Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94

 ... 484

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

AUG 10, 2007 01:27 AM

Leakey's got a fucking hot daughter that's also an anthropologist. Yeah, my two cents...

Also, this really isn't all the profound if you think about it. Half of archeology is simply waiting for the data to materialize, and it has. Way to go common sense...

On the other hand, kudos to Subrosa for bringing the subject matter to SG boards...

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

AUG 10, 2007 01:29 AM

Oh God, I thought you were referring to that thread with DanTheGreater. That was a fucking gem. .

RandomNerd

RandomNerd

I'm lost
January 2005

AUG 10, 2007 08:22 AM

Dude, get it right. We came from Clams.

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

AUG 10, 2007 10:51 AM

Subrosa said:

Formus said:

joker_ said:
Whatever you do, do not mention punctuated equilibrium vs phyletic gradualism when trying to discuss evolution with a creationist.



And if you bring up drug-resistant tuberculosis, you bear the burden of cleaning up their brains and skull fragments.



I'm sorry, but haven't you heard? Microevolution doesn't prove that macroevolution occurs.

Try again, pagan scum. The only logical conclusion is that God exists and He created us in His image.



You're going to look pretty funny when your tongue get's stuck in your cheek like that.

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

AUG 10, 2007 05:42 PM

s5 said:

bean said:

"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous self-testing process."




I was really, really happy to see that in the article. The knuckle dragging fundies have become so rabid about inserting their politics into everything, that it was nice to see a scientist pre-emptively counter that by putting the discovery in the broader social context. This kind of thing is completely mundane in science - that is, new discoveries challenging existing theories and paving the way to more updated, refined theories - yet only sparks media controversy when one of the make believe pet theories of the religious right is involved. No one would bat an eyelash if the discovery had been in any other field, and it's more important than ever that the public understands how science works.



:applauds:

ckdexterhaven

ckdexterhaven

USA
December 2005

AUG 10, 2007 05:54 PM

NickFaust said:

Subrosa said:

Formus said:

joker_ said:
Whatever you do, do not mention punctuated equilibrium vs phyletic gradualism when trying to discuss evolution with a creationist.



And if you bring up drug-resistant tuberculosis, you bear the burden of cleaning up their brains and skull fragments.



I'm sorry, but haven't you heard? Microevolution doesn't prove that macroevolution occurs.

Try again, pagan scum. The only logical conclusion is that God exists and He created us in His image.



You're going to look pretty funny when your tongue get's stuck in your cheek like that.


And when he's trying to eat corn on the cob with no fucking teeth.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next