|
On May 20 2009 20:16 Meta wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2009 20:07 Aegraen wrote:On May 20 2009 20:02 404.Nintu wrote:
@OP.
This doesn't fuck over creationists, just sorta gives young-earth creationists a rough time. This doesn't actually do much to dissuade creationists. Evolution is not against Religion. I don't know why some people relate it to that, but I guess that has to do with the hardcore fundamentals. Most christians acknowledge evolution, however, evolution in no way shape or form can disprove 'God', nor can science, because face it, there are things we will never understand, and even by understanding the laws of the universe / nature, it still doesn't mean that god didn't create those laws. Saying this though, I lean more agnostic. Doesn't matter if he exists or not, but you can't disprove or prove it's existence. Sure, it doesn't disprove God, but it does disprove a lot of what those books that tell us God exists also tell us about how we came to be.
True, but the bible is not to be taken in a literal sense. Interpretations of events foretold in the bible should be taken metaphorically, or in a scientific perspective (Such as moses 'parting the red sea', he actually didn't, but that event did take place due to natural occuring thing called Tides and with the reeds/sandbar; anyways, with that knowledge he led the jews to safety while the 'ignorant' egyptians were drowned due to the tide coming back in), so while yes, Evolution sets to disprove adam and eve, thats about all it does.
|
And I really don't get it, its not that ground breaking. That article hypes it WAY too much. All it would do really is to push back the split between humans and apes to farther then we thought. They found possibly one of the first creatures from the split of apes/humans last common ancestor, which really all it does is push the split back farther due to its advanced age.
|
Didn't I see one of these in the fire swamps? :p
|
On May 20 2009 20:50 Slaughter)BiO wrote:
And I really don't get it, its not that ground breaking. That article hypes it WAY too much. All it would do really is to push back the split between humans and apes to farther then we thought. They found possibly one of the first creatures from the split of apes/humans last common ancestor, which really all it does is push the split back farther due to its advanced age.
Even if we take this at face value it creates more problems than it answers. If our descendants were so far in the past (47 million years) (Descendants by that I mean in evolution link/chain directly leading to humans), how did we come so far so fast comparatively from the oldest hominid fossels to where we are now (about 2 mil years). Why did it take 45 million years to get from that evolution link to lucy (2 million years)?
Science hype is the worst of all. False pretenses that science is infallible is on par with religious fundamentalism. I'm interested in hearing why they think it is some magical link, moreso when we know what we do all ready about the link between lucy to today.
|
They didn't post much about how it looks bipedal. If it were to somehow be adapted to bipedalism it would fuck up so much of the theory in paleo atm. Their theories right now are due to a decrease in forest which forced these apes out of the trees and they gradually changed their habits and developed bipedalism. This was supposed to be like around 8-10mya range. PLUS this thing was found in Europe wtf like all the finds were basically from Africa. Think tugenensis or tchadensis, they were supposed to be among the first for bipedalism. This find kinda seems random, piltdown #2? Lol jk :D Plus its kinda gay that its just now being really examined if it was found over 20 years ago....thats like 20 years of theory that was based on a false premise due to no one decided to make this find known. I want to see what the paleoanthro community has to say about this find before I decide anything.
|
Norway28814 Posts
not like this is gonna matter to creationists, any item that appears to be 47 million years is bound to be put on earth by the devil to test our faith/ is a fabrication anyway because the world is only 6-7000 years old
this is a cool find for every sane person though.
|
Plus to all the people who are like "OH YEA IN YOUR FACE CREATIONISTS" stfu plz. It doesn't even disprove creation really, just the story that everything was created as is. People seem to think evolution is the anti creation when it could be said that there was a creation and then evolved. Only the most fundamentalist think the earth is still 6-7k years old. My grandfather is PASTOR and he easily knows that the earth is older then that. The 6-7k thing was from some guy tracking the ages of people in the bible. Clearly not a proper method.
|
On May 20 2009 20:55 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2009 20:50 Slaughter)BiO wrote:
And I really don't get it, its not that ground breaking. That article hypes it WAY too much. All it would do really is to push back the split between humans and apes to farther then we thought. They found possibly one of the first creatures from the split of apes/humans last common ancestor, which really all it does is push the split back farther due to its advanced age. Even if we take this at face value it creates more problems than it answers. If our descendants were so far in the past (47 million years) (Descendants by that I mean in evolution link/chain directly leading to humans), how did we come so far so fast comparatively from the oldest hominid fossels to where we are now (about 2 mil years). Why did it take 45 million years to get from that evolution link to lucy (2 million years)?
why i took so long?
Lucy is very human. Hell, some plastical surgery and make up could make you believe she is one.
