How to upset Creationist and Darwinians.

[LawnOven]

Why is it people always thing archaeologist and palentologists have these dark secrets that thier hiding from the public?

All of this reminds of "The Mysterious Origins of Man"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom.html

I saw that this semester in a "Fantastic Archaeology" class

and "Forbidden Archaeology" because ooooh the archaeologists have terrible secrets they must hide from the public ammounting to 800 pages of danger! Big suprise it's published by a religious organization, but probably not by the religion you are thinking.

as seen here:

http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~ghi/fa.html

so what's my point?

I have no point really, other than conspiracy theories of repressed science because it would like CHANGE THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT! I find hilarious.


I wonder when I get my official repressing the secrets of humanity card. I graduate tommorrow.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Should be ashamed of yourselves, did ya parents teach you no manners? Okay, I chucked some controversial and not particuarly well researched stuff in there... but to generate good conversation. Thought that was why we're here, to have a laugh, chat, etc. I entered pleasantly enough. What's the problem? Take my thread title. In the UK it's humour. Not meant to really upset or offend anyone. It's said with a smile. Obviously doesn't translate too well over the Atlantic.. Take it with the pinch of salt it is intended, think about it, learn from it. Some hope. Tiresome.

The article was not well researched and your dry British humor is not funny. Telling lies and fabrications about scientific studies is hardly funny, especially since there really are people out there that try to seriously and sincerely spread the very same nonsense. What next, will you joke about the holocaust?

 

[Ratman_tf]

Right, my second post, so I might as well jump in at the deep end. Having had a looksee at the creationist V evolution thread it put me in mind of.... Ancient Traces, which was a very mixed read, and I quite liked some of the theories thrown up. Okay, I've researched them as much as the author, so who's to say whether it's claptrap or there is something in it? But it's all good clean fun. Later. I was asked to write something for a office rag and so offered up the following. I attempted to toe the line a little as my colleagues would be reading and I had to live/work with them. However, shock horror. I work with more woo woo brigade members than you can shake the preverbial stick at and much black-eyed looks did I receive.

So I thought I'd chuck it in here where we can have a PROPER chat about it.....

In museum and university basements the world over boxes are being opened and archaeological finds that have been accidentally misplaced for the last century or so are being examined, often for the first time. Why should this be? A century ago Darwin published his famous work and launched a new religion, the belief in evolution.

...aaaaand you lost me.

 

[Ratman_tf]

It seems that a lot of your article is shooting down, basically, a strawman of evolution, rather than evolution as it is actually understood by science.

This is a common YEC tactic. I would reccomend, Hyperbol that you do a bit of reading on the subject before starting a conversation and posting some really bad arguments that have been floating around for years.

http://1reader.com/talk/origins.html
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm

 

[pupdog]

But it seems that a lot of the Creationists have heard the counterarguments, they have had their mistakes pointed out to them, and yet they ignore or pooh-pooh the criticisms and continue with their misinformation. Examples can be found in the links cited by Ratman, above (for example, comments at talkorigins by Richard Wein regarding William Demski's evasion or dismissal of criticism.

 

[Renfield]

Yardy yardy yardy. It'd be good to get going here but all I see is a load (not all) of self-important bores who prefer throwing insults and not saying much else. Then you have to come back and waste time. Yes, I know all about evolution. I don't have a problem with it particuarly. YAWN. Just thought I'd get some banter going. But hell, some of you take things seriously, almost as a personal attack. I go hammer and tongs with people on other forums, yet as much as we disagree, laugh at one another and so on, it's kept civil. Should be ashamed of yourselves, did ya parents teach you no manners? Okay, I chucked some controversial and not particuarly well researched stuff in there... but to generate good conversation. Thought that was why we're here, to have a laugh, chat, etc. I entered pleasantly enough. What's the problem? Take my thread title. In the UK it's humour. Not meant to really upset or offend anyone. It's said with a smile. Obviously doesn't translate too well over the Atlantic.. Take it with the pinch of salt it is intended, think about it, learn from it. Some hope. Tiresome.

Most of the posts here were rational, well thought out responses to your arguments. I think its telling that you choose to focus on one like this and ignore the rest. Giving yourself an excuse to ignore all the rest perhaps?

 

[Ratman_tf]

But it seems that a lot of the Creationists have heard the counterarguments, they have had their mistakes pointed out to them, and yet they ignore or pooh-pooh the criticisms and continue with their misinformation. Examples can be found in the links cited by Ratman, above (for example, comments at talkorigins by Richard Wein regarding William Demski's evasion or dismissal of criticism.

Yeah, this stuff tends to turn into a-

"Nuh-uh!"

"Un-huh!"

-thing after a while.

 

[DangerousBeliefs]

Why is it people always thing archaeologist and palentologists have these dark secrets that thier hiding from the public?

All of this reminds of "The Mysterious Origins of Man"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom.html

I saw that this semester in a "Fantastic Archaeology" class

and "Forbidden Archaeology" because ooooh the archaeologists have terrible secrets they must hide from the public ammounting to 800 pages of danger! Big suprise it's published by a religious organization, but probably not by the religion you are thinking.

Did you read where the book quotes Weekly World News as a source?

It is important to note at this time, that (Jimison 1982) is:
Jimison, S. (1982) Scientists baffled by space spheres. Weekly World News, July 27.

Forbidden Archeology cites as a credible source of reliabe information the Weekly World News, a tabloid known for its largely or completely fictional news stories.