TOBS: Rama, them Hindu ape's \ A Budikka Gap.

[Jabriol]

About 14 million years ago, there was Rama or
Ramapithecus-Rama's ape (Rama was a mythical prince of India).
Fossils of it were found in India about a century ago. From
these fossils was constructed an apelike creature, upright, on
two limbs. Of it Origins stated: "As far as one can say at the
moment, it is the first representative of the human family."

What was the fossil evidence for this conclusion? The same
publication remarked: "The evidence concerning Ramapithecus
is considerable-though in absolute terms it remains
tantalizingly small: fragments of upper and lower jaws, plus
a collection of teeth." Do you think that this was
"considerable" enough "evidence" to reconstruct an upright
"ape-man" ancestor of humans? Yet, this mostly hypothetical
creature was drawn by artists as an "ape-man," and pictures
of it flooded evolutionary literature-all on the basis of
jawbone fragments and teeth! Still, as The New York Times
reported, for decades Ramapithecus "sat as securely as
anything can at the base of the human evolutionary tree."

However, that is no longer the case. Recent and more complete
fossil finds revealed that Ramapithecus closely resembled the
present-day ape family. So New Scientist now declares:
"Ramapithecus cannot have been the first member of the human
line." Such new information provoked the following question
in Natural History magazine: "How did Ramapithecus,
. . . reconstructed only from teeth and jaws-without a known
pelvis, limb bones, or skull-sneak into this
manward-marching procession?" Obviously, a great deal of
wishful thinking must have gone into such an effort to make
the evidence say what it does not say.

[Rv Cloim]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 11:34:15 -0800, JaBrIoL wrote:

> About 14 million years ago, there was Rama or
> Ramapithecus-Rama's ape (Rama was a mythical prince of
> India).

<snip>

> However, that is no longer the case. Recent and more
> complete fossil finds revealed that Ramapithecus closely
> resembled the present-day ape family. So New Scientist now
> declares: "Ramapithecus cannot have been the first member
> of the human line."

???

Wouldn't the 'first member of the human line' also closely
resemble the 'present-day ape family' ?

Aren't humans *part of* the 'present-day ape family'?

As far as the 'artistic renderings' are concerned: they are,
always have been, and always will be *artistic. The more data
available, the more precise the model will be.

<sarcasm> Isn't it odd that these scientist fellows are
always revising their models when new evidence comes to
light? </sarcasm

[Linda]

14 million!?

You know the parabolic curve of inaccuracy for C14 dating is
dramatic over 1000 years , its even inaccurate 700 years let
alone 14 million. your thoughts?

"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0311101134.35e1766e@posting.google.com...
> About 14 million years ago, there was Rama or
> Ramapithecus-Rama's ape (Rama was a mythical prince of
> India). Fossils of it were found in India about a century
> ago. From these fossils was constructed an apelike creature,
> upright, on two limbs. Of it Origins stated: "As far as one
> can say at the moment, it is the first representative of the
> human family."
>
> What was the fossil evidence for this conclusion? The same
> publication remarked: "The evidence concerning Ramapithecus
> is considerable-though in absolute terms it remains
> tantalizingly small: fragments of upper and lower jaws,
> plus a collection of teeth." Do you think that this was
> "considerable" enough "evidence" to reconstruct an upright
> "ape-man" ancestor of humans? Yet, this mostly hypothetical
> creature was drawn by artists as an "ape-man," and pictures
> of it flooded evolutionary literature-all on the basis of
> jawbone fragments and teeth! Still, as The New York Times
> reported, for decades Ramapithecus "sat as securely as
> anything can at the base of the human evolutionary tree."
>
> However, that is no longer the case. Recent and more
> complete fossil finds revealed that Ramapithecus closely
> resembled the present-day ape family. So New Scientist now
> declares: "Ramapithecus cannot have been the first member
> of the human line." Such new information provoked the
> following question in Natural History magazine: "How did
> Ramapithecus,
> . . . reconstructed only from teeth and jaws-without a known
> pelvis, limb bones, or skull-sneak into this
> manward-marching procession?" Obviously, a great deal of
> wishful thinking must have gone into such an effort to
> make the evidence say what it does not say.

[Jabriol]

Rv Cloim <cloim@propylaea.tor.org> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.11.11.02.22.27.480856@propylaea.tor.org>...
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 11:34:15 -0800, JaBrIoL wrote:
>
> > About 14 million years ago, there was Rama or
> > Ramapithecus-Rama's ape (Rama was a mythical prince of
> > India).
>
> <snip>
>
> > However, that is no longer the case. Recent and more
> > complete fossil finds revealed that Ramapithecus closely
> > resembled the present-day ape family. So New Scientist
> > now declares: "Ramapithecus cannot have been the first
> > member of the human line."
>
> ???
>
> Wouldn't the 'first member of the human line' also closely
> resemble the 'present-day ape family' ?

by today defintion all men are apes.. promates and bananas..
or half bananas anyway.

>
> Aren't humans *part of* the 'present-day ape family'?

see above..

>
> As far as the 'artistic renderings' are concerned: they are,
> always have been, and always will be *artistic. The more
> data available, the more precise the model will be.
>
> <sarcasm> Isn't it odd that these scientist fellows are
> always revising their models when new evidence comes to
> light? </sarcasm>

yeah.. we know.. we know..

[Tedd]

removed alt.JW please remove all but the groups involved
if replying.

in sci.anthropology.paleo, a response to what "Linda" wrote:

> 14 million!?
>
> You know the parabolic curve of inaccuracy for C14 dating is
> dramatic over 1000 years , its even inaccurate 700 years let
> alone 14 million. your thoughts?

linda, i'm not sure where you are pulling your information on
C-14 dating from but it is highly inaccurate. C-14 dating is
accurate for dates going back as far at 40-50,000 years. it is
in fact quite accurate for dates of 15,000 and younger. at 700
years the technique can give you accuracy of within 2-3 years.
C-14 dating _does not_ date anything 14 million years old and
isnt even attempted on anything over 60,000 years.

secondly, where did you get the impression that c-14 dating
was being used?

[Jim Hutton]

"Linda" <linda_j_d@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1068550948.180287@kangaroo.ozonline.com.au...
> 14 million!?
>
> You know the parabolic curve of inaccuracy for C14 dating is
> dramatic over 1000 years , its even inaccurate 700 years let
> alone 14 million. your thoughts?

You must be kidding. No one would trust C14 dating for an
object that is 14 million years old. However, there are many
other isotopes that can be used.

Otoh, for objects that are 1000 yrs old, C14 dating is highly
accurate. I suspect Linda is trying to sell pieces of teh
Shroud of Turin on Ebay and wants to discredit C14 dating. :-)

JH aa#1696

[Alice Bill]

"Linda" <linda_j_d@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1068550948.180287@kangaroo.ozonline.com.au...
> 14 million!?
>
> You know the parabolic curve of inaccuracy for C14 dating is
> dramatic over 1000 years , its even inaccurate 700 years let
> alone 14 million. your thoughts?
=====================
THIS is straight from the Watchtower Society Magazines!
LOL!!! They're about as unscientific as you can get. They're
written by unpaid volunteers, most of which don't even have
HS diplomas.
Note: Linda is another Jehovah's Witness like the well known
sociopath and pathological liar - Jabriol.

Alice

[Alice Bill]

"Jim Hutton" <atheist1696@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:boqu59$74a$1@nntp.msstate.edu...
>
> "Linda" <linda_j_d@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:1068550948.180287@kangaroo.ozonline.com.au...
> > 14 million!?
> >
> > You know the parabolic curve of inaccuracy for C14 dating
> > is dramatic
over
> > 1000 years , its even inaccurate 700 years let alone 14
> > million. your thoughts?
>
> You must be kidding. No one would trust C14 dating for an
> object that is 14 million years old. However, there are many
> other isotopes that can be used.
>
> Otoh, for objects that are 1000 yrs old, C14 dating is
> highly accurate. I suspect Linda is trying to sell pieces of
> teh Shroud of Turin on Ebay
and
> wants to discredit C14 dating. :-)
>
> JH aa#1696
================
See my other post. Linda is another Jehovah's Witness like
Jabriol. The Watchtower Publishing House they belong to
teaches them this. I saw it myself in their literature.
They are not allowed to believe in anything but a magical,
fantastical, supernatural creation by the WTS god they
call Jehovah.

Alice

[Jabriol]

"Alice Billingham" <nospam@spamless.net> wrote in message
news:3fb13349@news.heartoftn.net...
>
> "Linda" <linda_j_d@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:1068550948.180287@kangaroo.ozonline.com.au...
> > 14 million!?
> >
> > You know the parabolic curve of inaccuracy for C14 dating
> > is dramatic
over
> > 1000 years , its even inaccurate 700 years let alone 14
> > million. your thoughts?
> =====================
> THIS is straight from the Watchtower Society Magazines!
> LOL!!! They're about as unscientific as you can get. They're
> written by unpaid
volunteers,
> most of which don't even have HS diplomas.
> Note: Linda is another Jehovah's Witness like the well known
> sociopath and pathological liar - Jabriol.
>
> Alice
>

Carol has been caught in various vicious lies, with intent to
slander JW's Before you reply, you may want to ask her a few
things or only one. _Where does she get her information? _Can
her information be verified? _Is the information up to date?
_What is the purpose of her post? To present reliable facts or
sling mud on a religious organization in good standing in
almost every country in the world?

