USA Today reported, October 18, 2013: "Scientists trying to unravel the origins of humanity mostly study scraps--some ancient teeth here, a damaged bone there. But now a lucky research team has uncovered the first complete skull of an early human adult from the distant past."
So there you have it believers in evolution. Up until now there has been little to nothing for your belief. Just a tooth or a damaged bone. But the discovery of a complete skull has believers believing that they have more. They tell us "It also provides support for the provocative idea that, 1.8 million years ago, only one kind of early human held sway, rather than the throng of different species listed in today's textbooks." In other words the textbooks in which you have so much faith are wrong. So the experts say...at the moment. If you would like to hear more evolutionary experts, watch www.evolutionVsGod.com
36 comments
Some say, he's terrified of crocoducks. And that he has watched Monty Python's "Self Defence Against Fresh Fruit" sketch more times than anyone else.
All we know is, he's called THE BANANAMAN!
Edit: Sangfroid
USA Today? Jeebus Raygun, who not go right to the National Enquirer? I mean, isn't this like going to Playboy for the latest info on Christianity?
Besides which, isn't this one big appeal to authority? USA Today says something, so that's it for evolution?
There are sources for info on evolution, including Scientific American and National Geographic, that have a certain degree more veracity than a hand-out they slide under your door at hotels.
So you won't trust a museum exhibit in which bones and skeletons are on display but you'll trust the fucking tabloids? Ray, I gotta give you credit; you've proven me wrong. All those times I said that followers of the Abrahamic religions were trusting in the single-most contradictory, discredited and all-around unreliable material possible, I was completely forgetting about the tabloids. Though to be fair, anyone smart enough to know better than to trust them (that is to say, everyone but you and forty or fifty other poor, dumb sods) would be busy trying to forget them in the event that they remembered them.
If you would like to hear more of Ray Comfort's lies and denigration of science along with his dishonest representation of the views of evolutionary experts, watch www.evolutionVsGod.com
Oh, and Ray, it's nice to see you're so up-to-date with a 2013 edition of that "leading repository of modern science", Uselesstoday. What's next? The "latest scientific consensus" from 10-year-old issues of The National Enquirer?
It’s mostly study scraps, silly! Not only stupid scraps. They probably have a couple of partial skulls already.
We don't "believe" in evolution, any more than we "believe" in electricity.
We don't have so much faith in textbooks; that's you people and your Bibles. We know that textbooks state what we know at this point in time (or rather ten years ago, if it's school-books), we know that they will be updated as time goes by, with new information and new evidence.
Because creationist scammers like Ray constantly misinform their fans that 100,000 to million year old bones should just be all over the place in huge piles and pristine whole.
Hey Ray, bones break down to dust under most conditions over that time, science has reported that since they began these studies and you personally, have been shown that hundreds of times.
Ever see them move Egyptian Mummies? The best preserved ancient bodies on the planet. They have to treat them like fine china and they're not nearly as old.
"Researchers have discovered the first complete skull of an adult early hominid, the class of apes that would eventually give rise to modern humans." (Article headline from USA Today)
.....an early HOMINID, the class of APES that would EVENTUALLY give rise to modern humans.... So there you have it, Ray Comfort, and since you hold the bizarre belief that USA Today is a technical journal, I guess you'll shut up about it now. If you would like to hear more evolutionary experts, you'll have to take that banana out of your ear and stick it somewhere else.
Science = Tentative conclusions pending the discovery of new evidence or a better explanation of existing evidence.
Why do they fail to understand that new discoveries that allow us to better understand the universe and our history as a species are exciting and good things?
Holloway RL, Broadfield DC, Yuan MS, Schwartz JH, Tattersall I (2004) Brain endocastsThe paleoneurological evidence. The human fossil record. 3. New York: Wiley-Liss. 315 p.
This is the sort of citation you should have used. Now repeat after me
Oh, when your citing science always use the journal with the most impact faaactor!
Ok, I'm guessing Ray either quote mined, or the countless hundreds of fossils we already have were each missing a tooth.
King Crocoduck, Baud2Bits, Paul C Hartley, and countless others have refuted your "documentary" to death, Ray. I wouldn't brag if I were you.
Yes, Ray, science progresses; more and more new fresh material is discovered regularly, and as more evidence is unearthered evolution becomes ever stronger, whereas creationism becomes ever more absurd.
what i like about evolution, is that even if scientists didn't find humans remains past 50000 or whatever years ago, but instead found aliens came and planted us here, they could admit it and add it to public knowledge.
ray's post which is mostly nonsense just makes science look better because it can adapt to new circumstances.
and seriously, who has "so much faith" in fucking textbooks?
"The Constitution does not grant a right to same-sex "marriage" - which is nonsensical since marriage intrinsically involves a man and a woman."
Actually it does, in the 5th and 14th amendments' vesting of the right to substantive due process of law.
Dang--replied to wrong post.
On topic:
"Up until now there has been little to nothing for your belief. Just a tooth or a damaged bone."
And the extensive fossil record. And of course all those coarse and fine-grained fossil transitional series. And the biogeographic distribution of species. Cladistics. Anatomic and genetic homologies. Conserved retroviral insertions, transposons, and pseudogenes. Convergence of independent phylogenies. Atavistic and vestigial anatomic structures...etc, etc.
Plus teh little thing that we've directly observed evolution to occur, both in controlled laboratory settings and uncontrolled in the wild. Note these observations icnlude speciation and extinction events, which by definition represent macroevolutionary change.
Wait, you mean scientists have to weigh the evidence for multiple explanations? But that seems so hard, and you can't even be 100% certain of your conclusions - the next paper or discovery might trip everything up! I'll just stick to a book of fairy tales, thanks (/sarcasm)
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
