Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Aethernaut · 03-21-2002, 08:17 PM

Number 4 is clearly a tool using hominid (and a rather old looking image of one). I don't see anything that refers to it as an "ape-man". He stands erect, I don't see a hunched back, in fact, I see a concave arch in his back.

-SK

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Schroedinger's Kitten ]

Writer@Large · 03-21-2002, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Please post number 4 then so everyone can see it. I don't know how to copy and paste the pictures or my computer can't do it.
I think everyone ought to take a good look at number 4, and maybe the whole array.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Sigh. You're doing the same thing you did with your out-of-context quotations. "Don't consider all the evidence; just consider this ONE LITTLE OUT OF CONTEXT section that makes me look right."

<a href="http://www2.ebham.ac.uk/pkilcoyne/Human_origins/human_origins_web/evolution3.7.htm" target="_blank">Please, everyone, go here and look at picture #4 ... IN CONTEXT, with other posited reconstructions of Neanderthal around it.</a> Or, hopefully (if I've linked it right) see it below:

--W@L

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Writer@Large ]

hezekiah jones · 03-21-2002, 08:24 PM

So ... um ... what's the lesson here, randman?

Writer@Large · 03-21-2002, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hezekiahjones:
So ... um ... what's the lesson here, randman?

I think it's something about scientists being bald-faced liars because they haven't yet found a preserved and in-focus Polaroid of a Neanderthal in situ, yet they have the audacity to try and recreate what a living Neanderthal might have looked like, and then actually have the audacity to present their ideas to the public. Or something

.

--W@L

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Writer@Large ]

hezekiah jones · 03-21-2002, 08:50 PM

#7

Homo neanderthalis (right) and its attorney sign declaration outlawing "propoganda" from high school biology curricula.

randman · 03-21-2002, 09:15 PM

Well, number 4 may have an arched back, but look at the face. If you don't think that is an ape-like depiction, then we don't have much to say to each other.
I also think 1 and 6 are mischaracterizations. ! is stooped in my view in the way the head is held, and that seems to be a throwback and inconsistent with other depictions. Actually though, I know someone who looks kind of similar to this so maybe 1 isn't so bad by itself. 6 is still a stretch if you ask me.
Overall, I think these pictures are highly inaccurate and outdated, but maybe you have a point in arguing these are pictures of what scientists thought they used to look like.
I guess my beef with evolutionists is when some of their data that was a historical proof is debunked, it seems like they still try to keep it in thier somehow. It kind of reminds me of how Bill Clinton apologized for lying, but still tries to say today he basically was innocent.
I mean if there is so much evidence for evolution why state things that are misleading such as calling fossils defintitely "transitional" leading the lay-person to think the particular species actually is documented to have transitioned into something else. No transition has occurred for sure. Even according to evolutionists, the so-called transitional fossil may be part of the bush that died out, and evolved into nothing more.
It is deception, if you ask me.
Ya'll can take this as advice or not, but I am being honest. Most of what convinced me evolution was true was faulty evidence, and personally, I do feel that it was unnecssary to pass off such false evidence as fact.
Proponents of evolution would do well to change the ways they allow thier ideas to be presented.
Even simple things as PBS documentary which uses drawings and state unequivocally that such and such creature lived x millions of years ago and evolved into such and such, when this is just conjecture, and even if held onto, the details are likely to be revised. These things should be presented as conjecture and not fact.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]

Aethernaut · 03-21-2002, 09:30 PM

That face looks pretty hominid to me. I can see that as a prehistoric ancestor.

And I suppose you have the absolute truth and proof when it comes down to where man came from? Researched, reputable examples are appreciated.

-SK

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Schroedinger's Kitten ]

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Schroedinger's Kitten ]

randman · 03-21-2002, 09:45 PM

No, I would not claim scientific proof when I don't have it, but then again, that doesn't mean science is the only means of knowing something.
I love my wife, but I don't have scientific proof of that, and I am not sure there is scientific proof of love anyway, except as an emotion. In fact, I think it would be pretty hard to prove someone actually loves another scientifically, and some actions such as posting here so much would appear to even contradict the assertion of loving a spouse or children.
But I am not about to start beleiving I have to prove scientifically that I love them before I beleive I do. Now, I may quit posting as much or change other actions but science is wholly insufficient for beleif and how to live one's life and make decisions, and science is very limited and primitive even, and not able to deal with the spiritual realm and many important aspects of life.
As far as Neanderthals, my own view is they are a racial variant of humanity, and nothing less, nor all that mysterious either.
Whether they died out, or their descandants are here with us today has little to do in my view with the fact these were just people like us, just technically less advanced. I do not beleive Neanderthals are a separate species than modern man.

RufusAtticus · 03-21-2002, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
I guess my beef with evolutionists is when some of their data that was a historical proof is debunked, it seems like they still try to keep it in thier somehow.

