Oldest Fossils on Earth Claim to be Discovered

[jclalor 12]

It seems that that Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann disagree on the age of life on earth with scientist by only 3,399,994,000 years.




http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/science/earth/22fossil.html?_r=1

[masterrig 1]

Why, am I not surprised! Coming from those two...


Chuck

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

It seems that that Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann disagree on the age of life on earth with scientist by only 3,399,994,000 years.




http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/science/earth/22fossil.html?_r=1

Got links to direct quotes from Perry or Bachmann saying that?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

was it found on McCain's lawn?

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

was it found on McCain's lawn?

Can 'twardo qualify as a fossil if he is still alive?

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It seems that that Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann disagree on the age of life on earth with scientist by only 3,399,994,000 years.




http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/science/earth/22fossil.html?_r=1

Got links to direct quotes from Perry or Bachmann saying that?

Here's Bachmann.

http://minnesotaindependent.com/80272/pawlenty-bachmann-colbert-2012


Perry is a little harder to find, thanks to the stupid ass answer he gave the little boy who asked him about evolution and the age of the earth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj7spLBfMHY


I will find one.

[kelpdiver 2]

"“In 5,000 years of recorded human history,” Bachmann told Iowans, “has any society ever defined marriage as anything other than between men and women?”

I don't see her making a statement on the age of the earth. You'll need to do better than this.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

"“In 5,000 years of recorded human history,” Bachmann told Iowans, “has any society ever defined marriage as anything other than between men and women?”

I don't see her making a statement on the age of the earth. You'll need to do better than this.

Yeah, especially since the span of recorded human history is approximately 5,000 years.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Amazon 7]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/17/michele-bachmann-intelligent-design-evolution_n_879618.html

Michele Bachmann expressed skepticism of evolution at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Friday.

"I support intelligent design," Bachmann told reporters following her speech at the conference, CNN reports. "


http://www.thebachmannrecord.com/thebachmannrecoc.html

Michele Bachmann wants to put “Intelligent Design Theory” on the Minnesota public school science curriculum. 1

“Intelligent Design Theory” is creationism. 2 “Intelligent Design Theory” (ID) is a theory which asserts that life began as the result of an act of creation by a super-human intelligent designer. Most supporters of ID are people who believe that the Bible’s account of creation in Genesis is a literal and historical fact. There is no support for Intelligent Design theory in any respected peer-reviewed scientific journal. 3

Bachmann introduced a bill into the Minnesota Senate that would require public schools to permit teaching of intelligent design creationism in the school science curriculum. 4

Despite overwhelming evidence of the fact of evolution in field and laboratory studies, Bachmann claims that “evolution has never been proven.” 5 During a radio interview on the KKMS radio program “Talk The Walk”, Senator Bachmann made the following statements about evolution:

1) (Evolution) is a theory that has never been proved, one way or the other.

2) Evolution is a belief; evolution is not a fact.

3) A grain of wheat plus a starfish does not equal a dog, and that this was what evolutionists were teaching in our schools.

4) Senator Bachmann charged that the State of Minnesota would compel students to prove that evolution is “true”, and at the same time prohibit students from bringing in evidence to the contrary. 6. (The State of Minnesota does not do in fact do this.)

Explaining her views on the origin of life and the school curriculum, Bachmann cited the work of Michael Behe, one of the chief spokesmen for Intelligent Design Theory, as an acceptable alternative to the theory of evolution. After that article appeared, Bachmann personally submitted to the editor of the Stillwater Gazette several books that presented the case for Intelligent Design. The books were by authors Phillip E. Johnson, J.P. Moreland, and Charles B. Thaxton; all prominent creationists and ID advocates.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=bachman+intelligent+design&qs=n&sk=&form=QBLH

[jclalor 12]

Quote

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/17/michele-bachmann-intelligent-design-evolution_n_879618.html

Michele Bachmann expressed skepticism of evolution at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Friday.

