What creationists know

Carico said:
:roflmao: You believe whatever you read in a science book because you never question their methods. So it's actually you who's being brainwashed unless you can look at science objectively instead of with blind faith. Interpreting fossils is as subjective as looking at leaves on a tree and imagining what they look like. So only when scientists are interested in looking at all sides of an issue instead of only what they want to see, will their methods be scientific. ;)
Click to expand...

:roflmao: Actually, I do read rather critically. There is some interpretation in analyzing fossils, but these are in some cases, almost complete skeletons. They cannot be interpreted as something else. Perhaps some minor issues could be debated, but not the fact that ape-like humanoid creatures did live in Africa several million years ago.
 
Carico said:
You believe whatever you read in a science book because you never question their methods. So it's actually you who's being brainwashed unless you can look at science objectively instead of with blind faith. Interpreting fossils is as subjective as looking at leaves on a tree and imagining what they look like. So only when scientists are interested in looking at all sides of an issue instead of only what they want to see, will their methods be scientific.
Click to expand...

What are your data to support that the seriation and analyses of fossiliferous strata is a subjective process?

Is it only subjective because you want it to be? Or have you studied geology and paleontology and concluded through your own studies that the methodologies employed are "subjective?"

This is the type of ignorant and brainwashed rhetoric that the religious fanatics that go on and on about their "special creation" employ rather than sit down and refute the quantitative as well as qualitative analyses that exist in sciences like geology and paleontology.

There are clear, physical measurements that have allowed for prediction of what type of new fossil species will be located in which strata. And they are demonstrated time and time again. Yet your own limited and narrow education doesn't allow you to participate in true intellectual or academic discourse on the topic.

Instead, you rely on the "you just believe whatever the scientists say in a book" argument that is completely and utterly fallacious since you, if you aren't too lazy, can pick up the book and actually test the data.

I should say, if you aren't too lazy and too undereducated.
 
Carico said:
Sorry but until you know the history of the Jews, you have no clue what the difference between truth and mythology is. So sorry, but further conversation with someone as uneducated as you are won't be productive. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No one knows the true complete history of the Jews. We can only be sure of facts that are corroborated by archeological evidence. Everything else should be treated most critically.
 
spidergoat said:
Actually, I do read rather critically. There is some interpretation in analyzing fossils, but these are in some cases, almost complete skeletons. They cannot be interpreted as something else. Perhaps some minor issues could be debated, but not the fact that ape-like humanoid creatures did live in Africa several million years ago.
Click to expand...

:D So where is there a picture of a whole "humanoid" on a fossil? :eek: NOWHERE. So sorry, but interpretation is the sole criteria on which fossils are identified. :rolleyes:
 
selam.jpg

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/selam.html
 
Enterprise-D said:
From the Wik article on Galileo:

"Western Christian biblical references Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same tradition, Psalm 104:5 says, "the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place, etc."

It is on passages such as these that christianity of old demanded that everyone accept that the sun revolved around the earth.

I thought Galileo's fight with the Vatican was well known?
Click to expand...

And once again, we encounter a boisterous theist that doesn't even know the first thing about his own religion, let alone science. Wow. It really does boggle the mind. Thank you for putting that little man in his place, Enterprise. :D
 
If you were buried for hundreds of thousands of years, you would not be in the best of shape either. Now you were presented with actual evidence of a hominid creature with human and ape features, but you would rather believe in a work of fiction. :shrug:

Unlike people with a total lack of any practical knowledge of what they criticize, scientists can tell the difference between the bones of a hominid and something else.

There are other, less fragmented ones:

taung.jpg


This is Australopithecus africanus, about 2-3 million years old.
 
Australopithecus boisei, This find was a complete, intact cranium lacking only the teeth:

406.jpg
 
Why are we bothering with this douche? Ban him and let's move on. He's never going to contribute, he's only going to condescend, and he'll only serve to piss people off. You've all completely debunked his claims, and yet he continues to respond with insults and rhetoric.

Let's close it up and kick him out.
 
Medicine*Woman said:
*************
M*W: Am I missing something here? I didn't know there were cameras back then.
Click to expand...

No there weren't any more than you can find a whole fictitious "homo-sapiens" on a fossil. :D So again, the imagination is the name of the game for evolutionary scientists. Only the people of the ancient worlds never carried their imaginations as far as today's scientists do. ;)
 
Carico said:
No there weren't any more than you can find a whole fictitious "homo-sapiens" on a fossil. :D So again, the imagination is the name of the game for evolutionary scientists. Only the people of the ancient worlds never carried their imaginations as far as today's scientists do. ;)
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: What???
 
Carico said:
Yup. Since the imagination is considered evidence in the field of science, it's been long over due. ;)
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: Without imagination there would be no progress in science. Imagination, however, is not evidence. It is the seed that eventually brings the evidence.

*************
M*W's Friendly Atheist Quotes (FAQ) of the Day:

"Must then a Christ perish in torment in every age to save those that have no imagination?" ~ George Bernard Shaw

*************
M*W's Anti-Bitterness Comments (ABCs) of the Day:

"Imagination is the highest kite one can fly." ~ Lauren Bacall, b. 1924, American Actress
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top