Found: Another Missing Link

[pinto32]

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia (AP) — Scientists in northeastern Ethiopia said Saturday that they have discovered the skull of a small human ancestor that could be a missing link between the extinct Homo erectus and modern man. (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1143327032558&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News)


---

[OutThere]

Pretty cool stuff...always good to see more evidence for evolution. :)

[iSaint]

Wow, thanks for the link. Interesting stuff.

[dsharits]

It's so fascinating how these hypothesists (not scientists) can find a skull from an ape or some other animal and say, "Well looky here! It has some of the same features as a human skull, so it must be our ancestor!", even though they have no body to go with it (or in the case of the Nebraska Man, they only have one tooth, not even a whole skull, and it turned out to be a pig's tooth). The fact is that they're stretching things as far as they can, even to the point where they're making up things as they go and calling it "proof". There has never been, nor will there ever be any proof of evolution whatsoever. It is a flawed theory from top to bottom, just as Darwin himself admitted in Origin of the Species. It's all done simply to aviod the truth that every person knows to be correct, but they're afraid to admit because it makes them responsible for how they live their life.

[vniow]

bollocks

At first I thought this was sarcasm, but after looking at some of your previous posts I'm afraid its not.

Unfortunately.

[emw]

It's all done simply to aviod the truth that every person knows to be correct, but they're afraid to admit because it makes them responsible for how they live their life.Ah, yes, I'm afraid to admit the "truth" of, I'm assuming, creationism, because if I believe I evolved from something else I don't have to give a **** about anyone or anything else. Right.

[OutThere]

It's so fascinating how these hypothesists (not scientists) can find a skull from an ape or some other animal and say, "Well looky here! It has some of the same features as a human skull, so it must be our ancestor!", even though they have no body to go with it (or in the case of the Nebraska Man, they only have one tooth, not even a whole skull, and it turned out to be a pig's tooth). The fact is that they're stretching things as far as they can, even to the point where they're making up things as they go and calling it "proof". There has never been, nor will there ever be any proof of evolution whatsoever. It is a flawed theory from top to bottom, just as Darwin himself admitted in Origin of the Species. It's all done simply to aviod the truth that every person knows to be correct, but they're afraid to admit because it makes them responsible for how they live their life.

It's this viewpoint that will bring the U.S. to its knees. Unfortunately.

Stunning.

[iSaint]

I would tend to believe God's creation has allowed an incredible miracle within God's plan for our evolving into an intelligent species, who are capable and responsible for caring for the earth as a whole. I don't claim we are doing a good job of it, but we are capable of doing so. Coexistence is better than dominance any day.

[miloblithe]

How are people who adhere to a religion that has no requirements for how you live your life save one (believe in JC) required to be more responsible than people who believe that life on this world matters?

[skunk]

It's all done simply to aviod the truth that every person knows to be correct, but they're afraid to admit because it makes them responsible for how they live their life.Are you saying I'm not responsible for how I live my life because I don't believe in your god? What a damned cheek!

[zimv20]

It's so fascinating how these hypothesists (not scientists) can find a skull from an ape or some other animal and say, "Well looky here! It has some of the same features as a human skull, so it must be our ancestor!", even though they have no body to go with it
your lack of understanding of science doesn't invalidate it.

[IJ Reilly]

Are you saying I'm not responsible for how I live my life because I don't believe in your god? What a damned cheek!

Two cheeks, in fact.

[skunk]

It's so fascinating how these hypothesists (not scientists)Without hypotheses, there can be no science.

[skunk]

Two cheeks, in fact.But me no butts.

[bousozoku]

Without hypotheses, there can be no science.

There can't be any gods, either.

It's amazing how Christians, by example, seem to deny that humans have evolved. I think they're trying to disprove evolution but not embracing logic.

[IJ Reilly]

But me no butts.

You're a gluteus for punishment.

[XNine]

A simple fact that humans today are taller and live longer is just a TINY example of evolution, dhsharits. Sorry to tell you this, but, I DO believe there's a God, but I also know that SCIENCE is FACT. Look at the dinosaur fossils. What the hell are those? Tricks of the devil?! BAH! Googleymoo!

Take it or leave it, but science as a whole has not only proven, but disproven many things of your religion. For instance: The Shroud of Turin. It's a fake. A complete, utter fake. And how can this be? A small thing called Carbon dating.

I suggest a subscription to the History Channel and Discovery Channel. Fascinating stuff.

[skunk]

You're a gluteus for punishment.I do everything to the Maximus.

[zimv20]

if the punning doesn't stop i'm going to abduct or report you.

