Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 59 Next »

Cold Warrior

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Home country: USA
Current location: London, UK
Member since: Sun Aug 24, 2014, 06:49 AM
Number of posts: 5,339

Journal Archives

More Creationist Lies about Science: The Dmanisi Fossils

Another ICR article that tries, with the help of our Creationist colleague, to completely misrepresent the significance of the find of the Dmanisi skulls. First, unlike our colleague, let me link to the ICR article and the Guardian article to mark it easier for the inquisitive reader to check the original sources:

http://www.icr.org/article/human-like-fossil-menagerie-stuns-scientists/

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

The Dmanisi find is indeed significant and can be summed up by two money quotes from the Guardian article:

“The scientists went on to compare the Dmanisi remains with those of supposedly different species of human ancestor that lived in Africa at the time. They concluded that the variation among them was no greater than that seen at Dmanisi. Rather than being separate species, the human ancestors found in Africa from the same period may simply be normal variants of H erectus.”

And

“"I think they will be proved right that some of those early African fossils can reasonably join a variable Homo erectus species," said Chris Stringer, head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London (and REAL scientist). "But Africa is a huge continent with a deep record of the earliest stages of human evolution, and there certainly seems to have been species-level diversity there prior to two million years ago. So I still doubt that all of the 'early Homo' fossils can reasonably be lumped into an evolving Homo erectus lineage. We need similarly complete African fossils from two to 2.5m years ago to test that idea properly."

However, our friends at ICR chose to misrepresent the find (I know, what a surprise!). Here’s the main thread on this ICR article:

https://www.discussionist.com/101825081

In one of his posts, our colleague quotes the following bits of the ICR article:

====================================================================================
“That means, among other things, Homo erectus can no longer be considered an ancestor who lived long before and gave rise to "early Homo" peoples, since the new evidence showed H. erectus, H. rudolfensis, and H. habilis clumped together. "Analysis of the skull and other remains at Dmanisi suggests that scientists have been too ready to name separate species of human ancestors in Africa. Many of those species may now have to be wiped from the textbooks," according to The Guardian.3

Among those species would be Neandertal and Cro-Magnon, which deserve no recognition as separate forms that supposedly evolved into Homo sapiens—modern humans.4 They were uniquely formed people living at the same time as modern-looking people. Australopithecus is also out of the evolutionary line up, now that evolutionists have finally followed its fossil evidence to where creation scientists did long ago when they concluded that it was just an extinct ape and had clearly never evolved into humans.5 Without these key players, the popular pageant of human evolution truly should all be wiped from the textbooks.

If the Dmanisi fossils represent ancient humans, then they show that generations of experts in human evolution have spent effort, time, and research dollars arranging fossil fragments of human skulls into an evolutionary line of descent that never really existed. Perhaps it is time to rethink the whole story. "
=====================================================================================
Our esteemed colleague then informs us “Remember this is written by an evolutionist!!!!!!!! ” Weeellllllll, NO! Let’s examine the actual text.

First paragraph: Written by Brian Thomas, MS, Research Associate at ICR, excepting the Guardian quote which does not convey the true implications of the Guardian article and was written by a science journalist.

Second paragraph: Written by Mr. Thomas. The references are to (4) an ICR article written by Mr. Thomas (!!!) and (5) another ICR publication. Additionally, I did not know that neanderthals evolved into Homo sapiens

Third paragraph: Completely written by Mr. Thomas.

So see, here we are again. Superstition attempting to mascarade as science by a bunch of theists who troll real scientific journals for anything they might stuff their god of the gaps into.

I will thank my Creationist colleague as I did learn one thing. Mr. Eddie Marz, from Raymond Chandler’s The Big Sleep, gave us the quote that “religion is the opium of the masses.”

Sovereign Citizens

Or wannabe Bundys.

https://m.

Starbucks and the Baby Boomers

Starbucks opened its first store in 1971 and grew throughout the 70s. This was also the coming of age of the Baby Boomers, who had gone to university and studied European Art, History, and Literature. The generation that was raised in Levittowns, in the mind numbing burbs where every weekend was a Pleasant Valley Sunday.

Starbucks appealed to these people as something exotic, something European, something of culture. A true European cafe, French or Italian style. After all, the great writers, poets, and artists had formulated their great ideas in such cafes. Everyone from Hemingway to Satre had frequented the Parisan coffeehouses.

Ironically enough, our conceptions were also shaped by American TV which presented Europe in such a stylised way. Of those, my absolute favourite is I Love Lucy.

https://m.

Top 10 Climate Change Myths

from the incomparable Potholer54...

https://m.

Bertrand Russell's Teapot

https://m.

Richard William Nelson: Richard Dawkins Dumps the Fossil Record

Evolution debunked by a pill pusher!

http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2013/05/richard-dawkins-dumps-the-fossil-record/

Biography
Nelson studied at the University of California, Irvine and earned a Bachelor of Science degree majoring in biology. Later, from the University of Southern California (USC) he graduated with a Doctor of Pharmacy degree majoring in pharmacology. He is a Christian creationist and is the author of the anti-evolution book Darwin, Then and Now, The Most Amazing Story in the History of Science (2009).

Creationism
Nelson is a Christian creationist who subcribes to a literal reading of Genesis, yet has pretended on some internet websites, similarly to other creationists such as Shaun Johnston and Hugh Dower, to be neutral on the creation-evolution "debate" in hopes of selling more copies of his book. However, Nelson has been very dishonest as he has admitted in his articles to being a Christian creationist and has lectured at Christian churches propounding that evolution is in opposition to the Bible. Anyone who views his website can see he rejects any scientific evidence for evolution. Nelson uses all the familiar creationist arguments such as citing Piltdown man to discredit evolution and claiming there are no transitional fossils. According to Nelson "evolution is a dogma" and he rejects it because of the Bible.

His book Darwin, Then and Now, The Most Amazing Story in the History of Science invokes a conspiracy theory similar to Jerry Bergman's, that the "Darwinists" have set out to remove God from science. Nelson claims evolution is a hoax and there is no scientific evidence for it. He believes that the Genesis account of the Bible is factual history and criticises scientists for opposing it.

Quote mining
Nelson confuses "Darwinism" with evolution and it is clear he does this deliberately. In his book, and on his website, he has quote mined thousands of scientists, moved words around, and lied about what many of these scientists actually said to make out evolution is falling apart.

Trolling
Nelson has been banned on many forums for trolling. He has also made fake user names and accounts and pretended to be a female on one forum in an attempt to give his book extra support; it was later revealed this user was himself.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_William_Nelson

To Don Quixotes Everywhere

https://m.

“Oh Jake," Brett said, "We could have had such a damned good time together."
Ahead was a mounted policeman in khaki directing traffic. He raised his baton. The car slowed suddenly, pressing Brett against me.
Yes," I said. "Isn't it pretty to think so?”
― Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises

ManU nil West Brom 1

United lose to the rock bottom team to hand City the title!

The Ten Commandments: Which are correct?

With the emergence of a bit of intra-religious sparring here, I got curious. As usual for a mere nobody with very, very little expertise in any area of study, I'm a bit confused about the 10 commandments. According to my understanding, the Ten Commandments to a Catholic are as follows:

1. I am the LORD your God. You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve.
2. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
3. Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.
4. Honour your father and your mother.
5. You shall not kill.
6. You shall not commit adultery.
7. You shall not steal.
8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
9. You shall not covet your neighbour's wife.
10. You shall not covet your neighbour's goods.

While the Ten Commandments to a Protestant are as follows:

1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5 Honour your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
10. You shall not covet your neighbour's house; you shall not covet your neighbour's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbour's.

See, this is what is a bit confusing. It appears that the Catholic version leaves out the second Protestant one and splits the tenth Protestant one into two, making a distinction between a person's property and his wife. The former seems particularly perplexing as, when Charlton Heston came down the mountain, he found all the Israelites doing exactly what the Protestant second commandment forbids. And he became a bit upset about it to the point of having a bunch of them killed. So, how can this be?

This is particularly important to me and my mortal soul (I tried music, but that didn't save it) as I have a magnificent bronze statuette of the Buddha on my coffee table which I like very much. He sits there staring across the table at my no less magnificent bronze statuette of Rodin's The Thinker for duration of my sojourn in this mortal coil. I sort of like the Catholic version as I'm very fond of my graven images, plus it has the added value that I don't need to consider either of my ex-wives or my current girlfriend as property.

So which is inerrant? The Catholic version or the Protestant version? Or does it matter? Any help would be most appreciated.

WWE News: Women will not feature in WWE's Saudi Arabia event

Putting this under Sports with the usual caveats regarding WWE.

There is an incredible irony here as for the last couple of years the WWE has been pushing their Women's Division and has made significant strides in the quality of their performance. Arguably the best two matches at the most recent Wrestlemania involved women competitors -- Charlotte Flair (Ric's daughter) v Asuka and the match debuting the MMA/UFC star and Olympic Gold Medal winner, "Rowdy" Rhonda Rousey.

"WWE have confirmed that they won't be any Women's Wrestling matches when they host their Greatest Royal Rumble show in Saudi Arabia, according to wrestling reporter David Bixenspan.
In a statement, WWE said 'Female WWE Superstars will not be performing at this year's event.'
...
When WWE first announced that Vince McMahon and the powers that be in Saudi Arabia had organized another WWE event in the country, there was obvious attention to the fact that WWE did not advertise any of there female roster for the show.

WWE never addressed its Women's Division in its original announcement about the event.
David Bixenspan's tweet with WWE's Statement now totally clarifies to us that they definitely won't be competing at the Greatest Royal Rumble.

The only good news from this is that Women and Children in the country can attend the Stadium, which is usually prohibited there.

However, it is a real dagger in the heart for the Women's Evolution in WWE that female Superstars won't get to wrestle in the event."
https://www.sportskeeda.com/wwe/wwe-news-women-will-not-feature-in-wwe-s-saudi-arabia-event
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 59 Next »