Oldest Remains of Modern Humans Are Identified by Scientists

New York Times (AP Wire) ^ | February 16, 2005 | AP Wire

[WildTurkey]

My first kid is 8 has been tested with an IQ of 147

Did you know that the founder of the IQ test was a Darwinist and based his work on the writings of Darwin?

[Dataman]

Why would God waste his time forming mostly imperfect specimens. It does not pass the logic test.

Just what is your idea of the "logic test?"

I imagine your statement above wouldn't pass the "logic test" since it presumes the Creator of time has time to waste. It might not even pass the "brain engaged" test.

[DannyTN]

There are ID'ers who are not Christian. They are few and far between, but they exist.

I would call ID a scientific theory that competes against evolutionary theory, that is compatible with what scripture tells us and that is also compatible with the evidence.

You characterize ID as a "ruse" and as a synomynous with "creation" so that you can ban ID papers from being published. And then having done so, you can mock ID for having been published.

[WildTurkey]

Your post does not make sense.

[DannyTN]

He based the IQ test on the writings of Darwin? What people didn't take tests prior to Darwin? And people didn't think some people were smarter than others prior to Darwin?

What exactly about the IQ test did he derive from Darwin's writings?

[ohioWfan]

Still waiting for evidence you have that this man's research is 'false propaganda.'

[stremba]

I would call ID a scientific theory

Then you would be wrong, at least as ID stands now. Provide some notion of what the designer couldn't have or wouldn't have done, and then you might have a scientific HYPOTHESIS.

[jennyp]

My first kid is 8 has been tested with an IQ of 147, is in the 2nd grade reading at a 6 grade level and accepted Jesus when she was 2 of her own free will.

Hey, that's neat! I was reading the newspaper at age 3, and I accepted Santa when I was 2 of my own free will. :-) (Probably Jesus as well, as we were Catholic.)

[Right in Wisconsin]

I think punching oneself it the face is pretty idiotic.

[infocats]

I'm not sure that Lucy was Homo Sapiens...I believe she was Homo Erectus, a distant predecessor.

[stremba]

BTW, I am still waiting for any observation that would be impossible if ID were true. I am logging off until tommorrow so I will be looking forward to hearing what observation would NOT be compatible with ID. Regards.

[Dataman]

Do you realize how insane that is.

I used to think that they (Rabid Freeper Evolutionists) knew exactly what they were doing. I'm convinced that some of them know, but I'm not sure all of them do. I don't think they realize that they have handcuffed themselves after putting on a blindfold. The confusion centers around that mystical rule that science must exclude the supernatural. Do you think they could tell us who made that rule and what is its justification? IOW, sez who? Science encounters innumerable things it cannot detect, cannot measure, and cannot know, yet only those things dealing with a Superior do they reject. Not dark matter, not dark energy, not zpe, not mathematical dimensions, not green men from planet X, not the origin of the singularity, but only God. That's neither logical nor consistent.

[VadeRetro]

There are ID'ers who are not Christian. They are few and far between, but they exist.

They're called Muslims and there are more than you indicate. Doesn't help you with his point.

[Dataman]

Everyone knows that "ID" is just a ruse to destroy evolutionary theory.

Ah Ah Ah! Let's not be bearing false witness!

[VadeRetro]

I'm not sure that Lucy was Homo Sapiens...I believe she was Homo Erectus, a distant predecessor.

Australopithecus afarensis, an even more distant predecessor.

[Dataman]

Your post does not make sense.

In this cold weather you might have to let it warm up a little before you use it. Just think about it for a while. It will come to you.

[ohioWfan]

The point I was making is that evolutionists reject evidence that leads to design, because of their fear that design might lead to creation.

I do not need scientific evidence to believe in God, but that is not the subject of the conversation.

You, and others here are quite consistent in changing the subject to the faith of the poster, to avoid the actual discussion of the issue.

What if the evidence leads to a designer? What will you do with that evidence? Ignore it, or try to find out what it means......even if it leads where you don't want it to?

[WildTurkey]

Darwin's writings influenced his whole work.

[DannyTN]

You can't even provide me a statement that would falsify evolution. But you want me to falsify God?

Besides, that's like asking me to falsify my own mother? God's not just a theory, He's a person, and a neat one to know.

[jennyp]

Science encounters innumerable things it cannot detect, cannot measure, and cannot know, yet only those things dealing with a Superior do they reject. Not dark matter, not dark energy, not zpe, not mathematical dimensions, not green men from planet X, not the origin of the singularity, but only God. That's neither logical nor consistent.

AFAIK, all of those examples are detectable & measurable as regularities in principle, if not in fact today. God is detectable & measurable only if he decides to let himself be detected & measured - and he sure isn't regular! Everything that we could detect about God would happen at his whim.

Please tell me how the scientific method could possibly detect & measure God in a way that would distinguish his characteristics from merely unexplained natural phenomena?