New Hominid older then Lucy
Lane Lewis
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R39113754
Lane
S.African Fossils May Be Man's Oldest Ancestors
Fri April 25, 2003 11:03 AM ET
By Toby Reynolds
JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - A collection of South African humanoid fossils is
far older than previously thought, and may represent the oldest direct link
to humanity, researchers said on Friday.
After analyzing specimens with a new dating method, researchers from
Johannesburg's University of the Witwatersrand said they had shown that
remains from the world's richest hominid fossil site, the nearby
Sterkfontein caves, were more than four million years old.
The new dates put the fossils on a par with specimens from the same
Australopithecus group of species found in northern Kenya as humanity's
oldest direct ancestors, and make them almost a million years older than
scientists previously thought.
"The new dating for these old specimens from South Africa shows that we have
contenders to be the earliest members of the genus Australopithecus yet
found in Africa," said Professor Phillip Tobias, head of the university's
paleontology team.
"We are right down here where our ancestors were almost certainly living,"
he said. "This has reasserted South Africa's role in the direct ancestry of
mankind."
The announcement is sure to court controversy.
The age of hominid specimens dictates their standing in the evolutionary
tree, and thus their credentials as ancestors of modern man's own genus
Homo, members of which are thought to have walked in Africa some 1.5 million
years ago.
The Sterkfontein fossils, including the oldest known complete
Australopithecus skeleton, had previously been dated between two and three
million years old by other research teams. But Professor Tim Partridge, the
study's lead author, said the new dates were the best yet.
"There is going to be a lot of shouting going on, but I think that this will
stick. I think these are very good dates."
PAINSTAKING TECHNIQUE
The painstaking new technique, developed with the help of researchers at
Purdue University, Indiana, in the United States, measures the amounts of
nuclear isotopes of aluminum and beryllium in material surrounding the
specimen.
The two decay at different rates from a known initial composition, allowing
researchers to date a sample.
The work, published on Friday in the American journal Science, puts the age
of the Sterkfontein "little foot" skeleton at 4.17 million years old, and
pegs that of new finds at the nearby Jacovec cavern at just over four
million years.
Those dates compare with an age range of 3.9 to 4.2 million years for
remains found near Kenya's Lake Turkana, thought to be the oldest
Australopithecus specimen yet found.
Researchers see hominids of the Australopithecus genus as direct human
ancestors, part of the now-extinct link between apes and modern man that has
been the subject of inquiry and controversy ever since Charles Darwin
proposed his theory of evolution in the 19th century.
The new dates imply that the Kenyan and South African Australopithicines
were contemporaries, separated only by distance. It is possible that the two
were actually of the same species, although the Sterkfontein team has not
yet proposed a full taxonomic classification for its finds.
Previous dating techniques used as ammunition in arguments over the age of
the remains had relied upon more circumstantial evidence from the magnetic
structure of nearby rock layers and the presence of other fossils of known
age.
Partridge said he anticipated criticism of the results to focus on the
complicated structure of the Sterkfontein caves from where samples were
taken. But the new technique did not rely upon knowledge of the rock strata,
he said, adding that it was robust and would withstand scrutiny.
KelvynT
>http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=2631821
>
>http://makeashorterlink.com/?R39113754
>
Misleading post title, the hominids are old, the dating is new. And
old, if you see what I mean...
Kelvyn
Nowhere Man
> http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=2631821
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?R39113754
>
> Lane
>
> S.African Fossils May Be Man's Oldest Ancestors
> Fri April 25, 2003 11:03 AM ET
>
> By Toby Reynolds
>
> JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - A collection of South African humanoid fossils is
> far older than previously thought, and may represent the oldest direct link
> to humanity, researchers said on Friday.
>
> After analyzing specimens with a new dating method, researchers from
> Johannesburg's University of the Witwatersrand said they had shown that
> remains from the world's richest hominid fossil site, the nearby
> Sterkfontein caves, were more than four million years old.
Ha ha. That's funny. The evolutionists can't even get their story
strait. Now we've got 4 million year old humans! That's probably
before apes!
> The new dates put the fossils on a par with specimens from the same
> Australopithecus group of species found in northern Kenya as humanity's
> oldest direct ancestors, and make them almost a million years older than
> scientists previously thought.
"Sorry we were just off by a MILLION YEARS. But we got it right this
time. We promise! Humans are apes! It's a fact. Lets go sin!"
> "The new dating for these old specimens from South Africa shows that we have
> contenders to be the earliest members of the genus Australopithecus yet
> found in Africa," said Professor Phillip Tobias, head of the university's
> paleontology team.
>
> "We are right down here where our ancestors were almost certainly living,"
> he said. "This has reasserted South Africa's role in the direct ancestry of
> mankind."
>
> The announcement is sure to court controversy.
But it sure won't falsify evolution - that's for sure!
Caves? I thought this was in Africa. Where are there caves in Africa?
NM
Lane Lewis
"Nowhere Man" <some_wh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cb65864a.03042...@posting.google.com...
> "Lane Lewis" <lanej...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<sDdqa.6419$l81.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
> >
http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=2631821
> >
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?R39113754
> >
snip
> >
> > Previous dating techniques used as ammunition in arguments over the age
of
> > the remains had relied upon more circumstantial evidence from the
magnetic
> > structure of nearby rock layers and the presence of other fossils of
known
> > age.
> >
> > Partridge said he anticipated criticism of the results to focus on the
> > complicated structure of the Sterkfontein caves from where samples were
> > taken. But the new technique did not rely upon knowledge of the rock
strata,
> > he said, adding that it was robust and would withstand scrutiny.
>
>
> Caves? I thought this was in Africa. Where are there caves in Africa?
>
> NM
>
The earliest Homo sapiens fossils (that's our species) were found in a
cave and are believed to be 120 thousand years old.
http://www.calacademy.org/calwild/winter99/counter.htm
For more caves do a search on google.
Lane
KelvynT
<snip irrelevance>
>
>Caves? I thought this was in Africa. Where are there caves in Africa?
>
>NM
Your ignorance is truly awe-inspiring. Why shouldn't there be caves in
Africa? Do you even know where Africa is?
Kelvyn
Steven J.
> "Lane Lewis" <lanej...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<sDdqa.6419$l81.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
> > http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=2631821
> >
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?R39113754
> >
> > Lane
> >
> > S.African Fossils May Be Man's Oldest Ancestors
> > Fri April 25, 2003 11:03 AM ET
> >
> > By Toby Reynolds
> >
> > JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - A collection of South African humanoid fossils is
> > far older than previously thought, and may represent the oldest direct link
> > to humanity, researchers said on Friday.
> >
> > After analyzing specimens with a new dating method, researchers from
> > Johannesburg's University of the Witwatersrand said they had shown that
> > remains from the world's richest hominid fossil site, the nearby
> > Sterkfontein caves, were more than four million years old.
>
>
> Ha ha. That's funny. The evolutionists can't even get their story
> strait. Now we've got 4 million year old humans! That's probably
> before apes!
>
Based on comparisons of human and other ape genes and proteins, and
attempts to correlate rates of changes in these proteins with fossil
dates (e.g. using the known molecular "distance" between Old World and
New World monkeys, and the earliest fossil record of New World Monkeys
as a guide to when they separated from Old World monkeys) it is
estimated that the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees
lived about six million years ago; the last common ancestor of
gorillas and chimps/humans about eight million years ago. Our last
common ancestor with orangutans is believed to have lived perhaps 15
million years ago, perhaps a bit earlier.
>
> > The new dates put the fossils on a par with specimens from the same
> > Australopithecus group of species found in northern Kenya as humanity's
> > oldest direct ancestors, and make them almost a million years older than
> > scientists previously thought.
>
>
> "Sorry we were just off by a MILLION YEARS. But we got it right this
> time. We promise! Humans are apes! It's a fact. Lets go sin!"
>
physiology and biochemistry, as are the facts that we are primates,
mammals, vertebrates, etc. We don't need evolutionary assumptions to
note that we fit into the "ape" category within nature.
