backtop


Print 56 comment(s) - last by topkill.. on Aug 23 at 10:58 PM

Find could lend credence to idea that man evolved in Asia, rather than Africa

For scientists the evolution debate regarding man is far from over.  No, not that debate -- the debate among researchers largely involves where the earliest primates (which predate the hominids that surveyed the Pleistocene plains of Africa) evolved, and also where humans migrated early in their history.

A newly published study [abstract] in the prestigious peer-reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal offers both the oldest confirmed human skull fossil, and evidence of early migration from mankind's likely evolution location (in Africa) to a new home in Southeast Asia.

Researchers traveled to a cave near Tam Pa Ling in the Annamite Mountains where a 16,000-year-old human skull was discovered in the early 1900s.  Searching deeper, they found a skull that was dated (using direct uranium dating) to a maximum age of 63,000 years ago.  Combined with luminescent (which measures stored energy from solar heat/radiation in the crystalline component of soil buried in dark locations) and carbon dating of the surrounding sediments, it was determined that the individual -- whose gender was not determined in the work -- lived between 46,000 and 51,000 years ago.

Laos cave
The fossils were found in a mountainous cave in Laos. [Image Source: PNAS]

The preserved remains were likely a lucky accident, a result of the frequent deposition of sediment in the cave after rains.  Researchers believe that the individual was not living in the cave, but rather washed in post-death, based on the fact that no artifacts were discovered during the extensive excavation.

University of Illinois anthropologist Laura Shackelford, study co-worker, suggests the difference between the radioactive and sediment dating indicates the time between death and deposition in the cave may have been substantial.  She states, "Those dates are a bit younger than the direct date on the fossil, which we would expect because we don't know how long the body sat outside the cave before it washed in."

Laos fossil
The fossil skull is the oldest human remain to be found in Southeast Asia. [Image Source: PNAS]

On the importance of the find, she remarks, "It's a particularly old modern human fossil and it's also a particularly old modern human for that region.  This fossil find indicates that the migration out of Africa and into East and Southeast Asia occurred at a relatively rapid rate, and that, once there, modern humans weren't limited to environments that they had previously experienced.  We now have the fossil evidence to prove that they were there long before we thought they were there."

The study offers an intriguing premise -- primates may have evolved in Asia, eventually migrating to Africa.  There they may have slowly advanced, eventually becoming what today is known as humans.  Then they made a return to the stomping ground of their ancestors, sometime around 50,000+ years ago.

The study in PNAS had 13 other co-authors.  Fabrice Demeter, of the National Museum of Natural History in Paris, was the first author; Anne-Marie Karpoff of France's Institut de Géologie was the senior author.

The research was funded by a variety of French research organizations, the University of Illinois, the LAO federal government, and the Leakey Foundation.




Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

One question
By Ammohunt on 8/21/2012 2:02:20 PM , Rating: 1
Why does there have to be a single point of origin for all humans? their are Asian, African and south American monkeys did they all originate in one place? Pangea? different species of man could have evolved separately from a common primate ancestor in all the different regions of the world and intermingled interbred on the fringes of their societies to create a common modern human that we see today.




RE: One question
By headbox on 8/21/2012 2:26:37 PM , Rating: 2
Take bio 101... or finish 8th grade. You are talking about different species of monkeys evolving. Humans are one species.


RE: One question
By Ammohunt on 8/21/12, Rating: 0
RE: One question
By zephyrprime on 8/21/2012 3:09:22 PM , Rating: 3
Humans have very low genetic diversity which is indicative of small single point of origin. Human genetic diversity is much lower than most other mammals despite there being many humans spread out over a large range.


RE: One question
By macdevdude on 8/21/12, Rating: -1
RE: One question
By praktik on 8/21/2012 3:49:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course that gets in the way of schools pushing their liberal brainwashing on our children and a bunch of clever liberal types making millions off the gullibe masses with their "evolution institute".


Red flag!

