This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Fossil find could be Europe's first humans

Fossil find could be Europe's first humans - Comments

Dr Doctor's Avatar Comment 1 by Dr Doctor

Interesting, Homo Shrektus.

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 05:18:00 UTC | #142937

mmurray's Avatar Comment 2 by mmurray

Does anyone know why this is thought to be a common ancestor of neanderthals and ourselves? Why isn't this more likely to be a European descendant of homo erectus who had migrated northwards while we are African descendants of homo erectus. If this is the case and the DNA evidence that we descend from a recent charge (rather than march) out of Africe is correct this isn't part of the same exodus out of Africa that we come from.

Of course we could have descended from these guys in Africa -- maybe that is what the fossils suggest.

Michael

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 05:26:00 UTC | #142944

0strich's Avatar Comment 3 by 0strich

"Interesting, Homo Shrektus."

LOL It is!! It's Shrek! LMAO

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 05:34:00 UTC | #142950

Logicel's Avatar Comment 4 by Logicel

Was wondering why that mug is familiar!!!

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 05:47:00 UTC | #142952

Darwin's badger's Avatar Comment 5 by Darwin's badger

Looks like a fat Patrick Stewart to me! "Number One: More cakes!"

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:18:00 UTC | #142967

davorg's Avatar Comment 6 by davorg

Did anyone else notice the URL for that article?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/mar/27/archaeology.dinosaurs

Should someone point out to the Guardian science desk that early human remains have nothing to do with dinosaurs?

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:25:00 UTC | #142971

Vinelectric's Avatar Comment 7 by Vinelectric

I've always suspected my boss was at least a million years old.

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:34:00 UTC | #142977

BNCbright's Avatar Comment 8 by BNCbright

How on earth can young-earth creationists even intelligibly respond to findings like this?

BNC

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:25:00 UTC | #143004

black wolf's Avatar Comment 9 by black wolf

I can picture the guy saying: "Will ya stop blabbering about creation already? We've got a bison to skin, I'm hungry dammit!"

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:27:00 UTC | #143005

paulifa1's Avatar Comment 10 by paulifa1

Creationists will have no problem at all refuting this, it's just another example of the work of the enemy (read Devil) trying to test the faithfull and confuse those stupid atheists again!!

"Number One: More cakes!" priceless lol

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:39:00 UTC | #143018

justinesaracen's Avatar Comment 11 by justinesaracen

This video was posted on Alternet today. It shows Creationist teachers taking school kids to the Denver Museum for a debunking tour of the "theory" of evolution. Frightening, really.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/#80595

Almost as infuriating as the videotape is the NBC lead-in which treats the two sides as if they were two completely reasonable intellectual positions being taken in a never-ending squabble.

I'm getting a little tire of this 'fair and balanced' shit which pretends that cumulative reason and infantile fantasies have an equal claim to one's respect.

esuther

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:45:00 UTC | #143061

DavidSJA's Avatar Comment 12 by DavidSJA

Well, young Earth creationists with whom I mixed when I was I green behind the ears theorised that the speed of light is not a constant, and that its change over time has led to a corresponding change in radioactive decay rates, thus rendering dates from carbon-14 testing inaccurate; it's accurate fro the recent past, but the further back you go the greater the degree of inaccuracy (eg. something that is 8 Ky old can appear to be many My/Gy). The closer to the point of creation, the closer towards infinity the degree of inaccuracy.

I'm sure a physicist can debunk that faster than I, a mere life sciences student, can, but it had me convinced until I realised everything else was a lie...

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:12:00 UTC | #143080

Double Bass Atheist's Avatar Comment 13 by Double Bass Atheist

Comment #150676 by esuther

This video was posted on Alternet today. It shows Creationist teachers taking school kids to the Denver Museum for a debunking tour of the "theory" of evolution. Frightening, really.


esuther-
This was first posted in our forums on this website last Thursday, March 20th and is currently on two threads, linked below:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=39546

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=39899

DavidSJA-
You want to read some truly amazing levels of creationist stupidity? Ever seen the website "Fundies Say The Darndest Things"?
http://www.fstdt.com/

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:24:00 UTC | #143087

justinesaracen's Avatar Comment 14 by justinesaracen

Thanks DBA

I did a brief check through the "Recent News" and did not see any reference to the news report, but I did not look through the commentaries, and I overlooked the forums (fora?).
I should have known that nothing as egregious as this would escape your notice.