>
> > "The new dating for these old specimens from South Africa shows that we have
> > contenders to be the earliest members of the genus Australopithecus yet
> > found in Africa," said Professor Phillip Tobias, head of the university's
> > paleontology team.
> >
> > "We are right down here where our ancestors were almost certainly living,"
> > he said. "This has reasserted South Africa's role in the direct ancestry of
> > mankind."
> >
> > The announcement is sure to court controversy.
>
>
> But it sure won't falsify evolution - that's for sure!
>
had apelike ancestors five million years ago, and three million years
ago, but also four million years ago?
at least.
>
> NM
-- Steven J.
Floyd
> > http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=2631821
> >
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?R39113754
> >
> > Lane
> >
> > S.African Fossils May Be Man's Oldest Ancestors
> > Fri April 25, 2003 11:03 AM ET
> >
> > By Toby Reynolds
> >
> > JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - A collection of South African humanoid fossils is
> > far older than previously thought, and may represent the oldest direct link
> > to humanity, researchers said on Friday.
> >
> > After analyzing specimens with a new dating method, researchers from
> > Johannesburg's University of the Witwatersrand said they had shown that
> > remains from the world's richest hominid fossil site, the nearby
> > Sterkfontein caves, were more than four million years old.
>
>
> Ha ha. That's funny. The evolutionists can't even get their story
> strait. Now we've got 4 million year old humans! That's probably
> before apes!
The chimp lineage and the human lineage diverged approximately 5-7
million years ago. The various species of _Australopithecus_ are on
our side of the split. The interesting point about this article is
that a new, possibly more precise dating technique suggests that these
remains are at the early end of the range of dates that had previously
been suggested, rather than at the later end of those dates. The new
dates are not far outside the range of possible dates suggested by
earlier, less precise techniques. Our "story" has been straight for
decades; your personal unwillingness or inability to keep up with the
developments of the past three or four decades of research is not a
valid criticism of evolutionary theory or paleoanthropology.
>
>
> > The new dates put the fossils on a par with specimens from the same
> > Australopithecus group of species found in northern Kenya as humanity's
> > oldest direct ancestors, and make them almost a million years older than
> > scientists previously thought.
>
>
> "Sorry we were just off by a MILLION YEARS. But we got it right this
> time. We promise! Humans are apes! It's a fact. Lets go sin!"
We know more than we used to, yes. Why is it that creationists seem
to think learning more than we used to know is a problem, rather than
a solution? We *are* apes, since we have all the typical features of
primates, and lack tails. Once again, if you, personally, don't feel
you qualify for inclusion in the Hominoidea, that's not a problem for
anthropologists; it's your personal problem. We've got five fingers,
five toes, a 2:1:2:3 dental pattern, binocular stereoscopic vision,
fingernails, friction ridges on the terminal digist (fingerprints and
toe prints), a long period of infant dependency, a large brain
size/body size ratio, and we lack tails. Humans share these
characteristics with all of the great apes. If you, personally, don't
fit in this cluster, that's not our problem.
Sin, by the way, has nothing to do with it. I know of no clear
examples of non-human apes "sinning," whereas I know of many, many
examples of humans sinning. So if you want to try to draw moral
guidelines from taxonomy, our classification as members of the
Hominoidea suggests that we should *not* sin, since the other great
apes are much better behaved.
>
>
> > "The new dating for these old specimens from South Africa shows that we have
> > contenders to be the earliest members of the genus Australopithecus yet
> > found in Africa," said Professor Phillip Tobias, head of the university's
> > paleontology team.
> >
> > "We are right down here where our ancestors were almost certainly living,"
> > he said. "This has reasserted South Africa's role in the direct ancestry of
> > mankind."
> >
> > The announcement is sure to court controversy.
>
>
> But it sure won't falsify evolution - that's for sure!
You're absolutely right that evidence providing details for the
specific pathway of our evolution doesn't falsify the indisputable
fact that we evolved. Your failure to keep up with the rest of us is
not a valid critique of the rest of us.
[snip discussion of dating technique]
> > Partridge said he anticipated criticism of the results to focus on the
> > complicated structure of the Sterkfontein caves from where samples were
> > taken. But the new technique did not rely upon knowledge of the rock strata,
> > he said, adding that it was robust and would withstand scrutiny.
>
>
> Caves? I thought this was in Africa. Where are there caves in Africa?
>
> NM
No one can possibly be this dim; you must be trolling. If not, see
http://www.showcaves.com/english/explain/Maps/index.html and remember
that this map only displays the "showcaves" that are open to the
public. There are hundreds of other caves that have been explored by
spelunkers and divers, and there are thousands more that are not open
to tourists or spelunkers, due to inaccessability, danger, or
continuing scientific investigation. A google search for "cave
Africa" results in over 240,000 hits. Did you honestly believe that
the entire continent of Africa had no caves? Is that a prediction of
creationism? If not, *why* did you think there were no caves in
Africa?
-Floyd
ML Carle
Floyd wrote:
While I agree that sin has nothing to do with anything in this
discussion, I wouldn't do a "Noble Savage" idealization of the great
apes. They have been observed mistreating each other horribly on
occasion. What probably separates them from us is that they aren't smart
enough to invent distillerys, automatic firearms, public relations, SS
uniforms, opium poppy cultivation, money, 3-card monte, lawyers,
whorehouses, etc.
Sin is culturally and religiously defined impermissible behavior. If
being descended from something rather monkey-like several million years
ago in any way influences your decision whether or not to violate the
rules of good behavior as you know them, you are very confused.
Frank J
> > http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=2631821
> >
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?R39113754
> >
> > Lane
> >
> > S.African Fossils May Be Man's Oldest Ancestors
> > Fri April 25, 2003 11:03 AM ET
> >
> > By Toby Reynolds
> >
> > JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - A collection of South African humanoid fossils is
> > far older than previously thought, and may represent the oldest direct link
> > to humanity, researchers said on Friday.
> >
> > After analyzing specimens with a new dating method, researchers from
> > Johannesburg's University of the Witwatersrand said they had shown that
> > remains from the world's richest hominid fossil site, the nearby
> > Sterkfontein caves, were more than four million years old.
>
>
> Ha ha. That's funny. The evolutionists can't even get their story
> strait. Now we've got 4 million year old humans! That's probably
> before apes!
If you mean "straight," they can, but they can't stop anyone from
misrepresenting it.
>
>
> > The new dates put the fossils on a par with specimens from the same
> > Australopithecus group of species found in northern Kenya as humanity's
> > oldest direct ancestors, and make them almost a million years older than
> > scientists previously thought.
>
>
> "Sorry we were just off by a MILLION YEARS. But we got it right this
> time. We promise! Humans are apes! It's a fact. Lets go sin!"
As you know, and pretend not to know, humans will sin whether or not
they believe they are related to apes, oak trees or bacteria.
Most sinners, in fact, do not believe that humans are related to other
species.
If you define "ape" as in "extant hominoids/hominids other than H.
sapiens," then humans are by definition, not apes but a relative
thereof. This finding does not change anything no matter how much you
play with definitions.
>
>
> > "The new dating for these old specimens from South Africa shows that we have
> > contenders to be the earliest members of the genus Australopithecus yet
> > found in Africa," said Professor Phillip Tobias, head of the university's
> > paleontology team.
> >
> > "We are right down here where our ancestors were almost certainly living,"
> > he said. "This has reasserted South Africa's role in the direct ancestry of
> > mankind."
> >
> > The announcement is sure to court controversy.
>
>
> But it sure won't falsify evolution - that's for sure!
Sure it does ;-) Compare it to the Kennedy assassination controversy.
Imagine if every time one new tiny piece of evidence supports either
the single bullet "theory" or one of the other "theories," someone
steps in to proclaim "that proves it - Kennedy was never president!"
> Caves? I thought this was in Africa. Where are there caves in Africa?
>
You claim to know a lot about evolution. You tell us.
> NM
Lane Lewis
"KelvynT" <removethi...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:i3sjav86jdjmjstco...@4ax.com...
Thanks for the correction, I caught the tale end of the story while watching
CNN and hurriedly used google to find and post it. Should have taken more
time.