This thing is for a non scientist as much a human as a cat.
|
On May 20 2009 19:47 nvnplatypus wrote:Show nested quote +The unveiling of the fossil came as part of a carefully-orchestrated publicity campaign unusual for scientific discoveries. This, to me, is almost as interesting as the find. The scientific community has never been good at marketing, while religions often excel at it (Scientology & Christianity are particularly good). In the last few years all I've personally seen is some soundbites in the fields of astronomy and genetics. "The Gay Gene", "The Genius Gene" etc that are easy for media to pick up on and people to talk about without needing to understand any of the underlying theory. I'm just really curious in general how the marketing of science will continue to evolve over time. After all, funding often is granted or denied by public perception (see Stem Cell research) based on popularity or lack thereof among taxpayers. So this is a more serious question than a nerdy scientist enjoying his 20 minutes of public fame.
First condemn the scientific community for not publicizing their findings well, then attack the scientists for publicizing them, that is so cool.
|
On May 20 2009 21:08 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2009 20:55 Aegraen wrote:On May 20 2009 20:50 Slaughter)BiO wrote:
And I really don't get it, its not that ground breaking. That article hypes it WAY too much. All it would do really is to push back the split between humans and apes to farther then we thought. They found possibly one of the first creatures from the split of apes/humans last common ancestor, which really all it does is push the split back farther due to its advanced age. Even if we take this at face value it creates more problems than it answers. If our descendants were so far in the past (47 million years) (Descendants by that I mean in evolution link/chain directly leading to humans), how did we come so far so fast comparatively from the oldest hominid fossels to where we are now (about 2 mil years). Why did it take 45 million years to get from that evolution link to lucy (2 million years)? why i took so long? Lucy is very human. Hell, some plastical surgery and make up could make you believe she is one. This thing is for a non scientist as much a human as a cat.
Lucy is very human if you fix her post cranial skeleton to be better at bipedalism, give her about 2 more feet higher and make her brain larger then the size of an ape. Oh and several morphologies in the mid face as well. Mainly give her a brain that would be capable of some higher thought like humans. Hell habilis was much more advanced and most people do not consider them human.
|
On May 20 2009 20:49 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2009 20:16 Meta wrote:On May 20 2009 20:07 Aegraen wrote:On May 20 2009 20:02 404.Nintu wrote:
@OP.
This doesn't fuck over creationists, just sorta gives young-earth creationists a rough time. This doesn't actually do much to dissuade creationists. Evolution is not against Religion. I don't know why some people relate it to that, but I guess that has to do with the hardcore fundamentals. Most christians acknowledge evolution, however, evolution in no way shape or form can disprove 'God', nor can science, because face it, there are things we will never understand, and even by understanding the laws of the universe / nature, it still doesn't mean that god didn't create those laws. Saying this though, I lean more agnostic. Doesn't matter if he exists or not, but you can't disprove or prove it's existence. Sure, it doesn't disprove God, but it does disprove a lot of what those books that tell us God exists also tell us about how we came to be. True, but the bible is not to be taken in a literal sense. Interpretations of events foretold in the bible should be taken metaphorically, or in a scientific perspective (Such as moses 'parting the red sea', he actually didn't, but that event did take place due to natural occuring thing called Tides and with the reeds/sandbar; anyways, with that knowledge he led the jews to safety while the 'ignorant' egyptians were drowned due to the tide coming back in), so while yes, Evolution sets to disprove adam and eve, thats about all it does.
Who says the bible is not meant to be taken literally? Maybe it is but of course nowadays we all know it´s the most complete bullshit ever.
Metaphorically. hmm... You mean homosexuality and eating oysters is disgusting, for example, has some metaphorical meaning?
Dude we are talking about people who lived few thousand years ago. Do you really think they ment things like that to be taken as metaphors?
I´m not saying there isn´t any metaphors: thats what most religions are all about, teachings, rules and advice hidden in riddles and stuff.
But Christianity has always been a mass religion so the majority was never accustomed to the hidden teachings. So that´s why still even today most people know about Christianitys metaphors the wine and bread thing which isn´t that much afterall. Still the bible has always kept it´s form altough we know much of it´s stuff is wrong or something we today can´t agree with. This is the cause for idiots like creationists and fundamentalists. Too big religious community can´t interpret the stuff in the book whereas religions like the ones Europe used to have had always important knowledge in their riddles and songs. Knowing the true meaning people could always replace old and wrong stuff with new. This is something todays mass religions don´t and can´t have because of the sheer size of religious communities, it takes time to get to know these kind of things.
