Family tree branches out

May 21, 2010 | Posted by: Noodly James | Full story: www.physorg.com

UNSW anthropologist Dr Darren Curnoe has identified another new early human ancestor in South Africa the earliest recognised species of Homo.

Comments (Page 2)

Showing posts 21 - 33 of33
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Sep 07

La Quinta, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
May 22, 2010
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Lacking any actual ability to refute the theory of evolution, JRS resorts to personal insults. Has he no shame?
He's a Christian Fundamentalist. Of course he has no shame. He has no soul.
JRS

Oak Creek, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
May 22, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Lacking any actual ability to refute the theory of evolution, JRS resorts to personal insults. Has he no shame?
Where are the species that are different than the others in a flock, herd, school? There are none. Not one single example of an evolving specimen exists anywhere. Apparently your fantasy evolution has gone on vacation never to be seen again. No other refutation of evolution is needed besides the complete lack of any evidence whatsoever.

=

“And the salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be

said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction.

Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange.

And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day

not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence

in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred.”

Wolfgang Smith,
Teilhardism and the New Religion
Rockford., Ill.: Tan Books, 1988, pp. 5-6.
Dr. Smith, taught at MIT and UCLA.

==

“The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table .. The collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present.”

John Reader, New Scientist 89, March 26, 1981, p. 802.

==

“I don’t want to pour too much scorn on paleontologists, but if you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there’s a very strong desire there to exaggerate the importance of those fragments.”

Greg Kirby, address at meeting of Biology Teachers’ Association, South Australia, 1976 [Flinders University professor].

==

“The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.”

Timothy White, quoted in New Scientist 98, April 28, 1983, p. 199 [University of California anthropologist].

==

"There is no evidence that man has descended from, or is, or was, in any way specially related to, any other organism in nature, through evolution, or by any other process. In support of all naturalistic conjectures concerning man's origin, there is not, at this time, a shadow of scientific evidence.

Prof. Beale, of King's College, London, a distinguished physiologist

==

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever.
In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact … It is a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure jaggling …
If evolution occurred at all, it was probably in a very different manner than the way it is now taught”

Theodore N. Tahmisian, a nuclear physicist with the Atomic Energy Commission
Fresno Bee, Aug. 20, 1959.

Since: Sep 07

La Quinta, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
May 23, 2010
 
JRS wrote:
"Quote.”
Wolfgang Smith,
Teilhardism and the New Religion
Rockford., Ill.: Tan Books,____1988____, pp. 5-6.
Dr. Smith, taught at MIT and UCLA.
==
“QUOTE.”
John Reader, New Scientist 89, March 26,___1981____, p. 802.
==
“QUOTE.”
Greg Kirby, address at meeting of Biology Teachers’ Association, South Australia,_____1976_____[Flind ers University professor].
==
“QUOTE.”
Timothy White, quoted in New Scientist 98, April 28,____1983_____, p. 199 [University of California anthropologist].
==
“QUOTE”
Theodore N. Tahmisian, a nuclear physicist with the Atomic Energy Commission
Fresno Bee, Aug. 20,_____1959_____.
JRS, this is at least the 4th time I've had to do this with you.

What's the matter, can't you read?

Do you not notice that not one of you quotes is younger than 30 years?

Quoting people about the state of the current amount of evidence isn't valid even 5 years later, let along 35!

Hell, I can think of a dozen EXTREMELY important discoveries just since 2000.

Stop reposting these quotes and start getting stuff from the last decade, otherwise you just look like an a$$hole.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
May 23, 2010
 
JRS wrote:
Where are the species that are different than the others in a flock, herd, school? There are none.
Species are *populations*(not individuals). The frequency of alleles in one population differs from the frequency of alleles in another population.
JRS wrote:
Not one single example of an evolving specimen exists anywhere.
Specimens don't evolve, populations do. It happens with every birth and with every death, because each birth and each death results in a change in the frequency of alleles within the population.
JRS wrote:
No other refutation of evolution is needed besides the complete lack of any evidence whatsoever.
Here is a summary of major forms of evidence that JRS has ignored and will not dare examine and respond to:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
As for the rest of JRS's quotes, they have already been addressed and refuted. Why does he post them again? Has he no shame?

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
May 23, 2010
 
Drew Smith wrote:
...
As for the rest of JRS's quotes, they have already been addressed and refuted. Why does he post them again? Has he no shame?
I think that's the wrong question. The right question is "Has he no brain?

