# Hi-Five



## bullethead (Sep 10, 2011)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/08/scitech/main20103228.shtml


Beginning of article:
"(AP) WASHINGTON - An analysis of 2 million-year-old bones found in South Africa offers the most powerful case so far in identifying the transitional figure that came before modern humans - findings some are calling a potential game-changer in understanding evolution.

The bones are from Australopithecus sediba. The research places that pre-human branch of the evolutionary tree as the best candidate to be the ancestor of the human line, said Lee R. Berger of the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa.

The bones, found in 2008 in the fossil-rich cave region of Malapa near Johannesburg, show a head-to-foot combination of features of Australopithecus and the human genus, Homo.

"It's as if evolution is caught in one vital moment, a stop-action snapshot of evolution in action," said Richard Potts, director of the human origins program at the Smithsonian Institution. He was not among the international research team, led by South African scientists. Their research was published online Thursday in the journal Science."


----------



## bad0351 (Sep 10, 2011)

I always knew I was right..............


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 10, 2011)

Eh... 1 skeleton isn't hard enough proof. It's either fake or something else altogether. The "others" will need the entire record... Maybe one full skeleton from each generation which means millions. Then there will be some thing else.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 10, 2011)

It is one more than nothing. It seems weekly or at least monthly we are getting more and more clues about the evolutionary past. Modern humans have not been here long enough to find every clue, but we are making progress.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 10, 2011)

I definitely agree. Although full evolution is still little off for me. I can't say the last time I understood what 500 years could do, let alone 500,000,000. 

WILL modern humans be here long enough to figure it out?


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 11, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> I definitely agree. Although full evolution is still little off for me. I can't say the last time I understood what 500 years could do, let alone 500,000,000.
> 
> WILL modern humans be here long enough to figure it out?



TripleX, you have some goood insight here. This story on the internet is speculative at best. Will we ever "know"? Maybe, but these fanciful conjectures are as faith based as belief in God and the Bible.  I guess it is all about who, or what you want to believe.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 11, 2011)

bullethead said:


> It is one more than nothing. It seems weekly or at least monthly we are getting more and more clues about the evolutionary past. Modern humans have not been here long enough to find every clue, but we are making progress.



I agree with parts of XXX's statement about this post, but I really doubt that we are making "progress" in the area of understanding our origins.  I believe this is worse than nothing, it is twisting science into something science was never meant to be by its own definition.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 11, 2011)

Pretty much ted. So find your own and feel it.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 11, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I agree with parts of XXX's statement about this post, but I really doubt that we are making "progress" in the area of understanding our origins.  I believe this is worse than nothing, it is twisting science into something science was never meant to be by its own definition.



Ted while I agree that each side needs a little "faith", I also believe that we are finding more and more examples to back up the scientific thoughts on how we got here. Each side has their "books" on how they think things happened. Basically man can write down whatever we THINK happened and each side will have it's share of followers. The reason I lean towards science is that if I read there was a human like ancestor(or pick any of the many many many of the examples written about in theory and then found over the years) that lived before us and then we find examples of these things....it lends credibility towards the theories written. With religion, we have epic events being told happening on grand scales and except for a few real places and people...there is just no evidence to back it up. I think the science end is trying to prove religion and just cannot based off of the findings, while the religious see the progress in science and refuse to believe it. But, let some scientist "find" the bones of Jesus and EVERY Christian would back his claims, findings, dating methods, evidence 10,000%! ......even though they dismiss those same procedures when it does not work to their advantage outside of religion.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 11, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Ted while I agree that each side needs a little "faith", I also believe that we are finding more and more examples to back up the scientific thoughts on how we got here. Each side has their "books" on how they think things happened. Basically man can write down whatever we THINK happened and each side will have it's share of followers. The reason I lean towards science is that if I read there was a human like ancestor(or pick any of the many many many of the examples written about in theory and then found over the years) that lived before us and then we find examples of these things....it lends credibility towards the theories written. With religion, we have epic events being told happening on grand scales and except for a few real places and people...there is just no evidence to back it up. I think the science end is trying to prove religion and just cannot based off of the findings, while the religious see the progress in science and refuse to believe it. But, let some scientist "find" the bones of Jesus and EVERY Christian would back his claims, findings, dating methods, evidence 10,000%! ......even though they dismiss those same procedures when it does not work to their advantage outside of religion.



