It is not mere conjecture. It is a well built edifice based on solid research, study, revision, refinement, advancement and insight. It is resilient, responsive, and utilitarian. It answers questions and gives results.
What is creationism? Where are it's researchers? Where are it's facts? Where are it's results?
Nowhere. Creationism is a morally an intellectually bankrupt dead end that has to rely on distortion and outright lies to make its feeble points.
As a creation myth, you are welcome to it. But please don't insult us all by expecting us to take it seriously.
13
posted on
02/20/2003 6:24:37 PM PST
by
John Valentine
(We live in portentious times.)
To: John Valentine
It answers questions and gives results. Really? Name one significant biological discovery which does not tend to disprove evolution. Just one.
14
posted on
02/20/2003 6:32:09 PM PST
by
gore3000
(Support freedom in Iraq, eat frogs.)
To: PatrickHenry
Placemarker.
15
posted on
02/20/2003 7:01:09 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas)
To: gore3000
Well, that's a stumper, because I'm sure that whatever response I give, you'll say that it tends to disprove evolution.
But I'll toss this in and see where you take it.
The structure and function of the genetic "code", i.e. DNA and RNA.
16
posted on
02/20/2003 7:48:34 PM PST
by
John Valentine
(We live in portentious times.)
To: PatrickHenry
Here we go, Blueskipping placemarker.
17
posted on
02/20/2003 8:16:49 PM PST
by
Aric2000
(Are you on Grampa Dave's team? I am!! $5 a month is all it takes, come join!!!)
To: John Valentine
Ask him to name ONE Biological find that disproves Evolution, JUST one, and make sure that he doesn't give you any of his ID Behe Crap either.
I asked him that question once and never got a response, I wonder why. HMMM, Maybe because G3K is CLUELESS, yeah, I think that clueless is the right word.
18
posted on
02/20/2003 8:18:40 PM PST
by
Aric2000
(Are you on Grampa Dave's team? I am!! $5 a month is all it takes, come join!!!)
To: Aric2000
Ask him to name ONE Biological find that disproves Evolution Creationists. They are clear proof that not all of us have evolved from monkeys.
To: John Valentine
Creation -- existence // science is not a myth but evolution is an urban legend --- cult // ideology !
20
posted on
02/20/2003 9:47:59 PM PST
by
f.Christian
(( + God *IS* Truth - love * SCIENCE* // trust -- *logic* -- *SANITY* Awakening + ))
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-35 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson