LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksPlease give me easy to understand information to disprove this posts outrageous topic. Easy enough for a fundamentalist christian to understand.
July 14th, 2008, 11:50 PM
Please give me easy to understand information to disprove this posts outrageous topic. Easy enough for a fundamentalist christian to understand.
I just googled "oldest human remains" and this came up as the first link:
The 160,000-year-old fossils, the oldest ever Homo sapiens and excavated in a remote region of Ethiopia, appear to prove that the continent was the cradle of humanity, the scientists said.
http://www.warmafrica.com/index/geo/.../a/a/artid/244
Yeah, but no creationist is going to believe in the age of those fossils.
I usually just point and laugh myself.
what do you think this thread is about then ? on the surface it may be about dating of geologic strata, but we all know what the real issue is, don't we ?
Well I have relatives who will simply say that scientists are full of it, and their dating methods are wrong, the bible says so nah nah nah!
I guess I'll have to really get a strong grasp of how we date these fossils and then break it down to them.
Also on the genetic level I'd expect there to be evidence of a longer than 6k year history, but I really don't know much about this either.
as jollybear has shown many times over, those who don't want to be convinced won't be, through a mixture of wilful ignorance and plain disbelief
+ the internet is so full of counter-information these days that whatever you can throw at them in terms of paleontological, geological, genetic, astronomical and archeological data, they'll counter with spurious misinformation from sites such as conservapedia and answersingenesis
There's a strong Biblical case that many of the time periods in the Bible are er, what's the word, symbolic? As in a 'day' may mean an 'age'. A 'year' means (God-knows-what).
I'd Google that (given more, er, 'imperical' avenues seem to be closed off).
Works for some people. As in 'the seven days of Creation' means seven... well - Google it.
That makes Moses even older than before.
Moses was found in a basket amongst the bullshit wasn't he? Or was that bullrushes?
Sometimes I don't know how calling the deeply held beliefs of people "bullshit", makes things any better.
I'm pretty sure that anyone with deeply held beliefs will benefit from a closer examination of the bullshit of the other. That goes both ways. Doesn't mean you'll agree, but might mean you will be less likely to say 'bullshit'. Which is more often than not, a better thing.
'Monkey - maybe if you... they have an answer to that.
Perhaps my intention is not to make things better. Perhaps my intention is to convey that I too hold beliefs. These beliefs are not only passionately held, but rationally arrived at. So, I reserve the right to say bullshit when I see it. I also expect the blind purveyors of this bullshit to march on blithely unaware of the stench which accompanies them.Originally Posted by Vexer
There now, don't you think the lighthearted comment about the bullrushes (whichafter all conveys a knowledge of the Bible) was preferable to my comments above.
I've made the examination. I was a potential candidate for the ministry.I'm pretty sure that anyone with deeply held beliefs will benefit from a closer examination of the bullshit of the other.On the contrary. It is the close examination that enables me to say bullshit.Doesn't mean you'll agree, but might mean you will be less likely to say 'bullshit'.
As was already pointed out by Ophiolite, it is precisely the fact that I have listened to what they have to say and examined their beliefs carefully that I am comfortable calling them bullshit. If I didn't know much about their beliefs, I would probably just say "I'm not sure, I'll have to look into it more," rather than declaring it bullshit. Many years of attending a religious school while growing up has left me thoroughly familiar with their beliefs. Your theory that a person is less likely to call beliefs bullshit if they examine the beliefs closely only works if the other person's beliefs have some validity that become apparent upon close examination. That's not the case here - the closer you look, the more crazy and nonsensical it all appears.
Well, if they have already decided a priori that any evidence that contradicts their beliefs are lies, then there isn't really anything you can do. After all, any evidence that you might present to them that contradicts their beliefs is automatically a lie. If it wasn't a lie, then it wouldn't contradict their beliefs, now would it?
