Weak Link: Fossil Darwinius Has Its 15 Minutes

Scientific American ^ | July 2009 | Kate Wong

[metmom]

It was a scam perpetrated by some individuals. It was science itself that exposed it.

And creationists never believed it to be genuine in the first place.

You may not agree with the reasons for their conclusion, but they were right.

[freedumb2003]

>> And creationists never believed it to be genuine in the first place.

You may not agree with the reasons for their conclusion, but they were right.<<

Well, creationists don’t believe anything about science so if something ends up being wrong they will be right.

[tpanther]

One can understand anatomy and physiology without knowing how the species arrived at where it's at today.

This reminds me of the liberals demanding evolution has nothing to do with origins and can be "done" without having any understanding or acknowledgement of it, but then they turn right around and exclaim biology can't be done without their cult.

And cult it is...and this example is just another example in a long list of never-ending examples or double-standards, non-sensical conclusions, etc.

'dumb: Have you ever even MET a life scientist? A real one and not one of your invented imaginary ones.

MM:That's funny, considering who you're talking to.

'dumb just talks to hear himself talk.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

science uses its methodology to ensure fidelity to scientific principles... it is proof it doesn’t cheat since its methodology exposes cheats.

So then, according to you, Piltdown bolsters the credibility of evolution science. Interesting to see how evolutionists have found a way to recycle Piltdown. Why let it go to waste, eh? It has found new posthumous value. Let us then add Piltdown to the "List of Reasons to Believe in Evolution Science"...

List of Reasons to Believe in Evolution Science

1. Piltdown.

You see, in evolution science, even fakes and frauds end up to be bolstering supportive evidence.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

just another example in a long list of... non-sensical conclusions

Speaking of nonsensical conclusions (such as "evolutionists do not exist"), we are now being told by evolutionists that Piltdown supports evolution science. Piltdown is proof that evolution science is credible, they say. Is that nonsensical enough for you?

[tpanther]

Speaking of nonsensical conclusions (such as "evolutionists do not exist"), we are now being told by evolutionists that Piltdown supports evolution science. Piltdown is proof that evolution science is credible, they say. Is that nonsensical enough for you?

In the words of General Terry McAuliffe: "nuts"!! Ya gotta love evo-illogic...dragging the Pope into the "debate" while at the same time whining about "religious attacks on science"...and ya just gotta love the argument that God expects us to "use our brains" and the way to accomplish this is by denying His creation. That's reeeeeeeally special.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

dragging the Pope into the "debate" while at the same time whining about "religious attacks on science"

Yes, it's funny how they are fond of doing that (eg, Buck W, freedumb, allmendream, Wacko etc.) On the one hand they claim that the Pope is "OK" with the notion that everything, including me, you, him, the Bible, the Catholic Church and Jesus Christ, are products of mindless and unintended accidents. And on the other hand they say that he's not an atheist, so it must be OK to believe this. Only an atheist or liberal would use such a retarded argument.

The real reason why they use this kind of argument is this. The testimony of their own kind, atheists, is worthless. And they know it. Quoting Dawkins as an authority will get them laughed at. They need to name-drop Christians to give thier ideas some credibility. The Pope being a particularly famous one, gets abused this way most often.

[Buck W.]

Well, ECG, since you want to bring religion into it, surely YOU will answer my question: Is a Catholic (or Episcopalian) who has faithfully followed Catholic (or Episcopalian) doctrine for his or her entire life a Christian? Yes or no only, please.

I’ll hang up and listen...

[goodusername]

“On the one hand they claim that the Pope is “OK” with the notion that everything, including me, you, him, the Bible, the Catholic Church and Jesus Christ, are products of mindless and unintended accidents. And on the other hand they say that he’s not an atheist, so it must be OK to believe this. Only an atheist or liberal would use such a retarded argument.”

—Interesting, I’ve never seen the argument that evolution says everything is an unintended accident and yet is compatible with Christianity. The argument I’ve seen is that evolution, as with other scientific theories, says what does and ought to occur according to the laws of nature. And just because something occurs naturally, doesn’t mean it was an unintended accident – especially if the laws of nature were intelligently designed. Thus there’s nothing about evolution that excludes an “intelligent creator” any more so than any other scientific theory, which the Pope agrees with.

“The testimony of their own kind, atheists, is worthless. And they know it. Quoting Dawkins as an authority will get them laughed at. They need to name-drop Christians to give thier ideas some credibility. The Pope being a particularly famous one, gets abused this way most often.”

—If you’re talking an authority on Christian theology, you’re right, quoting Dawkins probably isn’t a good idea. If one is going to look for such an authority, quoting the leader of what is by far the largest Christian denomination would seem a better choice. And I don’t think quoting the Pope for guidance on Christian theology is “abusing” him – that’s sorta his job.