And people wonder why I am a skeptic

[truethat]

Lets see, one was 86 years ago and the other about 96 years ago, hmmm nope I don't think they do use the same techniques.

Science tends to advance itself, to make use of new tools and information to try and come to more accurate conclusions.

Science, ( unlike religion ) is not stagnant.

What does RELIGION have to do with this? Do you see what I mean folks? The constant "well its better than religion crap" that comes from people unwilling to admit that sometimes Scientists make mistakes.

Religion has absolutely nothing to do with this.

This is grasping at straws. You can't admit that it was wrong for the scientist to use the word "proves" so you divert to the "its better than religion" line.

Thank you for once again proving my point on this Shaftsbury. You are quite reliable in this.

Edited February 14, 2008 by truethat

[Shaftsbury]

What does RELIGION have to do with this? Do you see what I mean folks? The constant "well its better than religion crap" that comes from people unwilling to admit that sometimes Scientists make mistakes.

Religion has absolutely nothing to do with this.

This is grasping at straws. You can't admit that it was wrong for the scientist to use the word "proves" so you divert to the "its better than religion" line.

Thank you for once again proving my point on this Shaftsbury. You are quite reliable in this.

Well actually I was just using religion as an example, but now that you mention it, religion has everything to do with "Nebraska Man".

The reference is often brought up as a Creationist argument against science.

My post was in response to Ozi's and had absolutely nothing to do with the article in the OP, so come down off your high horse, you are jumping to preconcieved conclusions.

This is just another example of why I consider you a Cynic not a Skeptic.

[truethat]

So your argument is that because Creationists use the errors of the Piltdown man and the Nebraska man, it invalidates them as only being "Creationists" arguments that aren't true outisde of the religious interpretation?

What's your point? Ozi didn't mention anything about religion? So once again you are bringing religion in where it has nothing to do with the argument.

So let me guess if a religious person points out that Pluto is no longer regarded as a planet then that means its now a religious conversation?

So only atheists are allowed to point out errors in Science right? Because if a religious person does, its now a religious conversation?

I see nothing in Ozi's post that mentions religion at all.

Only yours.

[Neognosis]

So let me guess if a religious person points out that Pluto is no longer regarded as a planet then that means its now a religious conversation?

It does if they are winding up to point out that since science changed it's mind about Pluto, therefore they might be wrong about all the evidence that leads to the evolution conclusion.

Not that's what anyone was doing here, but it's likely why discussions on evolution often degenerate into religious discussions.

[truethat]

It does if they are winding up to point out that since science changed it's mind about Pluto, therefore they might be wrong about all the evidence that leads to the evolution conclusion.

Not that's what anyone was doing here, but it's likely why discussions on evolution often degenerate into religious discussions.

No one did it here. Often the science people and the non religious are the ones that turn the conversation to religion. NOT the religious person.

I've been saying this for months. You yourself are guilty of this and that's all I have pointed out in why I think Evolution is a different kind of science. You rarely see science in a constant state of trying to pre empt the religious argument against their findings.

You rarely see any other field that says "so what" its better than the alternative.

This is a short thread and it nicely illustrates my point. Because this happens over and over again. I can't tell you how many times I've been accused of being a closet creationists simply for questioning science when I'm not a creationist and don't even really know what the theory is on creationism or ID.

[Raptor]

You rarely see any other field that says "so what" its better than the alternative.

You rarely see masses of laypeople rejecting and attacking other fields.

[truethat]

Irrelevant.

What's relevant is how the field conducts itself. If it allows itself to get pulled off track by religious fanatics that doesn't bode well as to its scientific professionalism now does it? As such why should I treat anything it does as scientific or professional when it allows a bunch of voodoo witchdoctors and umpa lumpas with invisble friends in the sky to control how it reports its findings or navigates its studies.

And this, in a nutshell is why I am skeptical of the field.

Edited February 14, 2008 by truethat

[Neognosis]

You yourself are guilty of this and that's all I have pointed out in why I think Evolution is a different kind of science. You rarely see science in a constant state of trying to pre empt the religious argument against their findings.

That's because rarely are other sciences, such as chemistry or mathmetics, under direct attack by the religious right. In the recent past, evolutionary theory has.