Lane
boikat
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 12:06:38 +0000 (UTC), Nowhere Man wrote:
> <snip irrelevance>
> >
> >Caves? I thought this was in Africa. Where are there caves in Africa?
> >
> >NM
>
Truely a "Chez Watt.
Boikat
Michael G.
<boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>"KelvynT" <removethi...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:giklavg4gq8ravfq5...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 12:06:38 +0000 (UTC), Nowhere Man wrote:
>> <snip irrelevance>
>> >
>> >Caves? I thought this was in Africa. Where are there caves in Africa?
>> >
>> >NM
>>
>
>Truely a "Chez Watt.
I second this, if it matters. But please step around my jaw until I
have a chance to pick if off the floor.
Mark VandeWettering
> Caves? I thought this was in Africa. Where are there caves in Africa?
*blink blink*
Mark
> NM
Nowhere Man
On the nature programs it's just grass as far the eye can see. If they
have many caves then they must not be too interesting. I've never been
there so I can't tell you. But I can tell you there was no ape-men in
them.
NM
boikat
nature programs then, yes?) Then you go on to say you've never seen them,
so you can't say, but with certainty you can still claim that none of them
have any ape-men[sic] in them. If you haven't seen the caves, and can't say
if there are or are not any caves, how can you make a possitive assertion
that there are no ape men fossils in them? Me thinks thee hast a double
standard.
Boikat
> NM
>
Thomas McDonald
NM,
Your ignorance here is breathtaking. But, being just ignorance, it can
be cured. Try reading some geography. Might also try:
http://www.sterkfontein-caves.co.za/sterkfontein.htm
Even if you reject the hominid fossil element in that site, you should
learn a bit about caves in Africa.
Tom McDonald
Mark VandeWettering
Remind us again. You are one of the intelligent, informed creationists,
right?
Mark
> NM
Pithecanthropus erectus
This is rich and evident. Reminds me a little of poor Busterboo when
confronted with facts that contradicted the way she remembered a Discovery
channel program. Documentaries trump research. :)
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.471 / Virus Database: 269 - Release Date: 4/10/03
Lane Lewis
Try watching paleontology programs as they often deal with caves. Or is
there a problem with watching those types of programs. (see no evil )
Lane
Michael Clark
Hmmmm, "n o w h e r e m a n". I think I'm beginning to understand
how you came about your moniker.
Hiero5ant
"boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:AsKqa.21490$C%4.1...@fe10.atl2.webusenet.com...
My goodness...
We are all, of course, familiar with the Homer-Simpson-esque "I saw it
on TV, so it must be true" argument (witness e.g. JTG's claim that Darwin
"stole" the ToE from Pacific Islanders).
I believe this is the first documented observation of the converse of
that fallacy: "I've never seen it on TV, therefore it must not exist."
Does anyone have the heart to point out to Nowhere Man that Jesus has
never appeared on TV?
boikat
"Hiero5ant" <vze4...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ggRqa.12624$xw4....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
Or God, for that matter.
Boikat
>
catshark
wrote:
>
Not true! (And he looks *just* like George Burns!)
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
The secret of success is honesty and fair dealing.
If you can fake those, you've got it made.
- Groucho Marx -
Dick C
So, according to you there are no deserts, jungles or mountains in
Africa?
No Sahara, no Kilamanjaro, no Congo. And no caves. And of course,
no apement.
I guess we need to rely on you to keep us informed about things we
are interested in.
--
Dick #1349
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@localnet.com
Bigdakine
>From: some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man)
>Date: 4/26/03 2:06 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <cb65864a.03042...@posting.google.com>
>
>"Lane Lewis" <lanej...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:<sDdqa.6419$l81.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>> http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=2631821
>>
>> http://makeashorterlink.com/?R39113754
>>
>> Lane
>>
>> S.African Fossils May Be Man's Oldest Ancestors
>> Fri April 25, 2003 11:03 AM ET
>>
>> By Toby Reynolds
>>
>> JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - A collection of South African humanoid fossils is
>> far older than previously thought, and may represent the oldest direct link
>> to humanity, researchers said on Friday.
>>
>> After analyzing specimens with a new dating method, researchers from
>> Johannesburg's University of the Witwatersrand said they had shown that
>> remains from the world's richest hominid fossil site, the nearby
>> Sterkfontein caves, were more than four million years old.
>
>
>Ha ha. That's funny. The evolutionists can't even get their story
>strait. Now we've got 4 million year old humans! That's probably
>before apes!
>
Creationist academies apparently discourage *reading comprehension*..
No doubt they consider that a feature of their specialized training.
THis article doesn't report on 4 million year old humans which don't exist.
It reports on new techniques which have assigned ages to a group of
australopithicines..
It is getting harder and harder to separate the creationists from the trolls
these days.
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
KelvynT
My Moron-o-Meter MkIII is close to exploding. Ever wondered where the
Sahara Desert or Table Mountain are? Or Kilimanjaro? Or the Atlas
Mountains? (All popular locations for nature programs) Ever pondered
in a rare lucid moment why paleoanthropologists are always talking
about the Great Rift Valley? Do you know what an atlas can be used
for?
But you're perfectly correct that there were no ape-men in the caves,
those hominid fossils were your ancestors.
However, I guess you're just trolling, so I'm probably just wasting my
breath.
Kelvyn
KelvynT
He certainly can't be a cave troll.
Kelvyn
AC
>> http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=2631821
>>
>> http://makeashorterlink.com/?R39113754
>>
>> Lane
>>
>> S.African Fossils May Be Man's Oldest Ancestors
>> Fri April 25, 2003 11:03 AM ET
>>
>> By Toby Reynolds
>>
>> JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - A collection of South African humanoid fossils is
>> far older than previously thought, and may represent the oldest direct link
>> to humanity, researchers said on Friday.
>>
>> After analyzing specimens with a new dating method, researchers from
>> Johannesburg's University of the Witwatersrand said they had shown that
>> remains from the world's richest hominid fossil site, the nearby
>> Sterkfontein caves, were more than four million years old.
>
>
> Ha ha. That's funny. The evolutionists can't even get their story
> strait. Now we've got 4 million year old humans! That's probably
> before apes!
Jokes on you, Nowhere Man. It isn't before apes because they were apes.
>
>
>> The new dates put the fossils on a par with specimens from the same
>> Australopithecus group of species found in northern Kenya as humanity's
>> oldest direct ancestors, and make them almost a million years older than
>> scientists previously thought.
>
>
> "Sorry we were just off by a MILLION YEARS. But we got it right this
> time. We promise! Humans are apes! It's a fact. Lets go sin!"
They are apes. Nobody has said differently, and fortunately, scientists
tend to be a lot more honest than Creationists. Science is also
self-correcting, so that if there is a mistake or new evidence comes to
light, adjustments to theories can be made.
Do you think physicists are dishonest because Relativity supplanted
Newtonian physics? Think very carefully before you answer, because you're
being graded on how well you understand the scientific method.
>
>
>> "The new dating for these old specimens from South Africa shows that we have
>> contenders to be the earliest members of the genus Australopithecus yet
>> found in Africa," said Professor Phillip Tobias, head of the university's
>> paleontology team.
>>
>> "We are right down here where our ancestors were almost certainly living,"
>> he said. "This has reasserted South Africa's role in the direct ancestry of
>> mankind."
>>
>> The announcement is sure to court controversy.
>
>
> But it sure won't falsify evolution - that's for sure!
No, it won't. Why would it? Please explain why such a discovery would
falsity evolutionary theory. And don't fudge it and simply quote more bad
logic and lies from your literature.
You really are silly git. Let's lay this on the line. Are you claiming
there are no caves in Africa?
--
A. Clausen
AC
You must be funning us, Nowhere Man, because nobody in this modern world
could be so ignorant and uneducated.
Please tell us again how you were teaching your science class? I'm sure
glad it wasn't geography.
--
A. Clausen
John Wilkins
Apart from South Park, of course. He has his own cable show.
--
John Wilkins
"Listen to your heart, not the voices in your head" - Marge Simpson
John Wilkins
> "KelvynT" <removethi...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:giklavg4gq8ravfq5...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 12:06:38 +0000 (UTC), Nowhere Man wrote:
> > <snip irrelevance>
> > >
> > >Caves? I thought this was in Africa. Where are there caves in Africa?