[IJ Reilly]

I do everything to the Maximus.

Oh, that's peder nasty.

[IJ Reilly]

if the punning doesn't stop i'm going to abduct or report you.

Another bum rap.

[XNine]

if the punning doesn't stop i'm going to abduct or report you.

abduct like an alien or report like an illegal alien? :confused:

[skunk]

if the punning doesn't stop i'm going to abduct or report you.No need for the arsy attitude.

[solvs]

I would tend to believe God's creation has allowed an incredible miracle within God's plan for our evolving into an intelligent species, who are capable and responsible for caring for the earth as a whole. I don't claim we are doing a good job of it, but we are capable of doing so. Coexistence is better than dominance any day.
I agree. Sadly, many who call themselves Christians do not. One of the reasons I've disavowed myself of the term, as I've done with conservative and liberal. Negative connotations and all, even if they weren't just meaningless labels. I don't know what this is, but I don't mind the hypothesis. That's what science is, finding answers and asking more questions. Science could just as easily prove or disprove it's authenticity, or even both! I just cannot understand how people think you can't be scientific and have faith at the same time. I realize there are extremists at both ends who ruin the party for everyone, as I said above, but why must we throw out everything because some things are unclear or seem to not make sense? Other parts that do are still valid.

Science is the pursuit of answers, not the answer itself. That's why they call things theories, and then seek to disprove them. And faith does not mean we shut ourselves off from other ideas. If your faith is strong enough, you are open to other interpretations. Well, some of us are anyway. That's what the color gray is for. ;)

[skunk]

Science is the pursuit of answers, not the answer itself. That's why they call things theories, and then seek to disprove them. And faith does not mean we shut ourselves off from other ideas. If your faith is strong enough, you are open to other interpretations. Well, some of us are anyway. That's what the color gray is for. ;)Faith is the triumph of assertion over evidence.

[solvs]

Faith is the triumph of assertion over evidence.
Not necessarily. Perverted faith is a belief that trumps evidence. Faith in an absolute, especially if that absolute is based on a lie or exaggeration. True faith requires belief in something because of a lack of evidence, not in spite of it. Always questioning, but still believing. If science proved my beliefs wrong, perhaps they are, perhaps science is wrong. I have an idea, I have my faith, I have my beliefs. But the details are not important, and are ever changing, and I am open to them.

I'm not worried about science hurting my faith because it can't. Not because I ignore science, but my belief system is open enough to accept such things as evolution. Because the world is ever changing, and even with it's holes, it's a good theory. Same as with faith. Even with it's holes, even though there are parts missing or parts that don't make sense or we just can't understand them, it's still a good theory. Science doesn't disprove faith. If you look hard enough, it's quite the opposite really.

[tristan]

If you want evidence of evolution go to the freakin' Natural History museum. The fossil record is so obvious, even a moron would get it. It's a wonder that the Bush White House hasn't shut that place down.

[yg17]

It's so fascinating how these hypothesists (not scientists) can find a skull from an ape or some other animal and say, "Well looky here! It has some of the same features as a human skull, so it must be our ancestor!", even though they have no body to go with it (or in the case of the Nebraska Man, they only have one tooth, not even a whole skull, and it turned out to be a pig's tooth). The fact is that they're stretching things as far as they can, even to the point where they're making up things as they go and calling it "proof". There has never been, nor will there ever be any proof of evolution whatsoever. It is a flawed theory from top to bottom, just as Darwin himself admitted in Origin of the Species. It's all done simply to aviod the truth that every person knows to be correct, but they're afraid to admit because it makes them responsible for how they live their life.

Because the theory that a magical man who lives in the sky that we cannot see or hear waved a magic want and created everything around us in 7 magical days makes so much sense :rolleyes:

[iSaint]

Faith is the triumph of assertion over evidence.

heh heh

you said ASSertion

heh heh

[jsw]

Two cheeks, in fact.Perhaps the orifice between the cheeks.

It's always amusing but sad to read such criticism of science from people whose beliefs, if true, would, because they'd invalidate much of the science behind things like radiocarbon dating, make the very computers they use impossible.

