Originally posted by no1marauder What is it about the English language that is such a mystery to you? No duplication means there were no"extra pieces" in the "giant jigsaw". Yes, lacking duplicate bones the fact that they were all found in the same immediate area almost certainly means they were from the same organism. Make a logical case they were not in contradiction to the logical case they were; that's how science works.
What is it about the English language that is such a mystery to you?
Lol, reaching for your bag of ad hominems?
No duplication means there were no"extra pieces" in the "giant jigsaw".
No duplication? Wow, and this jigsaw was constructed "blind" with the final outcome only realized at the end of this mix-and-match. If there were no duplicates and yet hundreds of "hominid" bones still left with no place in this skeleton how can you conclusively prove the authenticity of this creature being anything but the whims of Johanson and his esteemed collogue?
By the way do you know that he had been in the field for months without any results and his funding was about to be pulled? A fascinating discovery which got him world acclaim; very nicely timed.
Originally posted by no1marauder Yes, radiometric dating methods yield approximately the same results except in unusual circumstances. Take a look at the first few tables at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#dal01.
Ah yes, the unusual circumstances. They are unusual because they don't fit the model, so they must be contaminated... I see.
Originally posted by Halitose [b]What is it about the English language that is such a mystery to you?
Lol, reaching for your bag of ad hominems?
No duplication means there were no"extra pieces" in the "giant jigsaw".
No duplication? Wow, and this jigsaw was constructed "blind" with the final outcome only realized at the end of this mix-and-match. If ther ...[text shortened]... was about to be pulled? A fascinating discovery which got him world acclaim; very nicely timed.[/b]
Who said the hominid bone fragments had no place in the skeleton? Learn how to read. If you consider someone constructing it blind people saying a femur bone was a femur bone, then it was "constructed blind".
Your ridiculous conspiracy theory belongs in your fairy tale book right next to Noah's Ark.
Originally posted by Halitose Ah yes, the unusual circumstances. They are unusual because they don't fit the model, so they must be contaminated... I see.
Did you bother to look at the tables or read the article? Of course not. Be happy in your extreme ignorance.
Originally posted by no1marauder Who said the hominid bone fragments had no place in the skeleton? Learn how to read. If you consider someone constructing it blind people saying a femur bone was a femur bone, then it was "constructed blind".
Your ridiculous conspiracy theory belongs in your fairy tale book right next to Noah's Ark.
Who said the hominid bone fragments had no place in the skeleton?
If they had they would have been there. What is more convincing, a 40% complete skeleton or a 80% complete one.
If you consider someone constructing it blind people saying a femur bone was a femur bone, then it was "constructed blind".
There is a lot more to a skeleton that a femur. Funny that you took the largest and most noticeable bone as your example.
Your ridiculous conspiracy theory belongs in your fairy tale book right next to Noah's Ark.
Okay, I get it: Time to hit the sack for me - before you completely degenerate to the Chewbacca defense. See ya all later.
Originally posted by Halitose [b]What is it about the English language that is such a mystery to you?
Lol, reaching for your bag of ad hominems?
No duplication means there were no"extra pieces" in the "giant jigsaw".
No duplication? Wow, and this jigsaw was constructed "blind" with the final outcome only realized at the end of this mix-and-match. If ther ...[text shortened]... was about to be pulled? A fascinating discovery which got him world acclaim; very nicely timed.[/b]
about to have their funding pulled....
Well, they would have had their material checked, I'm sure many, many times since. If you have a problem, I'm sure you could fund some more tests to be done. Probably only cost a couple of hundred thousand dollars.
Originally posted by Halitose [b]Who said the hominid bone fragments had no place in the skeleton?
If they had they would have been there. What is more convincing, a 40% complete skeleton or a 80% complete one.
If you consider someone constructing it blind people saying a femur bone was a femur bone, then it was "constructed blind".
There is a lot more to a skelet ...[text shortened]... the sack for me - before you completely degenerate to the Chewbacca defense. See ya all later.[/b]
You just can't read. The bone fragments were placed in the appropriate place in the skeleton but the skelton was only 40% complete. What is sooooooooo hard to understand about that? A smashed up skeleton from over three million years ago is likely to be in a bunch of pieces. What's so hard to understand about that? If there had been one duplicate piece of bone it would be proof that it wasn't the skeleton of one individual animal; there were no duplicates, so that is strong evidence it was only one animal. What is so hard to understand about that?