> > >
> > >NM
> >
>
> Truely a "Chez Watt.
Think we should tell him that Africa is even bigger than *Alaska*?
>
> Boikat
>
> > Your ignorance is truly awe-inspiring. Why shouldn't there be caves in
> > Africa? Do you even know where Africa is?
> >
> > Kelvyn
> >
AC
> boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> "KelvynT" <removethi...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:giklavg4gq8ravfq5...@4ax.com...
>> > On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 12:06:38 +0000 (UTC), Nowhere Man wrote:
>> > <snip irrelevance>
>> > >
>> > >Caves? I thought this was in Africa. Where are there caves in Africa?
>> > >
>> > >NM
>> >
>>
>> Truely a "Chez Watt.
>
> Think we should tell him that Africa is even bigger than *Alaska*?
Let's not push him. I'm not even sure I want to reveal to him that there
are even mountains and rivers in Africa.
>>
>> Boikat
>>
>> > Your ignorance is truly awe-inspiring. Why shouldn't there be caves in
>> > Africa? Do you even know where Africa is?
>> >
>> > Kelvyn
>> >
>
>
--
A. Clausen
Nowhere Man
That's not what I said at all. Africa is a whole continent. So how
could there not be caves somewhere in Africa? Evolutionists make it
seem as though there were caves ALL over Africa. This is because of an
obvious problem with evolution. If there were ape-men did where did
they live? For a long time they wouldn't be smart enough to build
houses and we all know humans need houses or tents or some shelter to
live in. They also state that ape-men lived in Africa and that all
men, including white men came from Africans. So they pretend like
there were lots of caves all over Africa for all these millions of
ape-men to live in. But there's not. Anyone can flip on the discovery
channel and see that for themselves. They would have gone extinct - if
not for the back problems alone! This is one of the many serious
problems that evolutionists ignore.
I am very disappointed. This is a classic example of evolutionists
trying to portray doubters as uneducated. It's simply not the case at
all. I was very clear and then practically dozens of people tried to
twist what I said to it appear as if I said something really stupid.
If evolutionists really had evidence for all this ape-man business
then why don't they show it instead of running around trying to make
us doubters look stupid?
NM
Skitter...@shadowwatch.org
You *are* the same fellow who wrote the following in the "Honest Skeptic"
thread here on Talk.Origins not to long ago, rightr?
"Evolutionists often try to portray doubters as ignorant and uneducated. We
all know this is not a valid form of argument. It's
also not true. Most doubters of evolution theory are highly educated and
informed people. Now I may not have the highest of educations but
I'm definitely well informed and well read. I always got strait As in biology
class and engaged other students and even the teacher in
debate. I was often the one doing the teaching. I even outlined theories to
explain how all the evidence matches with the Bible. So these accusations just
don't cut it."
I take it you never got straight A's in geography, or took over the teaching
duties there, though?
I'm not trying to be mean, but how in the world you ca exhibit such ignorance
and still claim that those who are trying to explain natural phenomena are
wrong? You can not possibly understand how dense you are making Christians look
when you post such stuff.
I suggest watching any version of "King Solomon's Mines," the "African Queen"
or a good Tarzan movie to see a little bit more of what Africa is like.
Pithecanthropus erectus
>
> That's not what I said at all. Africa is a whole continent. So how
> could there not be caves somewhere in Africa? Evolutionists make it
> seem as though there were caves ALL over Africa. This is because of an
> obvious problem with evolution. If there were ape-men did where did
> they live? For a long time they wouldn't be smart enough to build
> houses and we all know humans need houses or tents or some shelter to
> live in. They also state that ape-men lived in Africa and that all
> men, including white men came from Africans. So they pretend like
> there were lots of caves all over Africa for all these millions of
> ape-men to live in. But there's not. Anyone can flip on the discovery
> channel and see that for themselves. They would have gone extinct - if
> not for the back problems alone! This is one of the many serious
> problems that evolutionists ignore.
>
> I am very disappointed. This is a classic example of evolutionists
> trying to portray doubters as uneducated. It's simply not the case at
> all. I was very clear and then practically dozens of people tried to
> twist what I said to it appear as if I said something really stupid.
> If evolutionists really had evidence for all this ape-man business
> then why don't they show it instead of running around trying to make
> us doubters look stupid?
>
> NM
>
You do it on your own.
Robin Levett
news:1fu4dph.5trdhc1is2mdhN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
And (in a different genre, of course) Jesus of Nazareth,
played by Robert "I'm not a Messiah, I just play one on TV"
Powell.
--
I don't trust camels - or anyone else that can go for a week
without a drink.
(Use rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net - deleting big blue -
for email)
Michael Clark
[snip]
> If evolutionists really had evidence for all this ape-man business
> then why don't they show it instead of running around trying to make
> us doubters look stupid?
They have it, they show it and you don't need any help.
> NM
Bjoern Feuerbacher
Yes, that *is* what you said.
> Africa is a whole continent. So how
> could there not be caves somewhere in Africa?
Well, you claimed exactly that. I quote:
"Caves? I thought this was in Africa. Where are there caves in
Africa?"
This *CLEARLY* says that you thought there are *NO CAVES AT ALL* in
Africa.
That you are trying now to lie about this doesn't change this.
> Evolutionists make it
> seem as though there were caves ALL over Africa.
Absolutely wrong. Next lie.
> This is because of an
> obvious problem with evolution. If there were ape-men did where did
> they live?
In the forest and in the savannah.
> For a long time they wouldn't be smart enough to build
> houses and we all know humans need houses or tents or some shelter to
> live in.
Say, trees, for example?
Could you please explain why shelter which is good enough for chimps
isn't good enough for "ape-men"?
Did you ever notice that the climate in most of Africa is a bit warmer
than in North America?
> They also state that ape-men lived in Africa and that all
> men, including white men came from Africans.
Well, that's what the evidence says!
> So they pretend like
> there were lots of caves all over Africa for all these millions of
> ape-men to live in.
Liar. No "evolutionists" says this.
> But there's not.
Well, there *are* a lot of caves all over Africa, but this number is
absolutely irrelevant.
> Anyone can flip on the discovery
> channel and see that for themselves.
Huh? You can count the number of caves in Africa on the Discovery
Channel? How do you this?
> They would have gone extinct
Why?
> - if not for the back problems alone!
Why should back problems cause extinction?
> This is one of the many serious
> problems that evolutionists ignore.
Where do you see a serious problem here?
> I am very disappointed. This is a classic example of evolutionists
> trying to portray doubters as uneducated.
Well, your question (I quote you again)
"Caves? I thought this was in Africa. Where are there caves in
Africa?"
shows quite nicely that you *are* uneducated.
> It's simply not the case at
> all. I was very clear
Yes, you were very clear. You were very clear that you thought that
there are no caves at all in Africa. See the quote above. And now stop
lying.
> and then practically dozens of people tried to
> twist what I said to it appear as if I said something really stupid.
Well, your original words appear above. They *are* stupid. No twisting
needed.
> If evolutionists really had evidence for all this ape-man business
> then why don't they show it
We have shown it to you. You ignored it.
For starters, how do you explain all of these fossils?
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html>
> instead of running around trying to make us doubters look stupid?
Well, as pointed out above, you *are* stupid. No tryingto show this
from our side needed. You can do this on your own.
Bill Rogers
Well, I've see Charlton Heston on TV......
Bill Rogers
> "Lane Lewis" <lanej...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<sDdqa.6419$l81.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
> > http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=2631821
> >
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?R39113754
> > The new dates put the fossils on a par with specimens from the same
> > Australopithecus group of species found in northern Kenya as humanity's
> > oldest direct ancestors, and make them almost a million years older than
> > scientists previously thought.
>
>
> "Sorry we were just off by a MILLION YEARS. But we got it right this
> time. We promise! Humans are apes! It's a fact. Lets go sin!"
