|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6505 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
The Cro-Magnons were normal people,not monkeys; and they provide no evidence of transition from ape to man. With all due respect, that is one of the most ridiculous proclamations I have even seen. Show me where any scientist has ever said that Cro-Magnons were "monkeys". Show me! Show me where any scientist has ever said that Cro-Magnons were evidence of ape-to-man transition. Show me! Only creationists would make the ridiculous claim that any scientist would make such a claim. Just as creationists have tried to claim that scientists think that the ancient Egyptians (the ones who built the pyramids) were "ape-men". Complete and utter bullshit! What kind of trough have you been feeding from? You really need to consider radically altering your brain's diet.
Rudolph Virchow, a German anatomist, said the bones were those of modern men afflicted with rickets and arthritis. Do you have any idea at all who Virchow was? More importantly, when he was? His Wikipedia article is at Rudolf Virchow - Wikipedia. The guy was pure 19th century! Did you know that? If not, then why not? Here's the skinny on him and Neanderthal ("Creationist Arguments: Neandertals" at Creationist Arguments: Neandertals -- do some reading and start to learn):
quote:Please note that Virchow had examined the first Neanderthal fossils in 1872 (duh?), which were (relying on my memory now) those of an old arthritic individual. Since then, we have found fossils of over a hundred individuals of all ages. The claim that Neanderthal features are the result of rickets completely ignores the evidence and is just plain ignorant. There is a cure for ignorance. It's called "learning". Ever hear of it? The then-Governor of Mississippi explaining why he was campaigning so hard for education reform in his state:
quote: OBTW, we do indeed have the ape-to-man transition. Handed to us by the creationists! We have transitions from Homo erectus and Homo Neanderthalensis (or Homo sapiens neandertalensis, depending on where you stand on that controversy -- yes, science does indeed have controversies, but real ones, not the fake and fraudulant ones that creationists hawk). Creationist claim that Home erectus was "100% ape" while Neanderthal was "100% modern man". With these transitions from H. erectus to H. Neanderthalensis, we do indeed have the ape-to-human transition. Thank you for your support, even though it was unintentional. Edited by dwise1, : OBTW {When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy. ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984) Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. (from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML) Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles) Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
DrJones writes: Volunteer writes:
And you think we haven't learned anything new in the 36 years since? Rudolph Virchow, a German anatomist, said the bones were those of modern men afflicted with rickets and arthritis. ("Neanderthals had Rickets" Science Digest, February 1971,p.35) Uh, the Virchow indirect quote was made in 1872, which was one hundred thirty-five (135) years ago. Not far off from the Huxley quote. The real question is what that article actually said. Did it try to claim, as the creationist do, that rickets were the cause of Neanderthal features? Or did it merely show that the disease also existed way back then? Has anyone researched that article? More importantly, did Volunteer ever think to check it out? Yeah, I doubt that too. {When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy. ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984) Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. (from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML) Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles) Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
What the hell are you talking about?
After having to be corrected upon the complete and utter nonsense you spouted about "Nebraska Man", you then spout even worse nonsense about Neanderthal and Cro-Mag. I point out that your nonsense is nonsense and you spout off even worse nonsense that doesn't even say anything. BTW, if you need to learn what Thermodynamics is and says, then do please read up on it and learn. Yes, determining whether a system is open or closed is very important when calculating its entropy (which doesn't mean what your creationist liars have told you that it does). If you don't understand physics, that is no reason to insult those who do. {When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy. ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984) Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. (from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML) Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles) Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
As far as we know, yes, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is correct.
What is not correct, however, is creationist misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the Second Law. All of which is off-topic, except for its demonstration of how creationists misunderstand and misrepresent just about everything they can lay their hands on. {When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy. ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984) Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. (from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML) Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles) Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024