Ask her for evidence of her claims before proceeding with your
conversation with her, if not you may be end up wasting your
time on discussing subjects based on fraudulent and fabricated
information. Therefore participating with her attempt at
slander, and distributing false information elsewhere, may
make you a lying fool as well.. Why throw Pearls at swine?

Facts about Carol:

*She can never present evidence. *she never reveal the source
of her info(because there is none). Her common reply, is
"everybody already knows". If everybody knew, why bring it up?
*She always hide her identity. And change her header to avoid
killfiles. *She cuts and paste, rewrite postings, and will
even forge e-mail addreses which her ISP allows her to do.

And if you don't belive me...just read her reply on this
thread..

She can't resists... She knows Jabriol is always right.

If you want to get rid of Carol, tell her to go home and
service her husband, like any decent honorable housewife
would.

[Budikka]

Antonio has been caught in various vicious lies, with
intent to slander scientists. Before you reply, you may
want to ask him:

Can his information be verified? (It never can) Is the
information up to date? (It rarely is) What is the purpose of
his post? To present reliable facts or to sling mud on a
scientific theory in good standing in literally every country
in the world? (it's the latter)

Ask him for evidence of his claims (he never gives any) before
proceeding with your conversation. If you don't, you will end
up wasting your time. If you do, you will also end up wasting
your time: he ignores requests for supportive evidence and
questions that involve him backing up anything he claims,
because his posts are entirely based on fraudulent and/or
fabricated information or argument from incredulity. Thus
you're only encouraging his lies, slander, hypocrisy and
distribution of false information which will make you a lying
fool as well. Why throw gems at an ignorant pig?

Facts about Antonio: *He can never present evidence. *He never
reveal the source of his info(because there is none). *His
common reply, is "Snip". *He always hides his identity under
the pretentious pseudonym of "Jabriol", pretending he is the
archangel Gabriel when he's really just hypocritical (as his
response in this thread proves conclusively)
psycho-babbler Antonio Santana (aka Satan) who has been
asking the same dumb questions and been receiving the same
intleligent, helpful, informative, scientific replies for
at least a half-decade, all of which he has completely
ignored. *He cuts and pastes, rewrites postings, and will
even forge evidence or steal it from creationist web sites
without attribution, without reference, and without
supportive evidence.

And if you don't believe me...just read his replies.

He can't resist - he knows Budikka is right and he is wrong
and he cannot stand it.

If you want to get rid of Antonio, tell him the truth, ask
difficult questions about real science, and he will flee from
any thread like a long-tailed cat from a rocking chair
convention.

Budikka

[Michelle M]

On 19 Nov 2003 19:02:02 -0800, budikka1@netscape.net
(Budikka) wrote:

>Antonio has been caught in various vicious lies, with
>intent to slander scientists. Before you reply, you may
>want to ask him:
>
>Can his information be verified? (It never can) Is the
>information up to date? (It rarely is) What is the purpose of
>his post? To present reliable facts or to sling mud on a
>scientific theory in good standing in literally every country
>in the world? (it's the latter)
>
>Ask him for evidence of his claims (he never gives any)
>before proceeding with your conversation. If you don't, you
>will end up wasting your time. If you do, you will also end
>up wasting your time: he ignores requests for supportive
>evidence and questions that involve him backing up anything
>he claims, because his posts are entirely based on fraudulent
>and/or fabricated information or argument from incredulity.
>Thus you're only encouraging his lies, slander, hypocrisy and
>distribution of false information which will make you a lying
>fool as well. Why throw gems at an ignorant pig?
>
>Facts about Antonio: *He can never present evidence. *He
>never reveal the source of his info(because there is none).
>*His common reply, is "Snip". *He always hides his identity
>under the pretentious pseudonym of "Jabriol", pretending he
>is the archangel Gabriel when he's really just hypocritical
>(as his response in this thread proves conclusively)
>psycho-babbler Antonio Santana (aka Satan) who has been
> asking the same dumb questions and been receiving the same
> intleligent, helpful, informative, scientific replies for
> at least a half-decade, all of which he has completely
> ignored. *He cuts and pastes, rewrites postings, and will
> even forge evidence or steal it from creationist web sites
> without attribution, without reference, and without
> supportive evidence.
>
>And if you don't believe me...just read his replies.
>
>He can't resist - he knows Budikka is right and he is wrong
>and he cannot stand it.
>
>If you want to get rid of Antonio, tell him the truth, ask
>difficult questions about real science, and he will flee from
>any thread like a long-tailed cat from a rocking chair
>convention.
>
>Budikka

I haven't heard that long-tailed cat line since the old
Tennesse Ernie Ford Show back in the 1950's. The way Ford said
it was 'a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs'. I
also liked the one about the black cat in the coal cellar at
midnight. (What year did "Sixteen Tons" come out?)