Au contraire.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 11, 2011)

bullethead said:


> But, let some scientist "find" the bones of Jesus and EVERY Christian would back his claims, findings, dating methods, evidence 10,000%! ......even though they dismiss those same procedures when it does not work to their advantage outside of religion.



No, they would disagree because it would eliminate the basis of their religion: the resurrection.

Substitute "Noah's ark" where you have "Jesus' bones," and you have a valid point.....it happens about once a year....


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 11, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Ted while I agree that each side needs a little "faith", I also believe that we are finding more and more examples to back up the scientific thoughts on how we got here. Each side has their "books" on how they think things happened. Basically man can write down whatever we THINK happened and each side will have it's share of followers. The reason I lean towards science is that if I read there was a human like ancestor(or pick any of the many many many of the examples written about in theory and then found over the years) that lived before us and then we find examples of these things....it lends credibility towards the theories written. With religion, we have epic events being told happening on grand scales and except for a few real places and people...there is just no evidence to back it up. I think the science end is trying to prove religion and just cannot based off of the findings, while the religious see the progress in science and refuse to believe it. But, let some scientist "find" the bones of Jesus and EVERY Christian would back his claims, findings, dating methods, evidence 10,000%! ......even though they dismiss those same procedures when it does not work to their advantage outside of religion.



As Ambush has pointed out, if a scientist (or anyone)claimed to have found the bones of Jesus, none of the believers would believe him at all. After His reserection, he was ascended into heaven. His body was not left on earth.

(or pick any of the many many many of the examples written about in theory and then found over the years)

Please pick one, or two, I am curious what you are talking about here.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 11, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> No, they would disagree because it would eliminate the basis of their religion: the resurrection.
> 
> Substitute "Noah's ark" where you have "Jesus' bones," and you have a valid point.....it happens about once a year....



Close, but no . The Ascension would be what you are trying to talk about.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 11, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> Pretty much ted. So find your own and feel it.



I think Trip has nailed here.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 11, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Close, but no . The Ascension would be what you are trying to talk about.





I am just saying no christian would buy it because there would be no reason for being a Christian if his bones were still around.  But, many Christians buy every claim about Noah's ark that is made.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 11, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I am just saying no christian would buy it because there would be no reason for being a Christian if his bones were still around.  But, many Christians buy every claim about Noah's ark that is made.



Right, poor example on my part using Jesus and his bones. Ark, holy grail, ark of the covenant, would have been better examples. The same unreliable dating methods used to date fossils would be used to date any of these items so would they be dismissed also??

But I wonder how flawed the scientific data would be if Jesus bones were found?????


----------



## bullethead (Sep 11, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Please pick one, or two, I am curious what you are talking about here.



I was just talking about anything...ANYTHING that was once thought as theory and we now accept as fact.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 11, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I was just talking about anything...ANYTHING that was once thought as theory and we now accept as fact.



You use the word WE loosly. What you believe are facts are not what others believe are facts.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 11, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Right, poor example on my part using Jesus and his bones. Ark, holy grail, ark of the covenant, would have been better examples. The same unreliable dating methods used to date fossils would be used to date any of these items so would they be dismissed also??
> 
> But I wonder how flawed the scientific data would be if Jesus bones were found?????



Personally, I wouldn't care if the dating methods worked or not. These are the types of proof you keep talking about that I say do not exist in regards to God.

If they found Jesus' bones, then I would be wrong wrong wrong about a lot of things. They would have a hard time proving to me that they were indeed His bones.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 11, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> You use the word WE loosly. What you believe are facts are not what others believe are facts.



I cannot imagine the hard time you must have going through everyday life using products that have been produced through the efforts of science, full well knowing how inferior and sub-par it's designers, testers, and ingredients must be.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 11, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I cannot imagine the hard time you must have going through everyday life using products that have been produced through the efforts of science, full well knowing how inferior and sub-par it's designers, testers, and ingredients must be.



I have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## pnome (Sep 11, 2011)




----------



## bullethead (Sep 11, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I have no idea what you are talking about.



Ted you are a scientist by profession. I am sure your own work involves many of the things that you dismiss as agenda driven and I am sure you are confident of many things that you know to be true also.
While at work and in every day life you rely of things made by scientists. Is it all a bunch of hooey? Do you leave work every day thinking "well I fooled the masses again!"?? Or do you try to be as accurate as you possibly can using the best technology and methods?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 11, 2011)

Good flick Pnome!


