Evolution, Dinosaur to bird transitionary fossil discovered~

[Tikker]

Haven't we been over this 10 gazillion times? Or at least 27 times? There is no "transitional" skeletal structure in the fossil record that would even remotely convince a reasonable person that man evolved from <insert species here>.

If that were the case we wouldn't have chimpanzees, gorillas, etc. in existence today. People always try to bring up the duck-billed platypus, "Lucy," Cro-Magnon man, Neanderthalensis, etc. etc. etc. which is no proof whatsoever of man having gone through a transition.

Man, I don't even know where to begin with that retarded statement

This whole topic was started based on the finding of what may prove to be a transitional fossil


PS, what the fuck does evolution have to do with the fact that other animals still exist?

You do realize species can evolve in parallel, or completely distinct sets of organisms can evolve into disparate species?

Actually, that was a dumb question on my part, your head is so far in the sand, you couldn't even possibly come to the conclusion that maybe your "god" just kickstarted life, and let evolution run its course

[Narrock]

Haven't we been over this 10 gazillion times? Or at least 27 times? There is no "transitional" skeletal structure in the fossil record that would even remotely convince a reasonable person that man evolved from <insert species here>.

If that were the case we wouldn't have chimpanzees, gorillas, etc. in existence today. People always try to bring up the duck-billed platypus, "Lucy," Cro-Magnon man, Neanderthalensis, etc. etc. etc. which is no proof whatsoever of man having gone through a transition.

The above paragraph has to rank as one of the greatest non-sequiturs of all time on NT. I *think* it's a wierd screwup of the 'if man descended from apes why are there still apes' argument.

Mindia holding himself up as a 'reasonable person' wins an additional award for 'most consistently distorted worldview'.

In addition to that, radio metric and carbon dating methods have proven to be extremely inaccurate. It's proven.

Actually, radiometric (one word, btw) and carbon dating are actually quite reliable. Scientists use them all the time, and while there are obviously limits on their use (some samples are not suitable for dating due to chemical alteration over time) they're widely used by gologists and archaeologists.

Yet, people want to clinch their eyes tight and pretend that the proof isn't there and pass it off as opinion. But hey, if you want to believe in the made up word of "hominid" and lumping man in with "ancestral likes" that's your perogative to believe that. I will stick with Faith in God and creationism.

The only person here clinching their eyes tight is Mindia. Nothing can possibly be true that contradicts his faith. Considering you can't even spell 'radiometric' correctly, I don't think people should be paying a whole lot of attention tio your unsupported claims about geology.

We need a emoticon of someone with their fingers in their ears, eyes shut, going 'LA LA LA SCIENCE IS ALL FAKE' to put things in proper perspective.

I'm sure Mindia can be relied on to cut-and-paste the usual lies from AIG or the ICR about dating methods.

--R.

I'm not even going to respond to this (yet again) juvenile post by Rust.

[Narrock]

Tikker cackled:

You do realize species can evolve in parallel, or completely distinct sets of organisms can evolve into disparate species?

Brainwashed by propaganda I see...

I am fully convinced now that Tikker calling anybody a "retard" is irony at its peak.

[Narrock]

Here's a new savior for Rust and Tikker to worship:

[Diekan]

]Actually, that was a dumb question on my part, your head is so far in the sand, you couldn't even possibly come to the conclusion that maybe your "god" just kickstarted life, and let evolution run its course

I think that's a reasonable assumption. No one, I mean NO ONE, knows what God intended, nor how He propetuated the events that lead to what the inhabitants of this planet are today. The bible has been tainted by the hand of the man for eons, and to think it should taken literal is foolish at best.

Take the flood for instance... science has already proven that there isn't enough water on / under / above the surface to complete flood the planet. Secondly, with the millions upon millions of species of animal on this planet - the Ark would have had to have been so large it would have crushed itself under it's own weight. Not to mention that if by chance the Earth was completely flooded - Noah and co. would have drown simply by breathing (due to the amount of moisture that would have been in the air). Sooooo, the hard science facts discount the events surrounding Noah's Ark. But, science has also proven that a flood (on a grand scale) DID take place in the region of Noah... anyway, my point it that the stories of the bibly may not be completely untrue, just misunderstood / taken out of context. With that being said - I don't know why religious zealots refuse to believe, or accept the scientific facts that point to another possible origin of "man," still created by the hand of God.

[Witty]

Well... God... did you?

Current Affairs is no place for God. I wouldn't be caught dead posting in here.

But I must give props to Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs though, I kinda needed to read that I think. Very fresh insight.

