Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii)

[AV1611VET]

You are correct that creationism isn’t science.

Yup.

Therefore, just as science stays out of religion, so religion should stay out of science.

Is that why science analyzed the [Eucharist] wafer and concluded there was no change in its DNA?

I believe science concerns itself with Christianity more than all the other religions on the earth combined.

 

[Kylie]

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.

It's funny that you of all people are asking them to stay on topic.

I'll bookmark this post of yours and use it whenever you bring up Pluto, or Challenger, or thalidomide.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll bookmark this post of yours and use it whenever you bring up Pluto, or Challenger, or thalidomide.

Pluto, the Challenger, Thalidomide.

 

[Kylie]

Pluto, the Challenger, Thalidomide.

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

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

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

 

[AV1611VET]

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

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

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

The Pluto Issue

Challenger

Thalidomide

 

[Kylie]

The Pluto Issue

Challenger

Thalidomide

Then how about you keep those discussions confined to those threads, okay?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then how about you keep those discussions confined to those threads, okay?

When your name shows up in the STAFF ONLINE box, I'll take that under advisement.

 

[Kylie]

When your name shows up in the STAFF ONLINE box, I'll take that under advisement.

How about from the Terms and Rules page, found HERE?

 

[AV1611VET]

How about from the Terms and Rules page, found HERE?

View attachment 324880

Did you know Pluto's orbit is elliptical and crosses Neptune's orbit?

That means it is no longer a TNO.

Wouldn't that mean that it's a planet again?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Did you know Pluto's orbit is elliptical and crosses Neptune's orbit?

That means it is no longer a TNO.

Wouldn't that mean that it's a planet again?

No - that's not part of the definition of a planet.

 

[AV1611VET]

No - that's not part of the definition of a planet.

Okay. Thank you.

 

[ruthiesea]

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."



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 hikeThe difference between science and creationism is that scientists try to prove that they are wrong while creationists refuse to admit that they could be wrong. BTW, who was the creation scientists who proved that the conclusion about Nebraska man was wrong?

 

[AV1611VET]

The difference between science and creationism is that scientists try to prove that they are wrong while creationists refuse to admit that they could be wrong.

In what way, shape, or form is science trying to prove themselves wrong about their stance on creationism?

 

[ruthiesea]

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?

You ridicule the strength of science. Scientists try to prove that they are wrong. That way they discover their errors and thereby add to our knowledge. Creationists do not admit that they could be wrong. They add nothing to our knowledge of G-d’s creation.

If you truly reject science that you should demonstrate your commitment to that belief by rejecting everything that has been developed through science. First, stop using your computer.

BTW, who was the creationist who proved that Nebraska man was wrong? Oh wait! It was the almost the entirety of the scientific community that rejected that conclusion.

 

[ruthiesea]

In what way, shape, or form is science trying to prove themselves wrong about their stance on creationism?

They don’t. Conclusions can only be tested based on the scientific evidence that leads to the conclusions and predicted future findings based on those conclusions. Creationism is a religious belief with no scientific basis. It is, therefore, not within the purview of scientific study.

 

[AV1611VET]

You ridicule the strength of science. Scientists try to prove that they are wrong.

When it comes to the Bible, we'll do it for them.

That way they discover their errors ...

In other words, they police themselves?

I've seen them fix their errors about what is in the Bible before.

That's why we have abortions, the death penalty abolished, and equal airtime demanded for cults.

Creationists do not admit that they could be wrong.

That's what science wants Christians to do, so they can apply or project that admission to anything they say that science disagrees with.

If I say the Flood happened -- but I could be wrong -- then what is someone going to think if later I tell them they need to repent of their sins and ask Jesus Christ to be their LORD and Saviour?

They add nothing to our knowledge of G-d’s creation.

I can see how you would think that, since their "knowledge of God's creation" is now so warped and blasphemous it is no longer recognizable.

If you truly reject science that you should demonstrate your commitment to that belief by rejecting everything that has been developed through science. First, stop using your computer.

Here is my firewall:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

Can you find anything in there that tells me I should stop using computers?

BTW, who was the creationist who proved that Nebraska man was wrong?

Don't know. Don't care. Don't care to know.

If I did know it, I'd probably forget his name in about two minutes or less.

Oh wait! It was the almost the entirety of the scientific community that rejected that conclusion.

AFTER they started that conclusion.

I don't know what church you go to, but I can say with 100% accuracy that not one person in my church would find a peccary tooth and label it "Nebraska Man."

 

[AV1611VET]

They don’t.

Then I'll take your point with a grain of salt.

Creationism is a religious belief with no scientific basis.

That is correct.

It is also history.

It is, therefore, not within the purview of scientific study.

I've been saying that for years.

Creationism does NOT belong in science class.

It belongs in history class.

Have you seen my Apple Challenge, where I challenge academia to give someone ANYTHING that would convince them of what happened in Genesis 1?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I don't know what church you go to, but I can say with 100% accuracy that not one person in my church would find a peccary tooth and label it "Nebraska Man."

Cool. Can you find a church that says Genesis is not literal truth?

You can go around casting aspersions on how science can't get its story straight as much as you like, but while you're doing that just remember that Christianity has been trying for even longer than scientists to get its story straight and still not managed it.

I can say with 100% accuracy that not one person in my local church would read Genesis and decide it is literal history.

 

[AV1611VET]

Cool. Can you find a church that says Genesis is not literal truth?

Ya -- they're a dime a dozen.

You can go around casting aspersions on how science can't get its story straight as much as you like, but while you're doing that just remember that Christianity has been trying for even longer than scientists to get its story straight and still not managed it.

At least they prioritize correctly.

 

[ruthiesea]

Then I'll take your point with a grain of salt

That is correct.

It is also history.

I've been saying that for years.

Creationism does NOT belong in science class.

It belongs in history class.

Have you seen my Apple Challenge, where I challenge academia to give someone ANYTHING that would convince them of what happened in Genesis 1?

Whose history? Different religions have different creation stories that don’t agree with each other. So whose creation beliefs do you teach in history classes?
The only thing that would convince someone of the validity of Genesis 1 is a religious belief.