Archaeologica.org

Posted: **Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:49 am**

Charlie Hatchett wrote:Here's a nice freebie I found on Google Videos (for those that don't already have it):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ins+of+man

Ahh - the M.O.M.

That post just put you on the Clubs' most wanted list Charlie.

Posted: **Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:31 am**

You say that Darwinism is not the be all and end all. Is that not what I have been suggesting since yesterday?

no you were told that Darwinism is regarded as out of date yet you keep saying it doesnt solve all the questions so isn't valid

You mention photosynthesis, surely that is a function of leaf area, not trunk length? You point out that it is chemical function. I agree, but surely the increase in plant species IS a function of natural selection?

Photsynthesis is a function of plant height when plants are competing to get sunlight
i thought that was very obvious perhaps you missed it

You say I haven't read your posts, I asked you why trees grow tall, you replied with a lecture on why they stopped growing.

err no according to you trees are programmed to grow to a certain height
this simply isn't true
tress grow until they have reached the height set by their genetic code
this you would know if you had actually read the link and the text i provided that clearly and concisely explains the limiting factors on that code

I asked you if you could explain to me how the time scale for separation of man from Chimp was arrived at. No answer.

i provided you with a link that explained specifically the question that you asked which was not about chimp and man seperation but was about genetic mutation
so like i said
either you havent read and understood what you have been told
or
you haven't read what you have been told
or
you are incapable of understanding what you have been told

I said it CAN get you killed.

can - to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to:

I probably have a greater respect for people's beliefs than you have demonstrated.

not when you are labelling everyone who worships allah as a possible murderer

Certainly, as I pointed out, and you've ignored, such actions have been promoted within the Islamic community. Yes or No?

no it hasn't
a handful of moslem extremists are not the islamnic community anymore than you and your family are the welsh community

The bombs in London
were used to kill, I think that is extremism. Don't you?

yes totally
but that action was not a result of somebody criticising Islam
it was the result of agressive foreign policy on behalf of the western world and the obsessive revenge taken by some extremists against innocent men women and children
would you say that bombing men women and children in world war 2 as perpetrated by both sides was an action as a result of one side criticising the other

you need to start with understanding a few things Digit
so far you've just carried on with your personal belief which has remained unchanged despite the overwhelming amount of evidence provided to you
namely that
Darwin is somehow relevant to modern evolutionary theory
All Moslems react to criticism with murder
genetic mutations are regular
trees grow tall for some reason that only you claim to know

none of these ideas are correct or even valid in any discussion where scientific evidence has been provided over and over which discounts them
theres 39+ pages in this thread so far
how many have you actually understood ?
I expected more refusal to face facts from Forum Monk which was wrong of me and based on experience of other people of faith
but apparently he has read and understood everything and it has benefitted his understanding

I am NOT a liar

well apparently since you have now connected all Moslems to the london bombings you are woefully underinformed at the very least

simply because you are as intolerant of discussion

in fact I have provided more credible links than anyone else so far
whereas you have not provided any links at all
so this is transference on your part
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transference

God freaks

I'd be interested to know just who you are talking about here
who in this thread is a God freak Roy

Posted: **Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:36 am**

Beagle wrote:
Charlie Hatchett wrote:Here's a nice freebie I found on Google Videos (for those that don't already have it):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ins+of+man
Ahh - the M.O.M.

That post just put you on the Clubs' most wanted list Charlie.

uhuh
it just put him on the comedians list imo
nobody I know takes that program seriously seeing as it basically features a lot of long disproved theories which are now being championed by pseudohistorians like Michael Cremo and Graham Hancock wrapped up in a nice package and narrated by the president of the N.R.A.

this video is far more valid as to human evolution than MOM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q43fjXQtLc

and its only one sixtieth of the length

Posted: **Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:41 am**

I too, am reading Digits posts and fail to see that he has condemned or indicted the entire Islamic community. From the beginning his principle has been against entrenched ideology. That applies to religious views, I suppose, as well as evolution theorists. I don't speak for Digit but I think you are escalating some of his comments.

Posted: **Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:45 am**

he stated as fact that criticising islam can get you killed in the uk

Digit wrote:Here in the UK, at the moment critisism of Islam can get you killed

it can't
it hasn't
it won't
apart from anything else that statement is in itself a criticism of Islam
you haven't got a deathwish have you Roy ?

Posted: **Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:49 am**

it basically features a lot of long disproved theories

Like your silly a** belief in our chemical, evolutionary origins. Sorry, that ones been falling to pieces, sir...for a long time. If any ones stance is laughable, it's your strict, religious, adherence to Secular Humanism.

How to you account for the information bearing properties of DNA, coupled with Shannon's Information Theory.

How do you get to the first self-replicating molecule, by naturalistic means?

Standing by to LMAO!!