What did poor ole Satan do before Darwin? How did he ever get all
those classical and medieval sinners to sin without believing they
were apes? Perhaps desire to sin is independent of one's beliefs about
human origins. Maybe the association even works in the other
direction.
>
>
<snip>
>
>
> Caves? I thought this was in Africa. Where are there caves in Africa?
I live in Ghana, West Africa. We have caves here.
Bill
>
> NM
TomS
<8984713a.03042...@posting.google.com>, bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net
stated..."
>
>some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man) wrote in message
>news:<cb65864a.03042...@posting.google.com>...
>>"Lane Lewis" <lanej...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:<sDdqa.6419$l81.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
>> > http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=2631821
>> >
>> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?R39113754
><snip>>
>>
>> > The new dates put the fossils on a par with specimens from the same
>> > Australopithecus group of species found in northern Kenya as humanity's
>> > oldest direct ancestors, and make them almost a million years older than
>> > scientists previously thought.
>>
>>
>> "Sorry we were just off by a MILLION YEARS. But we got it right this
>> time. We promise! Humans are apes! It's a fact. Lets go sin!"
>
>What did poor ole Satan do before Darwin? How did he ever get all
>those classical and medieval sinners to sin without believing they
>were apes? Perhaps desire to sin is independent of one's beliefs about
>human origins. Maybe the association even works in the other
>direction.
"In the other way"? Do you mean:
a) Do (non-human) apes sin? If not, then what does our relationship
have to do with sin? (Oh, let me guess. "Sin" is a code word for ...
well, you know what, that thing that animals do.)
b) Did God (or maybe some other "intelligent designer") *design* us
to be so much like apes, so maybe we should follow God's design plan,
and act like apes. After all, that is a Divine decision, not just
some accident of some physical laws.
c) I'm much more closely related to Torquemada than I am to Binti
Jua. Does that I should behave more like Torquemada? (If you don't
recognize these names, try searching the WWW.)
Whatever. Anyway, I'm glad we finally see what gets this
particular creationist so upset. He gets upset by the idea of
actually being related to the rest of God's creatures. I think
that that's shameful. No, it isn't shameful to be related to the
rest of God's creation. It's shameful to be embarrassed by that.
Tom S.
Steven J.
> "boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<AsKqa.21490$C%4.1...@fe10.atl2.webusenet.com>...
>
>
> > So, on nature programs you didn't see any caves (you might have missed a few
> > nature programs then, yes?) Then you go on to say you've never seen them,
> > so you can't say, but with certainty you can still claim that none of them
> > have any ape-men[sic] in them. If you haven't seen the caves, and can't say
> > if there are or are not any caves, how can you make a possitive assertion
> > that there are no ape men fossils in them? Me thinks thee hast a double
> > standard.
> >
> > Boikat
>
>
> That's not what I said at all. Africa is a whole continent. So how
> could there not be caves somewhere in Africa? Evolutionists make it
> seem as though there were caves ALL over Africa.
>
ther are caves (principally in South Africa) where a number of notable
hominid fossils have been uncovered, including several australopiths
or "ape-men."
>
> This is because of an
> obvious problem with evolution. If there were ape-men did where did
> they live? For a long time they wouldn't be smart enough to build
> houses and we all know humans need houses or tents or some shelter to
> live in.
>
of shelter to live in. In an equable climate, we can eat and sleep
right out in the open, taking our chances with sun, rain, and vermin
like the other animals. If need be, we can shelter under or in trees.
It isn't comfortable, but it's qite possible. Second, the "ape-men"
weren't humans. If baboons (and leopards, giraffes, antelope, etc.)
can live on the savannah without shelter, why could not australopiths?
>
> They also state that ape-men lived in Africa and that all
> men, including white men came from Africans. So they pretend like
> there were lots of caves all over Africa for all these millions of
> ape-men to live in. But there's not. Anyone can flip on the discovery
> channel and see that for themselves. They would have gone extinct - if
> not for the back problems alone! This is one of the many serious
> problems that evolutionists ignore.
>
not a single primate species except humans. All the others went
extinct, because they could not build wigwams, set-tos, or other
shelter. As for the back problems, I've seen nature programs with
chimps walking briefly erect. It does not seem to me that
intermediates between knuckle-walking, with occasional clumsy
bipedalism, and full bipedalism would have been hopelessly unfit (and
as others have pointed out, we *still* have back problems -- a relic
of a design jury-rigged from something originally suited for
quadrupedal locomotion). Surely my intution on this point is as valid
as your own?
>
> I am very disappointed. This is a classic example of evolutionists
> trying to portray doubters as uneducated. It's simply not the case at
> all. I was very clear and then practically dozens of people tried to
> twist what I said to it appear as if I said something really stupid.
> If evolutionists really had evidence for all this ape-man business
> then why don't they show it instead of running around trying to make
> us doubters look stupid?
>
it, found in caves. And some of which were found in lake or river
beds, away from caves, as though the original "ape-men" lived in the
open, as do many mammals.
>
> NM
-- Steven J.
Dana Tweedy
That's what we have been telling you.
> Evolutionists make it
> seem as though there were caves ALL over Africa.
There are caves "all over Africa", in the same way there are caves "all over
Europe".
>This is because of an
> obvious problem with evolution. If there were ape-men did where did
> they live?
On the savannas of the African continent, as well as in caves in other parts
of Africa. . "Ape men" fossil have also been found in Europe and Asia as
well (often in caves). None have been found in the Americas, Austraila,
(unless you include H. sapiens) or Antarctica. The fossils of many other
animals have been found in those continents, but no fossil hominids.
> For a long time they wouldn't be smart enough to build
> houses and we all know humans need houses or tents or some shelter to
> live in.
You are aware that there are modern humans today who live quite well without
houses or tents, are you not? Also, quite a few other animals, considered
less intelligent than apes, are capable of buiding perminent structures.
Ever heard of Bowerbirds? Woodpeckers? Beavers?
> They also state that ape-men lived in Africa and that all
> men, including white men came from Africans.
That's what the genetic evidence shows us. Do I detect a hint of racism
there?
> So they pretend like
> there were lots of caves all over Africa for all these millions of
> ape-men to live in. But there's not.
Since you have admitted your ignorance of African geology, how can you claim
"there's not"? Also, caves are not required for hominid shelter. Caves
provide shelter, yes, but they aren't the ONLY shelter available.
> Anyone can flip on the discovery
> channel and see that for themselves.
The Discovery Channel is not the final repository of all human knowlege.
> They would have gone extinct - if
> not for the back problems alone! This is one of the many serious
> problems that evolutionists ignore.
If this is an example of what you consider a "serious" question, then you
apparently have no real serious questions.
>
> I am very disappointed. This is a classic example of evolutionists
> trying to portray doubters as uneducated.
If you are trying to imply a lack of caves in Africa, by claiming you
haven't seen any on TV shows, then it's not "evolutionists" who are
portraying you as ignorant, you are doing that yourself.
>It's simply not the case at
> all.
It's pretty clear that it is the case, at least in regards to your claims.
> I was very clear and then practically dozens of people tried to
> twist what I said to it appear as if I said something really stupid.
You DID say something really stupid. One need not "twist" your words to see
that.
> If evolutionists really had evidence for all this ape-man business
> then why don't they show it instead of running around trying to make
> us doubters look stupid?
We have shown you the evidence. Don't you remember all those websites you
were shown? We aren't trying to make you look stupid, you are doing that
on your own.
DJT
AC
I don't know. You appear to be the one making that assertion.
>Evolutionists make it
> seem as though there were caves ALL over Africa.
I don't believe you.
>This is because of an
> obvious problem with evolution.
There is an obvious problem because there are caves in Africa? I fail to
see how that is an obvious, or even not so obvious problem. In fact, it
isn't a problem at all.
>If there were ape-men did where did
> they live?
Depending upon which "ape men" you refer to, the answer would be different.
There were a number of different species of hominids, so could you be a bit
more specific?
>For a long time they wouldn't be smart enough to build
> houses and we all know humans need houses or tents or some shelter to
> live in.
Even mice can build temporary shelters.
>They also state that ape-men lived in Africa and that all
> men, including white men came from Africans.
This is a rather interesting statement. Could you please elaborate what you
mean by this.
