Evidence of the Missing Link Found? 571
HUADPE writes to tell us CNN is reporting that scientists in northeastern Ethiopia recently discovered a skull that they think may be evidence of the "missing link" between Homo erectus and modern man. From the article: "The hominid cranium -- found in two pieces and believed to be between 500,000 and 250,000 years old -- 'comes from a very significant period and is very close to the appearance of the anatomically modern human,' said Sileshi Semaw, director of the Gona Paleoanthropological Research Project in Ethiopia."
Obviously (Score:5, Funny)
oO
Re:Obviously (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Obviously (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Obviously (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish Creationism was just an Internet meme.
Re:Obviously (Score:2)
Re:Obviously (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Obviously (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Obviously (Score:3, Funny)
Need it for my epic (Score:3, Funny)
Sure, but it's a big jump, still from H.E to this (Score:2, Insightful)
We should be interested in what these things discoveries can teach us. We should absolutely not be interested in trying to convince people who are unwilling to be convinced that this is just a link in a longer chain.
Evolution is at work. We leave them to themselves and we'll stick to ourselves, and in another 250,000 years we can eat them as either game or domesticated farm animals. God knows we don't have t
Re:Sure, but it's a big jump, still from H.E to th (Score:2)
I
Re:Sure, but it's a big jump, still from H.E to th (Score:2)
Look at any 2004 election returns by county map. See that tiny blue due east of Atlanta? That's me!!!
UGA has very fine biology and life sciences departments. You'd be getting rid of some fine scientists.
Re:Sure, but it's a big jump, still from H.E to th (Score:3, Funny)
-Abdul Rahman
Smaller than the leap from discourse to hate. (Score:4, Insightful)
How is this viewpoint is morally superior to those which wrought genocides in Biafra, Croatia, Nigeria, Rwanda, East Timor and dozens of other places in our lifetimes? Are we really so willfully ignorant that we believe all these atrocities didn't start this way? So filled with hubris that we believe America (or our intelligencia, which has itself been targeted in other times and places) incapable of such virulent hatred?
If you still aren't taking me seriously, consider this: Orthodox Judaism posits a literal six-day Creation. If the writer had singled out this group instead of attacking all Genesis believers and the geographic region which he believes contains them, would any of us have called his diatribe anything but hate speech of the most vitriolic and unconscionable sort?
Please read the parent post again, examine its +5 Insightful score, and tell me how far removed we are from that mindset. And please be intellectually honest; if you plan to claim that BadAnalogyGuy [slashdot.org] was only trying to be funny, or that the moderators were only moderating ironically, please provide supporting evidence.
Re:Sure, but it's a big jump, still from H.E to th (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, and if you had a server room temperature IQ, you'd have noticed that I in fact posit that in 250,000 years they will continue to do so.
Re:Sure, but it's a big jump, still from H.E to th (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't need all you guys, you need us.
Re:Sure, but it's a big jump, still from H.E to th (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Uh huh. Evolution is at work. (Score:4, Interesting)
The current conservative reactionary bulge will dissipate as their children engage in the complexity of public life and discourse, in the same way that conservative judges tend to drift to the left in the daily practise of considering complex issues. Like it or not, the real action is in science, technology, art, and intellectual expression. And while the bulk of conservatives may be content to merely consume the products culture produces, the most ambitious amongst them will want to participate. The admission price for participation is a serious consideration of other ideas--culture does not reproduce asexually. The alternative is decline, irrelevance, and even domination by those willing to make the effort. It has ever been thus, and I see nothing that would prevent this from continuing.
The only question is whether the new cultural elite will emerge from the ranks of the reactionaries through recruitment and subversion, or whether America will come to dance to someone else's tune. But simple biological reproduction is pointless if cultural fitness (including the capacity to practice scientfic research) is compromised. If six of your seven children die because they cannot feed themselves, you're still going to die out.
A nice morning with no nuts jobs. (Score:3, Funny)
9 comments and there no "Earth os only 6,000 years old" comments yet. It's a good day.
Re:A nice morning with no nuts jobs. (Score:5, Funny)
- Andrew
Re:A nice morning with no nuts jobs. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A nice morning with no nuts jobs. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that when many people call atheism a religion, they are referring to the propensity for some atheists to proselytize their viewpoint. It's just a different kind of thumping. Fundamentalists thump the bible, pissed off atheists thump... well, I don't know what they thump but they're definitely thumping something.
