Here is an article describing the finding -

http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/scienc...s-Skeptics.html







So. Some people are touting it as the Holy Grail of human evolutionary discovery, but it's not. It's still a major discovery though. Basically I'm using this as an excuse to debate the fossil record, but also to talk about this finding. And there's no sense explaining to me how the evil scientists are distorting their data, because they're not distorting data, they're just giving it a Hollywood title.

It wouldn't let me vote in just the middle question. The other two don't have the right choices for me.

What would the right choices be? I don't think I can go back and edit the poll, but the poll is really just a means to getting people to open the thread.

And what is your vote on the middle question?

There is no real debate over the fact of evolution. There is no "missing link" the evolutionary order leading up to Homo Sp. is very well established. I work with geology and earth history on a daily basis and evolution is the least controversial thing around.

I don't see evolution as being exclusive of there being a greater power and won't get my pants in a knot over it.

Having said that this fossil is way cool.

I say that the discovery of this missing link just means that there are now two more links that are missing.

woah

The Coelacanth used to be a missing link as well.

Wait so the argon dating doesn't tell us exactly which day of creation this thing was made on?

it does however disprove biblical fundamentalism rather effectively.

and now it's a found link. the fact that it still exists doesn't change a thing.

Keep telling yourself that a fish has been surviving for 360 million years largely unchanged and presents no problem to the theory of evolution.

I guess it is possible that the ocean's temp, predators and food conditions haven't changed much in that time, which would explain why the Coelacanth has not changed in 360 million years.


Or time travel from people in the future are messing with us.

But otherwise...it's a little problem in your neat theory of evolution.

But they found a monkey skeleton..so there's that.

whoa, that's a pretty cool fossil that god planted to test our faith!

Will you pass the test?

coelacanth is not "a fish". it's an entire order of fish species that were extremely successful and widespread for millions of years, with 2 (known) species that evolved
from this group still extant. the extant species share characteristics with those in the fossil record as would be expected since the basic evolved design was
apparently so successful and adaptable, but they are NOT unchanged - the extant species have actually never been found as fossils.

why don't you stop reading creationist misinformation intended for the gullable and research this stuff for yourself.

360 million years.

Sure looks like a fish

Fossils are just something the Jews buried in 1924.

I love you too BG, but in a different, more confusing way.

Are you totally sure about that year?

isnt this besides the point. evolutionary theory does not mandate that things HAVE to evolve over some set period of time does it. They evolve if conditions push them too, right? Or do I have this all wrong....

Haven't sharks been unchanged for a long time as well?

I agree with aucu that evolution and Genesis are not incompatible if you read it as a metaphor.

So some things change because of environment, predator, food reasons, while other things in the same situation continue on their merry way?

I guess I'll have to take that on faith since it can't be proven

You are generally nice and often self-deprecating so I kind of like you, but you say a TON of stupid shit.

Sometimes you're joking, most times you aren't (or are a huge troll), either way... you type some really stupid ass things.

Are you really so set in your ways that you compartmentalize yourself into an idiot?

Do you even understand what I mean by that?

Fucking people.

To quote South Park (which has a lot of profound things in it btw), can't evolution be the answer to how and not why? I don't understand why evolution has to instantly negate the existence of a god. Unless of course it is because a book (written by man, and we all know man is incapable of lying or stretching the truth) told you so. Also, isn't it a little hypocritical as a mere man to say you know how the almighty god did everything? You can really say that you know god's will exactly and that it is not his will for things to evolve? Isn't that supposed to be blasphemy?

....and the fossil is really cool looking

my point was creationist websites distort the truth.



there are no mandates, no. however for a specific species to appear unchanged over hundreds of millions of years
would be virtually impossible. that is why creationists are quick to exploit misnomers like the coelacanth as a "living
fossil" and use them in their propaganda campaign.



true on a general natural design level, but as with the coelacanth nobody is finding specific currently living species as
fossils from hundreds of millions of years ago.



by metaphor you mean fable written by primitive humans with no understanding of science, and
by logical extension you could say the same thing about the entire bible. but it's even deeper than that.
evolution has shown us that natural mechanistic processes can explain anything about our world, and has
made the intelligent intervening designing god that supposedly inspired the bible entirely unnecessary and
improbable as an explanation for life or anything else. it is effectively the final nail in his coffin.

i'm happy for the sake of scientific progress that a lot of christians these days by way of mentally
compartmentalizing their faith are able to accept both evolution and christianity. however that doesn't
make them any less delusional. no well-reasoning well-informed person would believe in both the truths
of science and in the bible.

