You old softy. -- Ben's Message Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Tuesday, April 29, 10:48:24pm

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: You old softy.

Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 08/12/04 5:43pm
In reply to: Damoclese 's message, "That's simply science" on 07/16/04 8:31am

>> Again, if this was really a hard science, I think
>>these kinds of mistakes wouldn't have persisted this
>>long.
>
>That doesn't really follow. Hard sciences are riddled
>with mistakes in thinking that persisted for
>centuries. Would you say that physics is not a hard
>science?

But this is a tad different. We have direct empirical knowledge of the fossil at hand. My point is that if this were really a hard science, they should have known right away (not decades later) once it was examined that Piltdown man was a hoax (a combination of ape and human parts).

>A mixed skullcap and jawbone of a human and an
>>ape for over forty years? You have to admit that's
>>not a good sign. Now maybe the current collection of
>>bones (which is not very much) is different, but given
>>the track record I have yet to be convinced. I think
>>it's only a matter of time before the current accepted
>>versions are abandoned.
>
>Science is a field that changes and aspires to higher,
>better explanations of what the data indicate.

You betcha. And I have little doubt that if the research continues, those alleged intermediate forms will eventually be renounced as well.

>Creationism on the other hand, is static. It doesn't
>change

That's not true at all. It has changed quite a bit.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
Harding Place	Damoclese	08/15/04 11:56am
A rock...quite a bit more stable than hominid fossils -- Wade A. Tisthamjmer, 09/13/04 12:09am