The bottom line is that your criteria for judging what is true and what is false is very different from their criteria. You apparently look at evidence, evaluate the evidence, and see where it points. They, on the other hand, decide what is true and then judge any evidence based on how well it conforms to what they have determined is true. You could try having a deep discussion with them about how they know what is true and what isn't, but it isn't likely to be productive.
I am comfortable calling them bullshit.
Then you're calling those people, bullshit. And they, will call you the same.
And this will help anyone, how.
Yes, but calling bullshit bullshit is meaningful, whereas calling the endeavour to get rid of bullshit bullshit is bullshit.
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz
Smile this part is posted by my kid,,,,,,,,,have fun
History of Humans
Homo sapiens
http://au.encarta.msn.com/encnet/ref...208139&lc=3081
Human Evolution
http://au.encarta.msn.com/encycloped...Evolution.html
As far as is known, the earliest hominins were restricted to Africa. Hominins began to move into the tropical and subtropical areas of Eurasia around 1.6 to 1.8 million years ago, and into the temperate parts of these continents at least 500,000 years ago. Much later (42,000 to 45,000 years ago) modern humans crossed the water barrier to Australia. Only long after the appearance of modern human beings did people move into the New World (North and South America), probably less than 30,000 years ago.
The Evolution of the Human
http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html
Some controversy exists on the time of this common ancestor to both ape and human, but it is believed to be about 5.5 million years ago. A key fossil record near that time is Ramapithecus, which was believed to be an early hominid for many years, but is now considered an ancient ape that lived near the fork in our common lineage. Ramapithecus is now thought to be an ancestor of the modern apes.
Human Evolution
This site is quite interesting
http://www.stanford.edu/~harryg/protected/evolve3.htm
Human Origin
http://www.stanford.edu/~harryg/protected/evolve5.htm
Human Origins and Evolution in AfricaAustralopithecus afarensis and africanus are the gracile forms of this species with rather small and light body structures. Australopithecus robustus and boisei, were more robust individuals with a rather heavy bone structure with big teeth and saggital crest
Australopithecus afarensis fossils were discovered by Taieb and Johanson in Hadar, Ethiopia named Lucy.
http://www.indiana.edu/~origins/
I have relatives that cling to this sort of belief and there is almost no way that they can be convinced that raidoactive dating methods are accurate. My relatives hit me with the line that we haven't been around long enough to truly test some of the half-lives that we use for dating.
This all started when they were roped in by the young earth creationist material that circulated around the church circuit a few years ago.
These people should be taken seriously and they should be feared as should all fundamentalists groups that attempt to filter scientific information. These people are backed by billions of dollars and they want to fight anything that calls fundamentalism into question. I don't think that they should be taken lightly and I don't think that we should ignore them.
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz
A fact is a fact.
Man can change opinions, But! not the facts.
The porblem is to distinguish between a fact and a fart. The latter are often found associated with bullshit. (And may be a major cause of global waming.)
One hopes that examples of well structured arguments in other posts and threads will demonstrate to the thinking person that the person calling 'bullshit' is a rational, thoughtful individual who is likely able to recognise bullshit when they see it.
Ophiolite, that's bullshit and you know it.
No, I don't know it. I believe it rather passionately. Perhaps you would like to demonstrate, using well structured arguments, that it is indeed bullshit.
And in passing are you arguing that the expressed opinions earlier in the thread, which I called bullshit, are indeed bullshit, but that we should be polite and not call them that, or are you saying they are simply not bullshit?
Don't worry, it's just a knee-jerk reaction.
G'day Mr (Q)
Have you got something to say?
Ophiolite said:
Most people fart does that make them main stream and associated with bull crap.The porblem is to distinguish between a fact and a fart. The latter are often found associated with bullshit. (And may be a major cause of global waming.)
Don't worry, it's just a knee-jerk reaction.
| « cell cryopreservation in -80 | Are all the neural cell bodies in the brain? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