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 12, 2011)

bullethead said:


> But, let some scientist "find" the bones of Jesus and EVERY Christian would back his claims, findings, dating methods, evidence 10,000%!



Boy, he blew it (again) on this one!!!   Total misunderstanding of Christianity!   No resurrection....no Christianity.    The tomb was empty....that's what has to be explained.    

For all you 'monkey lovers' out there....here's a great read on all these 'daily' fossil humans they are finding.   You might want to keep it in mind when you thought "you were right".   

http://crev.info/content/110905-early_man_was_like_us

might want to bookmark this site...it gives a great 'peer review' of many of your evolution publications.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 12, 2011)

"Media (and all you 'believe-everything-you-read-in-the-news guys here) respond predictably..." 

http://crev.info/content/110908-media_respond_predictably

Good read on this new 'missing link'.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 12, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Boy, he blew it (again) on this one!!!   Total misunderstanding of Christianity!   No resurrection....no Christianity.    The tomb was empty....that's what has to be explained.
> 
> For all you 'monkey lovers' out there....here's a great read on all these 'daily' fossil humans they are finding.   You might want to keep it in mind when you thought "you were right".
> 
> ...



Your a day late and dollar short Bandy. It's been addressed properly long before your reply.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 12, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Your a day late and dollar short Bandy. It's been addressed properly long before your reply.



My apologies...    Story of my life!


----------



## bullethead (Sep 12, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> "Media (and all you 'believe-everything-you-read-in-the-news guys here) respond predictably..."
> 
> http://crev.info/content/110908-media_respond_predictably
> 
> Good read on this new 'missing link'.



NICE source!
"Creation-Evolution Headlines is sponsored by Master Plan Association, a California non-profit corporation. Founder and Editor is David F. Coppedge."
Here is there sponsor:

http://masterplanassociation.org/index.html


----------



## bullethead (Sep 12, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> My apologies...    Story of my life!



Your sudden urge to prove me wrong must have overwhelmed you and you must have "missed" post #16.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 12, 2011)

lol      and what would that have to do with anything????

totally unrelated to what is true or not


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 12, 2011)

'ad hominem' fallacy?    lol


----------



## bullethead (Sep 12, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol      and what would that have to do with anything????
> 
> totally unrelated to what is true or not



I'd say view is a bit skewed.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 12, 2011)

lol     I'm sure you'll agree, we are all skewed here.    (well, MOST at least.   there may be a few on the fence still)


----------



## Jeff Phillips (Sep 12, 2011)

*A few quotes from Darwin...*

“I was a young man with uninformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.”  

“In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.” 

“I can never make up my mind how far an inward conviction that there must be some Creator or First Cause is really trustworthy evidence.”


----------



## bullethead (Sep 12, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol     I'm sure you'll agree, we are all skewed here.    (well, MOST at least.   there may be a few on the fence still)



Actually I always was and am open minded. I go with the evidence. I have no way of knowing any of this archeology stuff or scientific data for sure(like I said before...above my pay scale), but almost daily there is something in the news that is found from long before modern times. Yes the words "may" and "possibly" are used because it is the best guess after putting all the pieces of the puzzle together. Point is that somebody is finding these things that were once thought to be alive and we now have evidence that Yes in fact....there was a creature kinda sorta like a human but still has traits of (not a monkey) an ape-like ancestor.

When I am hunting and I see a well used deer trail, droppings, rubs and scrapes a bedding area between food and water sources.....my best guess is that a deer is PROBABLY using this area frequently. If I shoot him based off of these "guesses" does it not count?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 12, 2011)

Your own scientists say that all the 'Homo' genus could interbreed.    

Same species.    That says a lot.  The ability to interbreed makes them all men.     

Another of your scientists say that all the Homo erectus fossils and Neandertal fossils should be lumped together, as they differ no more from modern humans as modern races differ.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 12, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Your own scientists say that all the 'Homo' genus could interbreed.
> 
> Same species.    That says a lot.  The ability to interbreed makes them all men.
> 
> Another of your scientists say that all the Homo erectus fossils and Neandertal fossils should be lumped together, as they differ no more from modern humans as modern races differ.