Well, that, or a miracle. :rolleyes:

[solvs]

Because the theory that a magical man who lives in the sky that we cannot see or hear waved a magic want and created everything around us in 7 magical days makes so much sense :rolleyes:
Well there's the problem. People are taking the Bible literally. Here's a hint, it isn't. ;)

See, problem solved. :p

[dsharits]

Hmm, I thought I'd get some big criticism on my statement about Nebraska Man, but it seems nobody wants to touch that one...
Anyways, lots of responses, so I'll try to respond to them all as briefly as possible:

I take the Bible literally simply because everything in it IS black and white and there is only ONE interpretation of it. I have no problem with so-called athiests arguing for evolution, because they simply refuse to believe a source that has never been disproven, and that's their choice as well as their right. However I do have a big problem with people who claim to be a Christian or profess to believe any part of the Bible and not the whole thing. Jesus Christ said himself that the Bible is the total inerrant Word of God, meaning that if you reject any portion of the Bible, Jesus was a liar and therefore not good enough to save anyone. It is all tied together as one complete work that, as I said before, has NEVER been disproven even once.

As for the fossil record, if you really look at it, it actually supports the Biblical view of the flood much better than the supposed progression of evolution. Scientists keep quiet the fact that fossils are actually mixed throughout the layers of the earth, not in a continuous order as they claim. Just a question: how would you explain the finding of seashell fossils on the tops of mountains?
Going back to the comment about the dinosaurs, I never ever said that I didn't believe they existed or that the fossils aren't real. In fact, dinosaurs are mentioned at least twice in the Bible, and there is much documented proof of their existance and that they are a different species, not just a variation of another type of animal or a combination of different fossilized creatures. You all know that we have many different species of animals that are extinct, dinosaurs just happen to be one of them.

By the way, just a little side note, if you actually check historical records, you will find that humans now live significantly shorter lives than they did in the past (we're talking an average of ~850 years down to today's ~80 years). And another side note, it's very true that the Shroud of Turin is a fraud, for one reason because it depicts a man with long hair, which Jesus did not have. That particular artifact, along with many other similar items have always been a fixture of Catholicism, not Christianity (yes, there is a huge difference).

[Sayhey]

Hmm, I thought I'd get some big criticism on my statement about Nebraska Man, but it seems nobody wants to touch that one...
Anyways, lots of responses, so I'll try to respond to them all as briefly as possible:

I take the Bible literally simply because everything in it IS black and white and there is only ONE interpretation of it. I have no problem with so-called athiests arguing for evolution, because they simply refuse to believe a source that has never been disproven, and that's their choice as well as their right. However I do have a big problem with people who claim to be a Christian or profess to believe any part of the Bible and not the whole thing. Jesus Christ said himself that the Bible is the total inerrant Word of God, meaning that if you reject any portion of the Bible, Jesus was a liar and therefore not good enough to save anyone. It is all tied together as one complete work that, as I said before, has NEVER been disproven even once.

As for the fossil record, if you really look at it, it actually supports the Biblical view of the flood much better than the supposed progression of evolution. Scientists keep quiet the fact that fossils are actually mixed throughout the layers of the earth, not in a continuous order as they claim. Just a question: how would you explain the finding of seashell fossils on the tops of mountains?
Going back to the comment about the dinosaurs, I never ever said that I didn't believe they existed or that the fossils aren't real. In fact, dinosaurs are mentioned at least twice in the Bible, and there is much documented proof of their existance and that they are a different species, not just a variation of another type of animal or a combination of different fossilized creatures. You all know that we have many different species of animals that are extinct, dinosaurs just happen to be one of them.

By the way, just a little side note, if you actually check historical records, you will find that humans now live significantly shorter lives than they did in the past (we're talking an average of ~850 years down to today's ~80 years). And another side note, it's very true that the Shroud of Turin is a fraud, for one reason because it depicts a man with long hair, which Jesus did not have. That particular artifact, along with many other similar items have always been a fixture of Catholicism, not Christianity (yes, there is a huge difference).

Where do you get this stuff???? Do you really want to know something about Evolution or are you just happy spouting off about something you obviously know nothing about. btw, fossilized seashells on mountain tops have to do with, among other things the movements of continental plates over the surface of the earth over immense periods of time. Go to Geology 101 and they will explain it all to you, but it won't fit into your literal interpretation of the King James version of the Bible.

[blackfox]

Hmm, I thought I'd get some big criticism on my statement about Nebraska Man, but it seems nobody wants to touch that one...
Anyways, lots of responses, so I'll try to respond to them all as briefly as possible:

I take the Bible literally simply because everything in it IS black and white and there is only ONE interpretation of it. I have no problem with so-called athiests arguing for evolution, because they simply refuse to believe a source that has never been disproven, and that's their choice as well as their right. However I do have a big problem with people who claim to be a Christian or profess to believe any part of the Bible and not the whole thing. Jesus Christ said himself that the Bible is the total inerrant Word of God, meaning that if you reject any portion of the Bible, Jesus was a liar and therefore not good enough to save anyone. It is all tied together as one complete work that, as I said before, has NEVER been disproven even once.

As for the fossil record, if you really look at it, it actually supports the Biblical view of the flood much better than the supposed progression of evolution. Scientists keep quiet the fact that fossils are actually mixed throughout the layers of the earth, not in a continuous order as they claim. Just a question: how would you explain the finding of seashell fossils on the tops of mountains?
Going back to the comment about the dinosaurs, I never ever said that I didn't believe they existed or that the fossils aren't real. In fact, dinosaurs are mentioned at least twice in the Bible, and there is much documented proof of their existance and that they are a different species, not just a variation of another type of animal or a combination of different fossilized creatures. You all know that we have many different species of animals that are extinct, dinosaurs just happen to be one of them.

By the way, just a little side note, if you actually check historical records, you will find that humans now live significantly shorter lives than they did in the past (we're talking an average of ~850 years down to today's ~80 years). And another side note, it's very true that the Shroud of Turin is a fraud, for one reason because it depicts a man with long hair, which Jesus did not have. That particular artifact, along with many other similar items have always been a fixture of Catholicism, not Christianity (yes, there is a huge difference).
OK, this is entirely too much. I would argue, but this is one of those posts that elegantly refutes itself.

Bravo and goddamn.

[dsharits]

King James version of the Bible
Actually I use the NASB, thanks. If you hadn't noticed, the Bible has been around a lot longer than any geology book. Furthermore, once again, the evolutionist geology books can be and have been disproven, but the Bible has not.

[atszyman]

I still think the Bible can be reconciled with the 4.5 Billion year age of the earth easily. The Bible never specifies how long one of God's days is. If you figure them at about 700 million years it starts to fit and puts us smack in the middle of day seven. Which would explain a lot.

[blackfox]

Actually I use the NASB, thanks. If you hadn't noticed, the Bible has been around a lot longer than any geology book. Furthermore, once again, the evolutionist geology books can be and have been disproven, but the Bible has not.
what kind of standard is that?

I mean, the Egyptian Book of the Dead has been around longer than Geology books also, and I don't think it's been disproven either.

So excuse me why I go worship Ra and Osiris. WTF?

[zimv20]

I take the Bible literally simply because everything in it IS black and white and there is only ONE interpretation of it.
yeah, that's as far as i've gotten. you do realize that there are multiple versions of the bible, with different translations and different interpretations? and you do realize that the reason there are multiple sects of christianity because there are different interpretations of the bible?

your mind got closed at way too young an age. i'm no doctor, but i don't think anything less than 6 months of weekly LSD use is gonna open that mind back up.

good luck with all that.

[zimv20]

humans now live significantly shorter lives than they did in the past (we're talking an average of ~850 years down to today's ~80 years).
oh my. you sure you're not thinking of the Dunedain?

better make that prescription a year...

[dsharits]

I still think the Bible can be reconciled with the 4.5 Billion year age of the earth easily. The Bible never specifies how long one of God's days is. If you figure them at about 700 million years it starts to fit and puts us smack in the middle of day seven. Which would explain a lot.
Nope, evening and morning are one day, just as it says.

[pseudobrit]

i'm no doctor, but i don't think anything less than 6 months of weekly LSD use is gonna open that mind back up.

By the way, just a little side note, if you actually check historical records, you will find that humans now live significantly shorter lives than they did in the past (we're talking an average of ~850 years down to today's ~80 years)

Wait, you're on acid right now, aren't you?

[OutThere]

I take the Bible literally simply because everything in it IS black and white and there is only ONE interpretation of it.

What makes no sense about this state of mind, is that you have blind faith in something that was written thousands of years ago who who-knows-who, but you state that

I have no problem with so-called athiests arguing for evolution, because they simply refuse to believe a source that has never been disproven, and that's their choice as well as their right.

You cannot 'disprove' the Bible because it requires people to simply have faith that everything it contains actually happened, which goes against the grain of everything scientific. In science, nothing can be said to be true without evidence supporting it. There's no tangible evidence that anything the Bible states is truth, and so it should be separated from anything scientific. The events contained in the Bible are just as much conjecture as are the principles of evolution, however they have never been backed up with evidence, unlike the reams of observations, historical records and scientific studies in favor of Darwin's theories.


However I do have a big problem with people who claim to be a Christian or profess to believe any part of the Bible and not the whole thing. Jesus Christ said himself that the Bible is the total inerrant Word of God, meaning that if you reject any portion of the Bible, Jesus was a liar and therefore not good enough to save anyone. It is all tied together as one complete work that, as I said before, has NEVER been disproven even once.

Believe it or not, the Bible has been around in various forms for several thousand years. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but throughout that entire time it was written and transcribed by humans. Humans have never been known to embellish, change or flat-out make up anything, have they? :rolleyes: While the stories in the Bible could be representative of things that actually happened, taking what's written in the Bible as the straight truth, no exceptions, is simply being ignorant of human nature.


As for the fossil record, if you really look at it, it actually supports the Biblical view of the flood much better than the supposed progression of evolution. Scientists keep quiet the fact that fossils are actually mixed throughout the layers of the earth, not in a continuous order as they claim. Just a question: how would you explain the finding of seashell fossils on the tops of mountains?


Once again, believe it or not, the Earth's landscape has changed significantly since Earth was born, billions of years ago. Oceans used to cover most of what is North America now. If you look in the right places, seashells could be found throughout the United States, on dry ground. 'New' mountain ranges have cropped up in the time since they were covered by the ocean, and, bam, seashells on tops of mountains.

Anyway, think logically here...if there was a huge flood, would seashells magically float off the sea floor and on to the tops of mountains? :rolleyes:

By the way, just a little side note, if you actually check historical records, you will find that humans now live significantly shorter lives than they did in the past (we're talking an average of ~850 years down to today's ~80 years).

That's just straight rubbish.

The historical records I've checked show that Romans lived to be 40, Egyptians lived to 40 and the ancient mesopotamians died in their 30s. I'm gonna go ahead and call BS on that one.

How does it make sense that humans, squishy small and awkward as we are, would just happen to live longer than any other creature on the planet?

And another side note, it's very true that the Shroud of Turin is a fraud, for one reason because it depicts a man with long hair, which Jesus did not have. That particular artifact, along with many other similar items have always been a fixture of Catholicism, not Christianity (yes, there is a huge difference).

The shroud of turin is a fraud, and we know that through carbon-14 dating, which you probably don't believe in because it has been proven to work using the scientific method :eek:.



Edit: Blackfox said it better than I did, but I'll let this stick around, because what I said still stands.

[dsharits]

Wait, you're on acid right now, aren't you?
Nope, sorry. I don't drink or do any drugs, never will. I'm totally clean :cool:

[Sayhey]

Actually I use the NASB, thanks. If you hadn't noticed, the Bible has been around a lot longer than any geology book. Furthermore, once again, the evolutionist geology books can be and have been disproven, but the Bible has not.

Sorry, I took you for a traditionalist. :rolleyes:

If you really want to learn something (so far I see no evidence of that, but one can always hope) about evolution, there are many people on this site that can help you understand legitimate questions and point you to the real debates (not the silliness you're trying to point to) that are taking place in evolutionary science. If, as it looks like to me, you only want to preach - I won't bother to continue.

[IJ Reilly]

Sorry, I took you for a traditionalist. :rolleyes:

If you really want to learn something (so far I see no evidence of that, but one can always hope) about evolution, there are many people on this site that can help you understand legitimate questions and point you to the real debates (not the silliness you're trying to point to) that are taking place in evolutionary science. If, as it looks like to me, you only want to preach - I won't bother to continue.

I'm convinced that dsharits is a satirist. It's probably not true, but I just have to believe it.

[pseudobrit]

However I do have a big problem with people who claim to be a Christian or profess to believe any part of the Bible and not the whole thing. Jesus Christ said himself that the Bible is the total inerrant Word of God, meaning that if you reject any portion of the Bible, Jesus was a liar and therefore not good enough to save anyone. It is all tied together as one complete work that, as I said before, has NEVER been disproven even once.

The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is riddled with factual and historical errors. And that's before you account for matters of legend.
For instance, it claims that rabbits chew cud.
They do not.
I hope your faith has not totally crumbled just now.

And if there is only ONE interpretation of the Bible how come every streetcorner preacher and televangelist seems to have a different angle?

More to the point, have you slaves? Ever stoned your children to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). Did you demand proof of virginity from your wife's family? (Deuteronomy 22:13-20). And for God's sakes I hope she wears a head covering in church, because if she doesn't you have to shave her head (1 Corinthians 11:5).

[pseudobrit]

Nope, sorry. I don't drink or do any drugs, never will. I'm totally clean :cool:

Totally clean?

You know if you sit on a seat that a menstruating woman has occupied your clothes and skin must be washed and you will be unclean until nightfall?
(Leviticus 15:22)

how sure are you about that cleanliness now?

