Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hezekiah jones · 03-20-2002, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
"This fossil consisted of only one tooth, later discovered to be that of a pig."

Who discovered that? Ken Ham, or "Dr. Safari"?

Jubal · 03-20-2002, 06:41 PM

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: Swan-eater ]

hezekiah jones · 03-20-2002, 07:00 PM

Also by George V. Caylor:

Quote:

As I look at the Taliban, I can understand them a bit better because our science community has its own fundamentalists - hard-core evolutionists. Nothing is missing but the power to condemn creationists to death.

<a href="http://www.ontherightside.com/articles/the_taliban_of_science.htm" target="_blank">The Taliban of Science</a>

Quote:

George bought a furniture company in Atlanta in '72, didn't like the furniture business, applied as an agent for a major insurance company, and secured licenses in life insurance, stock brokerage, and is now a Registered Investment Advisor.

Great stuff as usual, randman.

Ragnarok · 03-20-2002, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hezekiahjones:
Also by George V. Caylor:

Great stuff as usual, randman.

"America: After years of Fundamentalist occupation and infighting among its various Christian factions, the Christian Right has emerged victorious. They fought more fiercely, and took no prisoners. It seems they simply believed in their cause more than did their competitors.

Our media does not spend much time talking about how the non-Christian folks are faring in America. We mostly hear how the Christian Right is harboring the world's worst, and most effective terrorist, Pat Robertson. Robertson is a mega-millionaire Virginia businessman-turned-terrorist who blew up our Dairy Queen in Little Rock (they sold porn it seems) and our paddle-wheel casino boat at New Orleans (gambling, nuf said). He has committed these and countless acts of violent mischief against us because he hates America and spends his waking hours planning our destruction. He is good at his trade and we can't get to him (except when the 700 club is on). The Christian Right loves and protects him too well. He is their kind of guy."

lpetrich · 03-20-2002, 07:27 PM

I'm wondering when Randman is going to direct some of his skepticism toward the Bible.

Quote:

randman:
... supposed vestigial organs, ...
Embryonic recapitulation, ...

I'd be surprised if "randman" has seriously studied embryology or vestigial organs, as opposed to regurgitating creationist propaganda.

Quote:

randman:
... Piltdown man, later discovered to have been due to a fraudulent combination of human skullcap with an ape's jaw; "Java man, consisting of an ape skull and a human femur, found separated by many meters, and later disavowed by its discoverer; and Australopithicus africanus, the skull of an infant ape which typically bore a slight resemblance to a human child's skull. Not entered into the trial, but aired in the press, was Nebraska man, America's own ape-man and thus very popular. This fossil consisted of only one tooth, later discovered to be that of a pig."

True, "Piltdown man" was a fake, but while it was considered genuine, it had aroused a lot of skepticism. Its champions were mostly British; paleoanthropologists from elsewhere often dismissed it a composite. And as more and more real hominid fossils were found, "Piltdown Man" became viewed as some odd side branch. Exposure of that hoax was, in a sense, the ultimate validation of the composite hypothesis.

"Nebraska man" was a case of someone's overenthusiasm over someone's find of a seemingly humanlike molar. It turned out to more closely resemble one from an extinct peccary, a piglike animal; those molars look rather similar, though they can be distinguished if one knows what to look for.

And as to the real hominids, creationists are divided about which ones stop being simian and which ones start being human. However, a testimony to the shoddiness of creation "science" is how no creationists seem willing to compare those different claims to see who's right.

Dr.GH · 03-20-2002, 08:19 PM

I can recommend "The Fossil Trail" by Ian Tattersall 1995 Oxford: Oxford University Press to be a generally easy to read introduction to paleoanthropology for nonspecialists. Tattersall is sufficiently critical of early efforts that creationists can enjoy "quote mining" (there are some real nuggets), and reasoning people without a major investment of time (or money) will learn a good deal.

randman is in particular need, based on his/her clear lack of familiarity with hominid fossil data, and its historical context. Actually, this is the strongest feature of "The Fossil Trail." The first 1/2 or so is directed to the intellectual/political/personal and factual developments of paleoanthropology (page 118 just gets us through the 1950's).

It is a short book, just 246 pages (and cheap), and as it was published in '95 there are several significant new fossils that are not included. However, the contextualization of paleoanthro has rarely been done better.

(Dumb smiley faces)

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]

HRG · 03-20-2002, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar:
Swan-eater, are you a fan of S.M. Stirling? I was just re-reading the "Island In The Sea Of Time" trilogy when i saw your name.

