From the "essay" after he has made a "few rewordings to make it more proper" -- it still says:
"Someone who cares" with no basis on facts writes:
Lucy’s inner ear structure, skull structure, and other bones show that she was most likely related to the pygmy chimpanzee. She did not even walk like humans do. When a knee joint for one find of Lucy was requested, they found one more than about 200 feet lower in the earth and about two miles away from the rest of her! [5] How could that joint have possibly belonged to that particular Lucy find?
It has been pointed out to "Someone who cares" that this is not the truth and that the knee joint was not combined into the Lucy skeleton as part of that find.
He has NOT corrected that error "to make it more proper" so it is a valid conclusion that he wants to continue portraying this demonstrated falsehood as what he calls "truth" in his essay.
Perhaps he would like to enlighten us on his reasons for not making a correction to such a blatant error when (a) he had the opportunity (while he was making other changes) and (b) he was aware of the fact that this specific error had been pointed out specifically to him.
Richard Dawkins is
quoted (properly, versus some creatortionista versions) as saying:
quote:
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, ...
... I don't withdraw a word of my initial statement. But I do now think it may have been incomplete. There is perhaps a fifth category, which may belong under "insane" but which can be more sympathetically characterized by a word like tormented, bullied, or brainwashed.
The word that comes to mind for me on this fifth category is deluded. He lays out his reasoning rather well in the article concerning the first four categories, especially about "ignorant" -- but it seems that in some cases such ignorance is involutary, yet not bedded in stupidity or delusion either. Rather it includes (among other things) a complete {inability\failure} to understand the relevance of logic and evidence to science. They think
all such thought structure is no different than their belief about things.
The test for delusion is relatively simple: how much of the real world do you deny?
Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2