Appeals to malicious conspiracies are, de facto, credibility destroyers.

"Oh well the only reason you believe islamic terrorists brought the towers down on 9/11 is because of NWO brainwashing"

Just about as convincing as the quoted part above. Remember macdevdude, if your premise is correct and all us "evolutionist" heathens are brainwashed, you telling us we're brainwashed will do nothing to convince us because, yep you guessed it!, we're brainwashed.

The only effect of trotting out these kind of tired tropes is to signal your fellow creationists that you are both "in on it" and to remind each other of how silly all us "brainwashed" are.

But - you will never convince a truly brainwashed person they are brainwashed by telling them they are brainwashed. By definition, this is a fool's errand.

It really is a form of intellectual masturbation, and better left to your get-togethers with your creationist friends. Then you can backslap each other and bond more closely by sharing in your mockery of all the poor people who are "programmed" (and then you guys can get on your pedestal and feel extra pure for avoiding the brainwashing all the poor "sheeple" fall for).

So congrats sir, on withstanding the brainwashing perpetrated by the Liberal Conspiracy to Destroy America with Science - you guys are so awesome for not being programmed like the rest of us poor saps!


RE: One question
By retrospooty on 8/21/2012 4:07:28 PM , Rating: 2
LOL... The irony is strong with this one.


RE: One question
By NellyFromMA on 8/21/2012 3:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
Evidentally you know something conclusive the rest of the world does not. Mind sharing? I'm curious... really...


RE: One question
By retrospooty on 8/21/2012 4:04:59 PM , Rating: 1
"Which points clearly to something else, something that evolutionists are unwilling to face up to"

Actually, our DNA shows we are all descended from a group of appx 10,000 survivors appx 70,000 years ago. Most attribute this "bottleneck" in the population to the Toba eruption at the same time period. We know there are many more people before that, and after that, only 10k or so survived. We are all descendants of that group.

Your total lack of education on the matter is shining brightly.


RE: One question
By Mitch101 on 8/21/2012 9:34:25 PM , Rating: 2
Im going with the Aquatic Ape theory only because I have worked with many blow holes over the years.


RE: One question
By Schmide on 8/21/2012 4:13:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The idea that man came form a monkey is laughable.


Most evolutionists will agree with you, we share a common ancestor, an ape.

Every time someone posts something like this it reminds me of Mr. Garrison and Richard Dawkins.

http://thecryptojournalist.files.wordpress.com/201...

and


RE: One question
By PontiusP on 8/21/2012 6:25:28 PM , Rating: 1
Kent Hovind, is that you typing from prison? How are things going in there? Hope all is well (minus the whole loss of freedom thing).


RE: One question
By nocturne_81 on 8/22/2012 2:45:37 PM , Rating: 1
Monkeys..? Not at all.. Man came from apes -- quite a difference.

The missing link..? So far, we've discovered, what.. 30..?
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-evolutio...

Moreover.. walk down any street, take a look at those passing you by. Now, can you honestly tell me that neanderthals and other hominids didn't interbreed into our population? It's been all but proven.. get over it already -- mankind is nothing but a bunch of especially sharp (and equally wicked) apes.


RE: One question
By topkill on 8/22/12, Rating: 0
RE: One question
By NellyFromMA on 8/21/2012 4:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
I fail to understand why you responded to a legitmate question with such an asshole demeaning response. Like wtf is wrong with asking a question in search of an honest answer. God forbid someone thinks for themselves, right?


RE: One question
By Schmide on 8/21/2012 2:36:04 PM , Rating: 2
Pangea was Pre-Cambrian way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way before any man, monkey, primate or manual or for that matter life on land.

We are but a blip in the grand scheme of things.


RE: One question
By MozeeToby on 8/21/2012 4:28:19 PM , Rating: 2
Humanity would still have a common ancestor, it would just be further back. I think you understand that, you even mention that the different proto-humans would have had a common ancestor.

And to answer the meat of your question, it's possible that this did happen to some extent. There is some disputed evidence that homo sapiens interbred with neanderthals for example. But then, there's some debate if neanderthals and homo sapiens can really be considered two distinct species or just two subspecies.

It's possible that this could be more widespread but the genetic evidence doesn't bear this out. Human genetic variation isn't very wide and we the kinds of structures you'd expect if interbreeding were widespread. And, by looking at retro-viral DNA that makes it's way into our own DNA, we can put a reasonable upper and lower limit on when different groups branched and merged.

Incidentally, these androgynous retroviruses as they're called are a piece of evidence that I've never, ever heard a creationist come up with an argument against, probably because even wrapping your head around them can be quite difficult. Basically, some viruses can (very rarely) insert their DNA right into our reproductive cells, which means that your children will carry that DNA forward and so will their children and their children's children. We can find the same pieces of viral DNA in the exact same parts of every piece of human DNA in the world.

Sometimes we can even find matching viral code in matching locations in more distant species, great apes to humans for instance. This is taken as evidence that the viral DNA made it's way into our code before the two populations separated.

And now, this is the neat thing, A) we have two copies of the same virus from two different sources B) we know the error rate of DNA copying C) this DNA is never expressed, so evolution doesn't select for or against the errors. By comparing the two, you can put an upper bound on the how long ago the two species separated.


RE: One question
By PaFromFL on 8/22/2012 8:32:33 AM , Rating: 2
New species are created when populations are geographically isolated. Perhaps humans lost diversity because they were very good at migrating and were never isolated geographically (for enough generations to make a difference). Evidence of interbreeding with Neanderthals supports the multiple points of origin theory.


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
By Motoman on 8/21/2012 1:58:54 PM , Rating: 2
GAWD CREATED ADAM AND STEVE AT THE SAME TIME IN THEIR MODERN FORM 10,000 YEARS AGO AND IT IS FACT BECAUSE A BOOK THAT WE MADE UP A LONG TIME AGO SAYS SO SO STOP THINKING AND JUST ACCEPT IT!




By kwrzesien on 8/21/2012 4:07:30 PM , Rating: 2
Steve?


By praktik on 8/21/2012 4:26:11 PM , Rating: 2
Adam's gay lover from the garden of eden silly!


By Motoman on 8/21/2012 5:28:18 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah. I'm making fun of the religious dipsh1ts (which is to say, all people who believe in religion). One of the little catchphrases they like to use when opposing homosexuality is "GAWD CREATED ADAM AND EVE, NOT ADAM AND STEVE!"

Never go full retard. Which is to say, never go to church.


By Treckin on 8/21/2012 2:32:24 PM , Rating: 2
I think its both ignorant and a bit racist to suggest, even though neither the study or its authors proffer the "out-of-Asia" theory, that this new fossil evidence suggest that.

50,000 years is drop in the homo tree, if you get my drift. The fossil record
for our species dates back millions of years to the great rift valley.

This study suggests that homo-relatives left Africa a little bit earlier then what we call the 1st great migration.

If you're curious, they don't just use fossils to determine the dates of these species wide migrations. They use DNA sampling of many people.

Don't go gettin' all excited, you're probably still African, no matter what color you are.

#idiots




By Motoman on 8/21/2012 5:29:31 PM , Rating: 2
Aquatic Ape FTW.


By DukeN on 8/21/2012 1:41:15 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm..




evidence
By seraphim1982 on 8/22/2012 1:07:55 PM , Rating: 2
Despite the evidence proving that humans evolved over that past x number of years, there are quite a number of unexplained things that arise. Firstly, there is not a lot of fossils of the of "recent human evolution", circa 40-5k years ago. Furthermore, in the Upper Paleolithic era, there seems to be a few different sub-species, including erectus, neanderthals, and most recently floresiensis. With recent DNA evidence scientist now have to believe there must have been some cross-breeding with neanderthals somewhere down the line. The real question is why there is a limited number of fossils of the MOST recent time period? Furthermore, history is constantly being rewritten with new archaelogical evidence of human settlements dating back >10-15k years. We have a significant part of the last 50k of years of history missing.




In other news...
By MegaHustler on 8/21/2012 2:18:42 PM , Rating: 1
an asian hacker dupes the skull, and now 8 guys have a 50,000 year old skull...




Alternative hypothesis
By macdevdude on 8/21/12, Rating: -1
RE: Alternative hypothesis
By praktik on 8/21/2012 1:34:36 PM , Rating: 3
HAHAHA

nice one! ;)


RE: Alternative hypothesis
By retrospooty on 8/21/2012 1:44:22 PM , Rating: 3
"Its just Satan trying to trick us, just like when he put all those dinosaur bones there for us to find".

- Stephen Colbert"

I really hope you are being sarcastic when you do this, because if you are serious, you are a complete moron.

It's one thing to prefer Apple products and be a nutjob about them, but to completetly ignore and misunderstand the mountains of evidence that proves we evolved is just ignorant. We have DNA evidence that proves we evolved. We have archeological evidence that proves we evolved. We have geological evidence that proves we evolved, we have 100's of thousands of fossils found documenting life path from slime to man, and there is no denying it. There isnt even a debate to be had on it, it's proven that it happened. That debate is over.

If you want to debate religion, debate that god put in the laws of physics and the universe that allowed evolution to happen with us in mind as an end result, but dont debate that it happened, you just look like an ignorant primitive uneducated moron.


RE: Alternative hypothesis
By macdevdude on 8/21/12, Rating: -1
RE: Alternative hypothesis
By retrospooty on 8/21/2012 2:16:06 PM , Rating: 3
"There's nothing moronic about having faith"

I agree. The moronic part comes in when your faith interferes with facts. Creationism? Absolutely impossible. Intelligent design? At least it's possible.

"And what evidence do you have that the world wasn't just created that way?"

We have DNA evidence that proves we evolved. We have archeological evidence that proves we evolved. We have geological evidence that proves we evolved, we have 100's of thousands of fossils found documenting life's path from slime to man

"What if God made the world look older as a test of faith. What proof do you have otherwise?"
Well, when he comes down to Earth and annoounces that you let me know. Until then, I would rather not believe that God is that much of an asshole to allow that kind of ignorance to perpetuate... Not to mention Hitler, Pol Pot, millions of starving children and child molestation. If he created it all, he is responsible for those things too.

"Um last I checked scientists couldn't even agree on what a lot of genes do"
Uhh... You really need to stop looking at "christian science" as a science and check again. ALL scientists agree that life evolved on Earth over the past 4.5 billion years. There is certainly debate as to all of the details and why it happened, what kickstarted it and the exact timeline, but all scientists agree that evolution is a fact.

"Notice there aren't many human fossils? Maybe that's because they're faked."

Totally wrong. There are tons of fossils documenting our ascent from chimp like creatures to modern man. You can deny it and keep your head up your backside, but don't push your ignorance to others. It's not going to work.

"Why can't you respect my hypothesis and I'll not point out how foolish yours is."

Mine relies on mountains of evidence. Yours relies on ignoring mountains of evidence and listening to Christian science talking points that were generated specifically to try and maintain some power and credibility in the ranks. Its a total falsehood. Your whole premise is based on lies.


RE: Alternative hypothesis
By praktik on 8/21/2012 3:27:10 PM , Rating: 2
ah geez, now you have to go and ruin my impression of you! Here I was, thinking you were doing a very good job of satirizing the creationist movement - BUT - you were actually serious...

...oh gawd...


RE: Alternative hypothesis
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/21/2012 3:34:46 PM , Rating: 2
You should take anything he says, that he is serious. Dead as a door nail serious. Quite the pathetic human he is.


RE: Alternative hypothesis
By MozeeToby on 8/21/2012 3:34:46 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And what evidence do you have that the world wasn't just created that way? What if God made the world look older as a test of faith. What proof do you have otherwise?
I've posted this in the past, but it bears repeating:

A man dies and goes to the pearly gates.

St Peter says to him "Did you lead a moral life?"

The man says "yes, I think so. I gave to charity and worked to help the poor."

So St Peter asks "Do you accept Jesus as your savior?"

And the man responds "Of course, I've been a devout christian my whole life".

And so St Peter asks his final question, the ultimate test of faith "Do you... believe in dinosaurs!?"

And the man says "Well... yeah... there's all the fossils and bones and th-"

"Hahahahaa! You fool! Com'on man! That's the oldest trick in the book! Dinosaurs!? Haaaaahahaha. Whelp... off to hell with you then"

The point is: By your logic, the entire universe could have been created fully formed last Thursday, complete with you and I and all our memories. What proof do you have otherwise!? As human beings who live in the universe, all we can do is take what we see and experience as true, anything else is insanity.


RE: Alternative hypothesis
By tng on 8/21/2012 2:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
..we have 100's of thousands of fossils found documenting life path from slime to man...
Well, technically, not yet. This article is what it is all about though. Chances are that we may never have all of the fossil evidence that traces the direct path from "slime" to modern humans. Time has probably erased most of the physical evidence from the face of the Earth, but someday genetics may be able to trace it from the simple to human.

I will say that it just blows my mind that he really thinks that the evidence may have been "faked" like some Hollywood movie and believes it. Sheds a whole new light on his sophisticated technical thinking and why he likes Apple so much.


RE: Alternative hypothesis
By retrospooty on 8/21/2012 4:40:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yup... Some people are just so weak minded that they need something to cling to. A company, a primitive religion, a belief system that was drilled into their heads since they were born... It's a mark of low intellect and poor self esteem.


RE: Alternative hypothesis
By cknobman on 8/21/2012 1:46:07 PM , Rating: 2
Are you being facetious?


RE: Alternative hypothesis
By retrospooty on 8/21/2012 2:04:09 PM , Rating: 2
"Are you being facetious?"

I dont think he is... He has done this before on evolution topics. If he is kidding, he doesnt ever come back and admit it, so I assume he is serious.

I find the irony of macdevdude hilarious. Its like being interrupted during a presentation at a MENSA convention by a mentally challenged child who proceeds to tell the whole room full of geniuses that they are all stupid. LOL.


RE: Alternative hypothesis
By Motoman on 8/21/2012 1:56:49 PM , Rating: 4
Wow, and here I assumed your only major mental dysfunction was in regard to Apple products...but I guess religion is as religion does, and may as well ascribe to 2 of them.

Jesus Christ you're stupid.


RE: Alternative hypothesis
By TSS on 8/21/2012 6:40:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well... One does not simply troll Daily Tech.


RE: Alternative hypothesis
By Zaralath on 8/21/2012 8:24:56 PM , Rating: 1
So God saw people getting along together, endeavoring to build something monumental. And his first thought was 'team work' screw that $hit. <Zap> haha take that @ssholes.

What a douche


RE: Alternative hypothesis
By deadrats on 8/21/2012 11:05:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The Bible clearly states that man did not spread across Eurasia until after the fall of the Tower of Babel:


want to know what else the bible says?

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way."(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever."(Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment."(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property."(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them."(1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

"The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."" (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

this is the book you want to base your beliefs on?


RE: Alternative hypothesis
By topkill on 8/22/2012 3:55:18 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, seriously?

You point out how silly, contradictory and even disgusting the book they base their "faith" on is and you expect people who believe in something this stupid to actually address it and speak rationally? ROFLMFAO!!!

Next, they'll be asserting you're an agent of Satan and that you used your magic Satan powers to go back in time and plant all those lines in their "holy book"! LOL


RE: Alternative hypothesis
By deadrats on 8/22/2012 9:57:57 PM , Rating: 1
the sad thing is that i've actually heard variations of this claim from christians before, and they use two passages from the bible to support their claim 1) that not all miracles are from God and 2) that satan is in charge of this world (the bible says both these things).

muslims use a similar claim, though a bit less preposterous, to counter anyone that points out the the quran explicitly says that all jews are to be put to the death, that all non muslims are to be killed, that if they repent and accept islam they are to be spared and that their prophet was a child molesting piece of shit as evidenced by the fact that he changed the law so that he could marry his 13 year old first cousin; i've actually met muslims that claim the true quran does not say any of this, that enemies of islam hired publishers and printed modified versions of the quran in an attempt to discredit islam.

of course they claimed to have a proper copy of the quran and when i offered to show them the passages in their version of the quran they refused...

organized religion, of any form, is the worst thing to ever happen to humanity, it corrodes the mind.

as i once said to a catholic: faith is what's left over when reason and intellect leave the room.


RE: Alternative hypothesis
By topkill on 8/23/2012 10:28:10 AM , Rating: 1
Oh, wow...you're right. I was making a preposterous joke, but I forget the people and intelligence level we're dealing with here.

Yeah, I've seen the most illogical, stupid arguments from religious nut jobs. I remember reading some of the versus you quoted about slaves and Christians owning slaves when I was a kid and asked them at church about it and got all kinds of strange answers trying to justify it. I kept coming back to "how can a Christian own another person?" and just got lots of uncomfortable squirming and non-answers.

Then I asked them if they really meant that a person who lived on an island and never even HEARD of Jesus had to burn in hell forever because he hadn't "accepted Jesus as his personal savior", and the answer I got back was: "yes, he had to accept Jesus". Ok, what about a newborn baby who dies before he even learns anything (I mean, that's the next logical question in my 10 year old mind). Now, there really is some uncomfortable squirming, but...."I'm afraid so,he didn't accept Jesus." At least someone else chimed in with the "well, his parents could have baptized him so that would cover it" LOL At least they left themselves an out not to seem like total monsters on that one.

Ok, I'm only 10 years old at the time, but I'm smart enough to think "wow, you people are FUCKED UP". So I just smiled because that's where my parents made me go to learn all this crazy shit, but I realized real fast that you couldn't take it too serious. Hell, you couldn't unless you were completely brain dead.

All that crap about you have to believe every word in the bible...ok, did Mary discover Jesus by herself and then see two Angels (book of John) or was it the both Mary's and one Angel (Matthew)? Or was is a group of women and NOBODY saw Jesus or Angels (Luke). Or was it the way Mark described it (where nobody saw Jesus risen around Jerusalem at all!). Or how about Paul's version (he didn't like women very much so they had no part in the story this time, only the male disciples of course) where he appeared to Peter and then to "other male disciples".

Come on folks, all versions didn't happen so which one is the truth? Remember, every word of the bible was inspired by God so you can't have contradictions and different versions of the same story.

By the way, Paul was the biggest asshole in history. He didn't like women and it showed in so many of his writings and it's why we have so many christian hangups about sex and nudity in the US. The guy was clearly gay or else a total misogynist for some reason...I wish he would have just STFU or someone would have killed his dumb ass before he wrote so much. MAN, he has EFF'ed up our society with his views.


RE: Alternative hypothesis
By topkill on 8/23/2012 10:58:32 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, I found another strange one, thanks to tonight's Tosh.O:

Ezekiel 4:12-15

New International Version (NIV)

12 Eat the food as you would a loaf of barley bread; bake it in the sight of the people, using human excrement for fuel.” 13 The Lord said, “In this way the people of Israel will eat defiled food among the nations where I will drive them.”

14 Then I said, “Not so, Sovereign Lord! I have never defiled myself. From my youth until now I have never eaten anything found dead or torn by wild animals. No impure meat has ever entered my mouth. ”

15 “Very well,” he said, “I will let you bake your bread over cow dung instead of human excrement.”