[Harrison]

]Actually, that was a dumb question on my part, your head is so far in the sand, you couldn't even possibly come to the conclusion that maybe your "god" just kickstarted life, and let evolution run its course

I think that's a reasonable assumption. No one, I mean NO ONE, knows what God intended, nor how He propetuated the events that lead to what the inhabitants of this planet are today. The bible has been tainted by the hand of the man for eons, and to think it should taken literal is foolish at best.

Take the flood for instance... science has already proven that there isn't enough water on / under / above the surface to complete flood the planet. Secondly, with the millions upon millions of species of animal on this planet - the Ark would have had to have been so large it would have crushed itself under it's own weight. Not to mention that if by chance the Earth was completely flooded - Noah and co. would have drown simply by breathing (due to the amount of moisture that would have been in the air). Sooooo, the hard science facts discount the events surrounding Noah's Ark. But, science has also proven that a flood (on a grand scale) DID take place in the region of Noah... anyway, my point it that the stories of the bibly may not be completely untrue, just misunderstood / taken out of context. With that being said - I don't know why religious zealots refuse to believe, or accept the scientific facts that point to another possible origin of "man," still created by the hand of God.

That's all speculation...

It could be scaled down to be more reallistic...

(I am playing devil's advocate)

[Diekan]

That's precisely the point.

There is evidence of a massive flood found in the region where Noah was said to have built the Ark. Evidence found in sediment and fossils recovered from the mountains of the area. Now, if you take a moment to thing about that particular period of time – according the bible man was just “beginning” his reign. This would lead one to believe that man had yet to migrate to other parts of the planet (say... North / South America / Australia / so on)... so why would God have a need to completely wipe out the planet when his target [mankind] was more or less restricted to a small part of the planet? Also, if you consider the number of species found in that particular area – Noah could have theoretically built an Ark big enough to hold them without it being so big that it would crush itself under its own weight.

Anyway, I don't think the stories of the bible are meant to be taken literally, nor do I think the over all credibility is 100%. Don't forget that “man” has had what, over 2000 years to considerably fuck it up.

I still support the idea that there is in fact a God who constructed man in a more primitive form and stepped back to allow evolution to run its course. I don't know why that is so hard for zealots to accept. How do we know that God didn't create man in the same fashion as described through evolutionary theory? The bible says man was created from clay... well did you know that scientists have created organic molecules in the lab (under the same conditions they think ancient earth existed in) and do you what the main catalyst they found to work best is? Clay.

The bible is full of “holes” to put it mildly. When Kane killed Able he was marked and sent into the “wilderness” where he wasn't to acknowledged. Acknowledged by who? Did God create other men and women whom the author of Genesis simply forgot to mention?

When Jesus was nailed to the cross the earth shook and thunder filled the air. Jesus said, “Forgive them for they know not what they do.” So, apparently God was angry... isn't anger a sin? Why would God stoop to display a human emotion such as anger? Love is perfection, but anger is flawed, no?

I pointed out those two *stories* because there are obviously holes in both, or lack of futher information to solidify the meanings. Just because the bible says God created man from clay doesn't mean he literally came down to earth scooped up a hand full of clay and molded man. Yes, I know that's what Genesis says... but how do we know such isn't figurative, and not literal?

I find it hard to take the bible literal. I find it even more difficult to ignore hard science. I find it foolish to ignore science, and even more foolish to assume that the two [science and religion] cannot work together.

[Lyion]

I've had Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses knock on my door any number of times. So... yeah... Creationists do come around, from time to time. Apparently not in Lyion or Mindia's world though.



--R. 'Welcome to Earth, both of you'

Those people are there to discuss there faith, anyways and are not there to discuss Intelligent Design.

Awesome scientific peoples like you should have the wherewithal to spend 50 cents and buy a 'No soliciting' sign. Then again maybe not in your world.

[Ganzo]

Secondly, with the millions upon millions of species of animal on this planet - the Ark would have had to have been so large it would have crushed itself under it's own weight.

Actualy a naval engeneer did a ship design based on numbers from the bible to, create a project for a Noah's Ark, When drafts were completed he sent them to other engeneer and US patent office saying it was new freighter design. It passed all the tests and said to be fully workable.

I still support the idea that there is in fact a God who constructed man in a more primitive form and stepped back to allow evolution to run its course. I don't know why that is so hard for zealots to accept. How do we know that God didn't create man in the same fashion as described through evolutionary theory? The bible says man was created from clay... well did you know that scientists have created organic molecules in the lab (under the same conditions they think ancient earth existed in) and do you what the main catalyst they found to work best is? Clay.

Actualy judaism in Kabalah supports that idea. Belief is that "God created Man in his shape and image" is like father creating son, who is in his hape and image, but not when he was born. Child must grow into adult first. This explains presence of God in many events in ancient history, like a parent he steped in and explained right from wrong and punished when needed. Now when we in our teenaged phase, he is hanging back and leting us make our own mistakes while waching over. "Coming of Machiah(messia)" is explained not as event of some person coming here to help us, but of a stage in human evolution when we reach adulthood and be able to interact with God on even terms. "People will understand laws of God by heart in time of Machiah" also suports this, just like in life when kids always think what parents say is stupid, but once grown up understand it.

