I thought that I had read the most ridiculous "scientific evidence" piece (Greek word for that is: Camel Dung) a couple weeks ago, when a decorated liberal enlightened the secular world with the explanation of Jesus' walking on water by attributing it to His moon-walking across large chunks of ice, but this is just as moronic. In fact, if there ever was a reason to discourage my children from ever entering a secular college, this is it:
------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry old Bean, the apes got there first
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sorry, but words can not describe how asinine this statement is. The article goes on to say that “Language appeared only 2 million years after the first laugh...”
Unbelievable.
How, pray tell, do these “scientists” determine when the first laugh was, when according to their own hypothesis, spoken language didn’t come about until two million years later? I find it amazing that the “scientific world” will undoubtedly take and give this information as fact, while at the same time doubt and criticize every word in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures – regardless of how recent they are historically, and how many eye witness accounts there are, both biblical, and in extra biblical writings – writings that have survived thousands of years without the slightest change in content (other than minor grammatical discrepancies that do not change the meaning of the text).
Is this science? Is this “knowledge based on objectivity and involving observation and experimentation”? If you answered yes, I have to point your attention to the words “objectivity”, “observation”, and “experimentation”. Then I have to ask you... well, wait a second. If you are still answering yes, then I won’t ask you anything.
You must already be a “scientist”.
As for the rest of us "Laymen" we will simply stick with the Truth, and that which we can determine by objectivity, involving observation and experimentation.
2 comments:
nah, real scientists know to treat this kind of stuff as conjecture based on a couple of measurements and whatnot; the real problem is with "science writers" (a profession in their own right) who end up oversimplifying things and taking articles out of their proper 'dialogue' context. seriously, there are entire subfields that can be described as, "what otherwise serious scientists do when they get drunk," (e.g. cosmology) and ironically these are the sufields most likely to be reported in mainstream press (because the same things that make topics interesting to drunk scientists make them interesting to drunk(?) laypeople. when you see stuff like that printed in a newspaper, just think of it as your smart but high friend proclaiming some crazy insight, and then see if you can follow his logic; that's what real scientists do.
...that explains Al Gore.
Post a Comment