ayin jade Posted May 22, 2009 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.87 Content Count: 43,799 Content Per Day: 6.19 Reputation: 11,244 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted May 22, 2009 The researcher of Ida said this: When asked if the publicity surrounding the fossil was overdone (the History Channel touts the discovery as "the most important find in 47 million years"), Hurum said he didn't think so. "That's part of getting science out to the public to get attention," he said. "I don't think that's so wrong." Link This, while his podium says "The Link" which is the name of the History Channel show promoting his find. Science is no longer solely about knowledge. Science has crossed over into sensationalism in their attempts to get money for their research. They have crossed into bias and opinion, at times outright lying. Worse, they see nothing wrong with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted May 22, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Author Share Posted May 22, 2009 Science is no longer solely about knowledge. Science has crossed over into sensationalism in their attempts to get money for their research. They have crossed into bias and opinion, at times outright lying. Worse, they see nothing wrong with it. And that's bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martin frobisher Posted July 6, 2009 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 223 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/30/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/08/1969 Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) Yes, some "scientists" do daft research just to get their institution in the headlines and their name known for next time a research grant comes up! Let's not damn all the scientists that do steady serious work that goes unrecognized because of the few bad apples though, guys... Edited July 6, 2009 by martin frobisher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lekh l'kha Posted July 6, 2009 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 830 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/14/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted July 6, 2009 My Grandma really was German. Mine too - and her son Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lekh l'kha Posted July 6, 2009 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 830 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/14/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) "Lucy's mandible also shows traits of both chimpanzees and modern humans as can be seen in the following image taken from Zihlman's coloring book. Apes' mandibles show parallel rows of molars as opposed to the wide U-shape of modern human. Lucy's dentition is a cross between ape and human in that the overall shape is apelike while the canine tooth size resembles that of modern humans. In the chimp's mandible, we see a space between its incisors and large canine, which does not occur in Australopithecus Afarensis females. Furthermore, we see a reduction of incisor and canine tooth size more in line with that of a modern human while the molars are closer to the chimps' in size. The canine, however, is large and asymmetric and projects slightly beyond the tooth row (Johanson, White 1979). It is believed that Lucy feasted mostly on fruits and fibrous materials, climbing trees occasionally for food (Tattersall 1996). However, the enamel is thicker on the Australopithecus afarensis molar than on either the chimpanzee or human (Zihlman 2000)." ( http://www.anthro4n6.net/lucy/ ) If you ask me, it doesn't matter how much theory a man or woman has studied and how many qualifications they have. When it comes to putting pieces of fossilized bones together, all it takes is human imagination. , and that human imagination will be greatly influenced by their pre-conceived beliefs regarding creation/evolution. I simply don't trust what natural history scientists tell us about the fossils and bones they find, whether or not they make false claims for the sake of sensationalism, name, and money. Even if they're honest, their knowledge of theory isn't going to be the only factor in what they decide about the bones they find - their human imagination and preconceived beliefs regarding evolution/creation will have a huge impact on what they tell us "ignoramouses". For all we know, "Lucy" is an extinct species of Ape. Edited July 6, 2009 by lekh l'kha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted July 6, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted July 6, 2009 I watched the documentary on 'Ida' a couple of months ago. It was well put together and interesting but....I didn't see or hear anything that proved the little animal was anything other than an ancient lemur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunterpoet Posted July 6, 2009 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 128 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,704 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 25 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/29/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/08/1950 Share Posted July 6, 2009 "Lucy's mandible also shows traits of both chimpanzees and modern humans as can be seen in the following image taken from Zihlman's coloring book. Apes' mandibles show parallel rows of molars as opposed to the wide U-shape of modern human. Lucy's dentition is a cross between ape and human in that the overall shape is apelike while the canine tooth size resembles that of modern humans. In the chimp's mandible, we see a space between its incisors and large canine, which does not occur in Australopithecus Afarensis females. Furthermore, we see a reduction of incisor