Creationists are quilty of this, not evolutionists. How many times do we have to hear about 2LoT and moon dust? Not to mention to fastidious claim that there are no transitionals. Truth be told, every fossil is a transitional between one thing and another. You and I are transitionals, or rather will be when compared to our ancestors and descendents.

Speaking of quality of scholarship, check out these links.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.html</a>
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html</a>
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html</a>
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html</a>
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tsite.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tsite.html</a>
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html</a>

-RvFvS

Aethernaut · 03-21-2002, 09:54 PM

The feelings of love (and every other emotion) are simply a chemical reaction in the brain. Nothing more, nothing less. Do not equate it to some mystical experience. There is not some spiritual realm beyond simple superstition.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very much in love with another human being that I will, more than likely, spend the rest of my life with, and that's fabulous, but realize that it's all neurochemical functions.

-SK

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Schroedinger's Kitten ]

03-21-2002, 08:17 PM	#31
Aethernaut Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 422	Number 4 is clearly a tool using hominid (and a rather old looking image of one). I don't see anything that refers to it as an "ape-man". He stands erect, I don't see a hunched back, in fact, I see a concave arch in his back. -SK [ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Schroedinger's Kitten ]</p>

03-21-2002, 09:15 PM	#36
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Well, number 4 may have an arched back, but look at the face. If you don't think that is an ape-like depiction, then we don't have much to say to each other. I also think 1 and 6 are mischaracterizations. ! is stooped in my view in the way the head is held, and that seems to be a throwback and inconsistent with other depictions. Actually though, I know someone who looks kind of similar to this so maybe 1 isn't so bad by itself. 6 is still a stretch if you ask me. Overall, I think these pictures are highly inaccurate and outdated, but maybe you have a point in arguing these are pictures of what scientists thought they used to look like. I guess my beef with evolutionists is when some of their data that was a historical proof is debunked, it seems like they still try to keep it in thier somehow. It kind of reminds me of how Bill Clinton apologized for lying, but still tries to say today he basically was innocent. I mean if there is so much evidence for evolution why state things that are misleading such as calling fossils defintitely "transitional" leading the lay-person to think the particular species actually is documented to have transitioned into something else. No transition has occurred for sure. Even according to evolutionists, the so-called transitional fossil may be part of the bush that died out, and evolved into nothing more. It is deception, if you ask me. Ya'll can take this as advice or not, but I am being honest. Most of what convinced me evolution was true was faulty evidence, and personally, I do feel that it was unnecssary to pass off such false evidence as fact. Proponents of evolution would do well to change the ways they allow thier ideas to be presented. Even simple things as PBS documentary which uses drawings and state unequivocally that such and such creature lived x millions of years ago and evolved into such and such, when this is just conjecture, and even if held onto, the details are likely to be revised. These things should be presented as conjecture and not fact. [ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]</p>

03-21-2002, 09:30 PM	#37
Aethernaut Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 422	That face looks pretty hominid to me. I can see that as a prehistoric ancestor. And I suppose you have the absolute truth and proof when it comes down to where man came from? Researched, reputable examples are appreciated. -SK [ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Schroedinger's Kitten ] [ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Schroedinger's Kitten ]</p>

03-21-2002, 09:54 PM	#40
Aethernaut Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 422	The feelings of love (and every other emotion) are simply a chemical reaction in the brain. Nothing more, nothing less. Do not equate it to some mystical experience. There is not some spiritual realm beyond simple superstition. Don't get me wrong, I'm very much in love with another human being that I will, more than likely, spend the rest of my life with, and that's fabulous, but realize that it's all neurochemical functions. -SK [ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Schroedinger's Kitten ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-21-2002, 08:24 PM	#33
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	So ... um ... what's the lesson here, randman?

03-21-2002, 08:50 PM	#35
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	#7 Homo neanderthalis (right) and its attorney sign declaration outlawing "propoganda" from high school biology curricula.

03-21-2002, 09:45 PM	#38
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	No, I would not claim scientific proof when I don't have it, but then again, that doesn't mean science is the only means of knowing something. I love my wife, but I don't have scientific proof of that, and I am not sure there is scientific proof of love anyway, except as an emotion. In fact, I think it would be pretty hard to prove someone actually loves another scientifically, and some actions such as posting here so much would appear to even contradict the assertion of loving a spouse or children. But I am not about to start beleiving I have to prove scientifically that I love them before I beleive I do. Now, I may quit posting as much or change other actions but science is wholly insufficient for beleif and how to live one's life and make decisions, and science is very limited and primitive even, and not able to deal with the spiritual realm and many important aspects of life. As far as Neanderthals, my own view is they are a racial variant of humanity, and nothing less, nor all that mysterious either. Whether they died out, or their descandants are here with us today has little to do in my view with the fact these were just people like us, just technically less advanced. I do not beleive Neanderthals are a separate species than modern man.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.