Re:A nice morning with no nuts jobs. (Score:3, Interesting)
pah missing link ... (Score:2)
How could this be BAD news? Like this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Cue evolution vs. creationism debate in 5... 4... 3... 2...
Seriously, I almost dread stories like this for a couple of reasons:
- Talking about "missing links" puts the idea in creationists' minds that the evolution from apes to man took place in discrete steps, and that the fact that such "missing links" exist is proof that the Theory of Evolution is still just a hunch unsupported by proof. The fact is that the evolution from apes to man is a continuum, and there are a lot of fossils [talkorigins.org] from lots of time periods along that continuum.
- Because this discovery is relatively recent, there's a chance that it still may turn out to be something other than what this article purports it to be. The real research is just starting. If it turns out that it's for real, it will be valuable insight into our species's evolution, though creationists will still refuse to believe it. If it turns out to not be an intermediary between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens, the creationists will accuse the scientists of everything from fabricating evidence to trying to pull a hoax as part of some weird conspiracy. The irony is that if it is discovered that this fossil is not the intermediary that it is suspected to be, it is scientists who will determine that, and unlike creationists who have a nasty habit of wanting to dismiss or even repress evidence, those scientists will let us know as soon as they find any inconsistencies, and the data will be there in the open for us to evaulate and form our own opinions.
I still say that this is the true test for whether a creationist can actually be open-minded or not. Ask them this one question:
What piece or pieces of evidence will it take to convince you that the Theory of Evolution is, in fact, true and that creationism is not?
If the answer is "None," as it is with almost every creationist I've ever met, then don't bother wasting your time arguing with them. Nothing you say will ever convince them, as they have deliberately closed themselves off to any kind of rational conclusion based on reality instead of blind faith.
The nice thing about the question is that it's not a double standard. There are several things that would convince me that creationism is true and not evolution. The most obvious would be if God came and spoke to me in a burning bush. I know that sounds facetious, but it's really not; that really would do it. Or, if compelling scientific evidence were to arise that evolution is a crock, such as discovery of a natural chimera skeleton. These are just a couple of examples, I'm sure there are many more.
I'm always amused at creationists who think that scientists are in some kind of dark conspiracy to push "the agenda" of evolution. What they don't realize is that if a scientist could discover some piece of incontrovertible proof that the Theory of Evolution is all just a bunch of hooey, he would undoubtedly be one of the most famous people in the world, winning all sorts of Nobel Prizes and recognition in his field. Proving the Theory of Evolution wrong would be one of the greatest, not notorious, scientific finds ever, on the level of Michaelson-Morley experiment [wikipedia.org] that proved that there is no aether and set the stage for Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and you'd better believe that any decent scientists would kill to disprove the Theory of Evolution.
Re:How could this be BAD news? Like this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, but you should be careful. Saying it that way is a bit confusing too. It is a *branching* continuum. To say "from apes to man" is as much an oversimplification of the situation as saying a tree looks like a single stick. Life diversifies and spreads out during biological evolution, and extinction prunes the tree along the way. Many branches can exist at the same time, and it is challenging to find fossils from the branch points them
Re:Meh (Score:2)
It would be a continuum if, if you selected any of the infinite points on the 'path' from ape to man, that point would be embodied in a real creature at some point in history. Since there are a finite number of generations between 'ape' and 'human', the process is necessarily stepped, not continuous.
We understand the situation you're complaining about, but making statements that don't hold up to basic logic isn't going to make creationists a
"apes to man is a continuum" (Score:2, Funny)
http://www.bushorchimp.com/pics.html [bushorchimp.com]
Sorry...but someone had to do it!
Re:How could this be BAD news? Like this... (Score:2)
It is imposible to prove (or disprove) the existenec of God. There is no piece of evidence that will do it. But you don't need to prove God to show that evolution is wrong (and proving God will not be enough to show it either), you simply need to get evidence of changes that don't obey evolution's axioms.
That said, disproving evolution would be much more important than disproving aether. The entire biology field is based on this theory, and its axioms are mostly our definition of life. If evolution is wron
Re:Pet Peeve (Score:2, Insightful)
So saying
Re:Pet Peeve (Score:3, Informative)
None of the changes we have actually SEEN have evolved one species into another. Innumerable genetic experiments of every sort have been done with one celled organisms which make many generations in a short time. Yet not so much as ONE of these has resulted in a new species. E-coli and other bacteria and moths can respond to environmental stresses, but have and always will remain in their own group.