and canine tooth size more in line with that of a modern human while the molars are closer to the chimps' in size. The canine, however, is large and asymmetric and projects slightly beyond the tooth row (Johanson, White 1979). It is believed that Lucy feasted mostly on fruits and fibrous materials, climbing trees occasionally for food (Tattersall 1996). However, the enamel is thicker on the Australopithecus afarensis molar than on either the chimpanzee or human (Zihlman 2000)." ( http://www.anthro4n6.net/lucy/ ) If you ask me, it doesn't matter how much theory a man or woman has studied and how many qualifications they have. When it comes to putting pieces of fossilized bones together, all it takes is human imagination. , and that human imagination will be greatly influenced by their pre-conceived beliefs regarding creation/evolution. I simply don't trust what natural history scientists tell us about the fossils and bones they find, whether or not they make false claims for the sake of sensationalism, name, and money. Even if they're honest, their knowledge of theory isn't going to be the only factor in what they decide about the bones they find - their human imagination and preconceived beliefs regarding evolution/creation will have a huge impact on what they tell us "ignoramouses". For all we know, "Lucy" is an extinct species of Ape. Good points, well said...thank you for responding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lekh l'kha Posted July 6, 2009 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 830 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/14/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted July 6, 2009 "Lucy's mandible also shows traits of both chimpanzees and modern humans as can be seen in the following image taken from Zihlman's coloring book. Apes' mandibles show parallel rows of molars as opposed to the wide U-shape of modern human. Lucy's dentition is a cross between ape and human in that the overall shape is apelike while the canine tooth size resembles that of modern humans. In the chimp's mandible, we see a space between its incisors and large canine, which does not occur in Australopithecus Afarensis females. Furthermore, we see a reduction of incisor and canine tooth size more in line with that of a modern human while the molars are closer to the chimps' in size. The canine, however, is large and asymmetric and projects slightly beyond the tooth row (Johanson, White 1979). It is believed that Lucy feasted mostly on fruits and fibrous materials, climbing trees occasionally for food (Tattersall 1996). However, the enamel is thicker on the Australopithecus afarensis molar than on either the chimpanzee or human (Zihlman 2000)." ( http://www.anthro4n6.net/lucy/ ) If you ask me, it doesn't matter how much theory a man or woman has studied and how many qualifications they have. When it comes to putting pieces of fossilized bones together, all it takes is human imagination. , and that human imagination will be greatly influenced by their pre-conceived beliefs regarding creation/evolution. I simply don't trust what natural history scientists tell us about the fossils and bones they find, whether or not they make false claims for the sake of sensationalism, name, and money. Even if they're honest, their knowledge of theory isn't going to be the only factor in what they decide about the bones they find - their human imagination and preconceived beliefs regarding evolution/creation will have a huge impact on what they tell us "ignoramouses". For all we know, "Lucy" is an extinct species of Ape. Another thing about all this is, where are the bones of all Lucy's relatives (she must have had quite a few, surely?) And where are the fossilized bones of all the in-between "Lucy" and human stage and the in-between ape and Lucy stage? Honestly, if man evolved from ape, then not only should there be, but there would be fossils and bones scattered in the soil of the earth all over the world, and a great deal more should have been found by now. The TOTAL lack of them stands out like a sore thumb...err, sorry...tooth... against all the claims natural scientists have made about "Lucy". In fact the lack of them stands out against all the ape-to-man evolution nonsense. When I read the information provided by natural scientists such as the info at http://www.anthro4n6.net/lucy/ , I can just feel my IQ points dropping as I read. Sounds like a lot of nutty monkey-business to me. Makes me wanna go out and find some bananas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrench Posted July 6, 2009 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 53 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/10/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/08/1976 Share Posted July 6, 2009 I worked at a place called SkullsUnlimited when I was younger. As I was cleaning a skull from a chiuahua, I noticed how much it looked like a vervet monkey skull. So, everyone there believed in evolution. After a while they began to dislike my sense of humor,, Cause, I told them that people came from domestic dog. And, showed them, the dog skull vs the monkey skull. They still didn't see how absurd this evolutionary stuff was. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sysvr4 Posted July 7, 2009 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 112 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/22/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted July 7, 2009 Dishonesty in the scientific community? Of course. Most frequently it stems out of the prioritization of appearances over actual research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.03b9a592ab3fbf402fba028ca0d40a97.thumb.jpg.2258d605d3ad1f34b6effde23d20e7d7.jpg)
Recommended Posts