You rarely see any other field that says "so what" its better than the alternative.

ah...that's a misleading statement. Scientists who work in fields dealing with evolution don't put forth their theory as "so what, it's better than the alternative." They have evidence that supports their conclusion, and no evidence for the creationist conclusion. Implying that they think it's merely "better than the alternative" paints a false impression of evolutionary theory as a shot in the dark that is accepted merely because we have nothing else. It's the best conclusion that the vast overwhelming majority of evidence points to.

[Shaftsbury]

So your argument is that because Creationists use the errors of the Piltdown man and the Nebraska man, it invalidates them as only being "Creationists" arguments that aren't true outisde of the religious interpretation?

What's your point? Ozi didn't mention anything about religion? So once again you are bringing religion in where it has nothing to do with the argument.

So let me guess if a religious person points out that Pluto is no longer regarded as a planet then that means its now a religious conversation?

So only atheists are allowed to point out errors in Science right? Because if a religious person does, its now a religious conversation?

I see nothing in Ozi's post that mentions religion at all.

Only yours.

Give me a break, you are only seeing what you want to see.

"Nebraska Man" was a case of misidentification, and it occurred around 1922 when science was just starting to put together the human "family tree".

It was never taken seriously by the majority of the evolutionary scientists, and was outright refuted some five years after it's discovery in a scientific journal.

Science has moved on since 1922, learned from the mistakes and corrected the error, it's a perfect reference for showing how science advances.

As for using religion in my example, I can't think of a more fitting one, whether Ozi actually implied it or not.

[Neognosis]

What's relevant is how the field conducts itself. If it allows itself to get pulled off track by religious fanatics that doesn't bode well as to its scientific professionalism now does it?

What amatures say on an internet forum is in no way representative of the field of evolutionary biology. I don't see how the field of evolutionary biology has been "pulled off track" by religious fanatics at all. Can you illustrate this a little? How has the field allowed itself to be pulled off track?

[truethat]

Oh please, I know better than to try to attempt to have a conversation that is critical of science with a group of "blind faithers" who get their panties in a bunch every time anyone criticizes their system of worship. In addition heaven help us if a religious person dares to be criticial because "dems fightin' words"

Shafts you have neatly side stepped this into a conversation about the Nebraska man. Its plain to see that YOU yes YOU and only YOU were the one who brought religion into the conversation.

This thread is about the OP so please take your hysterical rantings off to a blog Neo and stop attempting to derail this thread into a conversation about what the definition of the word "IS IS"

Bottom line the Scientists stated this PROVES and that's not a true statement, its a leap of faith to say it and not scientific at all.

If any of you three would like to actually discuss that I'll be more than happy to. But enough of this derailing this thread into religion. Its like the same old song with you three.

By the way gentleman in case you missed rudimentary science, Creationism is a religious theory and has nothing whatsoever to do with Science. For a science person to argue AGAINST creationism is the height of absurdity in my opinion.

Shall we next move on to a scientific discussion proving that "Just So Stories" by Rudyard Kipling discussing "How the Elephant Got its Trunk" is not as good a theory as evolution?

Childish carping nonsense.

In my opinion.

Edited February 14, 2008 by truethat

[Raptor]

Bottom line the Scientists stated this PROVES and that's not a true statement, its a leap of faith to say it and not scientific at all.

Yet the fact remains that this finding is susceptible to falsification. Where's the problem?

As such why should I treat anything it does as scientific or professional when it allows a bunch of voodoo witchdoctors and umpa lumpas with invisble friends in the sky to control how it reports its findings or navigates its studies.

You rarely see any other field being discussed in the same way as evolutionary theory because no other theory is attacked by so many people. The key word here being "discussed". What a few people say on an internet discussion forum doesn't represent the inner workings of the field.

Its like the same old song with you three.

Show me where I brought religion in to it, or are you just making a habit of lying about the content of my posts?

Edited February 14, 2008 by Raptor

[Neognosis]

Oh please, I know better than to try to attempt to have a conversation that is critical of science with a group of "blind faithers" who get their panties in a bunch every time anyone criticizes their system of worship.

.....