> So they pretend like
> there were lots of caves all over Africa for all these millions of
> ape-men to live in.
No they do not. This is a lie. Early hominids very likely lived in forests
and on the savannah, and like any other critter, would have found shelter
under trees and the like. Other animals survive quite well even where there
are no caves, so why would a big-brained primate like our ancestors be less
capable of surviving?
>But there's not. Anyone can flip on the discovery
> channel and see that for themselves. They would have gone extinct - if
> not for the back problems alone! This is one of the many serious
> problems that evolutionists ignore.
Lots of other animals have survived in Africa without being able to build
houses, so what you are saying is just pure nonsense. If this is the extent
of your argument against human evolution, then I definitely think the
teacher who let you dominate his or her science class should be fired.
>
> I am very disappointed.
I am too. You have created the worst, and I mean worst straw man of human
evolution I've ever seen. It's hard to believe that an adult could create
an argument this silly.
>This is a classic example of evolutionists
> trying to portray doubters as uneducated.
Judging by your post, I can say with certitude that *you* are uneducated.
Heck, you don't even appear to know how animals survive in Africa.
>It's simply not the case at
> all. I was very clear and then practically dozens of people tried to
> twist what I said to it appear as if I said something really stupid.
But you did say something really stupid. If you were trying at humor, one
recommendation is to use smilies such as :-) That way we won't treat your
simpleton responses like they came from an actual simpleton.
> If evolutionists really had evidence for all this ape-man business
> then why don't they show it instead of running around trying to make
> us doubters look stupid?
We have fossil evidence. We have the genetic evidence. We have
archaeological evidence. Do you have specific complaints that you would
like to make, or are you going to make more idiotic statements about ape-men
not building houses?
--
A. Clausen
Thomas McDonald
NM,
I don't know what to think. My first thought is that you are trolling
with this kind of thing. Your claims of intellectual competence juxtaposed
with evidence of an at-best-cartoonish understanding of hominid evolution
suggest that you are just looking for outraged reactions.
I find it hard to believe that _you_ believe most of the things you
write. (E.g.: the business about intimating that it's foolish to think that
white folks came from African ancestors; the business with caves in Africa;
the business about hominids needing caves for shelter to avoid extinction;
etc.)
It may be that you are genuinely as dense and arrogant as you present
yourself to be. I tend to think, however, that you're putting us on, and
having a good laugh at the seriousness of the replies you get.
Hope you're having fun.
Tom McDonald
P.S.: Just out of curiousity, did you click the link I gave about the
Sterkfontein finds?
TSM
rich hammett
> boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> "KelvynT" <removethi...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:giklavg4gq8ravfq5...@4ax.com...
>> > On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 12:06:38 +0000 (UTC), Nowhere Man wrote:
>> > <snip irrelevance>
>> > >
>> > >Caves? I thought this was in Africa. Where are there caves in Africa?
>> > >
>> > >NM
>> >
>>
>> Truely a "Chez Watt.
> Think we should tell him that Africa is even bigger than *Alaska*?
Can't be. I am absolutely certain that Alaska is the biggest state.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
AC
> John Wilkins sanoi, niin käheällä äänellä etten alussa tajunnut sitä:
>> boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>> "KelvynT" <removethi...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>> news:giklavg4gq8ravfq5...@4ax.com...
>>> > On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 12:06:38 +0000 (UTC), Nowhere Man wrote:
>>> > <snip irrelevance>
>>> > >
>>> > >Caves? I thought this was in Africa. Where are there caves in Africa?
>>> > >
>>> > >NM
>>> >
>>>
>>> Truely a "Chez Watt.
>
>> Think we should tell him that Africa is even bigger than *Alaska*?
>
> Can't be. I am absolutely certain that Alaska is the biggest state.
I've even heard it's bigger than Detroit. I wonder if there are caves in
Alaska.
--
A. Clausen
boikat
"AC" <maureen-t...@alberni.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbara7o.gln.m...@ts1.alberni.net...
Derrrr....I saw a doucmentary on Alaska on PBS once, and saw a lot of snow,
ice, trees, mountains and grizzly bars but I ain't seen no caves....
Boikat
>
> --
> A. Clausen
>
> maureen-t...@alberni.net
>
John Wilkins
> some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man) wrote...
> > "Lane Lewis" <lanej...@hotmail.com> wrote...
....> >
> > > The new dates put the fossils on a par with specimens from the same
> > > Australopithecus group of species found in northern Kenya as humanity's
> > > oldest direct ancestors, and make them almost a million years older than
> > > scientists previously thought.
> >
> >
> > "Sorry we were just off by a MILLION YEARS. But we got it right this
> > time. We promise! Humans are apes! It's a fact. Lets go sin!"
>
> What did poor ole Satan do before Darwin? How did he ever get all
> those classical and medieval sinners to sin without believing they
> were apes? Perhaps desire to sin is independent of one's beliefs about
> human origins. Maybe the association even works in the other
> direction.
Satan had the Pope and the Masons before Darwin. Didn't you know that
all Popes are Masons and Darwin was a Mason?
> >
> >
> <snip>
> >
> >
> > Caves? I thought this was in Africa. Where are there caves in Africa?
>
> I live in Ghana, West Africa. We have caves here.
>
Shhh... it's a Masonic secret
R. P. Johnson
john.w...@bigpond.com (John Wilkins) wrote:
>boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> "KelvynT" <removethi...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:giklavg4gq8ravfq5...@4ax.com...
>> > On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 12:06:38 +0000 (UTC), Nowhere Man wrote:
>> > <snip irrelevance>
>> > >
>> > >Caves? I thought this was in Africa. Where are there caves in Africa?
>> > >
>> > >NM
>> >
>>
>> Truely a "Chez Watt.
>
>Think we should tell him that Africa is even bigger than *Alaska*?
Can't be. I just looked at my Mercator projection map, and Alaska is
bigger than Africa.
--
R. P. Johnson rpjo...@mindspring.com
Pithecanthropus erectus
"rich hammett" <bubba...@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:var6jmj...@corp.supernews.com...
> John Wilkins sanoi, niin käheällä äänellä etten alussa tajunnut sitä:
> > boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> "KelvynT" <removethi...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >> news:giklavg4gq8ravfq5...@4ax.com...
> >> > On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 12:06:38 +0000 (UTC), Nowhere Man wrote:
> >> > <snip irrelevance>
> >> > >
> >> > >Caves? I thought this was in Africa. Where are there caves in
Africa?
> >> > >
> >> > >NM
> >> >
> >>
> >> Truely a "Chez Watt.
>
> > Think we should tell him that Africa is even bigger than *Alaska*?
>
> Can't be. I am absolutely certain that Alaska is the biggest state.
>
> rich
Texas is the state that is so large it is almost its own country. Heck,
even some of the natives think they are being generous by letting us yankees
claim that we are part of Northern Texas.
The problem with Africa is that even if it had caves, everyone knows that
Eskimos started out in Alaska and Africa is too hot for them, so they coulna
never lived there. And how the hell could you even suggest something as
stupid as white people coming from Africa? There's no mayonnaise in Africa
so they would have starved to death.
Morons.
>
>
> --
> -to reply, it's hot not warm
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
> \ ..basketball [is] the paramount
> / synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
> \ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
> / and grace. --Carl Sagan
>
macaddicted
Having been to Alaska I have first hand evidence.
No caves.
--
macaddicted
Do the undoable.
Forget the unforgettable.
Expect the unexpected.
rich hammett
> "rich hammett" <bubba...@warmmail.com> wrote in message
> news:var6jmj...@corp.supernews.com...
>> John Wilkins sanoi, niin käheällä äänellä etten alussa tajunnut sitä:
>> > boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> "KelvynT" <removethi...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:giklavg4gq8ravfq5...@4ax.com...
>> >> > On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 12:06:38 +0000 (UTC), Nowhere Man wrote:
>> >> > <snip irrelevance>
>> >> > >
>> >> > >Caves? I thought this was in Africa. Where are there caves in
> Africa?
>> >> > >
>> >> > >NM
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Truely a "Chez Watt.