So who is right?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 12, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Your own scientists say that all the 'Homo' genus could interbreed.
> 
> Same species.    That says a lot.  The ability to interbreed makes them all men.
> 
> Another of your scientists say that all the Homo erectus fossils and Neandertal fossils should be lumped together, as they differ no more from modern humans as modern races differ.



If they all originated from Adam and Eve how could they "interbreed"? Same from Same equals Same, no?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 12, 2011)

bullethead said:


> If they all originated from Adam and Eve how could they "interbreed"? Same from Same equals Same, no?




need to reword that....you lost me.     ????????


----------



## bullethead (Sep 12, 2011)

From you;



BANDERSNATCH said:


> Your own scientists say that all the 'Homo' genus could interbreed.
> 
> Same species.    That says a lot.  The ability to interbreed makes them all men.
> 
> Another of your scientists say that all the Homo erectus fossils and Neandertal fossils should be lumped together, as they differ no more from modern humans as modern races differ.



How could there be different "Homo" genus, Neanderthal, Erectus, if they all came from two people(Adam and Eve) to start?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 12, 2011)

bullethead said:


> From you;
> 
> 
> 
> How could there be different "Homo" genus, Neanderthal, Erectus, if they all came from two people(Adam and Eve) to start?



They had a few very ugly children.....

I heard a 7 day creationist once claim that neanderthals were just some seriously ugly people.  I don't know.....maybe they are on to something......


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 12, 2011)

bullethead said:


> From you;
> 
> 
> 
> How could there be different "Homo" genus, Neanderthal, Erectus, if they all came from two people(Adam and Eve) to start?



There aren't.    Neanderthals, Erectus, etc.....should never have been classified as anything but humans.    You've bought in....so you believe that there have been numerous species along the way.....with associated genetic makeup.    Neanderthals, Erectus....no different than modern men.   'Your' own scientists say that.    

Taxonomy is a guessing game at best.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 12, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> They had a few very ugly children.....
> 
> I heard a 7 day creationist once claim that neanderthals were just some seriously ugly people.  I don't know.....maybe they are on to something......



I've heard of 6-day creationists...       never 7


----------



## bullethead (Sep 12, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> There aren't.    Neanderthals, Erectus, etc.....should never have been classified as anything but humans.    You've bought in....so you believe that there have been numerous species along the way.....with associated genetic makeup.    Neanderthals, Erectus....no different than modern men.   'Your' own scientists say that.
> 
> Taxonomy is a guessing game at best.



Some of "My" own scientists say different. Based off of the examples given, I like what they are saying.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 12, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Some of "My" own scientists say different. Based off of the examples given, I like what they are saying.



lol     As long as you are admitting you are 'picking and choosing" which of your scientists and evidence you want to believe....I'm satisfied.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 12, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I've heard of 6-day creationists...       never 7



It's a 7 day story 

So, you think they were all humans as well?  I am not big into reading about this stuff, so I really don't know.  I took the absolute minimum amount of science and biology required to finish school.

If they are not human, does it contradict anything?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 12, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol     As long as you are admitting you are 'picking and choosing" which of your scientists and evidence you want to believe....I'm satisfied.



Absolutely I am! It is no different than me choosing Science over Religion, I go with the evidence. Once that choice is made I dig deeper into the science end of it and go with what makes the most sense to me. Plus I am never satisfied enough to let it rest. I always want to know about the latest findings.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 12, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Absolutely I am! It is no different than me choosing Science over Religion, I go with the evidence. Once that choice is made I dig deeper into the science end of it and go with what makes the most sense to me. Plus I am never satisfied enough to let it rest. I always want to know about the latest findings.



But you pick and choose what you believe from your own scientists.    doesn't make sense to me.     

You are quick to believe in multiple species, but when these same scientists say that they interbred, you disregard it.    If I believed in evolution, the fact that all these supposed species could interbreed would bother me.   It would beg the question, "How can they be successive transitions if they could interbreed?"


----------



## bullethead (Sep 12, 2011)

The differences like physical size, features, brain/skull size/capacity, etc is what lends me to lean towards the scientists that believe there is a difference within the examples and should not all be lumped together.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 12, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> But you pick and choose what you believe from your own scientists.    doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> You are quick to believe in multiple species, but when these same scientists say that they interbred, you disregard it.    If I believed in evolution, the fact that all these supposed species could interbreed would bother me.   It would beg the question, "How can they be successive transitions if they could interbreed?"



