Cave art called oldest in world

@Lustig Andrei,

Quote:

I've had the moron on 'ignore' for months.

And that's not moronic, Merry, relying on others for your information. Perhaps that's how you got to be so closeted in your thinking.

0 Replies

Anybody that relies on gunga for information is worse informed after they've read his posts than they were before they read them, JTT.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

gungasnaKKKe says:

I just vote their **** down without bothering to read it most of the time

Quote:

MJ:
kinda says it all right there about himself, doesn't it?

See, Merry.

1 Reply

@JTT,

The people I'm referring to are not adding anything meaningful to these science discussions. They're basically locked into outdated paradigms and view anybody who isn't similarly locked as an idiot and an asshole and shout that to the world and that's all I've ever seen them do. I don't have them on ignore but it's close to that and I don't see a reason for any other policy.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

There's no evidence at all for the images you've been posting, and incidently using to trash LA's thread. You don't care though, you're just giddy from images which show a hairy, black-skinned hominid who looks like a ravening beast.

But your **** always has been evidence free.

I always find it amazing how these folks can so hypocritically chide others for a behavior that they excel at.

Remember, Set, how you argued and argued and argued that people had the right to peeve away on the Pet Peeves language thread because, get this, that's what the thread was started for.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

Quote:

The people I'm referring to are not adding anything meaningful to these science discussions.

You're clearly not being honest with yourself, Gunga. Someone who seizes on information in order to provide a defense for religious beliefs is, I'm sure you'd agree, pretty loony. Is that what you're doing?

Quote:

I don't have them on ignore but it's close to that and I don't see a reason for any other policy.

If you have them on 'ignore' or you ignore what they say, how can you possibly determine that they "not adding anything meaningful to these science discussions"?

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

Quote:

They're basically locked into outdated paradigms and view anybody who isn't similarly locked as an idiot and an asshole

Creationism is a symptom of an outdated worldview, I agree. ID is similarly "without arrows in its quiver". Science progresses only as fast and far as data and evidence carry it. What evidence have you proposed ANYWHERE to show us that your worldview is even sane??

Youve not answered any of the reburttals that MJ or I have presented re: your Neanderthal Ape.
You are relying on the twisted presentation of a cartoonist and a model maker who dont even recognize the missing nares and the fact that the vertebral attachment of neanders was like modern humans, not like some silly ape rendering.

PS, youve NEVERE had a "Science discussion " in any threads gone before. You are dreaming wet dreams if you think so

.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

You're clearly not being honest with yourself, Gunga. Someone who seizes on information in order to provide a defense for religious beliefs is, I'm sure you'd agree, pretty loony. Is that what you're doing?...

I'm not the one doing that. The official state religion of this country is evolution. Evolution is the religion which you can't say anything about in public schools. Evolution is the religion which teachers can't tell students there might be any sort of a problem with without fear of losing their jobs or being blackballed altogether. Evolution is the religion which tolerates no competition.

Evolution is also a brain-dead ideological doctrine which requires a trans-finite sequence of probabilistic miracles, and teaches man to view his neighbor as a meat byproduct of random processes.

I'll say this again. I am not a young earth creationist nor somebody who pushes religion. I'll RECOMMEND Christianity if somebody WANTS a recommendation. But what I tell people is that ANY religion is better than evolution. here's no way to do worse. You could create a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions and even that would be better than evolution.

1 Reply

Science is not religion. Religion is not science. Why is this so hard to understand?

1 Reply

@Ceili,

Quote:

Science is not religion. Religion is not science. Why is this so hard to understand?

For intelligent people, it isn't. The thing which the losers in the picture have the impossible time getting their heads around is the fact that evolution IS a religion, and is not science. The normal definition of pseudoscience and/or the usual criteria for something not being science is Popper's notion of a theory not being falsifiable that is, if no test could be devised which would falsify a theory, the theory is not scientific.

Evolution meets and exceeds that standard. It has failed every test ever devised for it and been falsified numerous ways over a protracted period of time and still the losers go on, as if nothing had happened. At least in the minds of the adherents, there is clearly nothing which could happen or anything which anybody could do which would shake the faith.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Anybody that relies on gunga for information is worse informed after they've read his posts than they were before they read them, JTT.

He's A2K's version of Fox News.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

Quote:

Evolution is the religion which you can't say anything about in public schools. Evolution is the religion which teachers can't tell students there might be any sort of a problem with without fear of losing their jobs or being blackballed

Thhats flat wrong. First, evolution is barely covered in most HS biology courses. What is covered is a function of what the teacher actually understands and has under their belt, academically. The programs ofr talented and "gifted" kids are probably the only ones where , in mosts states, evolution is developed in theory and ebidece

Second, Evolution IS covered rather well, where???? IN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS. Seems the Vatican has no problem with demanding more of its students. Their science programs blend thedisciplines of genetics, anatomy, paleontology and evolution so well that the Creationists "Alley OOp" crap is not able to make its way into the classroom like theyve been trying to do in the public schools.