>>
>> > Think we should tell him that Africa is even bigger than *Alaska*?
>>
>> Can't be. I am absolutely certain that Alaska is the biggest state.
>>
>> rich
> Texas is the state that is so large it is almost its own country. Heck,
> even some of the natives think they are being generous by letting us yankees
> claim that we are part of Northern Texas.
One of my favorite stupid jokes is that, when Texas was whining
about no longer being the largest state if Alaska was admitted,
they were told to shut up, or else Alaska would be split into
two states, and Texas would be third.
> The problem with Africa is that even if it had caves, everyone knows that
> Eskimos started out in Alaska and Africa is too hot for them, so they coulna
> never lived there. And how the hell could you even suggest something as
> stupid as white people coming from Africa? There's no mayonnaise in Africa
> so they would have starved to death.
One of the earliest known stone tools is a mayonnaise knife.
> Morons.
I don't appreciate the religious insults.
rich
Halcyon
> I am very disappointed. This is a classic example of evolutionists
> trying to portray doubters as uneducated.
Mate, there's no easy way for you to learn this so I'll give it to you
straight: Your comments were STUPID. Unbeleivably so. I printed out one
of the posts to show some friends because I thought it was so funny. Rest
assured I will print out your reply as well but reading you comments on no
caves on TV therefore no caves in Africa really does make you look stupid.
It's not that hard to explain yourself fully and given the climate here
(you're right, it is hostile but that applies to both sides) it seems
necessary. Basically, until you clarified them, your comments made you come
across as a complete moron. They were stupid, there is no denying that.
> It's simply not the case at
> all. I was very clear and then practically dozens of people tried to
> twist what I said to it appear as if I said something really stupid.
> If evolutionists really had evidence for all this ape-man business
> then why don't they show it instead of running around trying to make
> us doubters look stupid?
You did that all by yourself. Like I said, next time explain yourself
better and save yourself the ridicule.
John Wilkins
> "boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote...
> > "Hiero5ant" <vze4...@verizon.net> wrote...
....
> > > Does anyone have the heart to point out to Nowhere Man that Jesus
> > > has never appeared on TV?
> >
> > Or God, for that matter.
> >
> > Boikat
> > >
>
> Well, I've see Charlton Heston on TV......
God thinks he's Charlton Heston, you know.
Pithecanthropus erectus
Dammit, John, now you have to kill us.
> --
> John Wilkins
> "Listen to your heart, not the voices in your head" - Marge Simpson
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.471 / Virus Database: 269 - Release Date: 4/11/03
catshark
<tui...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>"John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>news:1fu6656.16lnj1c18jmbtcN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
>> Bill Rogers <bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net> wrote:
>>
>> > some_wh...@yahoo.com (Nowhere Man) wrote...
>> > > "Lane Lewis" <lanej...@hotmail.com> wrote...
>> ....> >
[snip]
>> > > Caves? I thought this was in Africa. Where are there caves in Africa?
>> >
>> > I live in Ghana, West Africa. We have caves here.
>> >
>> Shhh... it's a Masonic secret
>>
>
>
>Dammit, John, now you have to kill us.
Naw, he never mentioned the EAC.
Opps . . .
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Cogito sum, ergo sum, cogito.
- Robert Carroll -
Harlequin
Re: No caves in Africa
[snip the quoted material]
> That's not what I said at all.
You might not intended that meaning, but that is
what you wrote.
> Africa is a whole continent. So how
> could there not be caves somewhere in Africa? Evolutionists make it
> seem as though there were caves ALL over Africa.
There are caves all over Africa (and Europe, and Asia, and North
America, ... ).
> This is because of an
> obvious problem with evolution. If there were ape-men did where did
> they live? For a long time they wouldn't be smart enough to build
> houses and we all know humans need houses or tents or some shelter to
> live in.
You have watched too many bad movies/bad tv shows or read too many bad
comic books. The idea that all prehistoric people (or hominids)
living in caves is a stereotype and does not reflect reality.
And are you really so stupid as to think that a house or tent
is a requirement to live? It certainly helps, but it is
certainly not a requirement where they were living. And one
can also make temporary shelters: caves, houses, and tents
are not the only ways to have shelter. One can also use
rock faces for protection. This is especially a good option
for those living in river valleys: shelter on one side
of the river part of the year and on the other side on
the other part of the year.
> They also state that ape-men lived in Africa and that all
> men, including white men came from Africans.
Anyone think that he gave away something about himself here?
> So they pretend like
> there were lots of caves all over Africa for all these millions of
> ape-men to live in.
No one is pretending that -- outside of bad sci-fi/fantasy.
> But there's not. Anyone can flip on the discovery
> channel and see that for themselves. They would have gone extinct - if
> not for the back problems alone! This is one of the many serious
> problems that evolutionists ignore.
Why would the lack of shelter cause back problems.
> I am very disappointed. This is a classic example of evolutionists
> trying to portray doubters as uneducated. It's simply not the case at
> all. I was very clear and then practically dozens of people tried to
> twist what I said to it appear as if I said something really stupid.
> If evolutionists really had evidence for all this ape-man business
> then why don't they show it instead of running around trying to make
> us doubters look stupid?
Not all evolution deniers are stupid. But you are making a very
good case that _you_ are. And we do show what evidence. You
have not bothered to look for it. Let me copy and paste
from Jim Foley and provide a little of the evidence:
"What do you consider the following to be?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/sts5.jpg
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/oh24.jpg
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1813.jpg
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java.jpg
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1470.jpg
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/3733.jpg
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000_side.jpg
Brief information on all these is available at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html"
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"...Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all
told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to
his or her opinion. Well, that's horsepuckey, of course. We are not
entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our _informed_ opinions.
Without research, without background, without understanding, it's
nothing. It's just bibble-babble...."
- Harlan Ellison
Matt Silberstein
<bubba...@warmmail.com>:
>Pithecanthropus erectus sanoi, niin käheällä äänellä etten alussa tajunnut sitä:
[snip]
>> Morons.
>
>I don't appreciate the religious insults.
D'you really say that?
--
Matt Silberstein TBC HRL OMM
We are not here to judge other people,
we are just here to be better than they are.
Gavin Tabor
Hiero5ant wrote:
> "boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:AsKqa.21490$C%4.1...@fe10.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
>>"Nowhere Man" <some_wh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:cb65864a.03042...@posting.google.com...
>>
>>>KelvynT <removethi...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>news:<giklavg4gq8ravfq5...@4ax.com>...
>>
>>>>On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 12:06:38 +0000 (UTC), Nowhere Man wrote:
>>>><snip irrelevance>
>>>>
>>>>>Caves? I thought this was in Africa. Where are there caves in Africa?
>>>>>
>>>>>NM
>>>>>
>>>>Your ignorance is truly awe-inspiring. Why shouldn't there be caves in
>>>>Africa? Do you even know where Africa is?
>>>>
>>>>Kelvyn
>>>>
>>>
>>>On the nature programs it's just grass as far the eye can see. If they
>>>have many caves then they must not be too interesting. I've never been
>>>there so I can't tell you. But I can tell you there was no ape-men in
>>>them.
>>>
>>>
>>So, on nature programs you didn't see any caves (you might have missed a
>>
> few
>
>>nature programs then, yes?) Then you go on to say you've never seen them,
>>so you can't say, but with certainty you can still claim that none of them
>>have any ape-men[sic] in them. If you haven't seen the caves, and can't
>>
> say
>
>>if there are or are not any caves, how can you make a possitive assertion
>>that there are no ape men fossils in them? Me thinks thee hast a double
>>standard.
>>
>
> My goodness...
> We are all, of course, familiar with the Homer-Simpson-esque "I saw it
> on TV, so it must be true" argument (witness e.g. JTG's claim that Darwin
> "stole" the ToE from Pacific Islanders).
> I believe this is the first documented observation of the converse of
> that fallacy: "I've never seen it on TV, therefore it must not exist."
> Does anyone have the heart to point out to Nowhere Man that Jesus has
> never appeared on TV?
>
>
You've never seen "Life of Brian"??
