Alan Boyle has a story on the latest thinking about Lucy, with a cool artist's rendering. And of course, no post like this is complete without the usual clueless comments by the creationists.
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Pre-Humans.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.transterrestrial.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/10427
3 Comments
Jurgun wrote:
Given that half of the first ten comments were from people baiting the creationists with anti-creationist remarks, I suppose it's not surprising they decided to respond rather than pass by the article. I disagree with the creationists but I don't think many of their detractors are any more enlightened.
ken anthony wrote:
Until I learned about personality typology I always wondered why my reaction to criticism and most everybody elses were so opposite.
I like being criticized. Well, when it's not mindless. How do you learn anything if your thoughts are not challenged (either by yourself or others?) I am still somewhat in shock that, that is not true of most people.
While I believe both in a creator and that the bible contains god's thoughts, I find the creationists to be embarrassing (I do not consider myself one, they ignore the evidence of Gen 2:4 where day is referring to an unspecified era encompassing the creative 'days', rather than 24 hour periods.) A universe that is 14.7 billion years old does not conflict with my understanding of Genesis.
More embarrassing is when I catch a show on tv where some supposed scientist tries to explain things biblically. I do however, also have empathy for people, even if ignorant, that have their beliefs attacked by other ideas that are not much more than an alternative religious belief.
Lucy is interesting, but forgive me for not considering her to be gran-mama. This conjecture is base on the slimmest of evidence. Assuming Lucy was an upright walking biped, it does not follow that she was an ancestor. That's not science, that's one belief system ridiculing another.
The bible describes religion as the dwelling place of demons and the ruler of this world as Satan. This is not common knowledge among most christians (which goes to show they haven't understood the parable of the wheat and the weeds.)
Religions teach a lot of contradictions. I personally can't be a part of a group that would continue to believe what is provably false.
Science can get caught up in a similar religious type of thinking as well (they probably prefer to think of it in political terms rather than religious) which I've come to realize is simply being human.
Archeology does fascinate me because evidence must be acknowledged if you love truth as I do.
Asimov used to attack the credibility of the bible, but mostly in a juvenile way (choosing a translation that suited his argument, but ignoring others that fit the facts.) The only reference in the bible that I have great difficulty with is when God provide Joshua with light to continue a battle. From Joshua's perspective, God kept the sun in the sky. OTOH, when the bible refers to the earth being a sphere that hangs upon nothing (most bible translate the word circle, but it can also mean sphere) I find that one of thousands of references that indicate thoughts greater than those that actually penned the words.
This doesn't mean I don't enjoy Isaac's work (although I prefer Heinlein.) Clark I always thought of as a visionary more than as a writer.
I know... too much. Sorry. I'll stop now.
Orville wrote:
I'm a bit doubtful of the Lucy theory. Scant evidence until the dig up Ricky, Fred and Ethel
Leave a comment
Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on October 7, 2008 6:06 AM.
Given that half of the first ten comments were from people baiting the creationists with anti-creationist remarks, I suppose it's not surprising they decided to respond rather than pass by the article. I disagree with the creationists but I don't think many of their detractors are any more enlightened.
Until I learned about personality typology I always wondered why my reaction to criticism and most everybody elses were so opposite.
I like being criticized. Well, when it's not mindless. How do you learn anything if your thoughts are not challenged (either by yourself or others?) I am still somewhat in shock that, that is not true of most people.
While I believe both in a creator and that the bible contains god's thoughts, I find the creationists to be embarrassing (I do not consider myself one, they ignore the evidence of Gen 2:4 where day is referring to an unspecified era encompassing the creative 'days', rather than 24 hour periods.) A universe that is 14.7 billion years old does not conflict with my understanding of Genesis.
More embarrassing is when I catch a show on tv where some supposed scientist tries to explain things biblically. I do however, also have empathy for people, even if ignorant, that have their beliefs attacked by other ideas that are not much more than an alternative religious belief.
Lucy is interesting, but forgive me for not considering her to be gran-mama. This conjecture is base on the slimmest of evidence. Assuming Lucy was an upright walking biped, it does not follow that she was an ancestor. That's not science, that's one belief system ridiculing another.
The bible describes religion as the dwelling place of demons and the ruler of this world as Satan. This is not common knowledge among most christians (which goes to show they haven't understood the parable of the wheat and the weeds.)
Religions teach a lot of contradictions. I personally can't be a part of a group that would continue to believe what is provably false.
Science can get caught up in a similar religious type of thinking as well (they probably prefer to think of it in political terms rather than religious) which I've come to realize is simply being human.
Archeology does fascinate me because evidence must be acknowledged if you love truth as I do.
Asimov used to attack the credibility of the bible, but mostly in a juvenile way (choosing a translation that suited his argument, but ignoring others that fit the facts.) The only reference in the bible that I have great difficulty with is when God provide Joshua with light to continue a battle. From Joshua's perspective, God kept the sun in the sky. OTOH, when the bible refers to the earth being a sphere that hangs upon nothing (most bible translate the word circle, but it can also mean sphere) I find that one of thousands of references that indicate thoughts greater than those that actually penned the words.
This doesn't mean I don't enjoy Isaac's work (although I prefer Heinlein.) Clark I always thought of as a visionary more than as a writer.
I know... too much. Sorry. I'll stop now.
I'm a bit doubtful of the Lucy theory. Scant evidence until the dig up Ricky, Fred and Ethel