And that´s why todays mass religions have people so anti-change like Christianity has been the last 1800 years.
|
On May 20 2009 21:12 Mah Buckit! wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2009 20:49 Aegraen wrote:On May 20 2009 20:16 Meta wrote:On May 20 2009 20:07 Aegraen wrote:On May 20 2009 20:02 404.Nintu wrote:
@OP.
This doesn't fuck over creationists, just sorta gives young-earth creationists a rough time. This doesn't actually do much to dissuade creationists. Evolution is not against Religion. I don't know why some people relate it to that, but I guess that has to do with the hardcore fundamentals. Most christians acknowledge evolution, however, evolution in no way shape or form can disprove 'God', nor can science, because face it, there are things we will never understand, and even by understanding the laws of the universe / nature, it still doesn't mean that god didn't create those laws. Saying this though, I lean more agnostic. Doesn't matter if he exists or not, but you can't disprove or prove it's existence. Sure, it doesn't disprove God, but it does disprove a lot of what those books that tell us God exists also tell us about how we came to be. True, but the bible is not to be taken in a literal sense. Interpretations of events foretold in the bible should be taken metaphorically, or in a scientific perspective (Such as moses 'parting the red sea', he actually didn't, but that event did take place due to natural occuring thing called Tides and with the reeds/sandbar; anyways, with that knowledge he led the jews to safety while the 'ignorant' egyptians were drowned due to the tide coming back in), so while yes, Evolution sets to disprove adam and eve, thats about all it does. Who says the bible is not meant to be taken literally? Maybe it is but of course nowadays we all know it´s the most complete bullshit ever. Metaphorically. hmm... You mean homosexuality and eating oysters is disgusting, for example, has some metaphorical meaning? Dude we are talking about people who lived few thousand years ago. Do you really think they ment things like that to be taken as metaphors? I´m not saying there isn´t any metaphors: thats what most religions are all about, teachings, rules and advice hidden in riddles and stuff. But Christianity has always been a mass religion so the majority was never accustomed to the hidden teachings. So that´s why still even today most people know about Christianitys metaphors the wine and bread thing which isn´t that much afterall. Still the bible has always kept it´s form altough we know much of it´s stuff is wrong or something we today can´t agree with. This is the cause for idiots like creationists and fundamentalists. Too big religious community can´t interpret the stuff in the book whereas religions like the ones Europe used to have had always important knowledge in their riddles and songs. Knowing the true meaning people could always replace old and wrong stuff with new. This is something todays mass religions don´t and can´t have because of the sheer size of religious communities. It takes time to get to know these kind of things. And that´s why todays mass religions have people so anti-change like Christianity has been the last 1800 years. Also the fact that most people don´t bother to think these kind of things make me kinda sad  Fun stuff
|
On May 20 2009 21:08 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2009 20:55 Aegraen wrote:On May 20 2009 20:50 Slaughter)BiO wrote:
And I really don't get it, its not that ground breaking. That article hypes it WAY too much. All it would do really is to push back the split between humans and apes to farther then we thought. They found possibly one of the first creatures from the split of apes/humans last common ancestor, which really all it does is push the split back farther due to its advanced age. Even if we take this at face value it creates more problems than it answers. If our descendants were so far in the past (47 million years) (Descendants by that I mean in evolution link/chain directly leading to humans), how did we come so far so fast comparatively from the oldest hominid fossels to where we are now (about 2 mil years). Why did it take 45 million years to get from that evolution link to lucy (2 million years)? why i took so long? Lucy is very human. Hell, some plastical surgery and make up could make you believe she is one. This thing is for a non scientist as much a human as a cat.
/facepalm.
I'm interested to know what to you is 'very human' because you are so far off basis. Another poster all ready answered this, so I won't have to.
|
|
|
That's a nice discovery. I am very interested in the human anthropological order.
Only to add - the evolution is not a theory. It is nowadays regarded as a scientifically proven fact. The christian churches deny that but they are retards anyway. I mean they believe the Earth was made in 6 days like 6000 years ago.
|
On May 20 2009 21:18 hymn wrote:
That's a nice discovery. I am very interested in the human anthropological order.
Only to add - the evolution is not a theory. It is nowadays regarded as a scientifically proven fact. The christian churches deny that but they are retards anyway. I mean they believe the Earth was made in 6 days like 6000 years ago.
Get a clue, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH believes in evolution.
|
On May 20 2009 21:12 Mah Buckit! wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2009 20:49 Aegraen wrote:On May 20 2009 20:16 Meta wrote:On May 20 2009 20:07 Aegraen wrote:On May 20 2009 20:02 404.Nintu wrote:
@OP.