Countless generations of fruit flies (drosophil
Re:How could this be BAD news? Like this... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, no. The problem is that evolution as a theory has many different forms accepted by today's biologists and scientists. Evolution has been molded from its original versions back in the 17th and 18th centuries into what we see today. When certain aspects have either been proven wrong or shown quite improbable, most of the accepted theories of evolution change to account for it. It almost reminds me of the formation of denominati
Why can't all Christians be like you? (Score:3, Insightful)
If Christ's teachings really have value, you don't need to preach. Live your life well and people will ask you "How is it that you are so happy and fulfilled? How did you come to be such a good person?" Then
Re:How could this be BAD news? Like this... (Score:2)
How god would convince you that he is indeed god the creator of all things? Would he have to performing tricks, like splitting bodies of water or multiplying fish (I would prefer the turn water into wine)? Let's suppose that someone has shown to you and speaked, "I am god, the creator of all things, behold my power" at that time the nearby river
Re:How could this be BAD news? Like this... (Score:2)
Re:How could this be BAD news? Like this... (Score:2)
The main type of argument for creationism (or ID or what have you) seems to be to plant doubt about the various pieces of evidence about evolution rather than present an equally or more cohesive expla
Re:How could this be BAD news? Like this... (Score:4, Insightful)
The process of evolution is a fact, backed up by mountains of evidence. We can even see it happen over short timescales of a few days or weeks.
The exact details of how mankind evolved are always being rethought and sometimes we discard an old theory when we find contrary evidence. Nothing in our lack of knowledge or the mistakes of the past invalidates anything related to the theory itself.
I think that creationists sometimes have an opposite problem as well. They may well be happy to accept the fact of animal evolution but be unable to apply it to mankind. Their church teaches that Man is "special", made in God's image and so on, and so therefore Man could not have evolved from Apes or lesser species.
It's probably a case of one's religious beliefs causing bias in the evaluation of the independent evidence supporting evolution. www.philosophers.co.uk [philosophers.co.uk] has some great games related to religion and logic, and they explain the results they get from large numbers of people playing their games.
Here's a relevant analysis from the site:
And here's another relevant quote (this one from the 'Taboo' game)...
The analogy is that refusal to accept the theory of evolution despite the many, many facts in its favour is a consequence of one's deeply held religious beliefs causing an inability to rationally evaluate new (and conflicting) evidence. To accept wholeheartedly the truth of the evolution theory may require abandonment of prior beliefs. The adherent has some investment in those beliefs, and to abandon them is just like selling shares when the market is low.
Re:How could this be BAD news? Like this... (Score:2)
So you're an omniscient deity who doesn't "no" how to spell?
Re:How could this be BAD news? Like this... (Score:2)
Huh. I'd think an omnipotent and omniscient being such as you
Re:I'm always amazed... (Score:2)
Say what?
please tell me that was a troll (Score:2)
Re:I'm always amazed... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm always amazed... (Score:3, Insightful)
A common observation is that the "evolutionary gap" idea is a traditional red herring. If you find a fossil that fits in a gap, you haven't filled the gap. You have replaced the gap with two gaps. Trying to fill in all the holes in the fossil record is about as sensible as tryin
Re:How could this be BAD news? Like this... (Score:2)
Re:How could this be BAD news? Like this... (Score:2)
Yeah, nice one. Maybe it's all a form of intellectual masochism. An attempt to make people all over the world laugh at them... I would sleep easier in my bed knowing it was some form of sexual perversion than if they actually were this stupid.
I fear that truth is stranger than fiction; and creationists are stranger than either.
Just that simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, not quite. There is a lot of compelling evidence for evolution. There's not a scrap for God. Its all faith.
Both sides rest on circumstantial evidence, and have been mounting a lot of it for a long, long time.
WTF? What does that sentence even mean?
You say that nothing will sway the creationists; I say that BOTH sides are firmly entrenched on this issue, and it's going to take a lot more than circumstantial evidence to convince either side.
The creationists have faith; this is irrational belief. If they want to go ahead and argue that its irrational, I certainly wouldn't stop them. You are framing this like it is some kind of CNN two-party debate. Listen carefully: there are not two sides. There just aren't. There is empirical evidence for evolution, and a bunch of people who refuse to believe it. That's it.
