Was Darwin Right?
2 views
Skip to first unread message
OD4U - Webmaster
Apr 11, 2009, 7:31:08 PM4/11/09
to Online Documentaries 4 U Forum
This is a really big subject and many people have their own (strongly
held) ideas about evolution or some other alternative point of view.
This is where you can have YOUR say!
Please keep it civil, or you may risk your post being deleted.
held) ideas about evolution or some other alternative point of view.
This is where you can have YOUR say!
Please keep it civil, or you may risk your post being deleted.
OD4U - Webmaster
Apr 11, 2009, 8:49:52 PM4/11/09
to Online Documentaries 4 U Forum
Are 100,000 year old human artifacts real? Short answer...NO!
In my experience, whenever we have so-called "scientists" claiming
that creation is real or that 100,000 year old human artifacts real,
one can drive trucks through the holes in their arguments. They are
seldmom backed by hard science and are at best very misguided. Often,
they are attempts to obfusicate the facts of the case and at the worst
are blatant lies.
Organised religion always stood to lose a lot with the emergence of
Darwin's evolution, what is suprising is the low levels so-called
devout followers will sink to when trying to convince others of their
illogical arguments.
In my experience, whenever we have so-called "scientists" claiming
that creation is real or that 100,000 year old human artifacts real,
one can drive trucks through the holes in their arguments. They are
seldmom backed by hard science and are at best very misguided. Often,
they are attempts to obfusicate the facts of the case and at the worst
are blatant lies.
Organised religion always stood to lose a lot with the emergence of
Darwin's evolution, what is suprising is the low levels so-called
devout followers will sink to when trying to convince others of their
illogical arguments.
Simmons
Apr 12, 2009, 6:33:40 PM4/12/09
to Online Documentaries 4 U Forum
I can say I agree with you regarding the pros just claiming items
are 100 000 y o, but more and more I'm hearing evidence (whatever that
is, depending on who you are) of items found that are much older than
they should be. I think a year or two ago they found an item in the
U.S. and claimed it to be around that era, 100 000. With that in
mind, I can't help wondering why, (if humans have been in North
America for 100 000 years) we aren't more technologically advanced
than we are. Much like pondering the thought, if the library at
Alexandria was never ruined in 500 A.D. (or whenever it was) where
would we be now? We would certainly be on the moon for the second
time, and perhaps even onto Mars. Now I'm gettin off topic, but for
me, there will have to be a certain amount of credible evidence to
back these claims of us being around for that long. However,
researching paleontology, there seems to be a major learning gap in
our own evolution.
> > Please keep it civil, or you may risk your post being deleted.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
are 100 000 y o, but more and more I'm hearing evidence (whatever that
is, depending on who you are) of items found that are much older than
they should be. I think a year or two ago they found an item in the
U.S. and claimed it to be around that era, 100 000. With that in
mind, I can't help wondering why, (if humans have been in North
America for 100 000 years) we aren't more technologically advanced
than we are. Much like pondering the thought, if the library at
Alexandria was never ruined in 500 A.D. (or whenever it was) where
would we be now? We would certainly be on the moon for the second
time, and perhaps even onto Mars. Now I'm gettin off topic, but for
me, there will have to be a certain amount of credible evidence to
back these claims of us being around for that long. However,
researching paleontology, there seems to be a major learning gap in
our own evolution.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Simmons
Apr 12, 2009, 7:17:21 PM4/12/09
to Online Documentaries 4 U Forum
What do you mean about forbidden archeology being bad, a bad lie,
poorly put together, bad idea, or all of the above? Not trying to be
confrontational, just curious of your comment and take on it, (I guess
you've seen it?) Just wondering, Peace.
poorly put together, bad idea, or all of the above? Not trying to be
confrontational, just curious of your comment and take on it, (I guess
you've seen it?) Just wondering, Peace.
OD4U - Webmaster
Apr 12, 2009, 8:38:26 PM4/12/09
to Online Documentaries 4 U Forum
@Simmons
I am a trained anthropologist and also studied archaeology at college.
I am not saying that I am an expert on these matters, but I have done
research into some of these "finds" that supposedly do not conform to
our known ideas about timelines in the historical and archaeological
record. In every case, there was some kind of serious error in the
scientific method employed by the researchers in question.
Take this example from Wiki regarding the "Nebraska Man"...
<<Nebraska Man was the name applied by the popular press to
Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, a putative species of ape.
Hesperopithecus meant "ape of the western world" and it was heralded
as the first higher primate of North America. Though not a deliberate
hoax,[citation needed] the classification proved to be a mistake.
It was originally described by Henry Fairfield Osborn in 1922 on the
basis of a tooth found in Nebraska by rancher and geologist Harold
Cook in 1917. An illustration of H. haroldcookii was done by artist
Amedee Forestier, who modelled the drawing on the proportions of
"Pithecanthropus" (now Homo erectus), the "Java ape-man", for the
Illustrated London News. Osborn was not impressed with the
illustration, calling it: "a figment of the imagination of no
scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate".
Further field work on the site in 1925 revealed that the tooth was
falsely identified. Other parts of the skeleton were also found.
According to these newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither
to a man nor to an ape, but to an extinct genus of Peccary called
Prosthennops and its identification as an ape was retracted in the
journal Science in 1927.