This doesn't fuck over creationists, just sorta gives young-earth creationists a rough time. This doesn't actually do much to dissuade creationists. Evolution is not against Religion. I don't know why some people relate it to that, but I guess that has to do with the hardcore fundamentals. Most christians acknowledge evolution, however, evolution in no way shape or form can disprove 'God', nor can science, because face it, there are things we will never understand, and even by understanding the laws of the universe / nature, it still doesn't mean that god didn't create those laws. Saying this though, I lean more agnostic. Doesn't matter if he exists or not, but you can't disprove or prove it's existence. Sure, it doesn't disprove God, but it does disprove a lot of what those books that tell us God exists also tell us about how we came to be. True, but the bible is not to be taken in a literal sense. Interpretations of events foretold in the bible should be taken metaphorically, or in a scientific perspective (Such as moses 'parting the red sea', he actually didn't, but that event did take place due to natural occuring thing called Tides and with the reeds/sandbar; anyways, with that knowledge he led the jews to safety while the 'ignorant' egyptians were drowned due to the tide coming back in), so while yes, Evolution sets to disprove adam and eve, thats about all it does. Who says the bible is not meant to be taken literally? Maybe it is but of course nowadays we all know it´s the most complete bullshit ever. Metaphorically. hmm... You mean homosexuality and eating oysters is disgusting, for example, has some metaphorical meaning? Dude we are talking about people who lived few thousand years ago. Do you really think they ment things like that to be taken as metaphors? I´m not saying there isn´t any metaphors: thats what most religions are all about, teachings, rules and advice hidden in riddles and stuff. But Christianity has always been a mass religion so the majority was never accustomed to the hidden teachings. So that´s why still even today most people know about Christianitys metaphors the wine and bread thing which isn´t that much afterall. Still the bible has always kept it´s form altough we know much of it´s stuff is wrong or something we today can´t agree with. This is the cause for idiots like creationists and fundamentalists. Too big religious community can´t interpret the stuff in the book whereas religions like the ones Europe used to have had always important knowledge in their riddles and songs. Knowing the true meaning people could always replace old and wrong stuff with new. This is something todays mass religions don´t and can´t have because of the sheer size of religious communities, it takes time to get to know these kind of things. And that´s why todays mass religions have people so anti-change like Christianity has been the last 1800 years.
Are you aware that many events that took place in the bible actually happened, though without the 'supernatural' prose that the authors embellished? This is why the bible is not to be taken literally, because the authors at the time did not have the knowledge to adequately explain what they were seeing. Religious scholars tend to agree on this point.
Homosexuality during the roman times was lavished by the romans. It's no wonder (the christians who despised the romans) they would hate all that is associated with them (Why Jesus is a pauper, in contrast to lavish romans and their lifestyle).
Sure, there are some out there stuff, like god creating the world in 7 days and adam and eve, and jonah, etc., but most is documented events that occured during the times of the romans (you just have to decipher the prose with scientific knowledge and archaelogical proof).
|
they dont even know if its a "missing link" yet, they(scientists) are just saying that it COULD be.
|
On May 20 2009 21:12 Slaughter)BiO wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2009 21:08 Velr wrote:On May 20 2009 20:55 Aegraen wrote:On May 20 2009 20:50 Slaughter)BiO wrote:
And I really don't get it, its not that ground breaking. That article hypes it WAY too much. All it would do really is to push back the split between humans and apes to farther then we thought. They found possibly one of the first creatures from the split of apes/humans last common ancestor, which really all it does is push the split back farther due to its advanced age. Even if we take this at face value it creates more problems than it answers. If our descendants were so far in the past (47 million years) (Descendants by that I mean in evolution link/chain directly leading to humans), how did we come so far so fast comparatively from the oldest hominid fossels to where we are now (about 2 mil years). Why did it take 45 million years to get from that evolution link to lucy (2 million years)? why i took so long? Lucy is very human. Hell, some plastical surgery and make up could make you believe she is one. This thing is for a non scientist as much a human as a cat. Lucy is very human if you fix her post cranial skeleton to be better at bipedalism, give her about 2 more feet higher and make her brain larger then the size of an ape. Oh and several morphologies in the mid face as well. Mainly give her a brain that would be capable of some higher thought like humans. Hell habilis was much more advanced and most people do not consider them human.
I would call that very human compared to this new find. Yes, i overexagerated a *bit* there.
|
On May 20 2009 19:53 konadora wrote:I accidentally read Show nested quote +Officially known as Darwinius masillae, the fossil of the lemur-like creature dubbed Ida shows it had opposable thumbs like humans and fingernails instead of claws. as Idra.
Haha, I did the SAME exact thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
