Bone Crunching Debunks ‘First Monkey’ Ida Fossil Hype, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times


reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 06:00 PM by Aquarius1
reply to post by buds84



Those are my thoughts exactly, but would like to see the movie on Darwin's life, hope it gets distributed in the U.S., don't get why religious institutions are so threatened by it, think we are adult enough to make up our own minds.



reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 06:13 PM by Avenginggecko
reply to post by buds84



Did you read the article?

As prominent paleontologists soon pointed out, Hurum’s team was pushing a theory that most researchers had already dismissed, that anthropoids — monkeys and apes, including ourselves — are descended from lemur-like members of a primate subfamily called adapids, of which Darwinius was one.

According to Hurum’s team, Darwinius possessed many of the physical traits expected in the earliest ancestral anthropoid, so it must be that ancestor. And since Darwinius was clearly an adapid, then adapids were at the root of the anthropoids. But their paper made no reference to extensive fossil and genetic evidence suggesting otherwise.


Further evidence that there's a serious lack of understanding about what science, Darwin, and "his followers" are actually all about.

The fossil was showcased like a PR stunt to grab attention and wasn't the subject of peer review by these crap-filled Darwinian followers you speak of.

Now that it is the study of peer review, it's clear to the scientific community at large that it isn't some smoking gun of human evolution but another branch of the evolutionary tree.

I wish people would understand that science isn't about pushing an ideology. It's not like politics or religion where everything is dealt in moral absolutes and we're on an "us vs. them" mentality. Science readily, and happily, accepts changes to known theory because it expands our horizons that much more.


reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 07:16 PM by jdl79
reply to post by Avenginggecko



"I wish people would understand that science isn't about pushing an ideology. It's not like politics or religion where everything is dealt in moral absolutes and we're on an "us vs. them" mentality."

OK, I have to firmly disagree with this statement. First to seperate politics and science is impossible, since a large portion of money for scientific research is from the govt. Second, when said money is used to prove a predetermined theory, even if the facts don't support said theory. i.e. global warming.

Science is pushed as an ideology through schools across the world. Add to that money and supplies contributed to schools via the scientific community to advance said ideology. Also one can't say science doesn't take a us vs. them mentality, when scientists and scientific institutes consitently take pot shots at creationists and other religous beliefs.


reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 07:20 PM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by jdl79



Actually. I wouldn't blame all of science and scientists on the antics of certain atheists who want the rest of the world to believe science supports them when science at it's purest form is inherently agnostic.


reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 07:22 PM by Avenginggecko
reply to post by jdl79



Politics clings to science as a way to push an agenda, not the other way around. True scientific theory is about testing a hypothesis in order to form a valid theory.

Not to turn this in to a global warming debate, but the planet is warming, and there is far more evidence that humans are contributing to or accelerating this warming than there is saying we have no effect.

Science isn't pushed as an ideology. It's pushed as a scientific method of hypothesis > experiment > results > conclusion. People who don't agree with the conclusions often do so because it goes against their personal beliefs. Science readily accepts change. It does not, however readily accept changes that can't be repeated, aren't supported, or are outweight by much greater evidence.



reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 07:28 PM by John Matrix
Originally posted by Aquarius1
reply to
post by buds84



Those are my thoughts exactly, but would like to see the movie on Darwin's life, hope it gets distributed in the U.S., don't get why religious institutions are so threatened by it, think we are adult enough to make up our own minds.


I must clarify something before I comment on your excellent thread:

There is no documentation or proof that religious instituations have had anything to do with the Darwin movie not being shown here. It was a business decision made by the distribution companies. I doubt that they considered religious Americans, since many movies are distributed that offends Christians much more than this Darwin movie does.

As for your OP....great job!
I have personally seen enough nails in the evolution coffin over the last year that I didn't really need another one....but what the hey....

I'm starring and flagging love...keep at it.


reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 07:35 PM by Aquarius1
reply to post by John Matrix



John I know that it not religion directly, but I believe that there is much pressure from Christan investors that we don't hear about. Thanks for your comment, I should have been more clear.
Thanks also, glad you liked my OP, am learning since becoming active on this board which is only recently...

[edit on 21-10-2009 by Aquarius1]


reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 07:35 PM by John Matrix
reply to post by Avenginggecko



Science may not be about pushing an ideology, but evolution is!!
Let's not forget.....evolution is not science.
Likewise, science is not evolution.

If science took a hard look at the evidence for Creation, such as ID and CD....they would get to where they want to be much quicker than following the red herring known as evolution. Evolution is a wild goose chase, and a huge waste of time, money, and resources.


[edit on 21/10/09 by John Matrix]


reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 07:41 PM by Aquarius1
reply to post by John Matrix




If science took a hard look at the evidence for Creation, such as ID and CD....they would get to where they want to be much quicker that following the red herring known as evolution. Evolution is a wild goose chase, and a huge waste of time, money, and resources.


That would be to easy, what amazes me is how long this has been going on, don't think I know anyone who embraces Evolution.


reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 07:51 PM by John Matrix
reply to post by Aquarius1



LOL...you will meet the usual defenders of the evolution faith soon enough, and then you will know some.

They should be arriving for their usual beatings soon.


reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 09:18 PM by cenpuppie
reply to post by buds84



Hey know chief, Darwin only talked about evolution, the act of change for an organism over generations. Those finches he first explored are still evolving.

Evolution however cannot explain the multitudes of life on this planet.


reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 11:25 PM by Avenginggecko
Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to
post by Avenginggecko



Science may not be about pushing an ideology, but evolution is!!
Let's not forget.....evolution is not science.
Likewise, science is not evolution.

If science took a hard look at the evidence for Creation, such as ID and CD....they would get to where they want to be much quicker than following the red herring known as evolution. Evolution is a wild goose chase, and a huge waste of time, money, and resources.


[edit on 21/10/09 by John Matrix]


Well, evolution is science, actually.

There's hypothesis that's observable, testable, and repeatable that draws a conclusion that fits the available evidence Therefore, it is a scientific theory. No one in science claims that our view of evolution is complete and we know everything, and only an avowed atheist scientist will say that there is no God with a hand in creation of everything around us...but that is belief and not science.

It's perfectly possible that ID is accurate and there is a God(s), but it's completely impossible to test for such a thing right now, therefore scientists can not account for it in any kind of testing, and it falls out of the realm of science.

I personally don't believe evolution is a wild goose chase. There's mountains of actual evidence done by scientists who run the spectrum of militant Atheist to conservative Christian that shows evolution exists. It's not a law because we don't know if it's true 100% of the time for everything, but a scientific theory is pretty darn close.

Evolution will remain accepted truth (as I believe it should) until something else comes along and can scientifically displace it.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Origin of Ancient Jade Tool Baffles Scientists
  Posted 7 days ago with 96 member flags
12,000 Years Old Unexplained Structure
  Posted 4 days ago with 81 member flags
The Uluburun shipwreck sunk 3,400 years ago
  Posted 15 days ago with 70 member flags
Sigiriya : The 8th Wonder of the World
  Posted 4 days ago with 45 member flags
Tomb of Queen Heterpheres
  Posted 16 days ago with 29 member flags
R.O.V. Photos of Sunken Megaliths off Western Cuba
  Posted 11 days ago with 21 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 14 hours ago, 68 replies