If two religions, heck...lets go with Catholics and Baptists.... are telling you two different things do you go with both or pick one? How do you make your choice?

I don't disregard it immediately. I look at the evidence and go with the one that makes more sense to me.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 12, 2011)

but your own scientists say there is no difference that normal human variation.    Take the 'turkana boy".....for a boy he had perfectly human brain capacity....


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Sep 12, 2011)

bullethead said:


> If two religions, heck...lets go with Catholics and Baptists.... are telling you two different things do you go with both or pick one? How do you make your choice?
> 
> I don't disregard it immediately. I look at the evidence and go with the one that makes more sense to me.



If two religions are telling me two different things, then I'd say that they could both be wrong, or one right, but not both of them.    When it comes to Catholics/Baptists/etc, I look at their beliefs and weigh out the support.    When it comes to Neanderthals, most all scientists agree that there is evidence of interbreeding with erectus, but they don't acknowledge the implication.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 12, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> If two religions are telling me two different things, then I'd say that they could both be wrong, or one right, but not both of them.    When it comes to Catholics/Baptists/etc, I look at their beliefs and weigh out the support.    When it comes to Neanderthals, most all scientists agree that there is evidence of interbreeding with erectus, but they don't acknowledge the implication.




I see your point(s). What about before Neanderthal and before that and so on? What was Pre-Neanderthal?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 12, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> but your own scientists say there is no difference that normal human variation.    Take the 'turkana boy".....for a boy he had perfectly human brain capacity....



He had about 880cc and probably would have had @ 910cc at maturity.

"Modern Humans" range from 950cc-1500cc. 
Burenhult (1993) states that the 90% of humans fit in the range 1040-1595 cc, and that the extreme range is 900-2000 cc.

Bottom End perfectly human brain capacity. Probably the reason why they think he is on the page before "us".


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 12, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Ted you are a scientist by profession. I am sure your own work involves many of the things that you dismiss as agenda driven and I am sure you are confident of many things that you know to be true also.
> While at work and in every day life you rely of things made by scientists. Is it all a bunch of hooey? Do you leave work every day thinking "well I fooled the masses again!"?? Or do you try to be as accurate as you possibly can using the best technology and methods?



OK, now I get it. Thank you for clarifying the question.  It is true, I rely on science for many things I use in everyday life, and I even make a living practicing science.

I recognize it for what it is. It is a useful tool. It does not lead me to absolute truth, or replace religion.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 12, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Absolutely I am! It is no different than me choosing Science over Religion, I go with the evidence. Once that choice is made I dig deeper into the science end of it and go with what makes the most sense to me. Plus I am never satisfied enough to let it rest. I always want to know about the latest findings.



Choosing between science and religion is like choosing to replace you broken water pump in your vehicle with a new water pump, or a carrot. (or planting the broken water pump and expecting it to grow into a carrot).


----------



## bullethead (Sep 12, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Choosing between science and religion is like choosing to replace you broken water pump in your vehicle with a new water pump, or a carrot. (or planting the broken water pump and expecting it to grow into a carrot).



Ted, in Religion not only would that have been claimed to have happened  but people would actually believe that it was true!!


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 12, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Ted, in Religion not only would that have been claimed to have happened  but people would actually believe that it was true!!



But science tells you it won't ever happen. Alas, my point proves itself.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 13, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> But science tells you it won't ever happen. Alas, my point proves itself.



Sounds like science is spot on.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 13, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Sounds like science is spot on.



It seems like you absolutely refuse to see my point.

I am not asking you to believe what I do.

I am pointing out that science has its uses and applications. Proving the reality of religion or the scriptures is not one of them.

The scriptures defy science, alot. I accept that.

I also accept that science is a part of everyday life and it is useful.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 13, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> http://crev.info/content/110905-early_man_was_like_us
> 
> might want to bookmark this site...it gives a great 'peer review' of many of your evolution publications.



I can just read the link. Early man was like us. He wasn't early dog. He was early man. Would I expect him to be more like early dog?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 13, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Your own scientists say that all the 'Homo' genus could interbreed.
> 
> Same species.    That says a lot.  The ability to interbreed makes them all men.
> 
> Another of your scientists say that all the Homo erectus fossils and Neandertal fossils should be lumped together, as they differ no more from modern humans as modern races differ.



