Campbell, this can also be true of the creation science community that is working to present a viable alternative to evolutionary science, or of those who are to working prove through historical research and archaeology that Biblical events and locations are factual. By claiming they are scientists, these persons have made themselves accountable to the same standards that applies to all science, "atheistic" or not. And, they're human beings as well; they don't like to see their personal efforts and conclusions nullified by new discoveries or conflicting evidence any more than any researcher does. That's right, you just pick up and go on. Science isn't by nature an evil worldwide conspiracy; never has been. All it's done is raise questions and present compelling alternatives to what was commonly accepted as true in the prescientific and predemocratic, i.e. church-dominated, era.
Old earth VS Young earth, Evolution VS Creationism. I've read a few sites from each side and Creationists logic always tends to obsure facts and use shady, defelective reasioning. I find the Old world, evolution arguments stay more factually consise and clean. Here's a good example site for Creationism: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i2f.htm And here's a good Evolutionist site: http://www.religioustolerance.org/oldearth.htm In the end eveyone believes what they what but keep an open mind and keep asking yourself what side makes more sense, What side uses real logic and facts and what side uses dirty logic and twists facts?
Well according to the latest DNA extracted from Neanderthals. They are not human, and they are not even in the human ancestors family tree. Modern humans donot have Neanderthal ancestors a NEW DNA study concludes. So yes you are right, they are not human, yet they are not the missing link either. Neanderthals cannot be used to support Evolution. However, I believe they may be a race of people the Bible speaks about in the Old Testament. This was reported from SCI/Tech March 29, 2000 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/694467.stm Archaeopteryx is a good one if you want to use a fake fossil for proof of evolution. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist09.htm
Creationists are very selective about the "facts" they like to talk about. I call it the bible support filter. Creationist aren't interested in truth, they are only interested in finding biblical support. Butchering research to suit their needs. All research that can be applied to the bible is a good fact, any evidence to support evolution is a lie, even if it's picked out of the same project apparently. Why didn't campbell select this link with a better explanation? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3023685.stm
I'm sorry, but it appears to me you are the one ignoring the facts now, and it was not Creationists who did the DNA study. It was your own people. So if you don't like the results of the study. Don't blame it on Creationists.
It's possible. It has been theorized that we have a common ancestor, and studies since then have said that we are related, and did interbreed. The problem with reading science in news magazines is that journalists are not scientists, and tend to jump to conclusions a scientist might not be so hasty to make. Ok. That is about the sketchiest site I've seen you post yet. The feathers were "drawn in?" Give me a break! http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html This is a fact sheet on archaeopteryx. Note that they don't try and skew the information to fit an argument. It's all factual. There were 7 specimens found, and if you'll look at the page, you'll see that they contain a number of features specific to both reptiles and birds.
It's OK man. you see, I was born without the RELIGIOUS GENE, thus I am a freak just like the gays. Without the religious gene I can not filter out non-biblical conforming data from being processed in my brain. It's just something I have to live with. Because my mind is mutated from the norm, things that make perfect sense to you make absolutely no sense to me whatsoever, like your last reply for instance.
There is no evidence of interbreeding, so we can't wish it to be so. That would not be good science. The DNA does not match, and it has been proven not to be human. And it was scientist who made the claim, the journalists just reported it. And related to the archaeopteryx, is the Archaeoraptor Fraud. Storrs L. Olson, Smithsonian Institution stated, "National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism" It is now believed that the Archaeoraptor is just another fake fossil that came from China. Yet National Geographic was only interested in the prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs. And yet for years, scientist have pointed to these kinds of fossils as evidence for trans species. So it's not just the journalists. It's becoming obvious, that much of what has been pushed in the classroom is built on fake evidence. And even now you are still trying to tell us, that Archaeopteryx is the real thing. Give me a break! "The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod orgin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientist acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith." Storrs L. Olson
Right. It's not human. The question, which you are not qualified to answer for the scientific community, is whether they interbred with more advanced members of the genus Homo, and whether they are related. However, EVEN IF they aren't, there are others that are. Neanderthals are not a lynchpin in human evolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution Archaeoraptor was a fraud. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor If you'll read part of that, you'll see that it was looked at with skepticism from the start, never made it to the pages of a scientific journal, and the only reason you know about it is the big stink National Geographic made about it, which was way out of line in a number of ways. And they did print a retraction and an article about the fraudulent fossil. But archaeoraptor is not archaeopteryx. It was a mimic of archaeopteryx. And it worked, some guy got 80 thousands bucks for that thing. Of course not, but if there is reasonable skepticism to be had, it's in the scientific community and the peer-reviewed journals. I never heard of archaeorapter until you brought it up, actually. Nobody has ever presented to me the archaeoraptor, piltdown man, java man, or whatever those other ones are, as evidence of evolution. What is being taught in the classroom, and should be if it isn't, is the factual evidence of evolution. Not necessarily human evolution, just evolution in general. Scott Olson is one of a only a few. It is accepted by the scientific community that birds evolved from dinosaurs. And the letter this quote came from was in response to the National Geographic article.