In Pa,s Catholic SChools, the diocesan ed committees (populated by Jesuits and Christian Brothers) demand the rules of "the scoentific method" and "Rules of scientific evidence " prevail.
ANytime a proposal (like yours) makes its way onto the ed committees plates (Public ed committees in HArriburg and the Diocesan ed committees at the 6 Pa diocese levels) the PA education regs provide a "Test" for which any concept may be firther developed. SO far, the ed committee members have had no problem with any of the
"Cartoon science" junk thay folks like you propose.

Quote:

Evolution is also a brain-dead ideological doctrine which requires a trans-finite sequence of probabilistic miracles, and teaches man to view his neighbor as a meat byproduct of random processes.

Youre hopelessly lost in the Baroque . SCience cares not whether you wish to believe in some evidence-free myth or not. Please just stop making these broad enndictments about stuff you seem to know absolutely nothing about. You are merely believing someweirdo worldview that has no basis of evidence at all. Consoider you ridiculous sticking to te Dan Vendramini crap. You must know that his presentations of a killer ape is NOT based on any science or fact. Its laughable yet you stick to **** like this in almost every post where you attempt to discuss evolution or paleo. Im just hoping that new people herein (especially kids) dont buy your bag of manure and believe it contains any truth.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

Quote:

Evolution meets and exceeds that standard. It has failed every test ever devised for it and been falsified numerous

Gunga smoke again. He says things that are basically untrue bit says them loud enough so that the "Big Lie" is considered reasonable.

Evolution and its underlying disciplines have been routinely shown to be falsifiable. The most famous example of recent age was the finding of Tiktaliik rosacea. The sciences of paleontology, evolution, and geology were all put in the fire to "Prove" that we can use scientific principles therein to actually predict where a "missing link fishopod" could be found.

PRECEPTS

1. If paleontology were true, it should be possible to predict that an intermediate fossil exists . IF NOT , weve falsified the concept of descent with modification as seen in the fossil record.

2. If geology were true, it should be able to predict where in the EArly DEVonian world stratigraphy that a key fossil should be findable in an environmentthat such an organism would have lived. IF NOT, weve falsified the concept of paleoecology ad the stratigraphic column.

A lot was really at stake, most fossil expeditions before this had been "tripped over" and furiously dug and the geology worked out later

USing these two above precepts, scientists decided to mount a hopelssly long three year expedition to hunt for an elusive fossil that, if they were wrong, wouldnt even be there. It took three years of work in the field on ELlsmere Island (in summers that are like February in the mid Atlantic).
MAke a longy story short, they found the fossil and it DID fit nicely between the the fish and the amphibians .AND it was located right where sciece said it should be
Kids in Catholic High school biology classes get a good dose of this story and use of the scientific method, falsifiability, and the POWER of predictability in science. They were waaay ahead of the kids in public schools who, foir the most part, were never even given the significance of this tale.

The Creationists werent even out of their garages with anything to discount this find so theyve done what they usually do ever since Epperson. THEY IGNORE IT , HOPING THAT EVERYDAY PEOPLE DONT UNDERSTAND WHAT JUST HAPPENED, AND IT WOULD JUST GO AWAY.
You may say all you wish but youve never ever been able to show any of us ANY evidence that supports your worldview. Your view is all based totally upon invective and silly gainsay , and is, as weve said here for several yers ITS EVIDENCE-FREE. As you see, you dont fool any of the people herein . EVEN your confederates are silent on this subject. By presenting your **** You do provide a way for people to understand what science really does. All this was based upon how folks have countered your religion based presentations.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Isn't evolution such a complicated process that there will always be gaps in the knowledge, and that allows the pseudo scientists to jump all over it?

It's fairly easy to disprove the contention that the Earth is about 10,000 years old though.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

gaps are always a function of what e dont know YET. Will they all be filled in? probably not. But seeing how well the whole systemology works, its damn stupid for guys like gunga to preach **** that is counter to that which can readily be evidenced and seen in the real world.
HEs beating his head against a wall trying to make his silly points. I think the more he jumps in, the more he provides us with ammunition to demolish his views.

Hes been on a "ignore" policy when people get on his nerves, so thats why a lot of his stuff sounds like hes just hollering in a canyon

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Hes been on a "ignore" policy when people get on his nerves, so thats why a lot of his stuff sounds like hes just hollering in a canyon

A lot of his stuff sounds like it's been written by someone else, because it has.