Do tell! I only saw the first volume and it was great.
What are the titles of No. 2 and 3 ?

Regards,
HRG.

randman · 03-20-2002, 09:48 PM

"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by randman:
"This fossil consisted of only one tooth, later discovered to be that of a pig."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who discovered that? Ken Ham, or "Dr. Safari"?"

Hezekiah, I take it you still beleive Nebraska man wasn't a fake. I am not surprised seeing as how frauds and such are still taught by evolutionists decades after they are debunked.

Daggah · 03-20-2002, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Hezekiah, I take it you still beleive Nebraska man wasn't a fake. I am not surprised seeing as how frauds and such are still taught by evolutionists decades after they are debunked.

Good lord your idiocy is amazing!

No you moron, Hezekiah said what he did to point out the obvious: it is always other, real scientists who discover the frauds - creationists never do.

Secondly, these lies are generally only taught in crappy high-school biology textbooks - textbooks that wouldn't, in fact, be so ridiculously bad if you creationists would shut your traps and let high school biology teachers do a decent job.

Try grabbing a college-level biology textbook sometime, randman. I used one in my high school bio class, and I was never presented anything about embryonic recapitulation. I was never taught about Piltdown man or Nebraska man. I never read a claim about neanderthal being a hunched-over ape-man. In short, I got facts, and no lies.

Get a clue, randman. You seriously need one.

Jack the Bodiless · 03-21-2002, 12:24 AM

Randman:

In the century-and-a-half since the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, not a single shred of evidence which contradicts the theory of evolution has ever been discovered.

None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

In that time, sure, some scientists have made mistakes, which were subsequently corrected. Perhaps there are a few fossils out there which are still mis-classified. Scientists are human, and fallible.

But the total evidence confirming creationism or refuting evolution remains: absolutely none whatsoever.

Meanwhile, Biblical creationism has been utterly annihilated. Creationists have no creation model that stands up. The Earth is old, creatures developed from shared ancestors by common descent, there is no creationist explanation for the sequence of the fossil record or the DNA evidence.

You backed the losing side, Randman. No amount of whining about Nebraska Man will change that.

Incidentally, you've failed to mention Glen Rose Man, invented by creationists from a FISH tooth...

03-20-2002, 06:41 PM	#12
Jubal Banned Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: NC-US Posts: 98	<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> [ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: Swan-eater ]</p>

03-20-2002, 08:19 PM	#16
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	I can recommend "The Fossil Trail" by Ian Tattersall 1995 Oxford: Oxford University Press to be a generally easy to read introduction to paleoanthropology for nonspecialists. Tattersall is sufficiently critical of early efforts that creationists can enjoy "quote mining" (there are some real nuggets), and reasoning people without a major investment of time (or money) will learn a good deal. randman is in particular need, based on his/her clear lack of familiarity with hominid fossil data, and its historical context. Actually, this is the strongest feature of "The Fossil Trail." The first 1/2 or so is directed to the intellectual/political/personal and factual developments of paleoanthropology (page 118 just gets us through the 1950's). It is a short book, just 246 pages (and cheap), and as it was published in '95 there are several significant new fossils that are not included. However, the contextualization of paleoanthro has rarely been done better. (Dumb smiley faces) [ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]</p>

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

03-20-2002, 09:48 PM	#18
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	"quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by randman: "This fossil consisted of only one tooth, later discovered to be that of a pig." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Who discovered that? Ken Ham, or "Dr. Safari"?" Hezekiah, I take it you still beleive Nebraska man wasn't a fake. I am not surprised seeing as how frauds and such are still taught by evolutionists decades after they are debunked.

03-21-2002, 12:24 AM	#20
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Randman: In the century-and-a-half since the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, not a single shred of evidence which contradicts the theory of evolution has ever been discovered. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. In that time, sure, some scientists have made mistakes, which were subsequently corrected. Perhaps there are a few fossils out there which are still mis-classified. Scientists are human, and fallible. But the total evidence confirming creationism or refuting evolution remains: absolutely none whatsoever. Meanwhile, Biblical creationism has been utterly annihilated. Creationists have no creation model that stands up. The Earth is old, creatures developed from shared ancestors by common descent, there is no creationist explanation for the sequence of the fossil record or the DNA evidence. You backed the losing side, Randman. No amount of whining about Nebraska Man will change that. Incidentally, you've failed to mention Glen Rose Man, invented by creationists from a FISH tooth...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.