Although the identity of H. haroldcookii did not achieve general
acceptance in the scientific community, and although the species was
retracted a decade after its discovery, creationists have promoted
this episode as an example of the scientific errors that they allege
undermine the credibility of how palaeontology and hominid evolution
theories are crafted, and how information is peer reviewed or accepted
as mainstream knowledge.>>
This is a very good site that looks deeper into examples of bad
archaeology - http://www.badarchaeology.net/
In many cases, you can tell that the researches have not made a
mistake, but rather intentionally set out to deceive. This kind of
behavior always reminds me of those christians that will knowingly and
intentionally lie and plot in the name of their faith. Check out this
example of a christian leader lying in the name of their faith -
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/03/20/pastor-gets-caught-lying-for-jesus/
Overall, I am skeptical person by nature. We should not believe in
something just because it cannot be disproved. The scientific method
demands that we answer to the call to satisfy the burden of
proof...not give in and believe. This is why I do not "believe" in
ANYTHING...I prefer to "know" things rather than believe. How do I
know something is true...is a fact? Easy. If the available credible
evidence overwhelmingly points to something being so, then there is a
very chance that it is so. The evidence must be reliable or this
method does not work.
If anyone has credible information that supports their cases for
100,000 year old human artifacts they deserve to be listened to...but
only if they have followed the scientific method.
I am a trained anthropologist and also studied archaeology at college.
I am not saying that I am an expert on these matters, but I have done
research into some of these "finds" that supposedly do not conform to
our known ideas about timelines in the historical and archaeological
record. In every case, there was some kind of serious error in the
scientific method employed by the researchers in question.
Take this example from Wiki regarding the "Nebraska Man"...
<<Nebraska Man was the name applied by the popular press to
Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, a putative species of ape.
Hesperopithecus meant "ape of the western world" and it was heralded
as the first higher primate of North America. Though not a deliberate
hoax,[citation needed] the classification proved to be a mistake.
It was originally described by Henry Fairfield Osborn in 1922 on the
basis of a tooth found in Nebraska by rancher and geologist Harold
Cook in 1917. An illustration of H. haroldcookii was done by artist
Amedee Forestier, who modelled the drawing on the proportions of
"Pithecanthropus" (now Homo erectus), the "Java ape-man", for the
Illustrated London News. Osborn was not impressed with the
illustration, calling it: "a figment of the imagination of no
scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate".
Further field work on the site in 1925 revealed that the tooth was
falsely identified. Other parts of the skeleton were also found.
According to these newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither
to a man nor to an ape, but to an extinct genus of Peccary called
Prosthennops and its identification as an ape was retracted in the
journal Science in 1927.
Although the identity of H. haroldcookii did not achieve general
acceptance in the scientific community, and although the species was
retracted a decade after its discovery, creationists have promoted
this episode as an example of the scientific errors that they allege
undermine the credibility of how palaeontology and hominid evolution
theories are crafted, and how information is peer reviewed or accepted
as mainstream knowledge.>>
This is a very good site that looks deeper into examples of bad
archaeology - http://www.badarchaeology.net/
In many cases, you can tell that the researches have not made a
mistake, but rather intentionally set out to deceive. This kind of
behavior always reminds me of those christians that will knowingly and
intentionally lie and plot in the name of their faith. Check out this
example of a christian leader lying in the name of their faith -
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/03/20/pastor-gets-caught-lying-for-jesus/
Overall, I am skeptical person by nature. We should not believe in
something just because it cannot be disproved. The scientific method
demands that we answer to the call to satisfy the burden of
proof...not give in and believe. This is why I do not "believe" in
ANYTHING...I prefer to "know" things rather than believe. How do I
know something is true...is a fact? Easy. If the available credible
evidence overwhelmingly points to something being so, then there is a
very chance that it is so. The evidence must be reliable or this
method does not work.
If anyone has credible information that supports their cases for
100,000 year old human artifacts they deserve to be listened to...but
only if they have followed the scientific method.
yeungx
Apr 29, 2009, 3:59:29 PM4/29/09
to Online Documentaries 4 U Forum
I don't think any true evolution denier will take the time to sign up
to the forum. The web site clearly has an atheist lean. this is
probably because reality has an atheist lean, so it is rather
difficult to be open to all info, gather all docs and yet not have an
atheist lean. so we are not going to get a active debate here.
> archaeology -http://www.badarchaeology.net/
to the forum. The web site clearly has an atheist lean. this is
probably because reality has an atheist lean, so it is rather
difficult to be open to all info, gather all docs and yet not have an
atheist lean. so we are not going to get a active debate here.
>
> In many cases, you can tell that the researches have not made a
> mistake, but rather intentionally set out to deceive. This kind of
> behavior always reminds me of those christians that will knowingly and
> intentionally lie and plot in the name of their faith. Check out this
> example of a christian leader lying in the name of their faith -http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/03/20/pastor-gets-caught-lying-for-...
> In many cases, you can tell that the researches have not made a
> mistake, but rather intentionally set out to deceive. This kind of
> behavior always reminds me of those christians that will knowingly and
> intentionally lie and plot in the name of their faith. Check out this
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages