What is the 'Nebraska Man', I mean 'Nebraska Pig?'
2007-04-13 18:05:33 · 8 answers · asked by super Bobo 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I'm interested in the spiritual implications where God is ruled in, to make way for Science.
I believe that things evolve. I don't believe that evolution is the replacement for God, as many folks on R&S do.
I do like you folks though.
2007-04-13 18:18:06 · update #1
'where God is rule out' - my error above, so sorry.
2007-04-13 18:18:52 · update #2
Nebraska Man was an overhyped bit of bad science that was discovered (by scientists) to be bad science, and was relegated to the dustbin of science history ... only to be resurrected over and over by creationists who think that a handful of erroneous specimens undermines *tens of thousands* of carefully documented specimens.
Compare the way that scientists discard known mistakes (no science text book or site lists Nebraska Man as evidence of evolution), with what creationists do with their own "evidence" that gets exposed as errors and hoaxes (such as the Paluxy footprints, the Calaveras skull, the New Zealand Plesiosaur, or any of the claims of Carl Baugh or Ron Wyatt). When these things are proved bogus ... many creationists continue to use them proudly anyway. In other words, 'evolutionists' discard bad data (on both sides). Creationists trumpet them (bringing up science's mistakes, and refusing to discard their own).
The exposing of the bad science of Nebraska Man is a textbook case of why the other specimens are *incredibly* reliable ... science is RELENTLESS in correcting itself. Mistakes are exposed and discarded.
2007-04-13 19:23:39 · answer #1 · answered by secretsauce 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
It's an example of the lows that Creadishonests will stoop too. The fact the poorly-preserved tooth was proclaimed to be from a 'Nebraska Man' by a JOURNALIST and drawn as a hominid by a newspaper ARTIST, and was never called anything but a probable ape tooth (btw pig-teeth are extremely similar to ape-teeth) by the couple of mistaken scientists (quickly shown to be wrong by the scientific community and further research) is never mentioned. It's also an example of the extreme "tell me what I want to believe and I'll accept it no questions without even bothering to check" attitude of the Creadishonests followers. Reality is immaterial to such people. Unlike to critical scientists, as the incident high-lights.
2007-04-14 06:11:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A classic case of the press taking an unresolved scientific discovery and hyping in before the matter was resolved.
2007-04-13 18:30:43 · answer #3 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A marvelous example of science's self-correcting nature.
2007-04-13 18:11:49 · answer #4 · answered by Doc Occam 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
An error of mixed evidence.
2007-04-13 18:09:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
How can something that is real, evolution replace something that isn' real, god?
2007-04-13 18:59:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a Creationist will o' the wisp.
2007-04-13 18:15:05 · answer #7 · answered by Muffie 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why is this under religion?
2007-04-13 18:10:41 · answer #8 · answered by admin@theIglesiaNiCristo.com 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