[Tikker]

again tho Ganzo, the bible alone is not proof


yes I realize for those of faith, it's literally the word of God

for everyone else, it's just a book of stories

[Donnel]

But then the Bible isn't intended for those who do not believe. So what's the issue?

Someone said, it's okay for ID's to believe what they want as long as they don't shove it down their throat.

The reverse is true. They may not come to my door, but they sure teach it as fact in the schools.

[Diabolik]

If Almond Snickers evolved from regular Snickers, then why are there still regular Snickers bars available?

[Lyion]

Coke and New Coke are proof there is no evolution.

[Donnel]

[Rust]

Secondly, with the millions upon millions of species of animal on this planet - the Ark would have had to have been so large it would have crushed itself under it's own weight.

Actualy a naval engeneer did a ship design based on numbers from the bible to, create a project for a Noah's Ark, When drafts were completed he sent them to other engeneer and US patent office saying it was new freighter design. It passed all the tests and said to be fully workable.

Yeah, made of magic gopher wood, which would be stronger than steel, sure he did.

The ark as described in the Bible would have foundered and sunk. The whole world was covered in water - any idea what sort of storm you'd get with a 12000 mile fetch? How much twisting in the beams you'd have,and how much water would get in? The ark was 300 cubits long - some 150 feet longer than the biggest wooden ship ever built in modern times. Somehow Noah, a shepherd from Judea, managed to build a ship that was more seaworthy than anything the British or anyone else managed to construct, out of some unknown magic gopher wood, without any prior experience in building large ships. And then 8 people managed to pump all the water out of the bilges and feed untold thousands of animals for months on end, while keeping enough food for them on hand.

Right.

Oddly the Egyptians and Chinese empires of the time didn't notice the waters overwhelming them while they were asleep or something.

Noah's Flood was a simple lifting of the Gilgamesh Epic from Babylon - the Jews liked it and kept it from the Exile, just changed the names to fit into their particular mythology.

Mark Isaak compiled a list of worldwide flood myths - the Hebrew one doesn't stand out as particularly special - just something a bunch of herder tribesmen who didn't know much about the sea would believe.

--R.

[Tikker]

The part you're missing tho Rust is that if there was a God that could flood the world, AND tell Noah about it AND have him get 2 of every critter on board, it's entirely possible that God slipped him the plans of how to make a ship that could float and survive out of balsam wood




here's a question for the bible thumpers tho


How is the knowledge of all the shiznat that happened prior to Noah retained?
everyone but Noah and his homies was killed, no?

So, did Noah have all the history of the world prior to noah written out already?

[Lyion]

For your encoure, Rust, will you explain how science proves that Jesus didn't multiply loaves and fish.



That was a good link, though, even if your assinine comments were on par for the course.

[Tikker]

well Lyion, prove to me that Jesus DID multiply bread and fish

[Menelvir]

It'll be interesting to note the profound Gestalt shift my life will doubtless undergo
when the victor of the "Creation vs. Evolution" battle emerges. I'm hoping it
happens in my lifetime, as the fewer sleepless nights I have to endure as a result
of the mental anguish arising from this dilemma, the better.

[Rust]

The part you're missing tho Rust is that if there was a God that could flood the world, AND tell Noah about it AND have him get 2 of every critter on board, it's entirely possible that God slipped him the plans of how to make a ship that could float and survive out of balsam wood

Oh, sure, if you want to say 'God helped Noah make a boat, then helped get all the animals there, then made magic waters appear from nowhere, then kept the boat from sinking, then made the waters go away, then made the animals all wander over the world (koalas to Australia ONLY please, hop a ride with the kangaroos!), then magic'd away all the actual evidence of a year-long flood' then there's really no debate.

The problem is when people try and claim with a straight face that this is somehow supported by any geological or archaeological evidence, I mean you just have to laugh at them.

But 'goddidit' is the Universal Answer that can't be argued with, all right. The ICR and AIG and others spend a lot of effort to make stuff up to pretend you don't have to rely on faith.

--R.

[Lyion]

Hey, there is no more room in this thread for Sarcastic Bastards.

Tik, as George Michael once said in the mens lavatory, you gotta have faith.

[Tikker]

No one has to "win" tho

Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive

[Tikker]

Lyion,

that's not good enough



Pretend for a minute that you'd like to convert me to your religion
What proof will you offer me that what you're saying is the truth?

[Menelvir]

Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive

That point might be a hard sell to a theoretically "neutral" observer of the majority of proponents on either side.