More fake fossils found..

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

Complete garbage, and, while I realise it would be like sacriledge for you to alter one of those C&P jobs from the source that you so idolise (isn't there a commandment about that somewhere?) it's also pretty fucking disingenuous of you to run with the headline "BBC NEWS" on top of that piece of junk journalism from AiG.

You couldn't tell the first time the term "evolutionist" instead of "the entire scientific community and everyone who isn't a fucking idiot" appeared?

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

Quote

Complete garbage, and, while I realise it would be like sacriledge for you to alter one of those C&P jobs from the source that you so idolise (isn't there a commandment about that somewhere?) it's also pretty fucking disingenuous of you to run with the headline "BBC NEWS" on top of that piece of junk journalism from AiG.

You couldn't tell the first time the term "evolutionist" instead of "the entire scientific community and everyone who isn't a fucking idiot" appeared?

That was the give away

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

clicky


But... but how can this be? The Earth is only 6 - 10 thousand years old....... Isn't it?

Finding older fossils really doesn't kill the religious representation. They can either say that the 6000 year bit shouldn't be taken literally, or that the creation of the universe included these artifacts, possibly as tests of faith.

You can't disprove that god created fossils, so other than trying to get a rise out of the literalists, what's the point in arguing it?

[shropshire 0]

But... but .... but .... That's exactly the point


There's only a couple of reasons for posting here...

To light a blue touch paper

&

To watch the pretty coloured sparks afterwards.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[pajarito 0]

I think the following quote sums up the name of the game.

Quote

‘Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened.

One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.'

Yockey, H.P., A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67:377–398, 1977; quotes from pp. 379, 396.

[billvon 3,120]

>One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom
>a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural
>causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet
>been written.

This is a false statement on "the established and current wisdom."

[Stumpy 284]

Yockey is an interesting one. He seems to agree with and promote the theory of evolution via his own writings, but is critical of the theories of the origins of life. i believe he is Christian from his writing, however it isn't made clear. I think he is of the "god (or a supernatural being/ alien intervention/ meteor strike with living matter) created the conditions for life and set evolution in motion to get us to where we are today" school of thought.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I think the following quote sums up the name of the game.

Quote

‘Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened.

One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.'

Yockey, H.P., A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67:377–398, 1977; quotes from pp. 379, 396.

The problem with these notions of improbability being proof is that you only need it to happen once. Since we're here, it did. It could be a billion to one chance and still happen on the first trial.

Quick - what's the probability of what's week's super lotto numbers happening? Since it is a past event, the probability = 1.