[zimv20]

The historical records I've checked show that Romans lived to be 40
in 1994, i was on holiday in turkey and went to the ruins at ephesus. there, there are two colums, not terribly far apart, which are supposed to have marked the armspan of Hercules.

i'll assume that greek gods were imagined to be larger than the populace, and i'll note that housewives and 10 year old boys were able to simultaneously touch both columns.

[vniow]

You know if you sit on a seat that a menstruating woman has occupied your clothes and skin must be washed and you will be unclean until nightfall?
(Leviticus 15:22)


Visual representation.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/sexual_discharges/lv15_19a.html

[pseudobrit]

in 1994, i was on holiday in turkey and went to the ruins at ephesus. there, there are two colums, not terribly far apart, which are supposed to have marked the armspan of Hercules.

i'll assume that greek gods were imagined to be larger than the populace, and i'll note that housewives and 10 year old boys were able to simultaneously touch both columns.

More acid for you.

[OutThere]

in 1994, i was on holiday in turkey and went to the ruins at ephesus. there, there are two colums, not terribly far apart, which are supposed to have marked the armspan of Hercules.

i'll assume that greek gods were imagined to be larger than the populace, and i'll note that housewives and 10 year old boys were able to simultaneously touch both columns.

I've visited a number of castles and ancient sites throughout Europe, and the biggest thing that comes away from me is the length of their beds and the height of their doors.

Even in castles built only in 1200 or 1300, some of the doors in the main living quarters will be an entire head shorter than me.

[zimv20]

Even in castles built only in 1200 or 1300, some of the doors in the main living quarters will be an entire head shorter than me.
i was a giant in hanoi. people would come up and squeeze my biceps. a train bed was a good 2 feet too short.

i'm only 5' 10"!

[scem0]

Guys, just ignore dsharits. He's sold his soul for absolutely nothing and no longer has a life of his own. Arguing with him will just frustrate you. He won't hear logic because it goes against everything he believes. Go to his profile and click 'Add dsharits to Your Ignore List'. You'll be doing yourself a favor.

As for the article:

Several stone tools and fossilized animals including two types of pigs, zebras, elephants, antelopes, cats, and rodents were also found at the site.

I found that to be very interesting. Sounds like he was the leader of a tribe maybe. How could a single man capture those animals, or cage them all by himself? Especially an elephant. Very cool!

e

[Ugg]

I found that to be very interesting. Sounds like he was the leader of a tribe maybe. How could a single man capture those animals, or cage them all by himself? Especially an elephant. Very cool!

e


Were they whole animals or just bits and pieces? Maybe they were his dinner and he just never got around to cleaning up?! It's hard to imagine hunting an elephant, maybe it had died naturally or something.

It always amazes me that after such a long time and given the low population levels of ancient man how any fossils at all remain.




In Krakow at Wawel Castle, they have a tower that was the home of a dragon. At least that's what the tourist brochure says. Since St. George slew a dragon and the bible tells us so, there must have been dragons, right :D Personally, I think it's just another ploy to sell cutesy little stuffed dragons to the tourists but, you never know...

[yg17]

I have no problem with so-called athiests arguing for evolution, because they simply refuse to believe a source that has never been disproven

It's never been proven either.

While evolution, just like creation, may be a theory, at least evolution has some scientific evidence backing it up and putting it far closer to truth than unintelligent design.

[dornoforpyros]

shut up the both of yas!


Let's face it, both Science and Religion are WRONG.

Neither is 100% as neither has been proven or disproved.

Me I'm an atheist, but I also remember that at one point in time the brightest scientist in the world believed the planet was flat. And I also know that science says a honey bee "can't" fly because of it's measurements and such.

So really, all your arguing is pointless as no one knows for sure

[atszyman]

...And I also know that science says a honey bee "can't" fly because of it's measurements and such...

That used to be true but they've figured this one out now.

link (http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060110_bee_fight.html)

Science - 1
ID - 0

[iSaint]

~snip~

I take the Bible literally simply because everything in it IS black and white and there is only ONE interpretation of it. ~snip~



Uhm, you start off in error. There are around 1,500 interpretations of the Greek texts. Texts which were put together by men (only men) hundreds of years ago by picking and choosing what fits their patriarchal society. Even NIV and NRSV contradict each other...how do you resolve that? It drives me nuts sometimes.

[Don't panic]

if you actually check historical records, you will find that humans now live significantly shorter lives than they did in the past (we're talking an average of ~850 years down to today's ~80 years).