Geeze, am I ever feeling ancient!

Michelle Malkin (Mickey)

^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ Hands
that work are better than mouths that pray - Robert Ingersoll
****************************************************

[~* Egg Pla]

"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0klorvckqeqi10o2f5mjvebrni6k3fkl4n@4ax.com... I also
liked the one about the
> black cat in the coal cellar at midnight. (What year did
> "Sixteen Tons" come out?) Geeze, am I ever feeling ancient!
> Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
=========
It was between 1953 and 1955 I believe.
--
Me..... SUBJECT: Best Bumper Sticker of the Year: If you can
read this, thank a teacher.... If you are reading it in
English, thank a Veteran º¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤º ~*~ ~*~
º¤º°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤º ~*~ ~*~

[Johac]

In article <0klorvckqeqi10o2f5mjvebrni6k3fkl4n@4ax.com>,
Michelle Malkin <hypatiab7@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On 19 Nov 2003 19:02:02 -0800, budikka1@netscape.net
> (Budikka) wrote:
>
> >Antonio has been caught in various vicious lies, with
> >intent to slander scientists. Before you reply, you may
> >want to ask him:
> >
> >Can his information be verified? (It never can) Is the
> >information up to date? (It rarely is) What is the purpose
> >of his post? To present reliable facts or to sling mud on a
> >scientific theory in good standing in literally every
> >country in the world? (it's the latter)
> >
> >Ask him for evidence of his claims (he never gives any)
> >before proceeding with your conversation. If you don't, you
> >will end up wasting your time. If you do, you will also end
> >up wasting your time: he ignores requests for supportive
> >evidence and questions that involve him backing up anything
> >he claims, because his posts are entirely based on
> >fraudulent and/or fabricated information or argument from
> >incredulity. Thus you're only encouraging his lies,
> >slander, hypocrisy and distribution of false information
> >which will make you a lying fool as well. Why throw gems at
> >an ignorant pig?
> >
> >Facts about Antonio: *He can never present evidence. *He
> >never reveal the source of his info(because there is none).
> >*His common reply, is "Snip". *He always hides his identity
> >under the pretentious pseudonym of "Jabriol", pretending he
> >is the archangel Gabriel when he's really just hypocritical
> >(as his response in this thread proves conclusively)
> >psycho-babbler Antonio Santana (aka Satan) who has been
> > asking the same dumb questions and been receiving the
> > same intleligent, helpful, informative, scientific
> > replies for at least a half-decade, all of which he has
> > completely ignored. *He cuts and pastes, rewrites
> > postings, and will even forge evidence or steal it from
> > creationist web sites without attribution, without
> > reference, and without supportive evidence.
> >
> >And if you don't believe me...just read his replies.
> >
> >He can't resist - he knows Budikka is right and he is wrong
> >and he cannot stand it.
> >
> >If you want to get rid of Antonio, tell him the truth, ask
> >difficult questions about real science, and he will flee
> >from any thread like a long-tailed cat from a rocking chair
> >convention.
> >
> >Budikka
>
> I haven't heard that long-tailed cat line since the old
> Tennesse Ernie Ford Show back in the 1950's. The way Ford
> said it was 'a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking
> chairs'. I also liked the one about the black cat in the
> coal cellar at midnight. (What year did "Sixteen Tons"
> come out?)
>
> Geeze, am I ever feeling ancient!
>

"...Another day older and deeper in debt..."

It made No. 11 on the top 100 in 1955, although according to
the site listed below, it was written in 1947. I can still
remember listening to it on the AM radio while riding in my
dad's '49 Ford. Yikes!

http://www.webfitz.com/lyrics/Tbl1955.html
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782

- Question authority. Now more than ever. -

[Budikka]

Michelle Malkin <hypatiab7@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<0klorvckqeqi10o2f5mjvebrni6k3fkl4n@4ax.com>...

> I haven't heard that long-tailed cat line since the old
> Tennesse Ernie Ford Show back in the 1950's. The way Ford
> said it was 'a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking
> chairs'. I also liked the one about the black cat in the
> coal cellar at midnight. (What year did "Sixteen Tons"
> come out?)
>
> Geeze, am I ever feeling ancient!

Mickey that was in the charts in 1955. I find it hard to
believe you actually *remember* that. Surely it's more likely
you remember it from the Tom Hanks movie "Joe Versus The
Volcano" from 1990?!

B.