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
May 23, 2010
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Lacking any actual ability to refute the theory of evolution, JRS resorts to personal insults. Has he no shame?
he is a Creationist, do you really think he understands the concept of shame?

Plus he called me "one habitually utterly stupid human being" I take that as flattery since obviously I got under his skin and made him lose his cool.:-) I am so proud!

He'll keep painting God into a box and the box gets smaller and smaller until there is nothing left in it. And he thinks I am habitually stupid!
Ted on diff machine

Montgomery, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
May 24, 2010
 
JRS wrote:
It is obvious to the casual observer that evolutionists on this forum don't really believe in evolution as much as they just desperately want to prove creationism wrong.
This thread is a prime example.
Why such desperation.
To have creationism you must have a creator.
Rumor has it that we will be held accountable to that creator.
It is kind of like the tantrum throwing child that hits, bites and otherwise viciously rebels against authority figures - like a parent - like a creator.
You can post this same crap at more than one forum, but you are still wrong. It's not Creation that we argue against it. We argue against taking your religious belief and trying to put it in a lab coat. We argue when you quote-mine to satisfy some inner fear that your religious belief is a bunch of crap. We argue when you resort to misrepresenting valid science in order to feel better about yourself and your beliefs. We argue against your politicizing a social debate and claim it is a scientific debate. We argue to protect science education in this country from your foolish attacks.

Yes, we are disagreeing with you on many levels but the single most important one is that you are wrong and have to resort to lies and innuendo to prove it to yourself. We are honestly trying to improve your education, but you keep turning away to quote-mine and lie. You know you are going to lose Pascal's Wager!

You remember Pascal's wager? Well if there is not a God you will lose because you will be very disappointed. If there is a God you lose as well. Isn't lying against your version of the Christian Mythos? You're going to be in pretty hot water with your version of God. I smile often when I think about that.
Andrew

Oak Hill, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Jan 19, 2012
 
Heres the deal Im gonna completley destroy EVOLUTION THEORY. Evolutionary theory is built on two foundational pillars. But there are two laws that crush those pillars to powder. Let us look at the two evolutionary pillars and the two laws that destroy them:

(1) Evolution teaches that matter is not conservative but self-originating; it can arise from nothing and increase. The First Law of Thermodynamics annihilates this error.

(2) Evolution teaches that matter and living things keep becoming more complex and continually evolve toward greater perfection. Just as inorganic matter becomes successively more ordered and perfect (via the Big Bang and stellar evolution), so living creatures are always evolving into higher planes of existence (via species evolution). The Second Law of Thermodynamics devastates this theory.

THE LAW OF MANUFACTURE—A law is a principle that is never, never violated. Let us for a moment postulate a couple candidates for new laws:

A cardinal rule of existence would be this. We shall call it the Law of Manufacture. We could word the law something like this: "The maker of a product has to be more complicated than the product." The equipment needed to make a bolt and nut had to be far more complex than the bolt and nut! Let us call that the First Law of Products.

Here is another "law" to consider. We will call this one the Law of Originator, and describe it in this way: "The designer of a product has to be more intelligent than the product." Let us return to the bolt and nut for our example of what we shall call our Second Law of Products.

Neither the bolt nor the nut made themselves. But more: The person who made this bolt and nut had to be far more intelligent than the bolt and nut, and far more intelligent than the production methods used to make it.

MANY LAWS—There are many, many laws operating in the natural world. It is intriguing that there are also moral laws operating among human beings: laws of honesty, purity, etc. We get into trouble when we violate moral law—the Ten Commandments,—just as when we violate natural laws, such as the Law of Gravity.

"Facts are the air of science. Without them a man of science can never rise. Without them your theories are vain surmises. But while you are studying, observing, experimenting, do not remain content with the surface of things. Do not become a mere recorder of facts, but try to penetrate the mystery of their origin. Seek obstinately for the laws that govern them!"—*lvan Pavlov, quoted in *Isaac Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 99.

The first is a law of conservation that works to preserve the basic categories of nature (matter, energy, etc.). The second is a law of decay that works to reduce the useful amount of matter, energy, etc., as the original organization of the cosmos tends to run down.

Let us now closely examine each of these laws:

2 - TWO LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS

THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS—The First Law of Thermodynamics (hereinafter called "the First Law") is also called the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy.