Re:Not that simple! (Score:2)
I think it gets worse as you get further from proper science and more into pseudo-science (political, social etc). I'm surprised that views on evolution are so firm, but that may be an effect of creationism. It would
Re:Not that simple! (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think you mean "disparage", meaning "To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way; belittle" [reference.com], because disparaging a theory is not part of doing science. You probably mean "disconfirm" or "disprove". The reason scientists don't try to disprove evolution - by which I mean the common descent of all life on earth from a small set of ancestral organisms over about three billion years - is that t
Re:Not that simple! (Score:3, Insightful)
Easter and the concept of "Intelligent Delivery". (Score:4, Funny)
On the other side, there are those who say that there is no Easter Bunny. The eggs and candies are delivered/hidden by other humans. Damn those Easter Bunny deniers and their closed minds! Damn those secular "Human Deliverers".
You say that "Intelligent Delivery" is the "middle ground". The existance of the Holy Hopper is not questioned. But he delivers the eggs and candies through his influencing human minds.
The Written Rabbit tells us only that He does deliver the eggs. It does not say HOW he delivers them. Intelligent Delivery is the answer.
Again, your comment was mod'ed up?
Game, set and match. (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, you have still been unable to explain why your proposed "middle ground" contains a supernatural being who is exempt from evolution AND intelligent design/creationism.
No, your "middle ground" is nothing more (or less) than wrapping the scientific findings in your belief that "God wanted it done that way".
Science is not faith.
Faith is not science.
There is no "false dichotomy".
Why all the deduction? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why all the deduction? (Score:2, Funny)
Evolution was a slow, gradual change... (Score:5, Insightful)
There isn't one "link" between two species. A situation where one day a parent gives birth to a dramatically different, more advanced offspring that is more evolved then the parents doesn't happen. And even if they was a missing link, the chances of that fossil surviving and us finding itwould be near impossible.
Wrong (Score:2, Interesting)
Today there are only a few, disputable, examples of transitionary species. What the fossil record appears to show is that species appears suddenly, then they stay unchanged (or
Re:Wrong (Score:2)
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Informative)
Here are a few thousand examples of transitional fossils: Talkorigin's Transitional Vertebrate FAQ [talkorigins.org]
Now go and punch your pastor in the nose for passing something off as true that he didn't have any evidence for. I will refrain from doing the same to you because this is the internet.
And only because this is the internet, dumbass.
Missing link is a meaningless concept (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Missing link is a meaningless concept (Score:2)
That concept echos back to the Great Chain of Being [stanford.edu], an Aristotelian concept that pre-dates the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment and which continues to be a favorite today among those for whom the concept of "a billion years ago" equates to that vague, amorphous period of "sometime before last Thursday."
The specimen under consideration may very well be neither a direct decendent of any currently characterized species nor a direct ancestor of any
unfortunately ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't bash the church-goers (Score:2)
Re:Don't bash the church-goers (Score:2)
Those who believe that Jesus Christ is an alien are cultists. Their beliefs are radical and have no factual basis. Do not confuse them with Christians.
Just go to church once and get to know the people there. Don't be hostile. You'll find that most people will like you.
Re:Don't bash the church-goers (Score:2, Insightful)
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA
Re:Don't bash the church-goers (Score:2)
Sorry, I should be careful about what I mean by aliens.
(a) I do not mean by immigrants from another country.
(b) I do not mean an outcast of a group.
By aliens, I do mean species from outerspace, those that SETI@HOME tries to find.
But angels are not aliens. According to the bible,
(1) Angels are created to guard the Eden---"After He drove the man out, He placed on the east si
Is it just me... (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) This is only one skull. Weigh in the likelihood that it could be just a deformity of something distinctly not a missing link.
(2) Evolution occurs through generation and elimination of lines. Is there even the slightest evidence that this is not from one of the extinct lines? It's fully possible (and likely) that the species in question doesn't even have modern living descendants.
(3) If it *looks* like a human....
(4) And for good measure, color me suspicious that the estimated age is on the same order of magnitude as the estimated error in that measurement.
Re:Is it just me... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Is it just me... (Score:5, Informative)
Wide date for this find (Score:2)
Just as a follow-up, the original press release (PDF [stoneageinstitute.org] or HTML [stoneageinstitute.org] gives more detail. Appearently the fossil was found in undatable material that itself occurred above a 500,000 year old layer and below a 250,000 year old layer.