Posted: **Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:56 am**

Some of these responses show the religious nature of ToE, to its adherents:

The following are excerpts from more than 250 email messages that flooded MOM Producer Bill Cote's website (http://www.bcvideo.com) in response to the show:

"I wanted to take this opportunity to commend you on your COURAGE in producing such a show. I know from personal experience the depth of passion raised when you question the Theory of Evolution. My problem with the people with whom I have debated on the subject is not so much that they believe what it is they do, but that they are so damn dogmatic about it. In many ways, the scientific establishment has become the secular analogue to the adherence to orthodoxy which they so claim to despise in favor of their freedom to question everything. Apparently, that freedom stops when one begins to question THEIR most cherished beliefs. I applaud you."
(MB, Winchester, MO)

"Shame on you. I watched your show, The Mysterious Origins of Man on Sunday night. It left me horrified, angry and depressed. I remember as a child, Sunday night was a family night in front of TV; NBC's Wild Kingdom and The Wonderful World of Disney....You would be astounded by how little Americans do know about human evolution and now we'll have millions of American children believing that man lived beside dinosaurs when in reality we are separated by 60 MILLION YEARS...." (KC, Northwestern University)

"Fantastic show! It is about time alternative interpretations and hidden evidence is brought out into the open for the public to see for itself. The response from the scientific type community is expected because it shows a lack of rigor on their part. The last thing they want to look like is incompetent or worse, not objective. Please don't let anything or anyone stop you in the future from airing shows that present alternative views. Thank you." (DH)

"I missed the first showing of "The Mysterious Origins of Man" and would like to know when and if there are any plans to rebroadcast. I was able to read a review in the electronic newsletter ISCNI*FLASH. I enjoy this type of programming. It is very refreshing to be informed of alternate points of view. I have a degree in Geology and found early, when a student, that the establishment would ignore the evidence if it didn't fit their preconceived ideas. Keep up the good work." (DE)

"I just read your response to the earlier criticism of your show, and find your track-covering pathetically amusing. Standing on your hight horse tisk-tasking the establishment, all giddy about the furer you kicked up, cleverly knocking down all your straw men. Yes, all we scientists have been misleading ourselves and everyone else for years! We ruthlessly squash dissent from our all-powerful theory of evolution! Give it up. You wanted money, and you wanted ratings, you wanted scientists to respond, and you got it..." (HF, Scientist and Human Being)

"I thought it was an excellent program.....I kept thinking to myself, 'At last, they are starting to present to the *uninformed* American public many of the strange, inconsistent, and *unpublished* conclusions of the evidence found, or known about from scholarly interpretations of ancient sacred writings." (HW)

"I am truly dismayed at this particularly steamy pile of rodent remains. What your program presented as 'very reliable alternative theories' are nothing but bizarre speculations by people whose only gain must be by selling a book..." (CB, Canadian Academic)

"Please don't let the scientific community dictate what information the receptive public receives....The scientific community tends to reject anything it doesn't understand or can't reconstruct or objectively prove in the laboratory. There are many more open-minded professionals and individuals who do not have such biases and welcome information such as you have apparently presented. Freedom of information should not be restricted by such prejudice. Thank you for your initiative. (BS, Attorney at Law)

"...Your network has done a great disservice by airing this pseudoscientific garbage. It is disheartening to think of how many people watched Mysterious Origins in a prime Sunday evening slot, while truly high quality programs such as Nova and Nature are relegated to much smaller audiences on PBS..." (JK, New Mexico State University)

"...I have never seen such unadulterated hogwash in my entire life....If you present outrageous theories, then you must present someone with an opposing view to create a balanced presentation. If you cannot present this type of an investigation, then you should be forced to have a flashing graphic saying 'Entertainment Value Only', just like the Psychic Friends network has to do. I will be writing to my congressional delegation, the FCC, and the President to argue that legislation should exist to force you to do this....." (TH, New Mexico State University)

"...I will be boycotting all of the sponsors of this program, and I will be encouraging others to do the same. I *don't* encourage censorship of this type of thing. In fact, I would encourage science teachers to show this program in their classrooms, followed by a thorough debunking...." (TL)

Posted: **Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:07 am**

Like your silly a** belief in our chemical, evolutionary origins. Sorry, that ones been falling to pieces, sir...for a long time

oooh so you think Aliens or God did it too
wow
and youre saying that I'm laughable
mysterious origins of man is best described as creationist rubbish
http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v04/n03/check.html

While UPN is just getting into the paranormal nonsense genre, NBC is making an art (certainly not a science) of it. On February 25, they showed a horrible program called, The Mysterious Origins of Man, hosted by Charlton Heston. Later in the week, they showed Ancient Prophecies 3 (at least I think that was the title). Frankly, I saw 1 and 2, and have no reason to believe 3 would be any better, so I skipped it. It was apparently Trash Week on NBC.

In many ways, the Mysterious Origins show was much worse than the Prophecies show could have been, in that it purported to put forth science, while only putting forth creationist rubbish (I’m using the thesaurus feature to try to find other appropriate adjectives besides "nonsense" for the rest of this article). Indeed, it was so bad that it even got a half-page story in Science, one of the top scientific journals in the world.

