Possibility Of Large Bones Being Found In North America

[Guest]

^^^^^He tried to argue that science is corrupt based on medical practices.

 

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

Edited June 17, 2014 by Jerrymanderer

[JDL]

My bad for not swimming far enough upstream in the discussion to discern that.

 

Certainly there has never been any such thing as a corrupt medical practice.

[Cotter]

JDL, like banging yer head against a wall do ya?
 

;-)

[JDL]

Not so much that, but I like the flapping sound my ears make when I do it.

[Guest Stan Norton]

leaky proof is never good

 

Lewis, Maeve and Richard Leakey's proof is very good. And most relevant to this discussion. 

We have an archeologist on the forum. Why don't you ask him?

 

I do hope you don't mean me? I'm an ecologist with some archaeological experience!

 

Anyway, we have so much more evidence than a mere coffin full. This is an old chestnut dragged out by those with an ulterior motive. Don't believe the hype. To paraphrase Steve Jones, professor of genetics at UCL: 'we are all living fossils'. If you think our knowledge of human evolution comes just from bones then you need to get with the programme.

[Guest]

My bad for not swimming far enough upstream in the discussion to discern that.

 

What was the point of the first post? Aaron stated that science is corrupt because they don't accept this magic cancer cure based on a case study. I stated why that is so and you come back with "were talking archeology here, but Aaron's point is still valid."

 

 

Certainly there has never been any such thing as a corrupt medical practice.

Of course there has, like so call alternative medicine.

Edited June 17, 2014 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest]

+1

[Cotter]

Well I wouldn't argue that if you gathered all the human/sub human/homonid fossils, they would not fit into a coffin.

But that's not what the quote said now, was it?  Here it is again:
 

"The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!"

 

Also, snarkiness aside, besides fossils, what do scientists use to determine the history of human evolution?

[Guest Stan Norton]

Well I wouldn't argue that if you gathered all the human/sub human/homonid fossils, they would not fit into a coffin.

But that's not what the quote said now, was it?  Here it is again:

 

"The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!"

 

Also, snarkiness aside, besides fossils, what do scientists use to determine the history of human evolution?

 

Genetics. Material culture. Geology. Archaeology. Science. 

[Guest Stan Norton]

^ And anyway, the fossils of direct relevance to human evolution would likely fill many coffins and maybe a large dumpster. We have, for instance, about 1000 Neanderthal individuals. More evidence is being found every year, each one a new nail in the coffin of the view that human evolution is anything other than extremely ancient and very complex. Do we know it all? Of course not. No-one is saying anything of the sort. Do we know more than many would have us all believe? Yes.

[Guest LarryP]

Natch. Science backs one opinion, conspiracy theories, the other.

 

Yep, there certainly isn't any room for "theories" in "Science.

 

Do you remember those ridiculous conspiracy theorists who used to claim that the earth was actually round, instead of flat?!

 

 

 

"With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another."  - G. C. Lichtenberg

 

[Guest]

Yep, there certainly isn't any room for "theories" in "Science.

Do you remember those ridiculous conspiracy theorists who used to claim that the earth was actually round, instead of flat?!

"With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another." - G. C. Lichtenberg

hmmmm

are you sure about that?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

Edited June 17, 2014 by mbh

[Guest LarryP]

Aaron stated that science is corrupt because they don't accept this magic cancer cure based on a case study.

 

Exactly where did Aaron write that all "science is corrupt"?

 

As to the "magic cancer cure". You and I went down this road before and it did not end well for you.

[Guest DWA]

JDL:  bingo about theories.  Elegant.  Why didn't I think of that?

 

Most of what people were considering the facts of human evolution and dinosaurs, to name only two topics, when I was a kid have been discarded.  There alone you'd have way more than dozens - more like hundreds - of things science once took for fact and found out to be wrong wrong wrong...because, of course, virtually no evidence backed them up.  The 'backup' was virtually all speculation. There is far more evidence for sasquatch than for any - one could say for all, combined - of those hundreds of things ...and just the last year or two indicate that most of what we think now about those - again to name only two - topics will fall similarly by the wayside before my kids are my age.

 

Virtually every 'fact' in science is provisional.  All is subject to the gathering of further evidence.  Scientists make assertions bordering on statements of fact, daily, about many things for which we have less evidence than we do for sasquatch.

Edited June 17, 2014 by DWA

[AaronD]

 

 

"You've seen". Science-based medicine relies on large-scale clinical studies not anecdotes or case studies.

 

But this topic is an Archeological/Paleoanthropological one rather than a medical one, and Aaron's valid concern is directly related to the state of those sciences, rather than the practices common to medical sciences.

Thanks, JDL, for clarifying that in my defense. I was just using a quick example of how science can and does get manipulated to support a predetermined outcome in the interest of an agenda....usually money is at the bottom of it all