Comment about C2C

[Aaron LeClair]

Read both of those. The second one (sciam) doesn't claim that the print was made by Australopithecus afarensis. In fact, it points out several problems with the claim that the print was made by afarensis.

To quote, they state:


The key bone used to identify the maker of the 3.7 million year old footprints comes from a species that existed 1.8 million years ago. That leaves the small problem of explaining how H. habilis travelled back in time 1.9 million years to make these footprints.

It seems we currently lack sufficient data to explain this phenomena.

-DBTrek

Second link:


"Experts have generally come to agree, however, that the tracks probably belong to members of the species Australopithecus afarensis, the hominid most famously represented by the Lucy fossil. Now new research is calling even that conclusion into question."

Yes, some question it too. Notice I put "experts" in quotes previously. That was to show that others call them experts, not necessarily me.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

As in everything, it depends on the "experts" you choose. I can cite experts (scientists who have no stake in creationism or ID) who insist that there are serious problems with matching these footprints with any primitive hominids that existed at that time.

The "experts" who insist most strongly that these footprints were made by autralopithecus are the "experts" who have the strongest stake in the current evolution model. People behave similarly on all sides of the arguments. Those who have the strongest "territory" to defend are willing to overlook, misinterpret, and sometimes outright lie (ie, piltdown man).

I'm aware of that. That is why I put experts in quotes. I was pointing out what many think, not making a case yay or nay about it.

One can argue what you state about creationist too.

 

[BrandonD]

I'm aware of that. That is why I put experts in quotes. I was pointing out what many think, not making a case yay or nay about it.

One can argue what you state about creationist too.

Yes I definitely agree, I think that the creationists might be even worse than the evolutionists at obscuring and misinterpreting. But they both have their hands dirty.

 

[DBTrek]

Yes I definitely agree, I think that the creationists might be even worse than the evolutionists at obscuring and misinterpreting. But they both have their hands dirty.

Agreed . . . though I think it ccan be fairly argued that one side has their hands considerably 'dirtier'. The evolutionists are (for the most part) interested in figuring out how we came to be, and are willing to take new information in to account.

-DBTrek

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Agreed . . . though I think it ccan be fairly argued that one side has their hands considerably 'dirtier'. The evolutionists are (for the most part) interested in figuring out how we came to be, and are willing to take new information in to account.

-DBTrek

I see blinders on with both camps, however, if I had to pick a fav, it would definitely be the evolutionist.

You guys familiar with the Star Child Skull, Lloyd Pye has? I might make a thread on it (think I already did awhile back, but no one replied). Some here might find it interesting. If I make one it will be in crypto forum or general.

There's a limited character count and I couldn't respond to Brandon's last reply. I wanted to say, "I agree", but it was too short and wouldn't let me post.

 

[David Biedny]

People studying evolution are generally utilizing the scientific method, which is based on objectivity and logic. New information and insights are welcome, understanding is the goal.

Creationists are not interested in facts, the coin of their realm is religious dogma and fear.

So tell me again how "evolutionists" have dirty hands?

dB

 

[DBTrek]

People studying evolution are generally utilizing the scientific method, which is based on objectivity and logic. New information and insights are welcome, understanding is the goal.

Creationists are not interested in facts, the coin of their realm is religious dogma and fear.

So tell me again how "evolutionists" have dirty hands?

The argument presented by BrandonD (as I understand it) was that those evolutionists who will cling to their original theories in spite of new and contradictory evidence have 'dirty hands'. The Laetoli footprints were offered as an example where evidence seems to contradict previously held scientific beliefs.

-DBTrek

 

[Aaron LeClair]

People studying evolution are generally utilizing the scientific method, which is based on objectivity and logic. New information and insights are welcome, understanding is the goal.

Creationists are not interested in facts, the coin of their realm is religious dogma and fear.

So tell me again how "evolutionists" have dirty hands?

dB

By dismissing out of hand stuff like Lloyd Pye's Star Child skull. By dismissing and being closed minded about the possibilities of ets having an influence on our origins. By thinking things are random mutations, meaningless fluff somehow thrown together by accident. By not dealing with problems of macro jumps (species jumps). Evolution is quite good in micro jumps however. Natural selection is decent and covers a nice ground. There's more to the picture though. I think evolution is largely correct. But is also greatly incomplete. Much can be said on the matter.

In my experience, there's always scientist that don't want bothered with facts ,because their mind is made up. As Hynek once said, "Scientists, don't always act scientifically".

 

[musictomyears]

I guess there are many questions one could ask concerning the reality of evolution. There might be a lot more to it than we currently know.

In 1996, NBC broadcast the documentary "The Mysterious Origins of Man," narrated by Charlton Heston. It can be viewed on Google Video (I hope this link is not going to disappear too... Google aren't following the Paracast forum by any chance, are they..? )


It is a fascinating production, containing footage of human and dinosaur footprints, side by side to each other.

There is also an interesting interview with Michael Cremo, who has done a lot of research in this field:

 

[DBTrek]

It is a fascinating production, containing footage of human and dinosaur footprints, side by side to each other.

I don't buy the "human with dinosaur" tracks thing myself.

"Outside, but near the Dinosaur Valley State Park, in the limestone deposits along the Paluxy River "twin sets" tracks of were found in the Glen Rose Formation. Originally discovered in the early 1900s, starting in the 1960s and 1970s creationists alleged that one set of tracks were human and other dinosaurs to support their "flaws" in evolutionary theory.[1] However, as biologist Massimo Pigliucci noted, geologists in the 1980s "clearly demonstrated that no human being left those prints," but rather "they were in fact metatarsal dinosaur tracks, together with a few pure and simple flakes."[2]"

[1] John D. Morris The Pauluxy River Tracks, Institute for Creation Research, 2007

[2]Massimo Pigliucci, Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science, (Sinauer, 2002, page 246): ISBN 0878936599

Look Pa! Man tracks!

-DBTrek

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I spoke too soon about no one posting to human and dinosaur tracks.

 

[CapnG]

Penn and Teller's BULLS***! has an excellent episode relating to the evolution/creation debate.

 

[Tom Levine]

This is the C2C bashing thread, right?

Guys, it's open mic tonight OY VAY! She's talking about billions of psychic bubbles filled with love and others, and then they OBE to another plane of existence.

Oh, GEORGE!!! GEORGE, GEORGE, GEORGE!!! DOH!

I only listen to C2Cam so I can get revved up for TheParacast sundays...WOO HOO...Almost HERE!!!

Alright! Ritzmann's on Deck! Should be good.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Penn and Teller's BULLS***! has an excellent episode relating to the evolution/creation debate.

Bill Hicks does a bit on creationism that I find funny. "Ever notice how people who believe in creationism, look highly unevolved? I believe god created me in one day........ Looks like he rushed it". What does their family tree look like, a STUMP!?". Think the stump remark was another bit related to the tv show cops, but works here too.


PS. Aloha Britney.