"I support intelligent design," Bachmann told reporters following her speech at the conference, CNN reports. "


http://www.thebachmannrecord.com/thebachmannrecoc.html

Michele Bachmann wants to put “Intelligent Design Theory” on the Minnesota public school science curriculum. 1

“Intelligent Design Theory” is creationism. 2 “Intelligent Design Theory” (ID) is a theory which asserts that life began as the result of an act of creation by a super-human intelligent designer. Most supporters of ID are people who believe that the Bible’s account of creation in Genesis is a literal and historical fact. There is no support for Intelligent Design theory in any respected peer-reviewed scientific journal. 3

Bachmann introduced a bill into the Minnesota Senate that would require public schools to permit teaching of intelligent design creationism in the school science curriculum. 4

Despite overwhelming evidence of the fact of evolution in field and laboratory studies, Bachmann claims that “evolution has never been proven.” 5 During a radio interview on the KKMS radio program “Talk The Walk”, Senator Bachmann made the following statements about evolution:

1) (Evolution) is a theory that has never been proved, one way or the other.

2) Evolution is a belief; evolution is not a fact.

3) A grain of wheat plus a starfish does not equal a dog, and that this was what evolutionists were teaching in our schools.

4) Senator Bachmann charged that the State of Minnesota would compel students to prove that evolution is “true”, and at the same time prohibit students from bringing in evidence to the contrary. 6. (The State of Minnesota does not do in fact do this.)

Quote

Explaining her views on the origin of life and the school curriculum, Bachmann cited the work of Michael Behe, one of the chief spokesmen for Intelligent Design Theory, as an acceptable alternative to the theory of evolution. After that article appeared, Bachmann personally submitted to the editor of the Stillwater Gazette several books that presented the case for Intelligent Design. The books were by authors Phillip E. Johnson, J.P. Moreland, and Charles B. Thaxton; all prominent creationists and ID advocates.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=bachman+intelligent+design&qs=n&sk=&form=QBLH

One of my favorite pictures of Jesus:


http://www.derangedshaman.com/2011/05/17/apparently-we-walked-alongside-dinosaurs-and-witnessed-the-earths-creation-according-michele-bachman/

[pirana 0]

Quote

"“In 5,000 years of recorded human history,” Bachmann told Iowans, “has any society ever defined marriage as anything other than between men and women?”

I don't see her making a statement on the age of the earth. You'll need to do better than this.

I don't think it gets any better than believing some masterful being waved a wand and created everything in a single stroke just a few thousand years ago.

While I'll concede that people may hold onto neolithic beliefs if they like; pushing to have them added to mandated science standards puts her in the category of DIALs (Dangerously Ignorant Assinine Leaders).

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[TKoontz 0]

Textbook perfect example of Creationists' grasp of the theory of evolution, and their subsequent misunderstanding of how it works.

For the record, and this isn't directed at you, Amazon, but ID is not a theory, it is not even a hypothesis. For it to be either of those, it must be testable, and repeatable. ID is nothing more than a widely believed fairy tale.

A theory does not need to be proven, people have the misconception that theories lie in a heirarchy of importance, ie: observation, hypothesis, theory, law

A law is not the next step in the growth of a theory, a law is nothing but a VERY general set of rules that things obey (such as gravity) across the board. Most times, theories end up being far more powerful than laws in terms of scientific inquiry and the progression of knowledge.

As for 'proving' evolution, while I refuse to say that it is or even can be proven given its status as a theory, I can and will say that of any scientific idea ever put forth in the history of our existence, evolutions is the most tested, observed, and supported theory we have ever, and most like will ever see and that there has never, ever, been a single shred of evidence put fourth that could not be explained that 'disproves' evolution.
I will concede that as new evidence comes to light, it has the potential make us reappraise ideas of evolution, but the pillars that make it up remain unmoved in 150 years.

-Rooster

Find your peace, though the world around you burns

[billvon 2,384]

>For the record, and this isn't directed at you, Amazon, but ID is not a theory, it is not
>even a hypothesis. For it to be either of those, it must be testable, and repeatable.

No, a hypothesis can be untestable. The multiple-universe hypothesis, for example, is currently untestable.

Intelligent design is indeed a hypothesis, one that may someday be provable (or disprovable.) Of course, so is every other creation myth out there.

[TKoontz 0]

My bad, I meant a scientific hypothesis, not just any guess, educated or not, about something.

Scientific hypotheses must be both testable and able to be proven wrong. Until such a time that a hypothesis becomes testable (such as the multi-verse, orbiting teapot, Intelligent Design, or the FSM), it will not be considered as such in the eyes of the scientific community.

Find your peace, though the world around you burns

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>For the record, and this isn't directed at you, Amazon, but ID is not a theory, it is not
>even a hypothesis. For it to be either of those, it must be testable, and repeatable.