It says this: "Energy cannot by itself be created nor destroyed. Energy may be changed from one form into another, but the total amount remains unchanged."

Einstein showed that matter is but another form of energy, as expressed in the equation: E = MC2 (E = Energy, m = mass, c2 = velocity of light squared).

"The Law of Energy Conservation—‘Energy can be converted from one form into another, but can neither be created nor destroyed,’—is the most important and best-proved law in science. This law is considered the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make.

Since matter/energy cannot make itself or eliminate itself, only an outside agency or power can make or destroy it.

R.I.P. Evolution

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Jan 19, 2012
 
Wow. You sure as hell beat the crap out of that straw-man. Way to go Scooter.

Oh, and you didn't prove anything except that you don't understand ANY of the science involved, including but not limited to biology and physics. Go and get an education then we might have something to discuss.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Jan 20, 2012
 
Bluenose wrote:
Wow. You sure as hell beat the crap out of that straw-man. Way to go Scooter.
Oh, and you didn't prove anything except that you don't understand ANY of the science involved, including but not limited to biology and physics. Go and get an education then we might have something to discuss.
Anyone want to point out why he's completely destroyed the human race or shall I just skip to a kitten sacrifice instead?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Jan 20, 2012
 
Andrew wrote:
Im gonna completley destroy EVOLUTION THEORY.
Highly doubtful.
Andrew wrote:
Evolutionary theory is built on two foundational pillars. But there are two laws that crush those pillars to powder. Let us look at the two evolutionary pillars and the two laws that destroy them:
(1) Evolution teaches that matter is not conservative but self-originating
Evolution doesn't teach anything about matter. It teaches that living things reproduce with variation (which we can observe each and every day) and that the environment "selects" some organisms over others depending upon their biological features (which we can also observe each and every day). Those are the only "pillars", and as we can observe them, you aren't able to destroy them.
Andrew wrote:
Evolution teaches that matter and living things keep becoming more complex and continually evolve toward greater perfection.
No, evolution does not claim anything about "matter", nor does it require that living things become "more complex"(some evolution leads to *less* complexity). Nor does evolution make any statements at all about "perfection".
Andrew wrote:
A law is a principle that is never, never violated.
No, a scientific law is a *model* of what is observed, usually one that involves the relationship of variables and that can be written in the form of a mathematical formula. As new evidence comes to light, we may find cases where the law is violated, leading to revised laws.(The laws of gravity are an example.)
The Dude

Ellesmere Port, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Jan 20, 2012
 
Andrew, could I perhaps ask, if evolution is wrong in your opinion, what scientific alternative do you propose that does a better job of explaining the evidence?

Thanks in advance.

Since: Sep 07

La Quinta, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Jan 20, 2012
 
Andrew wrote:
Heres the deal Im gonna completley destroy EVOLUTION THEORY.
Here we go again. Let's see what this idiot is pitching.

[QUOTE[
Evolutionary theory is built on two foundational pillars. But there are two laws that crush those pillars to powder.
(1) Evolution teaches that matter is not conservative but self-originating; it can arise from nothing and increase. The First Law of Thermodynamics annihilates this error.[/QUOTE]

First, evolution doesn't make that claim.
Second, if this argument were true, it would mean that life doesn't exist. Life, however, does actually exist. So, fail.
(2) Evolution teaches that matter and living things keep becoming more complex and continually evolve toward greater perfection.
Nope. Evolution does not say this. There is no "greater perfection". What works in the current situation may not work in the future, and may not have worked in the past.

Wooly mammoths were not more or less perfect than Asian elephants. They were better for the cold, worse for the heat.

The rest of the post is just more garbage piled upon these two false claims.

Here's a tip for creationists.

Before you try and disprove evolution, you should actually learn SOMETHING about evolution.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 21 - 33 of33
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Berkeley Discussions

Search the Berkeley Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
CA Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 15 min Frankie Rizzo 200,227
Board Votes to Rename Portola Middle School Aft... 34 min Former Portola student 1
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) 40 min Sins of the Father 4,859
Doctor heads to court after online sex sting (Nov '06) 1 hr Dont Get it 16,823
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 1 hr sloading 7,817
Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) 4 hr The right is wrong 2,225
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 5 hr Chet Booswahnicki 18,495
•••
•••

Berkeley News Video

•••
•••

Berkeley Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Berkeley People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Berkeley News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Berkeley
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••