Re:Is it just me... (Score:2)
Re:Is it just me... (Score:2)
Satan did it! (Score:5, Funny)
said Sileshi Semaw, director of the Gona Paleoanthropological Research Project in Ethiopia."
'Sileshi' -> 'His Lies'
See? It's obvious that this man is the devil and is trying to test our faith with false fossils and his lies.
Did Adam have a belly button? (Score:5, Interesting)
When Adam was created, why didn't he immediately collapse from low blood sugar? Because he had the products of digestion already in his veins -- he probably even had the remains of a meal in his belly. This was a meal which he never actually ate , as moments earlier he'd been an inanimate lump. A human adult is the product of a long developmental process; his bones and sinews are knit through a lifetime of activity, which in Adam's case never happened. Adam was conceived as if he were the product of an ongoing process, even if that process never happened. And thus Adam would have had a belly button of course.
If not Adam, why not the world, and all the creatures in it? Clearly the world God conceived, in order to operate, would have to be the product of a similar process of development, and it would show all of the manifestations of that process, even if that process never actually happened. Indeed, evidence for evolution would be the very hallmark of the Creator Himself.
This seemed to the poor fellow a splendid idea. He felt certain the the religious side of the debate would lay down its arms and embrace evolution. Naturally, he was completely wrong. The religious side of the debate was the forerunner of the modern Fundamentalist movement, and much preferred a science whose purpose was to prove religious dogma. Under this naive man's idea, the free inquiry into evolution becomes practically sacred, something that no human authority has any right to tinker with.
Re:Did Adam have a belly button? (Score:2)
404 ? (Score:5, Funny)
There's a sane way out of this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There's a sane way out of this... (Score:2)
You've got us all wrong (Score:5, Funny)
Animosity against Christians? Oh hogwash, that is just a vast oversimplification of a set of very complex socio-political dynamics which play out here on Slashdot. Christian folks like yourself are quite welsome to join in and partcipate in any capacity.
Anyway, we have some activities planned this afternoon over at the Coliseum. Invite your friends, and don't forget to bring a loincloth. Lunch will be served.
Re:You've got us all wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
However, unlike most of the hedonistic and polytheistic religions of Rome, early Christians were quite boisterous and disorderly about their beliefs in grace and eternal life and were determined to convert everyone they
Re:There's a sane way out of this... (Score:3, Insightful)
I second that. People who say "you can reconcile science and religion" are either kidding themselves, or (in most cases) just haven't thought about it very deeply.
To nowhere.elysi
Re:There's a sane way out of this... (Score:4, Insightful)
What arrogant hogwash. As someone who believes in God and believes in the scientific method (though not precisely the same kind of belief), I have thought about this deeply and for a long time. I find it hard to believe that in 23 years of being an atheist you've thought harder about it than "it's a fairy tale, no reconcilliaton is possible".
The fact is, and I only speak for the Christian religion here, is that it is extremely simple to reconcile religion and science. In fact, there is precious little that needs to be reconciled at all, as the vast majority is not in conflict with science in any way. In fact, the only reason any "reconciliation" needs to be done is because certain literalists have decided that there is in fact a schism where none exists. In fact this schism is only possible when taking a translation litteraly, thus hiding the fact that the word translated as "day" could just as easily mean "era". That this was thus not meant as a literal blow-by-blow account of the formation of the universe should be as obvious as that a description of a table as being "one cubits across, and three cubits around" was not meant to describe the relationship between the radius and circumference of a circle with infinite precision.
So what exactly makes reconciling the two so hard? Where do they, in fact, collide? All you have to do is realize that science describes the physical and the empirical, while religion describes the spiritual and immeasurable.
I find it rather funny that the only groups who believe that religion and science are incompatible one another are the Atheists and the Fundamentalists. It's truly strange where common ground appears.
In the meantime, the fields of science are packed with religious people doing important scientific work with no apparent problems in spite of this being impossible. Lo, it's a miracle!
"Missing link" my @$$ (Score:3, Insightful)
We will learn the answer (Score:2)
Then at least that answer will solved and everyone can get along at least on that point. Either in the afterlife or oblivion.
