Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
You should consider leaving now, you are outmatched.
I sincerely hope that I remember where this quote is ...
for I shall use it one EVERY dim altered postl
By the way ... I agree with you about this
Diesel
Well-known member
Oldest Homo sapiens fossils ever found push humanity's birth back to 300,000 years
Digging on a hilltop in the Sahara Desert, scientists have found the most ancient known members of our own species, undermining longstanding ideas about the origins of humanity.
The newfound Homo sapiens fossils — three young adults, one adolescent and a child of 7 or 8 — date back roughly 300,000 years, says a study in this week’s Nature. The next-oldest fossils of Homo sapiens, the scientific name for humans, are about 200,000 years old.
The 200,000-year-old fossils were found in eastern Africa, sometimes called the “Garden of Eden” for its supposedly pivotal role as the birthplace of humanity. But the new fossils are from Morocco in far northern Africa, supporting the theory that the evolution of modern humans was a piecemeal affair that played out across the continent.
“There is no Garden of Eden in Africa,” said Jean-Jacques Hublin, co-author of two new studies describing the fossils and a paleontologist at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. “Or if there is a Garden of Eden, it’s … the size of Africa.”
The new finds confirm “modern humans do not suddenly appear like the Big Bang, with all the bells and whistles that we associate with modern humans,” agrees paleoanthropologist Bernard Wood of George Washington University, who was not associated with the study.
Continued
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/scie...manitys-birth-back-to-300000-years/ar-BBCfiN0
That's amazing. Human advancement in the past several thousand years was astonishing on a 200,000 year scale, but it's even more incredible when stretched across 300,000 years. Unfortunately, many millions of people want to reverse some of that progress and return humanity to the dark ages.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
I've got Moon on ignore for his towelhead adoration, but I fully agree with him about altering quotes other than to highlight a certain part.
It would be incredible to even suggest that the reactionary right isn't FAR more likely to do this than the progressive left.
Nevertheless, it's seriously cowardly no matter who does it.
We have mods who do it all the time, by the way.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Their brains were the same as ours yet it took that long to make any significant advancements lol? Doesn’t add up somehow.
Why is it so important to some people that other people are creationists?
Diesel
Well-known member
Because it's not true. I don't particularly care. Creationism has an especially religious foundation, but it's just another example of the anti-intellectualism that has gripped fundamentalists and so-called conservatives. To some people, including me, it is disheartening to see masses of people who have no appreciation for human progress and the lessons of the Enlightenment.
It must come down to the agricultural revolution in the late Neolithic.
For 290 thousand years we were hunter gathers, constantly on the move.
The transition to a sedentary, agricultural lifestyle presumably freed humans up to sit around and start inventing new tools and technologies.
Diesel
Well-known member
Which is something I think we all learned in our first introduction to world history and human civilization. Presumably most creationists passed those quizzes, but somewhere along the line they decided that history, science, and education are all fake or evil.
Conservatives learn at their institutions of higher education, e.g. Creation Science Museum, that humans frolicked with dinosaurs; that fossils are animals which died in the great flood: that the earth is 6000 years old.
Diesel
Well-known member
Yeah, I can't remember which poster it was, but I had a long-running dialogue with a creationist here. I know their tenets, but it's always astounding to "hear" them actually say it. Like watching a toddler learn how to hold a spoon.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
I think you’re problem is with anti-materialism or anti-philosophical naturalism.
The argument that creationists/Republicans always cling to is that if there is any scientific uncertainty, or if science does not yet have a well tested and verified answer- well the uncertainty just supposedly proves there is a Christian God.
Diesel
Well-known member
No. I'm not sure how you got that impression. My problem is with anti-intellectualism, which is what I clearly said. The scientific method works. That was one of the most important outcomes of the Enlightenment. Science lifted humanity out of the Medieval Age and increased life expectancy and quality of life almost universally. To spit in the face of that legacy is tragic.
Diesel
Well-known member
That sort of is the entire purpose of god, isn't it? To explain what we don't understand so we can maintain a hope that everything can ultimately be understood? Otherwise we're doomed to exist in a universe that is beyond comprehension, which would be a terribly frustrating experience. That in and of itself is not entirely irrational, but to continue to give god reign over subjects that science has explained is foolish at best.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
The scientific method works best in real time. I can’t think of single advancement that couldn’t/wouldn’t have occurred had creationists been running the experiments. IOW, as a practical matter, it doesn’t matter if you think man was created 6,000 years or evolved over millions in terms of *practicing* science.
Well said.
To the extent there is a transcendent truth, it is not something we can measure with particle accelerators or mass spectrometers.
Carl Jung had a point: the interesting question about religion is not whether the gods and spirits are literally true. The important question is whether religion is a net benefit, or a net detriment to human psychology and human society.
Diesel
Well-known member
Sure. That's why I already told you that I don't particularly care if someone is a creationist. Some people think the son of a supernatural deity was birthed on Earth through Immaculate Conception. Religious people believe a lot of stupid shit, but you're spinning your wheels because my problem is with anti-intellectualis, not creationists.
Diesel
Well-known member
And what do you think about Jung's question? I'm about to walk into work, but I'd be interested to read your thoughts.