Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii)

AV1611VET · Aug 29, 2022

essentialsaltes · Aug 29, 2022

For people who would like a little background.

The role of "Nebraska man" in the creation-evolution debate

Finally, the issue relates to the fundamentally different values that creationism and science place on error. Creationists are quick to point out error by scientists, and ridicule it. They go on to argue that error and disagreement among specialists are indications that the fabric of science is coming apart, and that it will eventually collapse, with creationism reigning triumphant after Armageddon.

But what creationists ridicule as guesswork, and trial and error, and flip-flopping from theory to theory are the very essence of science, the stuff of science. Error correction is part of the creative element in the advance of science, and when disagreement occurs, it means not that science is in trouble but that errors are being corrected and scientific advances being made. Creationism comes on the scene arguing that the Bible is inerrant as a source of scientific truth and that "creation science" cannot admit of error because it simply does not exist.

We cannot conceive of two more diametrically opposed methods of explaining the world around us. One uses the correction of error as an inherent part of the process of searching for the truth, or ultimate reality in nature; the other rejects error or cannot admit its existence. Although it may be human to make mistakes, it is scientific to correct them. That is the nub of the issue between creationism and science.

AV1611VET · Aug 29, 2022

essentialsaltes said:
One uses the correction of error as an inherent part of the process of searching for the truth, or ultimate reality in nature; the other rejects error or cannot admit its existence.

Look how this is worded.

Let's parse it.

One uses the correction of error as an inherent part of the process of searching for the truth,

Notice it fails to mention THEY MAKE THE ERRORS in the first place?

... the other rejects error or cannot admit its existence.

It's okay for science to reject their errors, but we cannot?

Or is it saying we refuse to reject our own errors?

We both make mistakes, don't we?

SCIENCE:

5 + 4 = 2

Years later: 5 + 4 = 3

Years later: 5 + 4 = 4

Conclusion: We scientists are always in the process of correction of error as an inherent part of the process of searching for the right answer.

essentialsaltes · Aug 29, 2022

AV1611VET said:
Notice it fails to mention THEY MAKE THE ERRORS in the first place?

It does not. Even in what I quoted, it says "Creationists are quick to point out error by scientists, and ridicule it."

No one is disputing scientists make mistakes. That is indeed the topic of the whole article. A mistake made by scientists that was corrected. Elsewhere it's more explicit, quoting Simpson: "So even famous scientists make mistakes, as all humans do."

It's okay for science to reject their errors, but we cannot?

You are confusing correcting with rejecting.

In the case of Nebraska Man, some scientists made an error (This is a fossil primate). Five years later, it was corrected (This is not a fossil primate).

Honestly, putting up your avatar and sig against mine is a perfect illustration of the point being made in the conclusion I quoted:

AV1611VET:
SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
The Bible says it, that settles it.

essentialsaltes:
My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be.

One position allows for correction. The other rejects any attempts to modify the settled position. Any hint of an error is rejected and told to take a hike.

The IbanezerScrooge · Aug 29, 2022

Scientists are the ones that pointed out the errors. Not creationists. Creationists contributed NOTHING to the debate at all. They just jumped on after it was all settled and tried to use it as an example of a weakness of science, but only proved the robustness of the method.

And, you're talking about something that's been settled for decades. This all you got? You really have nothing to offer on this, AV.

AV1611VET · Aug 29, 2022

The IbanezerScrooge said:
Scientists are the ones that pointed out the errors.

That is correct.

Scientists START OUT wrong, then "correct" their wrongs with other wrongs; all the while claiming they're improving it.

This is the best way to sum it up:

Scientists start fires, then put them out.

AV1611VET · Aug 29, 2022

The IbanezerScrooge said:
This all you got?

Believe me, sir, I could go on and on and on about Thalidomide, the Challenger, L'Aquila, Pluto, the Titanic, air having no mass, the Hindenburg and a LONG list of other stuff from the Florida footbridge to dams collapsing.

Let's just stick with Nebraska Man here? shall we?

essentialsaltes · Aug 29, 2022

AV1611VET said:
Scientists start fires, then put them out.

Eh, could be worse.

AV1611VET · Aug 29, 2022

essentialsaltes said:
Eh, could be worse.

You're welcome to start your own thread on that.

(And please do. I'll eat it for breakfast.)

This one is about science in particular; and Nebraska Man specifically.