Gavin
--
Dr. Gavin Tabor
School of Engineering and Computer Science
Department of Engineering
University of Exeter
Bill Rogers
Actually, I meant that McCoy seems to think there is an association
between accepting the theory of evolution and a tendency to sin (or
that indeed people accept the ToE because it somehow gives them
licence to sin). By the association working the other way, I meant
that I thought there might well be a greater tendency to sin among
those who reject the ToE than among those who accept it.
Don't quite see the point of your tone, though.
Bill
rich hammett
>>Pithecanthropus erectus sanoi, niin käheällä äänellä etten alussa tajunnut sitä:
> [snip]
>>> Morons.
>>
>>I don't appreciate the religious insults.
> D'you really say that?
Yup, I really said it.
What's all the fuss about Morons? I can understand if he doesn't appreciate
the, er, intricacies of Joseph Smith's and Brigham Young's creative
theology and cosmology, but he doesn't have to use the name of the
religion as an epithet! Isn't that the least consideration I could
ask?
Emily Litella
Sarah Berel-Harrop
> Matt Silberstein sanoi, niin käheällä äänellä etten alussa tajunnut sitä:
> > In talk.origins I read this message from rich hammett
> > <bubba...@warmmail.com>:
>
> >>Pithecanthropus erectus sanoi, niin käheällä äänellä etten alussa
tajunnut sitä:
> > [snip]
>
> >>> Morons.
> >>
> >>I don't appreciate the religious insults.
>
> > D'you really say that?
>
> Yup, I really said it.
>
> What's all the fuss about Morons? I can understand if he doesn't
appreciate
> the, er, intricacies of Joseph Smith's and Brigham Young's creative
> theology and cosmology, but he doesn't have to use the name of the
> religion as an epithet! Isn't that the least consideration I could
> ask?
>
> Emily Litella
Emily, that's m-o-r-o-n-s, not mormoms.
---Jane Curtin.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.456 / Virus Database: 256 - Release Date: 02/18/2003
rich hammett
> "rich hammett" <bubba...@warmmail.com> wrote in message
> news:vavvbef...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Matt Silberstein sanoi, niin käheällä äänellä etten alussa tajunnut sitä:
>> > In talk.origins I read this message from rich hammett
>> > <bubba...@warmmail.com>:
>>
>> >>Pithecanthropus erectus sanoi, niin käheällä äänellä etten alussa
> tajunnut sitä:
>> > [snip]
>>
>> >>> Morons.
>> >>
>> >>I don't appreciate the religious insults.
>>
>> > D'you really say that?
>>
>> Yup, I really said it.
>>
>> What's all the fuss about Morons? I can understand if he doesn't
> appreciate
>> the, er, intricacies of Joseph Smith's and Brigham Young's creative
>> theology and cosmology, but he doesn't have to use the name of the
>> religion as an epithet! Isn't that the least consideration I could
>> ask?
>>
>> Emily Litella
> Emily, that's m-o-r-o-n-s, not mormoms.
> ---Jane Curtin.
Oh! Never mind!
rich
John Bode
> > On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 12:06:38 +0000 (UTC), Nowhere Man wrote:
> > <snip irrelevance>
> > >
> > >Caves? I thought this was in Africa. Where are there caves in Africa?
> > >
> > >NM
> >
> > Your ignorance is truly awe-inspiring. Why shouldn't there be caves in
> > Africa? Do you even know where Africa is?
> >
> > Kelvyn
>
>
> On the nature programs it's just grass as far the eye can see.
Including the Sahara? Or the Congo?
Secondly, there's no reason caves can't be found in such an
environment. Not too far from where I live there's a flat grassy area
that happens to have a small cave entrance. It's basically a small
hole in the ground.
> If they have many caves then they must not be too interesting.
And you know this because...
> I've never been there so I can't tell you. But I can tell you there was no
> ape-men in them.
>
> NM
And you know this because...
John Wilkins
That wasn't Jesus. That was just a very naughty boy.
--
John Wilkins
"And this is a damnable doctrine" - Charles Darwin, Autobiography
Noelie S. Alito
He was on that distant hill, saying "the Greeks shall inhibit their birth"
or some such.
Noelie
--
"There's nothing wrong with me.
There must be something wrong with the universe!" --B. Crusher, _STtNG_
Frank F. Smith
"Noelie S. Alito" <noe...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:b8pnas$cpfn7$1...@ID-117948.news.dfncis.de...
> "John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:1fu9vay.15zzfe513v3fmvN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
> > Gavin Tabor <G.R....@exeter.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Hiero5ant wrote:
> > >
> > > > My goodness...
> > > > We are all, of course, familiar with the Homer-Simpson-esque "I
saw it
> > > > on TV, so it must be true" argument (witness e.g. JTG's claim that
Darwin
> > > > "stole" the ToE from Pacific Islanders).
> > > > I believe this is the first documented observation of the
converse of
> > > > that fallacy: "I've never seen it on TV, therefore it must not
exist."
> > > > Does anyone have the heart to point out to Nowhere Man that
Jesus has
> > > > never appeared on TV?
> > > >
> > >
> > > You've never seen "Life of Brian"??
> > >
> > That wasn't Jesus. That was just a very naughty boy.
>
> He was on that distant hill, saying "the Greeks shall inhibit their birth"
> or some such.
Frank
Thomas McDonald
"Noelie S. Alito" <noe...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:b8pnas$cpfn7$1...@ID-117948.news.dfncis.de...
He said, "Blessed are the cheesemakers."
"I think he's referring to anyone who works with dairy products."
Tom McDonald
TomS
<8984713a.03043...@posting.google.com>, bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net
stated..."
One suggestion of mine is to take the argument:
If we are just animals, then we should
behave like animals.
and apply it to the anti-evolutionary idea that
God designed our bodies to be like those
of animals.
to get
If God designed us to be like animals,
then we should behave like animals.
I think that if our bodies are "just accidents" of the working
of "mere material", that doesn't tell us anything about *how* we
should behave. "It's all just an accident." But if God has a
Purpose in making us like animals, then we are thwarting God's
Purpose if we don't act like animals.
Just like, if God designed things with Monarchs at the top of
the heap, we are going against God's Will if we overthrow that
order of things.
Tom S.
Bill Rogers
Good approach. (Just like, If God designed us male and female, we are
going against God's will if we don't.........).
But you should take this up with McCoy yourself. I'm just a run of the
mill, garden variety, methaphysical naturalist/agnostic. I know it's
hard to follow who wrote what in long threads. You may even (God
forbid) have attributed McCoy's text to me. He's the fellow who will
give you an argument. I pretty much agree with you.
Bill
Walter Bushell
> "On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 16:32:50 +0000 (UTC), in article
> <8984713a.03043...@posting.google.com>,
> bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net stated..."
> >
> >TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> >news:<b8ji0...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> >> "On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:55:07 +0000 (UTC), in article
> >><8984713a.03042...@posting.google.com>,
> >>bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net stated..." > >some_wh...@yahoo.com
> >>(Nowhere Man) wrote in message
> >>>news:<cb65864a.03042...@posting.google.com>... >>"Lane
> >>Lewis" <lanej...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:<sDdqa.6419$l81.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>... >> >
> >>http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=26318
> >>21 >> > >> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?R39113754 <snip>>
An article worthy of "The Onion".
--
lots of people confuse "freedom of speech" with "guaranteed
access to a captive audience".
Walter
Louann Miller
Bushell) wrote:
>> Just like, if God designed things with Monarchs at the top of
>> the heap, we are going against God's Will if we overthrow that
>> order of things.
>>
>> Tom S.
>
>An article worthy of "The Onion".
An actual theological argument used during the American Revolution to
prove that us colonists were absolutely and totally wrong in being so
mean to George III. Generally followed by the assertion that defying
God's Chosen King would quickly be followed by rebelling against God
Himself also.
John Wilkins
Known, I believe, as the Divine Right of Kings. Try reading Sir Robert
Filmer's _Patriarchia_, and Locke's rebuttal in the _First Treatise on
Civil Government_. The latter was, I understand, influential in the
colonies of Virginia and surrounds...
--
John Wilkins
B'dies, Brutius