I used femur bone because that's what was first found. Hundreds of bone fragments were found and they all were characteristic of hominid bones and placed in the skeleton accordingly. What is your objection to that?
EDIT: Actually the first bone of Lucy found was a forearm bone. It doesn't matter either way; the femur bone was used as an example. The point is that bones were found that were indicative of a hominid, not an ape as Halitose claimed.
Originally posted by Halitose [b]Irrespective, there are hominid (not human though) bones dated at 3 million years old.
Bearing in mind the assumptions above, I'm not yet going for this 3 MYO golden mean.
Irrespective of the absolute dates involved, you cannot deny (although I'm sure you'll try) that the earth is very, very old, and we, as a species are not. My analog ...[text shortened]... wmen, but even if it were true, does your analogy in any way belittle the importance of mankind?
"...does your analogy in any way belittle the importance of mankind?"
No! I enjoy being part of the human race on a daily basis, I think we all do. The important thing is not to belittle, it is to put things into perspective. Humankind's existance is important, let's not doubt that, but let's also not go too far the other way. Mankind is not the ultimate achievement - we're just one part of an incalculably big system.
It really makes you think even more when you realise that they'll build another (imaginary) Eiffel tower on top of the philosophical one already contructed. It'll be upside down and will represent the time between now and the end of the existance of the earth. If we're lucky we might get another layer of paint.
a preacher from a very poor and small church noticed the church needed painting.after his sunday sermon he told the congregation this.
the owner of a paint store said he has had an awful year for sales,but he could donate 10 gallons of paint.the preacher said he was a young man and would be glad to paint the church.
the next day the preacher went about painting the church,the more he painted the more he realised that it would take much more than 10 gallons to paint the place,so he thinned the paint with water.he kept praying that he would be able to finnish painting with the 10 gallons.
and he kept thinning down the paint with water.
he also noticed the sky was getting darker it looked like rain,so he prayed he would have enough paint and that it wouldnt rain on his fresh paint job.
well his prayers were answered ,at first anyway.when he was done the building had the thinnest possible coating of paint.it looked not to bad,the pastor was happy.
then it started to rain real hard,washing away all his efforts to paint his church.the preacher asked god ...why??why lord??what did i do wrong??
the sky opened up and he heard gods voice clearly as the lord said...
REPAINT....AND THIN NO MORE!!!
Originally posted by twhitehead (They are also prejudiced against being decended from monkeys).
*throwing manure at people*
i see no resemblace to monkeys sir
now if youll ezcuse me its my turn to groom the silver back
*picking lice off a big ape and eating them*
Originally posted by aspviper666 a preacher from a very poor and small church noticed the church needed painting.after his sunday sermon he told the congregation this.
the owner of a paint store said he has had an awful year for sales,but he could donate 10 gallons of paint.the preacher said he was a young man and would be glad to paint the church.
the next day the preacher went about ...[text shortened]... d up and he heard gods voice clearly as the lord said...
REPAINT....AND THIN NO MORE!!!
lol!! I was wondering how this fitted, then realised the obvious literal connection - bit of blonde moment....
Originally posted by scottishinnz lol!! I was wondering how this fitted, then realised the obvious literal connection - bit of blonde moment....
i try to joke and have fun
as much as i try to be a devils advocate kinda guy
and maybe you can see things from a different viewpoint
the best spiritual advice i ever got was from a kabbalist
he said to never take yourself too seriously
and if you think about all the words...it has a deeper spiritual meaning
think about the self when saying it
its good advice
Originally posted by aspviper666 i try to joke and have fun
as much as i try to be a devils advocate kinda guy
and maybe you can see things from a different viewpoint
the best spiritual advice i ever got was from a kabbalist
he said to never take yourself too seriously
and if you think about all the words...it has a deeper spiritual meaning
think about the self when saying it
its good advice
Yep, lovin it! You get a bit of flack on some of these forums when you attempt to justify what appears (to me at least) to be unjustifiable, I just hope that I, at least, don't insult too much. I try not to.
Originally posted by twhitehead Another major problem which Christians will have to face in the future will be the issue of the soul. When a computer is finally developed that is as intelligent as a human being, then the question will be whether or not it will go to heaven when it dies.
The usual answer I get is that human intelligence is somehow unique and can never be replicated.
...[text shortened]... e are all just a tool that God is using to create a species of giant computer in his own image ?
A computer has already deen developed which is more intelligent than all Christians:
A layer of paint
07 Dec '05 20:12
Back to Top