Free Republic

In my world science is not equated with satanism.

However, your world is increasingly becoming overrun with extreme fringe elements who do equate science with satanism.

If you would rather keep those fringe posters, and discourage the scientists from posting here, then fringe posters is what you''ll end up with.

Your belief has no role in science.

If that is the case you have no business attempting to do science, or even commenting on science.

What you are in fact practicing is the exact opposite of science.

This is a Conservative website. Evo-Atheism has no role in conservatism, nor on any thread on this board other than to show the depths that Satan will go to spread his lies. Please take your NEA-loving cult elsewhere.

Are you suggesting that evolution, a science which fully follows the scientific method, is not permitted in conservatism, or on this website?

This is a science thread. Religious dogma has no role in science, nor on this thread. Please take it elsewhere.

Here is an intermediate or transitional. Note its position in the chart below:

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Because FR does not have a Science Forum...

I think the true test of whether you are doing science or not is to submit your writing to an established science journal, rather than posting it to an internet chat room.

Subject your writing to scientific peer review. Then you'll know.

If what you have written purports to be science, why is it posted in the Religion Forum?

You're either being an ass or are truly uninformed. Or possibly both.

In the old days, back in the early grades, when one had to visit the restroom one was required to display one finger or two thus indicating which function was desired.

I have no idea why the nuns wanted such information, but it indeed was required and is indelibly imprinted on my memory (and my knuckles).

No, mathematics is not science.

Mathematics can be applied to science, and to the extent that it models the variables correctly, it can produce useful results. But that's the key--did that mathematical model use the correct variables correctly, and did it weight them correctly? Mathematicians are good at math, but not necessarily at biology.

Here is a counter example, a biologist who is pretty good at math. And he comes up with entirely different results:

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices
Online lecture by Professor Garrett Odell

http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=2513

Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

I've been doing science. This afternoon was spent in putting a paper into the specific format required by a journal, in preparation for submission.

But thank you for noticing my absence. Should I check out with you next time I have something else to do?

(And do I need to display one finger or two, like in the old days?)

Shinichi Fujimura

Running Wolf, I'll give you that first one. That fellow was indeed practicing fraud in the field of hominid evolution. He was caught by his fellow paleontologists, but it was indeed fraud. That's two.

The Japanese example is archaeology, not human origins.

I am responding to this post, after ignoring hundreds of other posts you have made to me, because in the case of the German "scientist" you are correct. That was indeed fraud. His career is now ended and he is disgraced. As it should be.

That is the reward for fraud in science! And fraud or hoaxes will always be discovered--eventually. That's what happened with Piltdown Man. That find seemed great to start, but as additional discoveries were made it just didn't fit. Several scientists pointed this out quite early, and the find was increasingly marginalized until someone figured out exactly why it didn't fit.

OK, that's two frauds/hoaxes in hominid evolution. We need five.

There are, literally, hundred of thousands of hoaxes which have been perpetrated by evos.

Name five genuine frauds/hoaxes in hominid evolution or stop making your claim. Again, I'll spot you Piltdown Man, a true hoax.

Now come up with four more examples of frauds or hoaxes with the fossils in hominid evolution.

Actually I'm trying to get some work done. I'm putting the final touches on an article to be submitted to a journal and that peer review you folks all hate so much.

Carry on without me for a couple of hours. You're all self-panickers anyway, and I'm sure you can keep yourselves amused.

Because about the only folks who are contesting the theory of evolution nowadays are fundamentalists of one religion or another. They are convinced that the theory is inaccurate based on religious belief, and use faux science in an effort to support that belief. Many, if not most, are also young earthers, while a few are geocentrists, showing how much they pay attention to scientific evidence.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for that one thing about evolution that has been proved true. Cat got your tongue?

How about common descent? Even Behe admits that is accurate. If you disagree, argue with him first.

You've been challenged--come up with just five hoaxes/frauds in fossil man/human evolution. And I even gave you the first--Piltdown Man, a true hoax.

Either come up with four more frauds/hoaxes or stop repeating the claim.

One can fault current scientific theories; just bring scientific evidence.

But it is dishonest to criticize science for modifying its theories when new data come along. That is part of the scientific method.

I know of no "faith-driven" claims of "evolutionists." The claims are based on evidence, not faith.

Perhaps you can specify some of the "faith-driven" claims?

That's real sweet of you.

Perhaps you can find just five hoaxes and frauds in human evolution? If we're all liars it should be easy.