So let me get this straight: God doesn't have anything better to do than run around testing people to see if their dumb enough to cook with human feces? And people take this seriously? Wow.


blah blah blah
By heerohawwah on 8/21/12, Rating: -1
RE: blah blah blah
By macdevdude on 8/21/12, Rating: -1
RE: blah blah blah
By praktik on 8/21/2012 3:31:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We can't even explain why a labrador and chihua are so radically different,


Fallacious reasoning based on a strawman premise.

Sorry, who can't explain that??


RE: blah blah blah
By muhahaaha on 8/22/2012 2:24:28 AM , Rating: 1
MacDevDouche

.


RE: blah blah blah
By heerohawwah on 8/22/2012 1:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose I will comment further about the supposed carbon dating in this article. Given perfect conditions and a sample that has been 100% isolated from the outside environment, the maximum theoretical age any organic object can be dated via carbon 14 is 50,000 years. (ignoring other assumptions ) This is unlikely, also they decided to try and date the sediment around the location? Sediment is not primarily organic material. This is deceptive and manipulative.
Also if the evolutionists can't even tell you the gender of the person the skull came from, why would you believe them about the date? This is article is nothing more than religious propaganda. Evolutionists have a long and colorful history of committing scientific fraud in order to support their religious beliefs. Same old religious BS, coercion, manipulation, straight up lies, all the same garbage done by all the worst religious people for thousands of years. Evolutionists just give it another name, (usually a big one that sounds really smart) and pretend they are not religious bigots like the people in other religions which they hate so much. Religious racism at its finest. In reality evolution is no more scientific than any other religious belief.


RE: blah blah blah
By Rukkian on 8/22/2012 2:14:34 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree that some of the science is not fully sound, I am not sure you can say it is not any more science than something based off a book written by average people thousands of years ago and translated many different ways.


RE: blah blah blah
By heerohawwah on 8/22/2012 5:54:31 PM , Rating: 2
I would hope that people would take the time to learn and understand not only what science is but what it can and can't do. More importantly how a person may misinterpret or inject their own pre-existing prejudices into otherwise scientific data.
As an example, Darwin's science was based on observation only. He observed that black people were 'black', he observed they spoke a different language used different tools, yet he concluded that they were not actually human and that they evolved from a different animal than the white europeans which he prefered. His conclusion was the same about people with an 'Asian' appearance. This not only spawned a whole debate among evolutionists about 'Who' is actually human, but lead directly to the murder of thousands of aboriginals around the world as they literally were cutting off peoples heads in search of their missing link. This ideology is directly responcible for Eugenics and Nazism, a well documented fact. What's not so well documented is the racist nature of evolution, as its type of manipulation allows people to justify themselves in virtually any self-serving belief. The 'KKK' cult for example was unable to justify their hatred of black people using the Bible (even with manipulation) so they turned to evolution to re-enforce their belief that black people are 'like dogs'.
The fact is most people or extremely ignorant of their own beliefs, the implications thereof and reasoning which created those beliefs. Atheists and Evolutionists are by no-means critical thinkers in their own nature, and are easily just as religious/prejudice as anyone else. That's also why my previous post has be rated down to a -1, religious prejudice. Looking at your own beliefs from the outside can be ugly and most people don't handle insecurity very well. A basic critical minded inspection of evolution will quickly tear it down to shreds, as it has no scientific basis or natural method and would require the existing Natural Laws of science to be suspended in order to occur.
Anyway, I'm rambling...as an answer to your statement I would put forward a motion and suggest that the story found in Genesis chapter 1 & 2 are actually more plausible than evolution, scientifically speaking. Sounds crazy, I know. But then have you actually seen the science and reasoning behind such a thought? A true scientist, a true intellectual person seeking to open his or her mind and better understand the world around them would dig into it whole heartily and decide for themselves.


where the skull was found
By radokie on 8/21/12, Rating: -1
RE: where the skull was found
By tng on 8/21/12, Rating: -1
"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs













botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki