"Well...but then again...er maybe...?" "Duh... gee...I dunno....what do you think?"

[theist]

Forget this whole approach to finding the truth of such matters. They find some old bones and then spend the next so many decades sitting around the bones and scratching their heads while they make up new theories as to what it all could mean.

 

Better we apply that same inquisitive nature to Bhagavad-gita.

 

-------------------------

 

February 17, 2005

Fossil Reanalysis Pushes Back Origin of Homo sapiens

A new analysis of human remains first discovered in 1967 suggests that they are in fact much older than previously believed. The results, published today in the journal Nature, push back the emergence of our species by nearly 35,000 years.

Ian McDougall of the Australian National University in Canberra and his colleagues worked with two well-known fossil finds known as Omo I and Omo II, which were recovered from Ethiopia's Kibish Formation by Richard Leakey. The remains include two partial skulls as well as arm, leg, foot and pelvis bones for Omo I. "Anthropologists said they looked very different in their evolutionary status," remarks study co-author Frank Brown of the University of Utah. "Omo I appeared to be essentially modern Homo sapiens and Omo II appeared to be more primitive." At the time, the bones were dated to 130,000 years ago, based on radioactive decay of uranium and thorium from oyster shells found nearby. This time the scientists returned to the southern Ethiopian site and identified the resting places of both individuals. They also unearthed another part of a femur bone for Omo I that fits together with the original remains.

 

 

 

 

[Kulapavana]

the reason they are finding so few truly old human bones is that it takes very, very special conditions for such bones to get fossilized - conditions unlikely any human would face. one example: a dumb animal falls into mud quick sand and becomes a fossil - in the same situation a human either avoids the place entirely or easily gets out of the mud.

[theist]

What is amazing is that someone finds an old bone or two and then the academic community explapolates that into the entire history of the human race back 100,000 years or more.

[stonehearted]

This stuff always reminds me of Robert Nathan's novel, The Weans. It's presented as the report of an archeological expedition from Kenya, the center of civilization, 5000 years in the future. The scientists are reporting on a civilization that has been dead for thousands of years, on a dead continent to the west. It's a hoot. I read it when I was a kid and have never forgotten it.

[Kulapavana]

"What is amazing is that someone finds an old bone or two and then the academic community explapolates that into the entire history of the human race back 100,000 years or more."

 

that's nothing... /images/graemlins/wink.gif I have seen "big time" scientists "reconstructing" an entire unknown animal from 1 (yes, one!) fossilized tooth!

[theist]

 

that's nothing... I have seen "big time" scientists "reconstructing" an entire unknown animal from 1 (yes, one!) fossilized tooth!

 

 

And these folks consider comic books too low brow.

[Guest guest]

We are in a hole in time, which is the cavern of modern science. Walls that are dogmas, from which drips ancient wisdom in a patter of slimy opinions, while outside a storm of data has gathered. They start with the logic of Euclid. The shortest connection between two points is a straight line. What is a straight line? The shortest connection between two points. Regardless the straightness of the lines, it is circular reasoning.

Then they continue with the wisdom of Newton. If there is no change in the direction of a moving body, the direction of a moving body is not changed. But if something is changed, it is changed as much as it is changed.

They are like geologists, determining the age of the rocks by the fossils. How is the age of fossils determined? By the age of the rocks.

Hence, circular reasoning is employed in science today. They find themselves in an august assembly, as we noted, yet the popularity of a faulty piece of reasoning does not make it right. They may have gathered an impressive following, but majority vote does not count in scientific work, since science is not democratic, but scientific.

This naive scenario is sold to the public as factual scientific discovery and on the most clownesque story to ever come out of a scientific education institute, whole university departments gobble up gigantic sums of taxpayers' money.

Among themselves, they have not the faintest clue and so they have to mythologise the entire paradigm. This of course, helps them to reinforce it again and again.

You can oppose an absurdity only by another absurdity. Then again, science is established preposterousness. I say, we should not be outraged, but be outrageous. The outrageous is the reasonable, if introduced and presented politely. In the topography of intellectual comprehension and competence, I would say what they call knowledge, is ignorance, surrounded by laughter.

So their notions must go by way of slaughter or laughter. Hilarity will be the fitter exit. These notions must be murdered or we will have to laugh them away. There is much that can be said in favour of murder, but in their case that will be wilful waste of the stuff for laughter.

The theories get more and more fancy, to explain away ‘anomalous’ evidence, so-called, because reality encroaches upon theory and proves it wrong. The theory is in fact the ‘anomaly’, but that is not realised, admitted or tacitly forgotten. To bring this forward constitutes betrayal of the ‘scientific code’.

We know from the state of affairs in the fin-.-siècle twentieth century sciences, as well as today - medicine in particular - that nothing has changed, or if so, is becoming progressively worse. Thus, hypothesis and fantasy, speculation and imagination, prove to be the foundation of what is presented as science by such staid publications as Nature, Scientific American, New Scientist, The Lancet, Time Magazine and the New York Times. These publications form the Bible of the Church of Science, and their editors are the bishops.

The Isopanisad says: ‘The wise have explained that one result is obtained from the culture of knowledge and a different result is obtained from the culture of nescience.’

They seem to be talking science, but in fact they talk nescience or plain ignorance. They only express their beliefs, similar to any other church or religion. Yet, it is claimed that this belief is based on reason and to follow the facts of science. However, it has little or nothing to do with science, as it does not follow the scientific method. An unproved hypothesis does not follow scientifically validated facts.

The theory must be repeatable by experiment, to deserve to be classed as scientific. However, conjecture is the name of the game and there is no scope, nor escape, for dissidence. Kent, a nineteenth century homoeopath, expressed man’s preoccupation with conjecture as follows: ‘There is a state of insanity in the sciences of the present day. They put all laws aside, in order to accept for instance the virus theory (or for that matter any theory), because they want something that in its aggregate is large enough to be felt with the fingers.’ End of quote. We see nothing has changed.

 

[theist]

source please?

[Guest guest]

Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj.

this is part of a book that I publish in the next few months. it is about Aids and its origins and treatment.

yrs, VdK