How bad was the show? Well, they even put forth stuff that most creationists have agreed is bunk! The Paluxy River tracks (tracks purported to be those of humans walking at the same time period as dinosaurs) were brought out as the main proof that humans have been around much longer than the horrible scientific establishment has been telling us. But even the leaders of the Institute for Creation Research have admitted, in what may be one of the only times they’ve let the facts interfere with their beliefs, that the tracks are not human footprints (they are actually partial dinosaur prints) and should not be used to support creationist "theories."

Also cited was the "Burdick Print," so called because it was first publicized by creationist Clifford Burdick, which is almost universally agreed to be a fake, carved by somebody in the 1930’s.

But none of these facts stopped the show’s creators. Indeed, the show claimed to present good evidence from "a new breed of scientific investigators." Baloney. All we saw was old garbage presented by debunked creationists, like Carl Baugh (I don’t have room to go into everything I know or have even forgotten about Baugh, but if you’re interested, contact me and I can dig through my files and send out copies of articles which debunk his claims, his supposed evidence, etc.). As one paleontologist told Science, "this is just reviving stuff that has already been debunked."

Several of the scientists interviewed by Science have been trying, unsuccessfully, to get a response from NBC. Science contacted NBC’s entertainment division (which is always the division that puts out these pseudo-documentaries that purport to be true), and a spokesperson said they had no statement because, as far as they knew, there haven’t been any complaints! A second spokesperson said the show was shown as an "alternative scenario" and not as fact. Uh huh. Sure. And that was made abundantly clear in the show, right? Wrong.

National Center for Science Education Executive Director Eugenie Scott said NBC’s decision to air this show "illustrates that the position of evolution is very spongy in the population outside of the academy" and noted that she has received numerous calls for help from teachers dealing with students who saw this drivel and believed it (hey, certainly NBC wouldn’t show it if it weren’t true, right?).

One scientist found the situation ironic. He noted, "I’m sure in a few months Tom Brokaw will have a special on the deplorable state of science knowledge among American school children." Indeed, I have noted the difference between the news division’s repeated attacks on balderdash, mostly via Dateline NBC, and the entertainment division, which airs whatever absurdity they think will make them some more money. Here’s an idea: Maybe we can get Dateline to do an exposé the entertainment division!

Posted: **Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:22 am**

oooh so you think Aliens or God did it too
wow
and youre saying that I'm laughable
mysterious origins of man is best described as creationist rubbish
http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v04/n03/check.html

Didn't state anything about how I thought we got here.

I just stated that ToE makes absolutely no sense, especially when it comes to
accounting for the information contained within DNA, and how Shannon's Theory states that information tends towards disorder (just like the 2nd Law).

Posted: **Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:24 am**

nobody I know takes that program seriously

Yup, and handaxes don't exist in N.A.

Posted: **Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:27 am**

Ahh - the M.O.M.

That post just put you on the Clubs' most wanted list Charlie.

LOL!! I have a knack for pissing the club off.

At least I'm good at something.

Posted: **Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:31 am**

charlie
shannons theory is about theoretical mathematics
theoretical mathematics is not often applied to genetic evolutionary theories and genetics itself is not a mathematical science
it is a biological one
when this mathematical theory is applied to genetics this is the most often quoted result

Claude Shannon showed that information can be measured in any sequence that is digital, linear and segregated. Therefore the information in the genome can be measured. Therefore the genome—the critical element for evolution in biology—is not “irreducibly complex.” Therefore, there is no requirement in evolution for an Intelligent Designer

like so uh
wtf are you talking about
did you miss the point or what
hehe

theres a nice table here as well for the non believers (or should that be the true believers
http://www.cynthiayockey.com/pages/1/index.htm

Posted: **Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:35 am**

Claude Shannon showed that information can be measured in any sequence that is digital, linear and segregated. Therefore the information in the genome can be measured. Therefore the genome—the critical element for evolution in biology—is not “irreducibly complex.” Therefore, there is no requirement in evolution for an Intelligent Designer

Since you brought ID back into it, Shannon's ideas would fit into the ID principle of Specified Complexity, not Irreducible Complexity.

Posted: **Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:37 am**

charlie
shannons theory is about theoretical mathematics
theoretical mathematics is not often applied to genetic evolutionary theories and genetics itself is not a mathematical science
it is a biological one
when this mathematical theory is applied to genetics this is the most often quoted result
Quote:
Claude Shannon showed that information can be measured in any sequence that is digital, linear and segregated. Therefore the information in the genome can be measured. Therefore the genome—the critical element for evolution in biology—is not “irreducibly complex.” Therefore, there is no requirement in evolution for an Intelligent Designer

like so uh
wtf are you talking about
did you miss the point or what
hehe
Laughing
theres a nice table here as well for the non believers (or should that be the true believers
http://www.cynthiayockey.com/pages/1/index.htm

So I guess the Center for Cancer Research Nanobiology Program,
Molecular Information Theory Group doesn't no wtf they're talking about, ey?

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/infor ... ainty.html

like so uh
wtf are you talking about
did you miss the point or what
hehe

Posted: **Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:38 am**

would fit into the ID principle of Specified Complexity

Correct, except it's just not an ID concept, it's accepted by molecular biology types.

Archaeologica.org

Evolutionary news