I won't even start to comment of the pile of 19th century naivites that transpire from your combined posts, -'blind' is commonly associated to 'faith' for a reason- but this gem I just couldn't pass upon.
:D :D :D

[dornoforpyros]

That used to be true but they've figured this one out now.

link (http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060110_bee_fight.html)

Science - 1
ID - 0

haha ok count one for science, but it's still not 100%

[IJ Reilly]

haha ok count one for science, but it's still not 100%

This is an amusing comment. 100% of what?

[aquajet]

By the way, just a little side note, if you actually check historical records, you will find that humans now live significantly shorter lives than they did in the past (we're talking an average of ~850 years down to today's ~80 years).

Wow. Like, really wow.

Can you show us evidence of this?

And just a little side note: Biblical accounts of Noah don't count.

[vniow]

I have family like this. :o

[IJ Reilly]

Wow. Like, really wow.

Can you show us evidence of this?

And just a little side note: Biblical accounts of Noah don't count.

Cynic. Everybody knows they had great universal health care back in those days, and cancer and heart disease hadn't even been invented yet.

[dornoforpyros]

This is an amusing comment. 100% of what?

100% correct, granted, I put more believe in science than some fairy tale from thousands of years ago. But I also accept that science is very flawed.

[Ugg]

100% correct, granted, I put more believe in science than some fairy tale from thousands of years ago. But I also accept that science is very flawed.


What are the flaws in science? The Theory of Evolution is not static, it like many other theories has evolved over the years and will continue to do so. Anyone who thinks that mankind has all the answers to the questions of the universe or will have all the answers at any point in the future is asking way too much of the scientific method. Humans are the ones with the flaws.

[aquajet]

Evolution, schmevolution. We might as well call it The Theory of Transmogrification.

[IJ Reilly]

What are the flaws in science? The Theory of Evolution is not static, it like many other theories has evolved over the years and will continue to do so. Anyone who thinks that mankind has all the answers to the questions of the universe or will have all the answers at any point in the future is asking way too much of the scientific method. Humans are the ones with the flaws.

Exactly, thanks. Science is the process of discovering knowledge, not the knowledge itself.

[dornoforpyros]

What are the flaws in science? The Theory of Evolution is not static, it like many other theories has evolved over the years and will continue to do so. Anyone who thinks that mankind has all the answers to the questions of the universe or will have all the answers at any point in the future is asking way too much of the scientific method. Humans are the ones with the flaws.

well as our original hyper-active jesus buff pointed out science seems ready to except everything they find as the missing link.

I'm just saying science doesn't have all the answers and that's why people turn to religion because it "provides answsers" even if they are flawed and seem to provide more false hope than anything.

[XNine]

Evolution, schmevolution. We might as well call it The Theory of Transmogrification.

Or possibly Discombobulation...

My co-worker was telling me that they found a lizard who's male counterparts are usless because the females "found out" (as he says) how to impregnate themselves. Thus rendering the males useless.

Now if only I can "find out" how to have multiple orgasms, I'd be set!

[bousozoku]

Uhm, you start off in error. There are around 1,500 interpretations of the Greek texts. Texts which were put together by men (only men) hundreds of years ago by picking and choosing what fits their patriarchal society. Even NIV and NRSV contradict each other...how do you resolve that? It drives me nuts sometimes.

It's true that the New Testament started in Greek, but the Old Testament was originally Aramaic, translated to Hebrew, then to Greek. Greek has many more absolutes than Aramaic, so some subjective decisions had to be made. "God" could easily be "Gods" because there was no differentiation. Someone chose to make it singular along the line.

[atszyman]

My co-worker was telling me that they found a lizard who's male counterparts are usless because the females "found out" (as he says) how to impregnate themselves. Thus rendering the males useless.

It's only a matter of time before some scientist manages to create a fertilized egg using the genetic material from 2 eggs rather than sperm+egg. At which point Science has obsoleted male humans. Bye-bye X-chromosomes.....

[takao]

haha hilarious

i recommend dsharits a geology book for beginners.. perhaps digging out some school book might be enough, around the 5-6 grade i guess ... but i'm living in the Alps so perhaps i'm spoiled

but on the other side the 850 year comment :eek:


for the people growing more and more: it's mostly a sign of the last 150 years afaik because of nutrition (100 years ago the dutch were the 2nd smallest, now they are among the largest in europe )

[miloblithe]

Interesting that dsharits seems to have given up after passages from the bible have been mentioned.

[takao]

Interesting that dsharits seems to have given up after passages from the bible have been mentioned.

as long as he doesn't find a jawbone of a donkey
http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/samson_slaughters_1000/jg15_16.html

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/miscellaneous_laws/dt22_11.html

hehe

[bousozoku]

haha hilarious
...
but on the other side the 850 year comment :eek:
...