This thread is about the OP so please take your hysterical rantings off to a blog Neo and stop attempting to derail this thread into a conversation about what the definition of the word "IS IS"

Alright, you made a baseless claim that evolutionary biology is somehow off track due to the attacks from the religious right. I said I didn't see this, and asked you to illustrate. And you respond with the above? That was inappropriate and full of venom.

Bottom line the Scientists stated this PROVES and that's not a true statement, its a leap of faith to say it and not scientific at all.

Actually, truethat, the bottom line is that she misspoke to a reporter. I doubt she'll use such terms in the official paper, which will be peer reviewed. And again, I don't think that the semantics of one excited scientist while speaking to a reporter is evidence of any "bad science" in this or any other field, nor is her miswording evidence of any type of overall attitude among the scientific community.

For a science person to argue AGAINST creationism is the height of absurdity in my opinion.

Overwhelmingly, scientists merely dismiss creatinism and don't argue against it until it threatens to share a classroom with real science. I think that defending science in the face of a baseless religious idea is the RESPONSIBILITY of every scientist.

Shall we next move on to a scientific discussion proving that "Just So Stories" by Rudyard Kipling discussing "How the Elephant Got its Trunk" is not as good a theory as evolution?

Why? Are schools in Kansas and Texas and a handfull of other locations considering adding those stories to the science curriculum? Are there groups lobying for a sticker to be put on science books that says "this is just a theory. Another theory about what is in this book is Just So Stories by Rudyare Kipling, and students are encouraged to read Kipling and decide for themselves?" do the majority of the candidates from one of the countries leading parties believe that Just So Storeis by Kipling is an accurate depiction of our history?

I can see you zealously feel different and are getting defensive and hostile again, so it's best that I leave you to your anger. When you get like this you start reading things that aren't there, and making all sorts of inapporpriate statements. I'm sorry to call you out, but everyone who reads this knows that you do these things, and that's not productive. I don't think there's any point to continuing a discussion with someone who is off base, insulting, defensive, and also does not read other's posts accurately.

[truethat]

Actually, truethat, the bottom line is that she misspoke to a reporter. I doubt she'll use such terms in the official paper, which will be peer reviewed. And again, I don't think that the semantics of one excited scientist while speaking to a reporter is evidence of any "bad science" in this or any other field, nor is her miswording evidence of any type of overall attitude among the scientific community.

You can rant as much as you want but that doesn't change the fact that you are talking out your butt when it comes to this.

At least Tiggs had the decency to try to ask the person what she meant.

You on the other hand blindly clinging to the faith that one of your dear sacred scientists could not be biased are speaking on behalf of the woman when you have NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT?

Do you ever get sick of doing things like this? You did the same thing in the Jamie Lynn Spears thread ranting on and on and on about how Jamie Lynn felt about her pregnancy when you don't have the first CLUE what you are talking about.

I've seen you rant at others for passing judgement on something without investigating it first. Why don't you take a bit of your own advice.

If the reporter misspoke it was still PUBLISHED without comment, I've not seen any science person step forth and comment about the fact that saying "PROVES" or calling something a fact is wrong in the field of science.

The only time Scientists seem to have anything to say about these kinds of things is if a religious person is saying it.

Thanks for posting though, I've seen had quite a few people finally understand what I am saying as the people in this thread crazily try to defend something that they should not.

The only right answer to this is "The scientist made an error in using that world. It conveyed more than they actually can determine"

So off to yer blog would ya. Before someone drops a house on you too!

Edited February 14, 2008 by truethat

[Shaftsbury]

Shafts you have neatly side stepped this into a conversation about the Nebraska man. Its plain to see that YOU yes YOU and only YOU were the one who brought religion into the conversation.

I disaggree, I was responding to what I considered a classic Creationist argument.

If you don't believe me here's a little litmus test you can take...

Type the words Nebraska Man into the Google search engine.

If the words "Creationist", "Creationism", or "Creation" don't appear in the top 5 web results then I think we can safely say that seeing the reference in a post should not infer that it being used as part of a religious argument.

[truethat]

I disaggree, I was responding to what I considered a classic Creationist argument.

If you don't believe me here's a little litmus test you can take...

Type the words Nebraska Man into the Google search engine.