The IbanezerScrooge · Aug 29, 2022

AV1611VET said:
Believe me, sir, I could go on and on and on about Thalidomide, the Challenger, L'Aquila, Pluto, the Titanic, air having no mass, the Hindenburg and a LONG list of other stuff from the Florida footbridge to dams collapsing.

Let's just stick with Nebraska Man here? shall we?

You have fun with that.

essentialsaltes · Aug 29, 2022

Gregory was praised for the retraction, "knowing as he must have known, when he did it, that the story of the ape's tooth that was reduced in station to that of a Pliocene pig, would surely be triumphantly intoned in the songs of hate of every anti-evolution gathering for a century to come."

Just a few more years, and AV can prove the editor of Scientific American wrong.

AV1611VET · Aug 29, 2022

essentialsaltes said:
Creationists are quick to point out error by scientists, and ridicule it.

I'm going to disagree on this one, since the topic is Nebraska Man.

I don't think creationists had the expertise back then to disagree with whomever labeled his guy "Hesperopithecus haroldcookii".

(And I wonder if they have that expertise now too.)

So saying creationists were quick to point out errors by scientists is nothing more than a whine.

essentialsaltes · Aug 29, 2022

AV1611VET said:
I don't think creationists had the expertise back then to disagree with whomever labeled his guy "Hesperopithecus haroldcookii".

So saying creationists were quick to point out errors by scientists is nothing more than a whine.

The article didn't say "were". You're correct, I doubt any creationists in the 1920s were in a position to comment on the scientific controversy of Nebraska Man.

But the article is about "The role of "Nebraska man" in the creation-evolution debate" [as it was in 1985].

"Creationists are quick to point out error by scientists, and ridicule it."

AV1611VET · Aug 29, 2022

essentialsaltes said:
Gregory was praised for the retraction,

Gregory, whoever that is, should have retracted it.

And apologized for being so quick on the draw to propagate evolution to the common people.

AV1611VET · Aug 29, 2022

essentialsaltes said:
The article didn't say "were". You're correct, I doubt any creationists in the 1920s were in a position to comment on the scientific controversy of Nebraska Man.

But the article is about "The role of "Nebraska man" in the creation-evolution debate" [as it was in 1985].

Why are you trying to derail this thread with side issues?

May I ask you an honest question?

Does it bother you that what you're defending has such a checkered track record?

Do you blame us for ridiculing your past mistakes?

durangodawood · Aug 29, 2022

AV1611VET said:

Scientists used the silly english units side of the ruler instead of the metric side?

Thats not very smart. Hopefully theyve corrected that practice.

partinobodycular · Aug 29, 2022

AV1611VET said:
May I ask you an honest question?

Does it bother you that what you're defending has such a checkered track record?

To me the often ignominious journey of man from a simple primate to whatever they inevitably become is far nobler precisely because their track record is checkered, not in spite of it.

If we have any redeeming quality it's that we persevered.

And if we must stand before God in judgment, let us stand on that.

essentialsaltes · Aug 29, 2022

AV1611VET said:
Does it bother you that what you're defending has such a checkered track record?

Do you blame us for ridiculing your past mistakes?

No one in the scientific community has defended Nebraska Man for nearly a century.

Do I blame you for bringing it up? Not really. But it's just not very interesting. It's beating a dead peccary at this point. Did you have anything you wanted to say about the matter? You only posted a picture without any commentary.

durangodawood · Aug 29, 2022

AV1611VET said:
Believe me, sir, I could go on and on and on about Thalidomide, the Challenger, L'Aquila, Pluto, the Titanic, air having no mass, the Hindenburg and a LONG list of other stuff from the Florida footbridge to dams collapsing.

Let's just stick with Nebraska Man here? shall we?

The Hindenburg.

You probably wont fly on an airplane, right?

AV1611VET · Aug 29, 2022

partinobodycular said:
To me the often ignominious journey of man from a simple primate to whatever they inevitably become is far nobler precisely because their track record is checkered, not in spite of it.

Assuming mankind started out dumber than a hay rake is what today's epistemology feeds off of.

There was no "ignominious journey of man from a simple primate to whatever they inevitable became."

Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii)

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Fact-Based Lifeform

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Fact-Based Lifeform

I can't believe what I'm hearing...

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Fact-Based Lifeform

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

I can't believe what I'm hearing...

Fact-Based Lifeform

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Fact-Based Lifeform

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

re Member

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

re Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency