Astonishing Skull Found in Africa

BBC ^ | 10 July, 2002 | Ivan Noble

[ContentiousObjector]

He was a Christian, but there is nothing to suggest he was a Creationist.

Most Christians are NOT creationists

[Virginia-American]

Half of these skulls are frauds anyway

Evidence, please.

[rwfromkansas]

I always find it funny when evolutionists appeal to LIBERAL mainline denominations accepting evolution.

[carenot]

What are you basing your statement on re: evolutionists "placing all their hope on one bone"?

So, you want them to deny the evidence of a bone?

[rwfromkansas]

I am no evolutionist, but there are other ways to date a fossil besides just the semi-unreliable carbon dating.

[DaveyB]

Why are you trying to insert reason on this thread?

Yes, why reason? We must first presuppose that logic and reason are true. But we cannot see reason; we must believe it to be true. Where did it come from? How about the laws of the universe, how did they get there? We must presuppose order or our philosophy is untenable. Yet if logic is universally true when correctly applied it creates a dilemma for those who insist on science as the highest source for their epistemology. Reason and logic can’t be proved. The Christian however believes that logic and reason work because God made them. The atheist must borrow the energy – matter, physical laws, and rules of logic from God before he set out to replace him. I only need presuppose God.

[EBUCK]

I am waiting for the creationists to come here and claim that this guy is under 6,000 years old because obviously he has to be younger than Adam and Eve.

That would be fun. But most of them don't go quite that far.

I do agree with the creationists on one point. We often make wild assumptions based on small amounts of data. If scientists in 5 million years come down, find only the elephant man's remains, they will have a very strange view of what human's were like. Sometimes the guesses are very educated, other times, later discoveries prove them wrong. But, the sticking your head in the sand and pretending that the earth is 6,000 years old crowd really is getting silly. Most christian denominations have moved beyond that, including the Catholic Church. Maybe, one day, the rest of the lot will as well.

Yah. there are a lot of premature "victories". But the good thing in that scenario is that a lot of scientists review the evidence pretty thuroughly. Even if refuted, it makes for quick and pretty solid results in the end.

EBUCK

[carenot]

Hence, Lucy, the australopithecus baby, named after "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds."

Couldn't help but think of you.

Please take Lucy with you when you move.

[rwfromkansas]

Again, I am not an evolutionist, but just how do you expect scientists to date their fossils? They have to do so for the good of science. Carbon dating has been shown to be sometimes wrong, but I have not seen evidence that other types are wrong yet. Maybe they can be, but that is why scientists look at multiple things to determine the age of an object. What would you suggest they do?

[carenot]

I will say this though (and I am right!): Fords are better than Chevy's. And Chryslers are better than both...

Hmmm... What happened to Hudsons?

[DaveyB]

What would you suggest they do?

Admit their ignorance and hubris.

[EBUCK]

So because they do not privide a promt defence they are liers and cheats.

Tell me if I got my bold additions wrong.

No. Because even after years of refutation and conclusive evidence to the contrary they continue to spout the same garbage as if there never were. Patent dis-honesty.

Give me their theories and I'll find the refutations. And don't start with the Lucy knee-cap thing. That is one of their worst quote-mining debacles to date.

EBUCK

[carenot]

Obviously they would use something other than Carbon-14 to measure age, most likely Potassium-40.

Yeah, well,SO?

Don't try to bring science into this thread!

[Dan(9698)]

"Not conclusive at all."

Have to admit you are right. I overlooked some of the drawbacks of the test.

[DaveyB]

I am waiting for the creationists to come here and claim that this guy is under 6,000 years old because obviously he has to be younger than Adam and Eve. That would be fun. But most of them don't go quite that far.

I will go that far! If Jesus can create loves of bread and fishes to feed the 5000, and those fishes had an appearence of a history that they did not have, why would I doubt.

The imaginations of men make a poor epistemology; I’ll take the word of the eyewitness.

[rwfromkansas]

I took biology basically 3 years ago as a HS sophomore. I could swear we talked about Haeckel quite a bit. I don't recall that far back very well, but I remember us studying genetics a bit and doing some cross-breeding stuff etc. and I think it dealt with Haeckel, but to be honest, I am not sure.

[balrog666]

Admit their ignorance and hubris.

Of course, when that hubris originates from profound ignorance....

[DaveyB]

Give me their theories and I'll find the refutations...

Start with the catastrophic formation of the Grand Canyon, or the floating mat for the formation of coal.

[EBUCK]

why would I doubt.

I could hazard a guess. But you wouldn't want to hear it.

The imaginations of men make a poor epistemology; I’ll take the word of the eyewitness.

If charged with murder would you rather be tried on the basis of empiricle evidence or on that of some witnesses whose testimony is years old and are suspected of superstition that would make a palm reader flinch?

EBUCK

[rwfromkansas]

Look it up yourself. I am not going to waste my time on these threads and try to spend as little time as possible since they get old.