If the words "Creationist", "Creationism", or "Creation" don't appear in the top 5 web results then I think we can safely say that seeing the reference in a post should not infer that it being used as part of a religious argument.

YOU are the one who brought RELIGION into the conversation. Its there for everyone to see. Tough donkey chips if you don't like the facts.

What kind of bull crap argument is USING GOOGLE to determine what something means.

Hey let's try that with other things

http://www.google.com/search?q=t+rex&r...amp;rlz=1I7GZAY

Top five for T rex includes a band, some sort of non splintering wood I guess among other things

And a car

Lets try ALLIGATOR

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls...amp;q=Alligator

We got an animal and then a NEWSPAPER and then a Record Company among the top three

So according to your logic when someone mentions an alligator I won't know WHAT to think.

The comments in OZI's posts were about scientific method and their erros, NOT religion.

Get over it and stop making a fool out of this TOP FIVE GOOGLE nonsense!

Edited February 14, 2008 by truethat

[Neognosis]

You on the other hand blindly clinging that one of your dear sacred scientists could not be biased are speaking on behalf of the woman when you have NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT?

It doesn't matter if SHE is biased, as SHE is not the whole scientific community. Maybe you don't understand how the process works. She'll publish her findings in a peer journal. Her findings will be scoured for any inconsistincies or weakness by the rest of her community. If she says 'proves' in the journal (which she won't) her findings will be taken to task. It seems that you are under the impression that there isn't any sort of parsing of claims that goes on in the scientific community.

I know I said I would bow out because you have gone off the deep end again, but your entertaining and I do like correcting your logical fallacies, so I'll stick around for a few more rounds.

It is curious though, that you accuse me of passing judgement, when this entire thread was started because you are using the symantics of one excited scientist to pass judgement on the entire scientific reveiw process, a process which you obviously don't know much about.

[Neognosis]

Get over it and stop making a fool out of this TOP FIVE GOOGLE nonsense!

Actually, truethat, he makes a good point. His example illustrates how much the religious community has devoted to attacking evolutionary theory.

Or are you denying that the a far right religious segment has made a lot of noise attacking evolutionary theory in the past few years?

[truethat]

Yawn

Face it. You guys and your arguments have been trounced by me yet again so you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for some sort of pond scum sludge you can still try to throw at me since your arguments are fading fast.

Scientific peer review yadda yadda yadda yadda. We've heard it all before. It shows the mindset of the scientist to suggest this.

You guys are so funny. You are flat out wrong and you just can't give it up.

Top five Google search HOLY CRAP I peed my pants laughing over that one.

[Raptor]

Face it. You guys and your arguments have been trounced by me yet again so you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for some sort of pond scum sludge you can still try to throw at me since your arguments are fading fast.

Funny you say that when you didn't even reply.

The finding is still susceptible to falsification. Where's the problem?

[truethat]

Actually, truethat, he makes a good point. His example illustrates how much the religious community has devoted to attacking evolutionary theory.

Or are you denying that the a far right religious segment has made a lot of noise attacking evolutionary theory in the past few years?

A. This thread is about the Science article I mentioned not religion. But nice try in trying to force it in that direction since you can't stand on your own argument.

B. I don't know why that's surprising to you at all since the Science community likes to sweep things under there rug when they are busted in fraud, in the field of evolution. The fact that only Creationists have mentioned it doesn't surprise me at all.

By the way did you all know that Wiki has a new site called EVOWIKI how funny right? Its a nice homogenized encyclopedia about Evolution based on teh Creationism debate.

Funny, scientists making the site and putting CREATIONISM in the the introduction. That's so strange Neo, it must be some roque scientist unaware that all the other scientists have dismissed or ignored Creationism like you say.....oh wait

Are you wrong AGAIN? Gasp!

Welcome! The Evolution Education Wiki, popularly known as EvoWiki, is a website about evolution and the creationism controversy. Our editorial philosophy extends no further than being 'pro-evolution' (or rather, pro-science), and our many writers come from a wide range of cultural and philosophical backgrounds. The EvoWiki's 3,027 pages were collaboratively written by the people who visit the site, to find out how this works and how you can get involved, visit our community portal.

Pro Evolution! EVO! Holy Moly! Smells like religion to me!