Your ability to articulate so eloquently without saying anything is world class.

Your ability to articulate at a mediocre level while making inaccurate statements is run of the mill.

I'm almost 100% convinced that Spade is TB and TB is Spade.

Tuberculosis?

lolomon

Damn, you really owned me with that one.

[quote name='BigDMcGee' date='Sunday, May 24th, 2009, 9:34 AM' post='3124153']
lolomon
[/quote


How the hell did you get passed the ignore feature?

nevermind, I screwed it up.

Well, as you've stated - mistakenly in jest - I am world class.

Don't take it too hard.

I've likened it to getting dunked on by Jordan.

It may sting a little but you'll be immortalized in the poster.

It's not so much that he "owned" you, it's more just the comedic timing and wording that makes it notable and hilarious.

You forgot a "Do you care" option.

The answer is no. As long as it doesn't disprove God... and it doesn't even come in the vicinity of it... or disprove his word... which it doesn't as well.... I have no reason to even give it a second thought. What are we on now, possible missing link 2000? Those CFC's are really doing a number on us, aren't they? Eventually, I believe science will finally track it back to that mythical starting point and will find that "Shoot, something had to build this thing." Then, it will be the Dawkins dance, maybe it's aliens, etc., anything but God. I have been wrong a thousand times but I KNOW I nailed this one.

It's science. They rewrite the books every 2 years largely because, well, "Oh, shit, that was wrong."

So, I don't care. And only science geeks or people trying desperately to hang on to anything not God will. Maybe old dudes who are bored watching T.V. Maybe.

I think it really would be great if God was playing a trick. Sent his son, did the impossible multiple times, had it recorded, and well enough that very few do not know of him, the most well known story of all time, recorded in great detail, etc. You've had the evidence all along. You just didn't want it. Why not screw with your head a bit? At least give the believers something to do. Yeah, it might make it tougher for you to believe, but come on, be honest. Even if God appeared in front of you, made you a sandwich and told you a story, many of you would just say it was a hallucination. What else is there to do but screw with you?

You show no real understanding of how the advancement of science works.

consider the possiblity that you're a fundamentalist christian geek trying so desparately to hang on to your culturally-brainwashed delusions
that you're in total denial of objective facts any rational person would accept staring you in the face.




it would be really great if the FSM was playing a trick hiding from you, letting you believe the bible is anything more than the obvious fable collection written
by superstitious primitive humans it is, because being a brainwashed fundamentalist your belief is so tied to your ego that you aren't even capable of rationally
considering any other possibility and there's nothing else for him to do but screw with you.

I can understand how you can still have faith in god.....but how ANYONE can still have faith in religion is beyond me.

just another sad, sad chapter for Catholicism: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090525/ap_on_..._catholic_abuse

Not speaking for Lois, but I don't really know any Protestants that put their faith in religion. I think Lois would tell you, as would I, that we have a relationship with God...not with religion. I'm not sure why this always this is always so hard to understand.

It's not that it's so hard to understand it's the fact that many/most of you argue that the bible is literal which is kind of the cornerstone of a lot of religion. If you (not you individually; you as in defenders of God) acknowlegded the likelyhood that the bible is quite likely either a complete load of crap or at least a gross exaggeration and shouldn't be taken word for word. Nor would it it need to be for there to be some sort of God than this forum would get very little action.

Believing in evolution and not allowing that to detract from your views of a higher power is one thing but arguing against evolution and any other scientific find because it wasn't stated in or goes against the bible is ludicrous in the eyes of many.

because it is religious leaders trying to push their skewed version of Christianity onto American life through legislation......and you both support that from your posts on this forum. because religious leaders quote the bible when they want to outlaw gay marriage but they dont seem to remember the bible has much stronger things to say about the evils of divorce.

I could go on and on but it is pointless. you may have a relationship with god, but you support what the religious right wants to do.....and at every turn religion has shows itself to be unworthy of telling anyone what to do about anything.