Plenty of different species CAN interbreed and can produce viable offspring. They're not all mules.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 13, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol     As long as you are admitting you are 'picking and choosing" which of your scientists and evidence you want to believe....I'm satisfied.



Of course, as and you? I read another post and see you may not agree... but you'd definitely agree that you would pick and choose what you agree different pastors, ministers or other "true" believers would say about all of it.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 13, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> It seems like you absolutely refuse to see my point.
> 
> I am not asking you to believe what I do.
> 
> ...



Ted, all I was saying is that science would prove that you cannot plant a water pump and grow it into a carrot.

Religion would have you believe it "could" happen IF an Invisible being wanted it to or that it did happen even though there is no evidence except a story in a book.

I understand your understanding of it all.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 13, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> It seems like you absolutely refuse to see my point.
> 
> I am not asking you to believe what I do.
> 
> ...



Ted... What other disciplines of science do you find to be erroneous or similar to evolution or carbon dating? Are there any?


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 14, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> Ted... What other disciplines of science do you find to be erroneous or similar to evolution or carbon dating? Are there any?



The discipline of science is not erroneous. Some results of that discipline are.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 15, 2011)

I don't mean science itself. I mean areas of study within Science. I think you said your an environmental scientist? So apparently the science you use accurate to some degree. Obviously you don't agree with a lot of archeological science. Are there other areas that you believe are doing things wrong?


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 15, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> I don't mean science itself. I mean areas of study within Science. I think you said your an environmental scientist? So apparently the science you use accurate to some degree. Obviously you don't agree with a lot of archeological science. Are there other areas that you believe are doing things wrong?



I don't think you understand science.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 16, 2011)

EXPLAIN it to us!


----------



## Madman (Sep 16, 2011)

bullethead said:


> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/08/scitech/main20103228.shtml



Interesting article.  I will put it in the file with the rest and bet, like the rest, it will vanish and be forgotten.  

I do see that not much "scientific" verification has been done on this find and such noted scientists as Donald Johanson have difficulty seeing an evolutionary conection to Homo Erectus.

Personally I find it interesting if we follow the "dating" of the find and believe the "dating" of the find and believe "dating" of Homo Erectus finds then Homo Erectus has been on the scene for some 300,000 years before this group evolved.  Could we be seeing an example of de-evolution?

Several archeologist put this find into the catagory of modern chimps.

I'll file it and see what shakes out.  Thanks for the heads up bullethead.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 16, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I don't think you understand science.



I guess we're not on the same page... 

You think the science you deal with has it right and is accurate, right? You believe the science invovled with carbon dating is inaccurate and flawed, right?


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 16, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> I guess we're not on the same page...
> 
> You think the science you deal with has it right and is accurate, right? You believe the science invovled with carbon dating is inaccurate and flawed, right?



Nope, science is science, it does not lead to truth (or rightness).

1. Formulate a hypothesis
2. Test the hypothesis
3. Accept or reject the hypothesis
4. Repeat

The active word here is "hypothesis", not "truth"

I am going fishing. See you all in a week. Please enjoy.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 25, 2011)

I'm BACK!! Had a great trip, as you can see


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 25, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I'm BACK!! Had a great trip, as you can see


 Fun times, Made some good memories, I'm sure


----------



## bullethead (Sep 25, 2011)

Nice Fish! Congrats.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 25, 2011)

Thanks guys, I went with my Dad, Bro-in-Law, and 2 of my Uncles. Good times for sure.

I think I am going to get that Coho mounted.

I caught 12 fish that day, 5 Cohos, 2 trout, and 5 chinooks. My hands and arms are sore. But it is a good kinda hurt.

Here is Pop with a nice Chinook.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2011)

Good Fish!  Where did you go?


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 25, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Good Fish!  Where did you go?



I can't give the exact location, but nort west Michigan will get you close. These are great lakes salmon.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I can't give the exact location, but nort west Michigan will get you close. These are great lakes salmon.



I wasn't asking for exact area, just curious what region.  I know a real fisherman never gives coordinates.  Looks like y'all had a great trip!


----------



## bullethead (Sep 25, 2011)

Congrats POP!


----------

