Royd 0 #326 November 19, 2006 QuoteDr. Richard Leakey, probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, said that Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is “imagination made of plaster of Paris”. He also said that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to. As I recall this whole story was front and center for years as the find of the century as proof of evolution. I didn't see anyone saying, "Hold your horses, this is only one little piece of bone." QuoteI was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain.”Once again, this is one of my biggest complaints about theory that is fed to us as fact. The material is made to fit the agenda, and it seems to be a pattern across the board. This is, in turn, fed to the gullible minds of young children as fact, not theory. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #327 November 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteDr. Richard Leakey, probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, said that Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is “imagination made of plaster of Paris”. He also said that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to. As I recall this whole story was front and center for years as the find of the century as proof of evolution. I didn't see anyone saying, "Hold your horses, this is only one little piece of bone." QuoteI was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain.”Once again, this is one of my biggest complaints about theory that is fed to us as fact. The material is made to fit the agenda, and it seems to be a pattern across the board. This is, in turn, fed to the gullible minds of young children as fact, not theory. However, an almost complete A. Afarensis skull (and most of the rest of the skeleton) that is even older than Lucy thas now been discovered at Dikika, which rather spoils your argument.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #328 November 19, 2006 Quote most of the rest of the skeleton) that is even older than Lucy thas now been discovered at Dikika, which rather spoils your argument. The scientific community turned a blind eye to facts[ remember, they're "scientists"] to pursue an agenda. It's sort of like those in medical research who put a product on the market long before it is properly tested. It seems to be the standard with a group who claim to be unbiased, and only look at facts. Finding something else 40 yr. later doesn't validate the fraud. QuoteThat is even older than LucyYou know what they say in a court of law. Once you've lied, why should I believe anything that you say? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #329 November 19, 2006 << Once you've lied, why should I believe anything that you say? >> So is it TRUE that someone can .. walk on water turn water into wine come back from the dead? Or are those lies and thus the rest of the book is a lie? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #330 November 19, 2006 So is it TRUE that someone can .. Quotewalk on water turn water into wine come back from the dead? Or are those lies and thus the rest of the book is a lie? If you accept the premise that Jesus is God in the flesh, there's no problem with any of it. If not, you still can't prove that it didn't happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #331 November 19, 2006 Quote QuoteThat is even older than LucyYou know what they say in a court of law. Once you've lied, why should I believe anything that you say? I've nver heard that said in a court of law. As to what the kids are taught I'm one of those that yeach them, and I teach The THEORY of Evolution by means of Natural Selection. The only laws that I teach are the laws of Gavity and thermodynamics. Even then I preface it with "AS WE UNDERSTAND TODAY". I also teach that it takes hundreds if not thousands of peices of evdence to prove a theory, but only one piece of EVIDENCE to disprove it.You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #332 November 19, 2006 Quote If not, you still can't prove that it didn't happen. You cant prove a negative, and that's the same old chestnut that God botherers have been pulling out for years.. Let's not bother with Evidence, lets just ask others to "prove it didnt happen" Thanks for your input NEXT!You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #333 November 19, 2006 So, if you don't believe in evolutionary theory, what do you believe happened instead? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #334 November 19, 2006 > Finding something else 40 yr. later doesn't validate the fraud. Correct. But it does validate the underlying theory. Someday they may discover a way to make hydrogen fusion a reliable power source. You'd look pretty silly standing outside a new fusion power plant saying "This thing doesn't work! The cold fusion thing was a fraud." Earlier frauds do not support the underlying theory; neither do they disprove it. >Once you've lied, why should I believe anything that you say? Hmm. The bible contains direct contradictions. Yet you believe it. I suspect you'd claim that a lie in one place does not validate the rest of it, which I agree with. Same principle here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #335 November 19, 2006 Quote So is it TRUE that someone can .. Quotewalk on water turn water into wine come back from the dead? Or are those lies and thus the rest of the book is a lie? If you accept the premise that Jesus is God in the flesh, there's no problem with any of it. If not, you still can't prove that it didn't happen. You can't prove that evolution didn't happen, and you can't prove that any gods exist.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skysaintj 0 #336 November 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteDr. Richard Leakey, probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, said that Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is “imagination made of plaster of Paris”. He also said that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to. As I recall this whole story was front and center for years as the find of the century as proof of evolution. I didn't see anyone saying, "Hold your horses, this is only one little piece of bone." QuoteI was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain.”Once again, this is one of my biggest complaints about theory that is fed to us as fact. The material is made to fit the agenda, and it seems to be a pattern across the board. This is, in turn, fed to the gullible minds of young children as fact, not theory. However, an almost complete A. Afarensis skull (and most of the rest of the skeleton) that is even older than Lucy thas now been discovered at Dikika, which rather spoils your argument. Nope .. like all macro-evolution theories it's evidence of something that was discovered - fair enough and congratulations , but then they bring on the icing sugar to spice it up and present as fact of evolution ~!! .. this whole macro-evolution theory is a timebomb ticking ... so get that popcorn and coke cause seriously it's gonna be a awesome show when this bull blows Getting back to that "evidence of evolution" "There seem to be a lot of guessing.......The conclusions of the adaptations, or lack thereof, were fascinating, but too open to conjecture. The overall appeal of the article for a layperson was quite informative, while being a bit understated for those with superior knowledge. In fact, this reporting is more about the discovery than the science of how the 3.3 million year old baby girl who fits into the evolution scale than documenting the actual science. "If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #337 November 20, 2006 Quote>Perhaps it is your understanding of it that requires modification? It's difficult to get anyone to understand something when their faith requires them to not understand it. I could present a lineage of hundreds of fossils showing every single skeletal change from the most recent common ancestor between us and chimpanzees and modern day - and a creationist would say "the 731st fossil is missing a toe. Too bad evolutionists can't explain that! Their theory is clearly full of holes." It's not the fact that people disagree with the theory that worries me, it's the fact that they intentionally misrepresent it. I really wish these people would criticise it for what it actually is. The intellectual dishonesty of the ID crowd is infuriating. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #338 November 20, 2006 QuoteThe intellectual dishonesty of the ID crowd is infuriating. ...not the least of which is their calling it "ID", of course. They're not merely ignorant, they're charlatans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #339 November 20, 2006 QuoteIt's not the fact that people disagree with the theory that worries me, it's the fact that they intentionally misrepresent it. I really wish these people would criticise it for what it actually is. The intellectual dishonesty of the ID crowd is infuriating.So, finding one little chip of bone and turning it into a complete knuckle dragging human isn't misrepresentation? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #340 November 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteIt's not the fact that people disagree with the theory that worries me, it's the fact that they intentionally misrepresent it. I really wish these people would criticise it for what it actually is. The intellectual dishonesty of the ID crowd is infuriating.So, finding one little chip of bone and turning it into a complete knuckle dragging human isn't misrepresentation? Sighhh. Of course, sadly, some are not charlatans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #341 November 20, 2006 QuoteSighhh. Of course, sadly, some are not charlatans.Leaky was the cream of the crop, the top of the heap, and he pulled a scam on the whole world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #342 November 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteSighhh. Of course, sadly, some are not charlatans.Leaky was the cream of the crop, the top of the heap, and he pulled a scam on the whole world. I think you misunderstood my point. See my post #338. Your post #339 is enough to make someone cry. It's as if you never read a single one of the posts preceding it except your own and Pajarito's. <> Here's a torch. The charlatans (those who understand what they're doing) are counting on you to burn some witches with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #343 November 20, 2006 QuoteSo, finding one little chip of bone and turning it into a complete knuckle dragging human isn't misrepresentation? If that's what they had done, then it would be misrepresentation, but that's not what they've done. The misrepresentation is you saying that's all they've done. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skysaintj 0 #344 November 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteSighhh. Of course, sadly, some are not charlatans.Leaky was the cream of the crop, the top of the heap, and he pulled a scam on the whole world. Soon soon something like : NEWS TODAY !! - A group of philosophers, professors and kickass scientists who has been a leading champions of atheism and evilution on Dropzone.com for more than a few years has changed their minds. They now believe in God -- more or less -- based on scientific evidence. After decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Evilutionists has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature Speakers Corner Evilutionists said . They came to the conclusion as a group and said they are best labeled as deists now like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives , thus not to admit defeat to clearly. We now think of a God not very different from the God of the Christian but far away from the God of Islam "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose." Over the years, these DZ.Com locals proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while shooting down and criticizing any belief that conflicts with their evilution theory.. There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for them, … biologists' investigations of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Speakers on DZ.Com now have new threads relating to subjects like "Has Science Discovered God?" The first hint of Evilutionists’ turn was when one of their locals on the forum and sect leaders posted and wrote “it has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," DZ.Com Evilutionists said the debate over God (since they accepted Him has to exist) will start a million new threads on DZ.com and keep them busy as they have a lot to learn…. Free busy ... If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #345 November 20, 2006 Rubbish! Do you think this is complicated? z(i+1) = z(i)^2 + c... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #346 November 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteSighhh. Of course, sadly, some are not charlatans.Leaky was the cream of the crop, the top of the heap, and he pulled a scam on the whole world. Leakey's conjectures have been proven to be correct by further skeletal discoveries, which you continue to ignore and misrepresent.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #347 November 20, 2006 Quote> Finding something else 40 yr. later doesn't validate the fraud. Correct. But it does validate the underlying theory. Is this like claiming something is "fake but accurate". I guess this only works if future evidence proves the intial claims to be correct. Going back to one of your previous posts - how did Einstein discover that Newton's Laws were "a fraud"? Do you see a difference between theories or claims being flawed versus being fraudulent? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #348 November 20, 2006 QuoteQuote> Finding something else 40 yr. later doesn't validate the fraud. Correct. But it does validate the underlying theory. Is this like claiming something is "fake but accurate". I guess this only works if future evidence proves the intial claims to be correct. Going back to one of your previous posts - how did Einstein discover that Newton's Laws were "a fraud"? Do you see a difference between theories or claims being flawed versus being fraudulent? Leakey's conjectures were not fraudulent, and they were confirmed by later discoveries. Newton was not flawed either, just incomplete.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skysaintj 0 #349 November 20, 2006 Quote Rubbish! Do you think this is complicated? z(i+1) = z(i)^2 + c Nope - easy... z(i+1) = z(i)^2 + c = Primordial Polynomial in a Complex Variable Soup Give you the irrelevant details in a few...If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #350 November 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote> Finding something else 40 yr. later doesn't validate the fraud. Correct. But it does validate the underlying theory. Is this like claiming something is "fake but accurate". I guess this only works if future evidence proves the intial claims to be correct. Going back to one of your previous posts - how did Einstein discover that Newton's Laws were "a fraud"? Do you see a difference between theories or claims being flawed versus being fraudulent? Leakey's conjectures were not fraudulent, and they were confirmed by later discoveries. I thought the point wasn't about Leakey's conjectures, but rather the conjectures of other's about the significance of the find. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