None of you have a personal relationship with "God" (keeping in mind that there are approximately 8,506,954,403,402 different gods that superstitious and fear of death filled and uncomfortable with the unknown centric humans have imagined and created for themselves), because none of you have ever spoken to or seen your particular brand of Santa Claus in real life.

Because he/she/it is imagined. He/She/It is a figment of your imagination and that warm fuzzy feeling you get is a product of your wishful thinking. If Heshit speaks to you, you should look to a professional to get some much needed medication.

You may be able to go to work, buy groceries for yourself, hold conversations with other people, you may be good at math or English, you might be able to hold any number of technical degrees and proficiency, you can probably tie your own shoes... but when it comes to you dudes talking about your particular man-in-the-sky you are revealing a compartmentalization and a flaw in your ability for critical thought, and put yourself in the position of a child at Christmas.

Well, unless your delusion lends itself to some sort of violence against non-believers or other "faiths", in which case you are no longer a silly, ignorant, wide eyed hope filled child-man, but a very dangerous adult who's fanatical stupidity needs to be put down.

Chances are slim anyone on the forum fits that description. Except maybe Lois who, due to his IQ, is a threat only to his keyboard by virtue of his saliva.

First of all, I don't think you know me enough to tell me what I do and don't support.

Second of all, I have a mind of my own. Because Pat Robertson or some other fanatical religious right figure says something, it doesn't mean that every Christian accepts it is as true, or necessarily lives their lives accordingly. Like I said before, there are a lot of people in this forum that don't get the difference between "Religion" and "Relationship. Either that, or you all lump Catholics and Protestants into one big group, which would again be another mistake.

I'd be the first to admit, that major atrocities have been committed in the "name of religion." That's pretty much a "no-duh" statement. The problem I have is when you put up a link talking about abuse in the Catholic Church, and then say "how can you have any faith in religion?" Do you seriously think every Catholic thinks it's cool to abuse children? I mean come on, that's just completely absurd and a bit offensive.

Look, I know that I'll probably never get any non-Christian in this forum to accept Christ as their Savior, and you'll never get me to renounce my faith. A lot of people on here like Lois have presented the case for faith, and people like you have presented the case for science. I guess I'd just rather see us be able to understand where each other are coming from better, and use this forum for productive debate, rather than taking pointless jabs and making jokes...yeah that sounded kinda ghey, but you know what I mean. Meh, I'm sure I'll get flamed for this post as well.

Doubt it.

It was innocuous and implies that you aren't a psycho, just a guy who wants to believe in his particular, culturally acceptable outer space Zeus.

why? what specifically makes you think that would be impossible?

Can you see how that would seem preferable to clinging to books written eons ago which must have been wrong?

This is exactly where the two mindsets diverge: you see it as a weakness to toss out a bad theory in favor of a better one, while we see it as a strength. Your strategy of not rewriting the books precludes the possibility of any advancement in understanding.




I agree that it would take some extraordinary evidence to convince me of something so extraordinary. Why should it be any other way?

giggle



Not only would that be great, but it would make perfect sense too!



I wonder if they ever really sit down and consider the possibility. And if they do, what makes them decide that it's not the case? The end-all fact that someone told them that someone told them that someone told them, etc. that a book was written by god?

it takes a fairly high capability for humility to be able to do that objectively, which is something
the majority of humanity doesn't seem to have.

I guess a lot of it comes down to the word "faith", and any given individual's assessment of what it is and whether or not it is a positive thing. Personally, I think it's great for those who truly need it to survive, but silly for those who don't.



Clever play on words, but my point stands. In general I believe it's counter productive now that we've advanced to the point where we're truly starting to grasp how ridiculously complex and incredible the universe is. No, that doesn't mean that there is no god, and it could be argued that it's more likely now than ever that there was a driving force (not that I believe that argument), but it does mean that we should all be able to rationally agree that religious fables are just that.

One thing that I guess I do think religious might still be good for is holding science back just a bit. Being dead-set against any form of stem cell research is idiotic and a sign that someone doesn't understand how it's done (most likely because he doesn't care to know more about it), but it's good to have a yin to the "mad scientist" yang that's looking to clone humans asap. Etc.

It's tough to argue the Bible as literal. I certainly do for the fun of it, but let's be honest. Is it neccesary to believe that the world was created in 6 calendar days? No. Thankfully, it doesn't say that. And on and on and on.