Astonishing Skull Found in Africa

BBC ^ | 10 July, 2002 | Ivan Noble

[RobRoy]

Well, I don't know how old it is, but it obviously existed in a place or time where quality dental maintenance was hard to come by.

[RobRoy]

So, now you're slamming church-goers without evidence! And what about Mosque-goers, or do I have to be Taxi-specific?

[general_re]

Well, I don't know how old it is, but it obviously existed in a place or time where quality dental maintenance was hard to come by.

In other words, it's an Englishman who died about 5 to 10 years ago...

[O Neill]

...dental maintenance was hard to come by.

Clearly prior to the age of decay-preventive dentifricie used in a conscientious program of oral hygiene and regular, professional care...

[MissAmericanPie]

Is this is every bit as important as the pigs tooth?

[EBUCK]

No, I have evidence I'm just not going to show it to you. You're going to have to trust me. LOL

EBUCK

[DaveyB]

To you a pig's tooth but to real Scientists (those highpriests of humanism funded with tax money) it's NEBRASKA MAN.

[Phaedrus]

Har! The original article carries with it a picture. The "guy" has more brow ridge that he has brain. Some days I feel like that, too!

[ContentiousObjector]

It never fails to blow my mind that the most advanced society in the history of civilization can suffer from such a culture of anti-Intellectualism and blind ignorance,

Friends of mine in Asia are amazed that Americans have indoor plumbing, they can't fathom how a society that is so emotionally backwards put a man on the moon.

[EBUCK]

The reasons most, if not all ICR, arguments are discarded are many. Including the absolute scientific refutation of most, if not all, arguments they have put forth as well as the dubious nature of their credentials. Despite these refutations they continually refuse to retract their flawed data, evidence, theories choosing to keep spewing their sewage to the ignorant and gullible as gosple. Case in point...The Texas Dinosaur/"Man Track" Controversy

EBUCK

[Phaedrus]

In a pig's tooth!...er...In a pig's eye!...er...just a sec, here...Where are my notes?!?!?

[Fithal the Wise]

"You'd like it better if they stated the age with certainty, based on the fact they once read a book of fairy tales?"

without certainty it remains an unproven fairy tail hypothesis.

[DaveyB]

It never fails to blow my mind that the most advanced society in the history of civilization can suffer from such a culture of anti-Intellectualism and blind ignorance…

You’re right! When will we look and see that most of the inventions and scientific advances in history came from Bible believing Christians obeying a dominion command. When will acknowledge that the Constitution was authored and signed by Bible believing Christians. When we will we see that when a society departs from God they soon loose his blessings and become uncivilized. Why even your screen name reflects a great Christian man – when will open our eyes and see?

[Pitchfork]

Creationism (in the conventional sense that God created all currently know species) is inconsistent with the bible! Why...

1) God gave man free will
2) If God created the world (and all it's creatures) but gave man free will then he gave over control of the future of said world to man (or man really doens't have free will in which case everything is predestined). Therfore man could destroy the world --i.e. eliminate enough species that the eco-system would no longer function through nuclear war, environmental collapse ect. BUT...
3) God said HE would destroy the world, which he couldn't do if man had already done it.

How can we escape from this.

1) God created a universe of natural laws
2) the natural laws of the universe (some we know some we don't) govern the 'system'.
3) one manifestation of the system of laws is the process of genetic mutation and evolution
4) All organism have free will
5) The resiliance of the system of natural laws makes it impossible for any single organism (including man) to 'end the world' before God chooses to. Even a nuclear holocaust wouldn't kill every living thing or person on Earth.
6) even if only a limited sample of organisms survived a cataclysm, the beauty of evolution will ensure that the world will one day be reborn --new species will evolve (until such time as God wants to end things).

Believe in God (if you want) but please don't limit his power to the creation of a few million species. Credit him with creating a perfectly self-regulating system capabale of infinite speciation!

[PatrickHenry]

... they can't fathom how a society that is so emotionally backwards put a man on the moon.

Some of the same people in this thread who are screeching loudest about the "heresy" of a pre-Adamic hominid are probably among those who claim the moon-landings were a fraud.

[DaveyB]

...most, if not all, arguments they have put forth as well as the dubious nature ...

You mean like the aforementioned nebraska man...err pigs tooth. Or maybe circular reasoning used for dating or perhaps the ontogeny recapitalization hoax.

[EBUCK]

Didn't anyone see this? I though it was so funny when I wrote it....guess humor is in the hands of the typist...

EBUCK

[PatrickHenry]

I thought you meant Barney Frank.

[DaveyB]

...Believe in God (if you want) but please don't limit his power to the creation of a few million species...

Limit God - may it never be. Believe God's revelation definitely.

Many theologians for centuries have wrestled with the sovereignty of God- freewill of man issue. I cannot do better than they have, but just because I don’t understand something does not mean it is false. The election of Bill Clinton comes to mind – I don’t understand how it could have happened but I know it happened.

[AndrewC]

That is not relevant when I say that information was corroborated from other sources. In the particular case to which I refer it had to do with a measurement of genomes. I produced two sources, one was ICR that gave a measurement for the size of the human genome in relation to other creatures. The ICR post had one reference to an amoeba that the other reference, IIRC from Genome News Network, did not have. I was threatened to produce evidence apart from the ICR for this amoeba. The evidence was provided but the exchange adequately displays the treatment of ICR information. I consider the Talk Origins information flawed secondary information, yet the Darwininians find no problem posting links to T.O. which contains interpretations of information put in serious doubt by the source of that info.