Why do scientists bother looking for pre-human ancestors when dim-wits just dismiss discoveries as "hoax"?

Question

For intelligent people, the science is already understood and the conclusion is clear...but scientists continue to look for more hominids...as if they will convince the rest of the idiots with more fossils. Dont they get it...no amount of evidence on this subject will convince the religionists...they cant cope with it and thus, the most powerful force in humanity -- RATIONALIZATION intervenes and cannot be overcome.

Without reading or understanding a word, dim-wits just reply "it must be a hoax"..."them scientific people have an agenda!".

Scientists...I love you...and i know your non-partisan nature (grew up around scientists)...but expend you energy elsewhere...like trying to find a pill that can cure the disease of rationalizing.

Answer 1

Great question. The simply fact is that religious people rely so much on their supernatural security blankets that they must, out of willfull ignorance, consider any outside evidence to be false.

Answer 2

The Pope had some interesting things to say to scientists at Regensburg last week. One paragraph of it got rather a lot of media attention, but the most important points were overlooked. Basically he argued that by narrowing the debate to only those matters that can be tested by the scientific method secularists fail to use their rationality to look at the most important metaphysical matters, while assuming an unexamined epistemological position about the reliability and source of such knowledge. Maybe you should read it in full...

Answer 3

I am sorry but your statement "For intelligent people, the science is already understood and the conclusion is clear"

is as foolish if not more so than that of religious fanatics. Science is the work of man and has its mistakes, it was only 70 years ago that we thought the Universe had no beginning now we know differently. Scientists are not out to prove something. They keep searching to gain more knowledge about the world around us.

if people are to blind to see it or too foolish to accept evidence with out looking at its flaws that is not their problem. They are out to search for what science can show them regardless of how you or anyone else twists it.

The fact is we dont know everything about pre-human ancestors that is why they keep looking. for knowledge not to convince anyone. You clearly dont know a think about what science is about.

Answer 4

They are finding apes...Not humans! You are wrong, for scientists their evidence is in, alright, DESPITE the facts. It's easy when you are the one defining what is fact and what time measurements are being used, no matter how flawed they have been proven. Do I really have to explain the money/grant factor to you? It's all about the money and always has been. You are the one whose been punked. You are not intelligent at all, you (evolutionist) are a pawn of the devil, and that is all.

BTW, science does have it's place in helping society. However, science has not ever, I repeat not ever, cured ANYTHING. Do you not know this? It is used to TREAT the disease, pain, condition, whatever. You're blind to what the truth is. Rationalize that!

Answer 5

why do scientists bother with anything if we all just end up worm food anyway- what on earth would it matter?
you can deny it to the end but there is definitely an agenda- when science steps over the boundaries of obeservation and study and reporting its observations- to creating fairy tales about those observations and touting them as fact rather than ideas or possibilities- especially when something is completely unproveable aside from a 3 million year old man that was there and saw it all and was alive and well to report it today- it is no longer science but politics.
There is NOTHING in that article and nothing aobut that finding that proves the theory of evolution and it is just arrogance and defiant rebellion to say otherwise. How open minded is it to accept no other possibilities and report something as fact that you have no clue about?

Answer 6

Awesome point. You are right. However, the purpose is not to convince theists that evolution is true, it is to gain a further understanding of the various changes that occurred over time. Creationist on the other hand, could have every piece of evidence thrown in their face and they will still continue to defend their beliefs. They could find a perfect frozen body of a primate that actually has human features, fingers, and basically looks like the missing link. They would claim it was, 'planted by Satan'. I doesn't matter how much reason or sense we make of things, they will continue to disregard it.

Answer 7

Oh come on!!! the position do you get those notions that there is merely about no info?! Who instructed you that? There bundles of info!!! The fossil record, DNA... How is that merely about no info? in case you decide on to ignore that info, it truly is distinct to their being no info! that's extinct interior the way that maximum issues are growing extinct. the ecosystem replaced so the animals replaced to slot the recent ecosystem. Why ought to the former, unsuited aspect proceed to exist? it truly is common experience! You obviously do not understand what evolution extremely says do you? Why do not you a minimum of study about some thing before you commence criticising it? or you merely come for the time of as an fool.

Answer 8

The irony of it. Benny Hinn follower types sreaming "hoax!" One answer more or less said, "But you DID lie to us once!"

But don't despair. These same types were against most science throughout history. I was just reading up on how the various "Christian" ministries mounted a campaign against vaccination on the grounds that it "tampered with God's will."

With time anti-intellectuality is eroded by the laughter of successive generations and the overwhelming weight of evidence. (Dogmatists then conveniently "forget" their past bumbling and go on to the next "cause of God.")

Answer 9

The religious types need no evidence to believe their truth, the scientist needs incontrovertible evidence before accepting a truth, a skeptic hardly ever accepts the truth and the philosopher never finds the truth but knows it will be found one day.

I believe in God (insofar as a unifying force with it's own balance of good/evil, +/-){all religions need to accept that there is ONE GOD that has infinite identities and requires nothing from us, not even worship, but wishes all mankind to live in peace, co-operate and 'keep the place clean or lose your deposit'!}, but science shall be what saves or destroys mankind, the skeptic in me doesn't believe we can ever find a balance in existence and the philosopher is eternally seeking all truths!

Answer 10

I'm sorry, but once bitten twice shy. Perhaps the scientific community shouldn't have been so quick to rubber stamp hoax findings in the past.

Blindly accepting something because it is what you want to hear is totally against science. This goes for proof of evolution as well...

Answer 11

Evolutionary Claims Proven to Be Hoaxes
The Nebraska Man — Evolutionists constructed a theory about an entire race of men
based on one fossilized tooth. This tooth was paraded as evidence for evolution in the 1925
Scopes trial. Heralded as the “missing link” in human evolution, this hypothesized figure
was labeled the “Nebraska Man.” Scientists later learned that the tooth came from a pig.
Java Man — In 1891, Dr. Eugene DuBois found the skull of a primate on the island of Java.
One year later, he found a human-like thigh bone roughly 50 feet away from the skull’s original
location. With great imagination and no evidence linking the artifacts, “Java Man” was born.
The Piltdown Man — Championed by evolutionists as a “missing link,” this figure proved
to be a portion of a human skull pieced together with an orangutan’s jaw. Upon closer
inspection, scientists discovered that the teeth had been filed down to resemble a human’s teeth.
The Neanderthal Man — On January 26, a study conducted by Dr. Katerina Harvati, a
paleoanthropologist at New York University, was published in The Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences. In her report, Dr. Harvati debunks the myth that “Neanderthals” were
ancestors of modern man. She wrote, “The difference between Neanderthals and modern humans
was as great or greater than that found between [other] closely related primate species.”
Orce Man — In 1982, Spanish scientists found an ancient skull, which they claimed
to be from a 17-year-old boy. Scientists touted this find as a “missing link.” Only days before
a scheduled symposium, UPI News reported, “When French experts revealed the fact that
‘Orce Man’ was most likely a skull fragment from a four-month-old donkey, embarrassed
Spanish authorities sent out 500 letters canceling invitations to the symposium.”
Haeckel’s Embryos — Ernst Haeckel, a German developmental biologist, proposed an
evolutionary theory titled “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” According to this view, as a
fertilized egg develops to form a human embryo, it repeats each of man’s evolutionary
stages throughout history. This has been completely disproved.
Peppered Moth — In England, scientists studied the population trends of both black and
gray peppered moths. Errantly, these scientists claimed that the moths had genetically
evolved for survival. When this was disproved, University of Chicago evolutionary biologist
Jerry Coyne admitted that “the prize horse in [evolutionists’] stable” had been debunked.
Coyne added, “My own reaction resembles the dismay attending the discovery, at the age of
six, that it was my father and not Santa Claus who brought the presents on Christmas Eve.”

How Probable is Evolution?
“The esteemed Carl Sagan and other prominent scientists have estimated the chance of man
evolving at roughly 1 chance in 102,000,000,000. This is the number one with two billion zeros
after it and could be written out in about 20,000 booklets…According to Borel’s law, this is
no chance at all.”
— John Ankerberg and John Weldon, “The Facts on Creation vs. Evolution,” The Anker Series,
(Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1993) p. 21.
Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous astronomer, once wrote, “The chance that higher life forms
might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping
through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”
— Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin On Trial, (Downers Grove: Illinois Intervarsity Press, 1993) p. 106.
According to Dr. Michael Denton, a molecular biologist, “Neither of the two fundamental
axioms of Darwin’s macro evolutionary theory [that all of life evolves from a primeval cell
and that life resulted merely from blind chance] have been validated by one single
empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859.”
— Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, 1986), p. 345.