[Fluffybunny]

Yawn

Face it. You guys and your arguments have been trounced by me yet again so you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for some sort of pond scum sludge you can still try to throw at me since your arguments are fading fast.

Scientific peer review yadda yadda yadda yadda. We've heard it all before. It shows the mindset of the scientist to suggest this.

You guys are so funny. You are flat out wrong and you just can't give it up.

Top five Google search HOLY CRAP I peed my pants laughing over that one.

I grow tired of flippant comments like this; Do you really wonder why your threads turn into arguments? This is what they turn into. Flamebaiting. That seems to be what you are best at these days.

Tone it down; these kinds of comments need to stop now. Discuss the topics without the petty comments and flamebaiting.

[truethat]

Sorry fluffy. I tend to get sarcastic when I'm laughing. I'll tone it down. I'm off for a bit anyway.

[Neognosis]

Truethat, a conversation tends to "evolve" and go places. You made several statements earlier about how the scientific community is somehow "off track" due to the noise that creationists are making.

But now you seem to be denying that creationists make this noise. Then when someone poses a little experiment showing how much attention creationists are devoting to attacking evolution, you just go and say that you don't want to talk about it, and we have to stay on the original post.

That's not really fair. When you have to concede a point, just concede the point. You don't get to run back to the shelter of the OP when you are backed into a corner.

I don't know why that's surprising to you at all since the Science community likes to sweep things under there rug when they are busted in fraud, in the field of evolution

Actually, we keep trying to get you to explain the weird claims you are making, but when we do, you go back to name calling and hystrionics. Then you accuse US of sweeping things under the rug? That's not fair either.

That's so strange Neo, it must be some roque scientist unaware that all the other scientists have dismissed or ignored Creationism like you say.....oh wait

Creatinists have distributed so much misinformation, it is the DUTY of science to try to counter this with accurate information. Most scientist ignore creationists, but it's not surprising that at least some of them feel the need to answer their outlandish and baseless claims.

many writers come from a wide range of cultural and philosophical backgrounds.

Sounds like they aren't really a "science" group anyway.

Pro Evolution! EVO! Holy Moly! Smells like religion to me!

How so?

Religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny;

an institution to express belief in a divine power;

Where is the belief in a supernatural power in defending evolutionary theory?

I think that you are trying to imply that scientists do not pay attention to evidence that doesn't agree with their current theory. This is easily demonstrated as patently false. The theory changes when new evidence comes to light. This is why the scientist in the OP is so enthusiastic, because she's made a discovery that likely contradicts current theory. If what you imply is true, she should pretend the tooth wasn't found, or pretend it means something else, because she wouldn't want to contradict current theory.

Your very OP demonstrates that your fundamental assertion is a logical fallacy.

[truethat]

Let me repeat my answer to the "But the Creationists are making NOISE!" comments.

Irrelevant.

What's relevant is how the field conducts itself. If it allows itself to get pulled off track by religious fanatics that doesn't bode well as to its scientific professionalism now does it? As such why should I treat anything it does as scientific or professional when it allows a bunch of voodoo witchdoctors and umpa lumpas with invisble friends in the sky to control how it reports its findings or navigates its studies.

And this, in a nutshell is why I am skeptical of the field.

By the way if you are going to use the definition of religion to make your point use the entire thing. Belief in God or deity or higher power is not required for something to be a religion.

re·li·gion (r-ljn)

n.

1.

a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

And that's the last thing I'm going to reply to about religion. I think you are baiting me so that people can run to the mods again and complain once they can't come back with anything. I'm not falling for it.

Back to the OP

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/text/prin...in_page_id=1770

A quote

"Our tests show that this individual must have lived in a different location when the crown of the tooth was formed than where the tooth was found.

"The evidence indicates that this Neanderthal moved over a relatively wide range of at least 20 kilometres or even further in their lifetime.

"Therefore we can say that Neanderthals did move over their lifetimes and were not confined to limited geographical areas."

Why? We can't SAY that Neanderthal did move, only that THIS Neanderthal did move. BTW its been peer reviewed and published

The findings, published in the Journal of Archaeological Science

so obviously those of you suggesting that once it will be published the wording will change etc didn't know that its ALREADY been published.

Edited February 14, 2008 by truethat