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

WASHINGTON • New tests show that crude Spanish cave paintings of a red sphere and handprints are the oldest in the world, so ancient they may not have been by modern man.

Some scientists say they might have even been made by the much-maligned Neanderthals, but others disagree.

Testing the coating of paintings in 11 Spanish caves, researchers found that one is at least 40,800 years old, which is at least 15,000 years older than previously thought. That makes them older than more famous French cave paintings by thousands of years.

Scientists dated the Spanish cave paintings by measuring the decay of uranium atoms, instead of traditional carbon-dating, according to a report released Thursday by the journal Science. The paintings were first discovered in the 1870s.

The oldest of the paintings is a red sphere from a cave called El Castillo. About 25 outlined handprints in another cave are at least 37,300 years old. Slightly younger paintings include horses.

Cave paintings are "one of the most exquisite examples of human symbolic behavior," said study co-author Joao Zilhao, an anthropologist at the University of Barcelona. "And that, that's what makes us human."

There is older sculpture and other portable art. Before the latest test, the oldest known cave paintings were those in France's Chauvet cave, considered between 32,000 and 37,000 years old.

What makes the dating of the Spanish cave paintings important is that it's around the time when modern humans first came into Europe from Africa.

Study authors say they could have been from modern man decorating their new digs or they could have been the work of the longtime former tenant of Europe: the Neanderthal. Scientists said Neanderthals were in Europe from about 250,000 years ago until about 35,000 years ago. Modern humans arrived in Europe about 41,000 to 45,000 years ago — with some claims they moved in even earlier — and replaced Neanderthals.

"There is a strong chance that these results imply Neanderthal authorship," Zilhao said. "But I will not say we have proven it because we haven't."

In a telephone press conference, Zilhao said Neanderthals recently have gotten "bad press" over their abilities. They decorated their tools and bodies. So, he said, they could have painted caves.

Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/cave-art-called-oldest-in-world/article_34b0257d-9804-572b-bba8-af67134cbc34.html#ixzz1xq6X2g1Q

Can't trust those sneaky anthropologists, not after the Piltdown man hoax.

1 Reply

@Rickoshay75,

The Piltdown Man hoax was exactly 100 years ago, in 1912. You think we're due for something similar here, Rick?

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

From 1912 till 1952 Piltdown was comsidered "real" by all but a few skeptical scientists, (Most really had no dogs in the fight and just didnt question the fact that there were 3 distinct pieces all meld together with a K Permangnate "Wash" to cover the obvious sutures and mis fit areas.
In 1935 Alan Marston, who had , by using his skills as a dentist, ascertaind the authenticity of the Swanscombe man an, by his same skills , he was casting doubts on Piltdown. Thus, he was able to , by simple succession analyses over tooth structure and sizes ,pull down an air of skepticism over Piltdown.However,such notables as Tielhard de Chardin and SIr Arthur Keith were so aligned along with the original Piltdown manufcturers, that their alignment added some phony sense of authority to Piltdowns authenticity.

Marston didnt give up, but it took him another 14 years to get some real muscle to finally whack the stools out from under the fraud perps (which in my mind should always include Teilhard and Keith, by the same ruule that states that, no matter how just your entire life has been, justdiddle one little boys cock and your done)[Sorry, Ive just been reading Hawkees BS about PEnn State].

ANYWAYY. Kenneth Oakley , among several other tools hed given to geology, discovered the "Flourine dating test" which ws a very good qualitative aging tool (just prior to Carbon 14 )
Oakley , Marston, and two other scientists , J L Weiner and Weilfred Le Gros(Anthropologist and a paleoanthropologist) had collaborted in more detailed exams of Piltdown and conducted the emerging C14 testing (Which Oakley also hd a part in developing but was never given any credit). Bonal exams of parts of the various teeth and C14 of the segments of all the jaw and "coconut" had revealed that this thing was a hodgepodge amalgam of an old skull cap (probably neanderthal), simian upper jaw section (of an earlier age
An teeth and lower jaw segments of modern simians and even a goat.
They published the findings in 1953 in the Journal of the British Museum and the whole thing went off in a 1953 version of what we;d now say is VIRAL. Piltdown became the subject of comedy acts as the firts guy in history (or prehistory) to have worn "false teeth"

Keith, Teilhard, and the original perp , a ponzi like guy named Chares Dawson had been exposed. Keith and Teilhard (because he was apriest) were given benefits of the doubt (I woulda piled all over them were I on the ed board for the Journal.

There are many of these stories in science that provide amusement and most of the really big ones ,like Piltdown and Cardiff, and the dragon of Klagenfurt, had very long tales that started in one scientific age and wound up with their terminal tales many years later after entirely new scientific tools became available.

0 Replies

Cave art called oldest in world

Quick Links

My Account

able2know