Re: The contrast between Sean Pitman and Harlan Bretz


"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:23f03a30-ea23-49aa-933c-d89a5fef73f3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Dec 31, 1:17 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 31, 2:35 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 30, 8:04 am, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
SNIP...

Howard: my personal favorite on Pitman's site is the essay on
"Early
Man" - what do you think?

Ray

Not my area of expertese. But it is clearly more creationist
bull***.

You admit that you do not know jack *** about human evolution

There is a difference between knowing that this is not my area of
expertise and not knowing jack *** about human evolution. I know
enough jack *** about evolution (human or otherwise) to know that
Sean knows less than jack *** about evolution (human or otherwise)
and to know that you know less than Sean does.

then
you write five long winded paragraphs....as it is commonly said: those
who know the least have the most to say. I might add that since you
cannot even admit that crooked fingers are a deformity

[Note: this refers to whether or not 'crooked fingers' are *always*
selectively deleterious. My viewpoint is that phenotypic variation is
not *inherently* beneficial or deleterious just because it differs
from the norm. The terms 'beneficial' and 'deleterious' are
conditional adjectives that can only be determined by actual test in a
particular environment, not arbitrarily declared to be 'deformity',
meaning 'deleterious', just because they are not the norm. In fact,
it was pointed out that in a particular indigenous group, people with
crooked fingers were better able to get coconuts or some other food
from trees.]

this makes you
a quackpot running your mouth. Your disapproval of Theist scholars, in
view of these facts, is a good thing.

Theist scholars, if by that you mean foul-mouthed televangelists of no
particular merit, are indeed contemptible.



First and perhaps more importantly, it is yet another pawning off of
the idea that uncertainty or being wrong in science discredits the
entire enterprise. Both, in fact, are what distinguishes science
from
creationism. There are, in science, data sets that allow for
alternative natural explanations (that is a necessity for hypothesis
testing). In the scientific method, as opposed to 'goddidit'
explanations, being wrong is actually possible because we have a
ruler
by which to discriminate between ideas.

Sean seems to think that because interpretations have changed over
time, that the whole scientific enterprise is fatally flawed and its
better just to "believe" in the unscientific "Rock of Ages"
mythology,
although he just leaves it as a claim that because scientists have
re-
interpreted this or been wrong about that, that one cannot believe
*anything* that those filthy atheists say -- although he leaves that
conclusion for the reader to come to. That is because he has
absolutely no alternative explanation for the same data (although he
has one he would 'like' his viewers to take -- 'goddidit' for
inscrutable reasons) that would stand even the simplest empirical
tests. Same old creationist bull*** that demonizes the scientific
method and its practitioners and glorifies 'ignorance' and 'faith'
as
better ways to understand the material world.

The early hominid data certainly could have supported the idea of a
'line' of progression (the crude *POPULAR* misconception of
evolution
as a ladder of progress, but one held by many in the early 1900's)
rather than a state of uncertain and unclear connections of
bushiness
that the data is now interpreted as. More data (more extinct hominid
species from different times in the past) leads to reinterpretation
of
the pattern of change. Current data are considered to be
insufficiently detailed to discriminate between alternative patterns
of change. Sounds like normal science to me.

In either case, the fundamental idea that some of these species
(esp.
those more similar to a common ancestor between modern humans and
modern great apes) are now extinct and that there was no time in
which
there was both these now-extinct species of great apes/hominids and
modern species of great apes/hominids co-existed seems not to be
under
question even in Sean's article. That means that *he* has to present
an alternative explanation for this data that 'differs' from the
explanation of evolution and extinction. An alternative that
includes
all this evidence and has testable consequences that could be
resolved
by further data.

This article seems to be simply a re-hash of older creationist
canards
rather than an analysis of the data that produces the 'alternative'
theory that Sean seems to think exists. It is quite clear, even from
the evidence that Sean presents in that "argument against something
he
pretends is evolution" that there are more "intermediate" hominids
than the Bible says there should be and, certainly, more different
hominids than exist at the present time. No explanation is given.
*IF* Sean actually believes that all these hominids were poofed into
existence during 'magic week' 6000 years ago, he has the
responsibility to explain why all this evidence supports his
hypothesis. Otherwise, even though there can certainly be scientific
disagreement about whether this or that fossil is directly in the
lineage of modern humans, the general idea that there has been
species
change over time *even in the hominid lineage* seems rather solid.
Why Sean (and other creationists) seem to think that scientists
should
all agree on detailed interpretations of limited data, never be
wrong
about their interpretations, and never be fooled by hoaxes is beyond
me. That would be as silly as claiming that Christians have never
been wrong in their interpretations and never been fooled by foul-
mouthed televangelists.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ray- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You've simply been caught speaking about a subject (human evolution)
of which you admittedly know nothing. Insulting Stanford Ph.D.s is
conducive with the former. In addition to not knowing anything about
human evolution

How is it possible to know nothing about a non-existent subject?

you know nothing about history, ancient history,
archaeology, philosophy, Pyramidology or the Bible. Your posts
attacking me and my sources betrays these facts and explains the
attack to be from a one trick pony jealous of those who can argue
gestalt apologetics.

Gee whiz, you're an awesome character!

Ray




.