Darwinists wrong AGAIN (shock and awe)!
Science Daily: Humans Shaped Stone Axes 1.8 Million Years Ago: Advanced Tool-Making Methods Pushed Back in Time.
ScienceDaily (Sep. 1, 2011) — A new study suggests that Homo erectus, a precursor to modern humans, was using advanced toolmaking methods in East Africa 1.8 million years ago, at least 300,000 years earlier than previously thought. The study, recently published in Nature, raises new questions about where these tall and slender early humans originated and how they developed sophisticated tool-making technology.
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
5 comments:
Wrong and then adjusting their theories to compensate for new evidence. Beats believing things on an emotional level or making constant appeals to (easily-falsified) authority.
Why does it take scientists decades or centuries or millenia to adjust their so-called theories to compensate for new evidence? Why do Darwinists believe their religion based on an emotional level and making constant appeals to (easily-falsified) authority?
Why does it take scientists decades or centuries or millenia to adjust their so-called theories to compensate for new evidence?
If the evidence isn't there, there is no reason to change the theory. You don't just change it because you like the sound of something. "Oi! Our readings are off! Let's blame elves!" is not science.
Why do Darwinists believe their religion based on an emotional level and making constant appeals to (easily-falsified) authority?
"One of the many differences between science and religion is that science is almost completely unconcerned with what any individual scientist believes, no matter how famous." - Thinkprogress.org
We make no appeals to authority; only evidence, simulation and experimentation. Evolution and Science and Evidence-based thinking are not religions. They change, they adapt to new evidence (see my above response).
Now, I can see why a theist would want to think this. If you have a paranoid supertitious world-view, living in a dark, confined mind that is easily frightened by gods, demons and googly-eyed evangelicals, you might find comfort in the notion that others feel the same way. We don't. You lose this one.
We don't care. Honestly, what matters is results. Call that religion if you want, but do not expect anyone to take you seriously. Like ever.
"If the evidence isn't there, there is no reason to change the theory."
You clearly didn't understand the question. The question was why don't scientists change so-called theories in the face of disconfirming evidence?
Why do Darwinists believe their religion based on an emotional level and making constant appeals to (easily-falsified) authority?
The question was why don't scientists change so-called theories in the face of disconfirming evidence?
These are two separate questions. One of which I answered, the other is new.
I don't beleive I've ever seen an example of a case where this has happened. New evidence is uncovered all the time. Theories are thrown out sometimes, other times they are refined. Some theories, like evolution and the heliocentricity of the solar system, are also facts, and should not be discarded. Others, like expanding earth and the solar-capacitor/solar resistance models, are wrong and should be discarded. Perhaps kept around as examples of bad, disproven ideas.
Ironicly, you are commenting in a blog post about this very thing. The shift in the tool-use theory isn't strong enough for you to acknowledge it as "proper change." You want us to look at some stone axes and immediately credit the proto-Greeks with having cable TV.
There is no evidence of high-technology civilizations prior to the one we live in now. When you present some (say, plastic items with Akkadian script on them) then I'll buy it.
However, if you are referring to a specific case, I'm all ears...or eyes in this eventuality. Otherwise, you are just whining about your pet hypotheses not getting screentime in the big picture-show of Science.
Post a Comment