Yet another gap! (Score:2)
_A_ missing link, not _the_ missing link (Score:3, Informative)
Also, see this:
Human - apes, transitional forms [talkorigins.org]
Great, now we... (Score:3, Funny)
Religion doesn't care about facts (Score:3, Insightful)
You can fly back in time 250,000 years and prove that Earth existed before the Bible tells you. You'll get 3 reactions (in this order):
1. They'll claim your results are just fabricated.
2. If your results are simply true and claiming them as fabricated even they can't pretend anymore it's not there, they'll claim that God tricks you into believing it, to test your faith.
3. Once it's proven past the point of any doubt, they'll find a new pet project to "prove" the existance of God.
Take a look at the debate whether the sun revolves around the earth or v.v.
First the observations were called false, since the telescope produces false results.
Once it could no longer be blamed on the telescopes, it was a test of God to ridicule scientists and test the strength of their faith.
Once our probes went to every corner of the solar system and found moons around other planets, proved that the sun is the center etc., the matter was dropped and we got a new "proof" for the Bible's story.
Simply stop listening to those who do not want to learn. If they want to be happy in their own little world, leave them there and let them enjoy being stuck in the past. Should creationism be taught in your school, explain to your kids that the schools have to do that to appease the religious fanatics.
WTF? (Score:3, Interesting)
Recreate Home Erectus (Score:3, Funny)
I Thought The Missing Link Was In Washington (Score:3, Funny)
Clearing brush is a job the missing link can handle.
If we had more missing links clearing brush, we wouldn't need all those immigrants the missing links want to make felons for being here.
Lame (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dating Fossils (Score:5, Informative)
(2) Other isotopes-- there's other airborne materials that can be used in ways similar to c13.
Modelling-- as a species that's been building stuff out of earth for a million years or so, we've developed a decent set of analysis tools for the materials involved.
(4) No, they aren't (dated solely by fossils contained, except by your volunteering park ranger tour guide)
(5) Cyclic distribution patterns -- we have these things called 'seasons' that cause regular yearly variations in deposition of sediment, wear on rocks, etc, and there are various other such cycles (lunar, etc.)
(6) Relative distribution-- we can tell what came before what in an area by fossil distributions, comparing distributions gives us a general idea of the timescales involved.
I know you're just trolling, but in case anyone legitimately wanted to know the answer to your question, I figured I'd post enough info on the subject to at least point them toward topics of interest in the field.
Re:Dating Fossils (Score:2)
(2) Why don't you list the isotopes, the half-lives, and their current dating limits, and we can talk about it more?
(4) The point is the article does not specify how. One should not automatically assume for them their dating is legitimate.
(5) Seasonal growth pattern applies to living things,
Re:Dating Fossils (Score:2)
How can I be trolling when I'm presenting only the facts? I'm only saying Wikipedia says so and so, and Kent Hovind says so and so. I'm not even giving out my personal opinion about this matter.
Moderators: if you disagree with me, please just leave me alone. Why are you suppressing a legitimate voice to be heard by modding me overrated? There is no way I can fight with a crowd of fools, and I hope you're not one of them.
Re:Dating Fossils (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a straw man argument. Nobody is claiming you can use radiocarbon dating on anything but recent fossils. Geological layers are dated by a variety of means, including radiological dating of isotopes much longer-lived than carbon-14. I watched as much of the video you linked to as I could stomach, and I think a few of my brain cells committed suicide in protest. Why are you taking this creationist crackpot seriously?
Really? He taught high-school science for fifteen whole years? Wow, I bet he knows more than the millions of serious scientists that disagree with him! Those high-school teachers are smart.
Re:Dating Fossils (Score:2)
Re:Dating Fossils (Score:2)
I admit, I find the manner in which he speaks intensely irritating. Not the accent so much as the smug self-righteousness of it. I watched about five minutes of this whackjob, and he never actually made any argument. He repeated -- over and over and over again
Re:Missing Link? Here it comes... (Score:2)
Re:Epcot (Score:2)
Not that I know anything about the talk you went to, but don't assume people are always being completely serious, even if they have a very straight-faced delivery.
Re:Bashing faith: a nifty trend or a pointless was (Score:3, Insightful)
So you tell me what that accomplished?
But that's just the point! People should be and have to be accountable for their own belief, that's certainly not the same as (comfortable?) blind faith.
Only by making
Re:I get tired of it time and time again (Score:3, Interesting)
There is overwhelming evidence [talkorigins.org] for common descent (macroevolution).