Well, we also had 10 month years prior to Julius and Augustus Caesar.

[zimv20]

well as our original hyper-active jesus buff pointed out science seems ready to except everything they find as the missing link.
well, no. first, it's not true. second, the science community takes very seriously its role in falsifying crap claims. this discovery will be put to the test, and if it comes up short, it won't be accepted.


I'm just saying science doesn't have all the answers
make the distinction between the nature of the universe and our understanding of it.

now, do you have a problem with the scientific method, how it's being employed, or simply mankind's progress with understanding the universe?

[Ugg]

well as our original hyper-active jesus buff pointed out science seems ready to except everything they find as the missing link.

I'm just saying science doesn't have all the answers and that's why people turn to religion because it "provides answsers" even if they are flawed and seem to provide more false hope than anything.

Too many people want absolutes and that's simply not possible given the small amount of fossils available for study. There are few if any absolutes in science and none whatsoever in religion. Religion does away with absolutes through myth and the power of faith.

The issue isn't with infallibility of science but with the fallibility of scientists and the media which tends to over simplify the significance of fossil discoveries.

[emw]

There are few if any absolutes in science and none whatsoever in religion. Religion does away with absolutes through myth and the power of faith.I'd contend that religion doesn't do away with absolutes, it promotes absolutes. It's just that the threshold for acceptance as an absolute is much lower in religion than in science.

[blackfox]

To a degree, I think emw and ugg are both right concerning absolutes.

I don't think anyone who takes a hard look at science and it's methodology can deny that it is not really concerned with absolutes.

At the same time, anyone who takea a hard look at humanity can see that we tend to like absolutes very much.

[pseudobrit]

well, no. first, it's not true. second, the science community takes very seriously its role in falsifying crap claims. this discovery will be put to the test, and if it comes up short, it won't be accepted.

There are academicians whose careers are made and scientists who spend most of their lives debunking an accepted theory.

It's not like there's this club of guys in white coats who sit around colluding to come to the same conclusion so as to protect "science" as a field.

[zimv20]

academicians
word of the day.


It's not like there's this club of guys in white coats who sit around colluding to come to the same conclusion so as to protect "science" as a field.
It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. -- Arthur Conan Doyle, physician and writer (1859-1930)

[solvs]

Jesus Christ said himself that the Bible is the total inerrant Word of God, meaning that if you reject any portion of the Bible, Jesus was a liar and therefore not good enough to save anyone.
I think everyone pretty much nailed most of the rest, but this part bugged me. I'm pretty sure Jesus was speaking of what HE was saying. How could he have spoken of the Bible as a whole when most of the rest hadn't even been written or edited together yet? And I'm pretty sure he spoke against the old ways as the path that leads to ruin. I also seem to recall he was actually crucified as a heretic for speaking out against the corrupt leadership, some of them clergy, for pushing these old ways. But hey, somebody told you the entire Bible was true (even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff) and there's no way to disprove it, so we should stop talking about all this science stuff. Because, after all, it's true if you can't disprove it. Which is ironic, since that's exactly what science is good at, disproving things. But I'm sure "because my pastor told me so" is just as good.

See, this is the bad kinda "faith". So absolute in the details. As if the details were the important part.

[skunk]

It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. -- Arthur Conan Doyle, physician and writer (1859-1930)Bush should have read Conan Doyle instead of My Pet Goat.

[solvs]

Bush should have read Conan Doyle instead of My Pet Goat.
Think about that for a second. I don't even think he understood My Pet Goat. Do you really think he would've gotten the subtleties of Mr. Doyle? Pardon me, Sir. Doyle.

[zimv20]

Bush should have read Conan Doyle instead of My Pet Goat.
or a book about de-evolution (an upside-down book about evolution, of course).

[solvs]

(an upside-down book about evolution, of course).
Maybe that explains all the hate from the Bible. You know, some languages are written from right to left. Maybe some parts we're translated backwards. Then you get people like King James, who for all we know was GW in a past life, horribly mistranslating some things and leaving other stuff out to fit his agenda. Then we attack the Jews, even though Jesus himself was one, and even though the Romans were the ones who actually killed him. And the gays, even though there was no such term in those days. And take everything at literal face value even if it's meant to be a metaphor because of a mistranslation or misunderstanding. Turning Jesus into the exact upside-down opposite of what he actually was and what he taught.

Suddenly a lot of things start to make sense.