No, a hypothesis can be untestable. The multiple-universe hypothesis, for example, is currently untestable.

Intelligent design is indeed a hypothesis, one that may someday be provable (or disprovable.) Of course, so is every other creation myth out there.

ID's proof/validity is based on the premise that if you eliminate every other possibility, then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true.

Organisms like us are just too complex to have evolved. Thus, God created Adam and then Eve. And the universe around us.

The problem is that they can't eliminate the others as impossible, just very improbable (in their calculations). But we can't prove ID is false either.

It does seem fairer to put ID in philosophy, rather than science.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Textbook perfect example of Creationists' grasp of the theory of evolution, and their subsequent misunderstanding of how it works.

For the record, and this isn't directed at you, Amazon, but ID is not a theory, it is not even a hypothesis. For it to be either of those, it must be testable, and repeatable. ID is nothing more than a widely believed fairy tale.

A theory does not need to be proven, people have the misconception that theories lie in a heirarchy of importance, ie: observation, hypothesis, theory, law

A law is not the next step in the growth of a theory, a law is nothing but a VERY general set of rules that things obey (such as gravity) across the board. Most times, theories end up being far more powerful than laws in terms of scientific inquiry and the progression of knowledge.

As for 'proving' evolution, while I refuse to say that it is or even can be proven given its status as a theory, I can and will say that of any scientific idea ever put forth in the history of our existence, evolutions is the most tested, observed, and supported theory we have ever, and most like will ever see and that there has never, ever, been a single shred of evidence put fourth that could not be explained that 'disproves' evolution.
I will concede that as new evidence comes to light, it has the potential make us reappraise ideas of evolution, but the pillars that make it up remain unmoved in 150 years.

-Rooster

Oh come on.. God put all those fossils there to prove he was smarter and more powerful than any "scientists" could ever hope to be.

[TKoontz 0]

Well crap...ya got me. God must be the answer, scientific inquiry is now dead. Party time!!

Find your peace, though the world around you burns

[billvon 2,384]

>Organisms like us are just too complex to have evolved. Thus, God created Adam and
>then Eve. And the universe around us.

Well, that's a conclusion, not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is "there may have been some intelligent process that guided evolution." That's pretty vague and thus difficult to prove (or disprove) - but it is conceivable someone could construct an experiment to verify it.

Of course, making it more specific makes it easier to do both. Lamarckism, for example, contained many aspects of intelligent design - but was far more specific and thus easier to prove/disprove (disprove, in that case.)

[lost_n_confuzd 0]

There is more evidence to support evolution than there is for ID, creationism and genesis. There is literally a trail of evidence - follow Homo georgicus/ercectus in Dmanisi....

....nevermind, I'll find my posting from another forum a few years back and make a clicky. I'm tired of typing it up.

[devildog 0]

Quote

No, a hypothesis can be untestable. The multiple-universe hypothesis, for example, is currently untestable.

Intelligent design is indeed a hypothesis, one that may someday be provable (or disprovable.) Of course, so is every other creation myth out there.

If it's untestable, it's worthless as far as science is concerned.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[billvon 2,384]

>If it's untestable, it's worthless as far as science is concerned.

Unpursuable, perhaps. I have a feeling if you told a physicist the many-worlds interpretation was "worthless" he might disagree.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

ID's proof/validity is based on the premise that if you eliminate every other possibility, then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true.

This logic only works if you ignore all the evidence supporting evolution.

[lost_n_confuzd 0]

Quote

ID's proof/validity is based on the premise that if you eliminate every other possibility, then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true.

Hogwash. Believers of ID support it because it is in their religious text, not because they have eleminated evolution with their "calculations" or whatever.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

ID's proof/validity is based on the premise that if you eliminate every other possibility, then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true.

This logic only works if you ignore all the evidence supporting evolution.

the evidence that God planted, you mean? Evolution works better at showing ongoing change than establishing the origin.

I already posted the real fallacy with the premise, so stop humping my legs people and READ, FFS!

[TKoontz 0]

I agree with you...I'm not sure if you misread my post or you were just stating facts. Regardless, I agree.

@Kelpdiver if you want origins we need to start talking abiogenisis, Miller-Urey, and that new RNA strand they found that can replicate like 50% of itself from unassisted sources...but that is for another thread and I'd want to do more research before I made any hard statements on THAT theory

Find your peace, though the world around you burns