Esuther

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:41:00 UTC | #143094

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 15 by Steve Zara

Comment #150695 by DavidSJA

There are interesting possibilities in the physics of the early universe that may have resulted from the speed of light not being what it was now, but that does not help the creationists at all, as time is related to the speed of light. It's a bit like saying that "all clocks ran faster". If all clocks ran faster, then it would make no difference!

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:44:00 UTC | #143096

jesus_christ_himself's Avatar Comment 16 by jesus_christ_himself

Is he missing a rib?

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:58:00 UTC | #143147

Eamonn Shute's Avatar Comment 17 by Eamonn Shute

Is he missing a rib?


He seems to be a she.

"The hominid jawbone itself is probably from a female"

No wonder they are extinct if the women were as ugly as that!

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:23:00 UTC | #143172

sarah95's Avatar Comment 18 by sarah95

The facial reconstruction on the right hand side of the picture looks EXACTLY like my old grade-school principal!

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:27:00 UTC | #143179

padster1976's Avatar Comment 19 by padster1976

Unrelated post -

This has nothing to do with the above article but it's the newest and therefore I reckon that most people will look at it first check out the link below for the BBC's idea of a blog - open office hours of all things! Must be something to do with the censorship er I mean 'moderation'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F2213235?thread=5251222

Just read some of the drivel.

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:12:00 UTC | #143222

padster1976's Avatar Comment 20 by padster1976

This is my favorite from the first page - from a nice chap called Eric -

"God is not a Ford Focus! He is the everlasting Father - and beware the temptation to base your idea of his fatherhood on lesser, imperfect human fathers - of which I am one.

Fatherhood is not about masculinity in any negative sense - not macho-ness. God the Father is neither male nor female. Male and female human characteristics both derive from him, not the other way round. God is God, and we are made in his image.

Incidentally, for those who want gender-inclusive language in Bible translations, there is no such thing as a daughter of God. Men and women believers are all sons of God, because their relationship to the Father is through the Son, and they are heirs as sons were heirs in ancient middle eastern cultures. "

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:14:00 UTC | #143225

padster1976's Avatar Comment 21 by padster1976

This a close second...

"
You have a very distorted view of the God who reveals himself as Love. God is not willing that anyone should perish, including you. He has made provision for each one of us to escape the torture you speak of. It is not inevitable.

God does not "get" angry, in the way you or I might. He has a permanent disposition of fierce anger towards sin because it is so alien to him. He is holy. If he tolerated sin he would not be God. It would not be right - each one of us has a sense of outrage when someone gets away with wrongdoing; how much more a holy and righteous God?

But God is not content to throw people into the lake of fire. He has gone to extraordinary lengths to make it possible for that not to happen to you and me. Because he loved you, SBQ, he took the full and righteous punishment for your sins and mine on the cross. The Bible says that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself" This greatest act of love the world has ever seen has been much maligned. Please do not continue to scorn the very hand that would feed you. "

I like "God who reveals himself as Love. God is not willing that anyone should perish,"

and then...

"He has a permanent disposition of fierce anger towards sin"

But he's a tolerant guy right?

"If he tolerated sin he would not be God."

Then if he's 'GOD', why does he allow it?

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:19:00 UTC | #143230

robotaholic's Avatar Comment 22 by robotaholic

Padster, this demonstrates that the religious hang themselves with their own drivel! Just let them talk for a while and it's a messy saliva froth of nonsense. lol

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:24:00 UTC | #143275

Double Bass Atheist's Avatar Comment 23 by Double Bass Atheist

padster1976 -

"God is not a Ford Focus!

Perhaps he is!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/amywatts/103235388

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:03:00 UTC | #143285

mmurray's Avatar Comment 24 by mmurray

"God is not a Ford Focus


I think what he meant to say is `God is not Ford Prefect'. A comment that puts him at risk of attack from extreme Adamists

Michael

PS: On a related note God is apparently a dab hand at wheel alignment:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2402,Police-Girl-Dies-After-Parents-Pray-for-Healing-Instead-of-Seeking-Medical-Help,Fox-News,page3#150375

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:10:00 UTC | #143286

DNAtheist's Avatar Comment 25 by DNAtheist

Stop finding these fossils! You're just creating more gaps!

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:32:00 UTC | #143291

b0ltzm0n's Avatar Comment 26 by b0ltzm0n

Just curious, but why does the hyperlink to this article on the guardian.co.uk site have the word "dinosaurs" at the end?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/mar/27/archaeology.dinosaurs

Nevermind.... just noticed that someone else already noticed. Maybe I'll try reading prior posts next time. =(

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:53:00 UTC | #143302

dragonfirematrix's Avatar Comment 27 by dragonfirematrix

Very interesting article...

Science is working very hard to bring the truth of our existence to humanity.

Religion is working very hard to propagate lies about our existence to humanity.

WHY DO WE TOLERATE THE RELIGIOUS?

I also read a post from a fellow member (quoted below), and I followed a link to a video the member provided. In my mind, the school children in the video are being brainwashed by the church and their parents, and our government is permitting this to happen. It sent a chilling feeling up my spine.

"------------------------------------------------
11. Comment #150676 by esuther on March 27, 2008 at 8:45 am

This video was posted on Alternet today. It shows Creationist teachers taking school kids to the Denver Museum for a debunking tour of the "theory" of evolution. Frightening, really.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/#80595
------------------------------------------------"

THIS BRAINWASHING OF CHILDREN BY THE RELIGIOUS IN AMERICA IS INDEED "frightening."

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:12:00 UTC | #143330

prettygoodformonkeys's Avatar Comment 28 by prettygoodformonkeys

I'm sorry to continue on the "looks like" thread, but it really does look like Jean-Luc Picard.

Which lends weight to the "impregnation by intelligent aliens" theory, denied by ID.

Jean-luc, Jean-luc.

You old ape-fucker, you.

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:22:00 UTC | #143332

Roland_F's Avatar Comment 29 by Roland_F

12. Comment #150695 by DavidSJA

Well, young Earth creationists with whom I mixed when I was I green behind the ears theorized that the speed of light is not a constant, and that its change over time has led to a corresponding change in radioactive decay rates, thus rendering dates from carbon-14 testing inaccurate; it's accurate fro the recent past, but the further back you go the greater the degree of inaccuracy (eg. something that is 8 Ky old can appear to be many My/Gy). The closer to the point of creation, the closer towards infinity the degree of inaccuracy.

This is the usual creationist crap : from astronomy we know that the speed of light is constant over billion of years, beside some possibly very small variations in the very early universe where the fine structure constants might have been slightly different.
However the cretinist claim that the speed of light is part of these 'Goldilocks' fine tuned constants of nature to proof God did the fine-tuning, on the other hand they claim the speed of light is massively changing to have the 4004 BC creation myth explained = all self contradicting B.S.
There were some calculations that the amount of radioactive decay when following the speed YEC are claiming for 6000 years of age, the earth would be 65,000 degrees Celsius hot.
Beside the C14, there are several other radioactive dating methods, there are tree rings which can be interpreted like fingerprints to count down gap free time for thousand of years ; also cross-verifying C14 timing, there are ice drilling in Antarctica where the yearly layers can be counted down for 2 million years; also cross checking radioactive dating, there are astronomical measurements possible like the slowing down of earth rotation (currently 24h some millennia back 25h a day etc…). In short everything is cross validated over and over gain: no chance for cretinist BS.

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:14:00 UTC | #143351

riki's Avatar Comment 30 by riki

I'm wondering do religious people worship God because he's good, or do they worship God because he's God.

There's a big difference, with implications.

The later would indicate absolute acceptance good or bad. Implying they would follow their maker even if he was evil.

While the former is conditional worship. Which implies the possibility of rejecting God if he wasn't good.

But I seriously doubt any God would want to be worshiped, it seems more like an insecure human trait.

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:28:00 UTC | #143356