‘Missing-link’ primate likely to stir debate

Sounds like someone does not understand science. At all.

I agree with wangsidious. It does sound like the reporter doesn't understand science. At all. Good call.

It is a lizard, an old lizard but none the less - a lizard!

Good to see we have so many paleontologists monitoring newsvine. I guess we can tell those researchers they can stop wasting their time since a group of Internet newsgroup posters have already determined that it's only a lizard.

Certainly, the common people should refrain from questioning the great wisdom of the paleontology monarchy. Just nod in awe like good little sheep while they simplify human ancestry to the presence of an arbitrarily defined foot bone. Seriously? Sounds curiously similar to the "clergy/laity" distinction found in many religions. Coincidence?

In your well-educated and analytical mind, it not only could not be linked to humans, but you are suggesting it's not even a primate (regardless of any possible DNA results) but instead is, a lizard? That makes sense.

Dave, there's one big difference between the "paleontology monarchy" and the clergy. Scientists don't keep their secrets. Anyone can right now go and do science and find out for themselves. No scientist has ever said "believe what I say or else."

The clergy don't do that. They say it is heretical to question them. They say we must believe without being told the facts. That is what faith is after all.

So Dave, if you don't want to, or don't have the means to go and do the research yourself, you can't blame the scientists.

A short look a a photograph and your opinion is supposed to mean more than that of those who spend years getting an education and a lifetime studying fossils. LMAO.

I agree with checkerbattery. We should call them and tell them to at least stop wasting our time.

Agreed. They are jumping the gun just like all the other fraudulent claims like Piltdown, Lucy, Nebraska man, Java man, Orce man, Archaeoraptor, and all the other alleged transitional links that have been frauds, or have been proven to just be an extinct species. If evolution is true, there should be millions of transitional fossils. But they are absent from the fossil record.

Looks more like Nancy Pelosi to me.

To many face lifts I think is the problem.

radagast, the problem with the clergy is not that they keep secrets. The problem is that they are largely ignorant of that which they are suppose to be teaching. Going around claiming that things are a "divine secret" when most of the answers are spelled out quite clearly in the Bible. That's just sad.

There have been various college biology and paleontology professors in the news in the last years that have done exactly what you mentioned: demanded that their students believe specifically what they believe, assumptions and all, "or else". The evolutionary scientific community itself is built at least partially on peer pressure, in addition to peer review. Assumptions are tolerated as long as they fall in line with the majority. Try a hypothesis in the opposite direction and one can expect a curiously emotional response from those that claim to base their thinking purely on facts. Looking at it from the outside in, it looks more like a religion than anything else.

Evolution is true & its proven right here every day. Its not just the body its the mind.

DaveB001 - That's because you need more than a hypothesis to get respect. You need actual, you know, evidence and stuff like that. Sure, there are egos involved in science, but it is all laid out there for everyone to judge for themselves.

sh 2000

if the human mind has avanced so much then why are we still killing each other "everyday"??? just because we have had enough time to invent cool gadgets, does not mean that the human mind has evolved into somthing more powerful than what it was thousands of years ago. we are just as primitive as we once were. we just have much better weapons systems.

Matthias

You need to take a basic human anatomy class before you make another foolish comment on a topic such as this one.

Many species of mammals have a talus bone as a part of the ankle structure. However, human beings are the only ones where the talus bone is positioned so that we can walk on our heels, our entire foot, on our toes, or even on the sides of our feet, as we desire. In all other species, including the great apes, the talus bone is integrated into the ankle system so that they cannot walk in all four of those foot positions. Most can only walk on one part of their foot.

That is why the positioning of the talus bone in this very complete fossil is so very important in integrating this find into the history of human beings.

Maybe? possibly could be? might be ?About ?Nothing factual about a link here just more theory.

Checkerbattery, hey genius, I guess you're one of those who swallow anything that is labelled as "science" hook, line and sinker, right. No room for skepticism, correct!

sh 2000

if the human mind has avanced so much then why are we still killing each other "everyday"??? just because we have had enough time to invent cool gadgets, does not mean that the human mind has evolved into somthing more powerful than what it was thousands of years ago. we are just as primitive as we once were. we just have much better weapons systems.

J Fin, the answer to that is simple. Because not all minds evolve simultaneously.

There have been various college biology and paleontology professors [who] demanded that their students believe specifically what they believe, assumptions and all, "or else".

Dave, These are "teachers" not "scientists." When teaching it is prudent to teach what the scientists agree upon to be most accurate. If the course material says"X" and the student says "Y" then the student is not in line with the course material, and for the purposes of grading, is wrong. However if the student then goes on to a career as a scientist and proves that "Y" is in fact correct, then he would become a famous scientist and would be celebrated. If he tried the same thing in the clergy he would be excommunicated for going against church dogma.

Assumptions are tolerated as long as they fall in line with the majority. Try a hypothesis in the opposite direction and one can expect a curiously emotional response from those that claim to base their thinking purely on facts. Looking at it from the outside in, it looks more like a religion than anything else.

Dave, you obviously don't understand how science is conducted. That's OK, most people don't. Scientists are people and they have emotions, however scientific papers are typically devoid of these emotions and deal simply with facts. Don't let yourself be fooled into thinking that science is done in TV interviews or magazine articles where scientists let their hair down. Science is a "conversation" or "debate" that may take years or decades to conclude and involve many different groups all trying to push their hypothesis as the solution to explain some phenomena. Everyone trots out their results and the facts that they have assembled and the debate goes on. Sometimes some facts can be used to refute other facts. This is where it can get emotional. Eventually there will be a consensus, or theory that explains all of the information.

If the general public sticks their nose into the room for only a moment during this decades long debate, they will undoubtedly get the wrong impression about science, or about the conclusions of scientists (remember how eggs were good, then bad, now good again?). Likewise, if the general public relies on conversation between scientists and media outlets they will also be misled about how science is done. Just because some scientist gets emotional on TV does not mean that those emotions have any baring on the data that is produced by others.

The history of science is full of underdogs rising to the top to topple the widely held dogma of the day. When has a lowly priest had his word over the Pope?

I...can't ...believe...that ....in this day...and age, that this debate still has this much traction. I love a good debate, but you have to at least bring some solid evidence to the table for people to take you seriously.

I believe in god. I subscribe to the process of the sciences. I believe in evolution. How did it ever come to pass that god did not create the universe, man/woman included, using evolution as her vehicle? I do have faith that there is something, but I will be the first to tell you -- I don't truly know.

whoooooooooooooosh........ what the heck was that? Oh...don't mind that -- it was just all the Aisan nations zooming right by us because they weren't hindered due to their strict interpretation of a bible!

Sad thing is, if more christians actually practiced what their savior preached -- we'd be much better off. A wise man once said, "I love your what your christ stands for, but not your christians"

This is a reply to Johns comment, I resent you insulting that poor little lizard,saying it looks like Porklosie. I how could you?

Right on enough politics. Why does everything crumble around a fundamentalist's faith structure if god didn't order the natural world to their specifications? Life has to be organized and developed in some fashion. Why not evolution? And the evidence does resoundly support the theory overall. And for those of you who say evoution isn't true because we haven't found certain types of fossils, negative evidence isn't evidence. K?

I believe this could be a an early human. Reminds me of a girI met on New Years eve one year in bar. I knew it was going to be a bad year ahead when I got a good look at her when I woke up beside her New Years morning. I could almost stomach her except for the toothy grin and those cold scales where warm skin should have been. It was all over for us when I got a good look at her mother and knew what sort of mother-in-lae she would be.

I believe this could be a an early human. Reminds me of a girI met on New Years eve one year in bar. I knew it was going to be a bad year ahead when I got a good look at her when I woke up beside her New Years morning. I could almost stomach her except for the toothy grin and those cold scales where warm skin should have been. It was all over for us when I got a good look at her mother and knew what sort of mother-in-law she would be.

SH-2000,

define evolution as you are using it in post #2.13 please.

to you "Christians" out there who are attempting to maintain your faith, and marry it to "evolution" -- i hope you understand, Christianity is based on the fact that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God. from genesis to revelation, EVERY word is God-breathed. if you think evolution, as "science" is claiming, to be the truth, then you are dismissing the genesis account of creation, thereby dismissing the Bible as the truth (of which there can be only one) by allowing death and suffering into the world before original sin. this cannot be. it is one or the other. understand this and make your choice carefully.

jeffro posted, what if my "belief/culture" says 2 is 10?

doesnt matter what you believe. it doesnt matter what i believe.

there is only one truth. not because i say so, not because you believe or dont believe it's so, and not because it is written somewhere. one truth because there cannot be more than one truth.

evolution is a lie. humanism is a lie. the God of the Bible is Truth. nothing can change this fact.

The key issue to this discovery is it's a (Transitional Fossil). A problem with debating that evoulution is the solution to the mystrey of life or the answer to questions of how did we get here or why do we have the ability to even discuss such an issue is the fossil record lacks evidence that a linkexsist that shows the (Human Eelement) goes very far back, especially to the (Eocene Epoch). This is why the (Transitional Fossil) becomes so important. It provides weak evidence if any at all supporting the hypothises that evolution could possibly be the geniuses, or the alfa of our existence. Every flora and fauna is blessed with the ability to adapt to it's environment through genetic mutation (evolution). Not all have been successful. Whats always been so confusing to me is how different species, incorporated genetic mutation to develop, evolve and never the less, emerge from some primordial soup of molecules. Especially when it comes to the sexes. Now, for me, sex has always been a little confusing, but I regress. Did the female and male counterparts of any particular species develope and evolve at the same time in this great primordal sea. Then wash up on the same beach at the same time within convenient proximity to each other. Then begin copulating to reproduce and establish the species? The paradox is simaler to which came first, The chicken or the egg? Maybe, as these organism's emerged they just started copulating with what ever else emerged at that time or with what ever they could find on the beach eventually finding something somewhat compatible. (Even a blind hog finds an acorn occasionally). Now, what are the odds that adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine, the bases that make up nucleotides, the building blocks for DNA are going to combine in such an order as to allow any such phenomenon to occur. Concidering the different combinations of nucleotides that could develop, evolve and emerge from this primordial soup, some being successful and others failures, it must of been one big, long, ugly orgy on that beach!

Let me clarify my earlier statement: I am not saying that the fossil is a lizard, just that it looks more lizard than lemur. Certainly DNA testing is more reliable than visual identification.

I was not trying to prove or disprove evolution or intelligant design, I was simply stating my feelings that when it comes to the missing link many scientists are so excited to prove they found the missing link that instead of looking at the evidence objectively with no percieved notions of what it is they already decide it's the missing link and try to prove it.

I'm not an expert on anatomy & physiology, but I've studied for over a year so Ido know some basics. I understand that the human talus is special and of particular interest, but evein if scientists find a talus bone positioned like humans in another primate this does not prove it is the missing link. Many scientists seem to dismiss the idea that there could have existed a bipedal upright ape which was not the missing link, and only a ape.

Scientists have lost their objectivity, instead of trying to discover the origins of life they try to prove evolution and the existence of the missing link. I understand that evolution is the leading theory of how life started, but it is only a theory!

Scientists today are almost as bad as when the world believed in spontaneous generation of life. They refused to listen to anyone who challenged their ideas.

The use of the words "missing link" unneccessarily encourages the frustrating "debate" we're having here. Someone way up above (in #1.32) wrote: "I have yet to see a half monkey, half man running around, or a blob of goo on the beach with arms and legs trying to walk upright. People are so desperate to disprove God they will grasp at any straw."

This comment is telling, because it demonstrates the sad state of public education and the belief that one must either believe in science or God.

It goes without saying to state that people don't understand fundamental concepts. A good number of people believe science proposes animals morph into new animals or take physiologically useless forms in the leap from protozoa to man. The words "missing link" really nurture that fallacy, in my opinion, by suggesting the location of a missing puzzle piece will provide the key that miraculously resolves everything. Of course, the missing puzzle piece doesn't exists, as indeed the puzzle itself is not quite so simple. People like the author of #1.32 believe our continued search for knowledge is an admission of failure. Each time we don't miraculously "solve" the mysteries of the universe, they respond by jubilantly shouting "gotcha!"

It's hard to get mad at people for believing what they don't understand when they never had an honest chance at education. The longer ago one went to public school, the more deficient his education. Our parents' and grandparents' generations were educated in the shadow of Tennessee v. Scopes (1925), a show trial that damaged science's credibility by unfairly characterizing it as a ruthless war against morality. It's no wonder schools were (and still are) afraid to teach, when something fundamentally objective, like science, is turned into something polemic.

The unequivocal linking of science to amorality and godlessness is a bit of a riddle to me. Social conservatives demonized Scopes, but then again they did it to Galileo before him. There's really not a compelling reason for either generation to react this way. Besides, social conservatives do not have the credentials to edit the fields of sciene on the basis of moral authority alone.

The stranglehold has got to give. Well intending people of faith often turn into anti-intellectuals because they believe education leads one away from God. Conservative leaders do their followers a great disservice by limiting their academic potential. People blame the schools for poor performance in math and science, but the source of the problem appears to lie in the social sector.

We can debate God and we can debate science. However, the two discussions should exist in different forums. However, the Christian, Jew, Muslim, or pagan who says science has no place in their church, school, and state is no worse than the athiest who uses science as a missile to lob at believers. Separation of church and state should be amended to include the suffix "and science."

**EDIT** The quote I used came from #1.31, not #1.32. Sorry.**

I find it amazing how we accept science in all its glory(when it fits our needs). We use it everyday. It gives us about 98% of everything we do and have. We love our cars, computers even the food and beverage we drink everyday. It saves lives in hospitals, it lights and heats our homes.

UNTIL you get to debunking religion. Than the same people who gave you everything you have today are nothing more than idiots. Talk about being a two faced jacka**.

You love them when it fits your needs, but if they touch your beliefs they are morons who cant get anything right? Where does that come from?

Evolution is FACT we see it everyday. We have evolved into the beings we are today. We are taller today than 100 years ago. We have a longer life expectancy than we did 75 years ago. THIS IS EVOLUTION.

Even if you believe in religion evolution is a part of it. If you believe we come from Adam and Eve you have to believe in evolution or there would only be one type of human on this planet. But there are Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Caucasians, and many more. They have all evolved from Adam and Eve.

So to read all the religious people say evolution is a joke, WAKE UP YOU CAN'T HAVE LIFE WITHOUT EVOLUTION. Even GOD has evolved through mankind's eyes over the years. In the past there were many GODS, then it evolved into a few GODS, and has now evolved into 1 all knowing and powerful GOD. That my friends is evolution at its finest.

Just A Thought,

You write, "If you believe we come from Adam and Eve you have to believe in evolution or there would only be one type of human on this planet. But there are Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Caucasians, and many more."

Actually, Christians, Jews, and Muslims share a common story. The most well know is found in the Old Testament. Genesis chapter 10 talks of how Noah's sons are the fathers of the world's nations. If this wasn't enough, Genesis chapter 11, regarding the tower of Babel, explains how languages and nations further diverged.

So good try, but you're not going to catch literal interpretationists that way. Other than that, I'd say your points are good. I might have used the evolution of viruses as an example of an observable phenomenon we can all relate to, regardless of religious inconvenience.

For the record, I still contend one doesn't have to exclusively believe in either science or religion, though.

Do you speak/read Coptic or Aramaic? Then you assume much about your "censored" and "translated" Bible is true; unless you can read the original texts in Coptic/Aramaic then you are very trusting and believing. Since most people refer to the Bible and are meaning the King James version which was again a translation of a translation created by a King James of England then you have no idea of what you are reading is true word of God or not or merely James' version of events, But I do know that whatever form God is... that they gave us this fossil so as to potentially educate the ignorant like yourself. Science does not exclude God, however creationism allows no room for Science. Who is the most fearful of the truth? I will forgo one line of scientific evidence ( you choose:biochemical, fossil, geographical, anatomical) if you forgo your only line of religious evidence...the Bible. I will still have things to talk about...however when you lose James' version you have squat to discuss :) Peace

Have you ever, EVER actually thought for yourself? Or do you just take what ever the church crams down your throat. You want to dispute scientific data with beliefs??? I fear for the human race, and I hope you do not procreate.

JBD is correct, science cannot disprove the Bibles facts. As far as 47 million years, if you asked 10 scientists to age the find you would have 10 different ages. There is NO way to accurately judge how old it is.

IF the scriptures are not lying the only one to gain from the theory of evolution, is the DEVIL

Dang, not that pesky devil again. What's up with that guy??

James, who told you the bible is god's word? I'll bet it was a man. Who told him? Another man. I'll bet it was a man who told this guy too. My point is a lot more men have spoken these words then god, so how do you really know it is his words? Faith?! Who told you about faith? A man I bet.

And if it is god's words then why would god give us his word and at the same time give us the ability to see and know the world, which is so clearly different from his word? Your god treats us like children, apparently, giving us tall tales of impossible explanations just to watch the looks on our faces as we struggle with the incongruity. I suggest that god does not do this, because the bible is not his word, but the word of man. Only man would make so many mistakes in his description of the world.

lol

My afternoon has been dragging. Thanks for the LOL.

JBD is correct, science cannot disprove the Bibles facts. As far as 47 million years, if you asked 10 scientists to age the find you would have 10 different ages. There is NO way to accurately judge how old it is.

Wow. Talk about using the word "facts" loosely. Just which Bible "facts" are you referring to?

One thing we can all agree on.... the fossil's age is far greater than 10000 years old.

No, credible christian groups denies evolution. The term intelligent design is often applied incorrectly by individuals. God created the Universe and this world in a logical systematic method. Would anyone expect God to be random and haphazard? He is all knowing. Of course he would create the universe logically.

Before anyone start picking on Catholic's the church has not denied evolution. People have to read the Bible in many different methods based upon the writer the time and the expression given. At times it is allegorical. Sometimes it is literal etc.

Actually, scott bailey, there is, it's called Carbon dating, and it's a real specific mathematical analysis based on the half-life of carbon and how much carbon remains in the specimen. Kinda like if it takes you 1 hour to drink half a keg of beer, and you have 1/8 of a keg left, how long have you been drinking that beer? (I know, you probably hate those word problems, don't you?)

Every time I read the Book of Genesis, the sun is created on the fourth day. How could you have three days and nights without a sun to measure it? At any rate, I find it interesting that this story was placed in the 'Faith' category and not science. What are we to surmise from this?

How stupid can you be. the damn thing is 47 million years old. how the hell can the world be only 6000 yeras old. go back to school and reeducate yourself in math.

Is that 47 Million BC or AD?

Would anyone expect God to be random and haphazard?

Electron cloud, quantum mechanical model of the atom. The location and velocity of an electron orbiting an atom can never both be determined at the same time andas such, electrons exist in no stable orbit around the nucleus of an atom but rather are predicted through probability.

Particle collisions of gas within a container (2nd Law of Thermodynamics). These collisions are, when in a isolated system not in equilibrium, subject to the effect of entropy which is the inability for the system to do work due to the random andcontinually increasing disorder of a system. You can imagine two gas particles slamming into each other within this container then flying off in different directions like a game of pong at mach 5, they rebound off the walls but continue to miss each other, thus reducing thier availability to do work and as the farther apart they get the harder it gets for them to do work (a crude example).

Genetic mutation within a virus. A strain of swine influenza mutated randomly to infect human subjects.

Biblical accounts, Old Testament, God burns cities and thier inhabitants without remorse for thier sins. New Testament, God demands we forgive each other and sends his only begotten son to die for us to absolve us of our sins.

You tell me if this isn't random and haphazard. God, if anything, is entirely random and unpredictable and so, it seems, are his creations. The one thing he isn't is consistent. There is a good reason for that.

Faith in the unseen and unprovable is a powerful and frighteningly dangerous thing. When a person refuses to question what is fact, then they permit the source of thier facts complete and total power over them. They will follow commands without hesitation, all the while believing they are correct. Even when confronted with an absolute truth they are apt to denying reality in favor of dogma and doctrine. Faith at it's core, is in all actuality, fear.

Through thier fear, a person that follows faith blindly, abandons thier rationality in favor of a more stable platform. Religions are excellent at inducing this fear, be it through phobia such as the fear of death or confrontation against superior numbers (we are right because we are legion). Most people would be terrified if three or four people walked up to them on the street and demanded a person to conform to thier wishes. They are frightened into compliance because they are overpowered by the odds, they are frightened because thier trust in others has be violated and they don't know how to react. They are frightened because they just do not know or comprehend.

That is why faith is so appealing to those who are terrified and those who desire power. They no longer need to fear strangers or the consequences of thier actions as they are placated with sweet promises of rewards and the protection of those around them, united in thier faith.

Such an abandonment of responsibility is nothing short of reprehensible and cowardly.

I pity them because they cannot stand on thier own, because they're weak, and they're afraid to take responsibility for thier lives, and they're too weak to admit they are wrong.

Don't get me wrong, science doesn't have the answers. That is the point. Science is the pursuit of the truth, it constantly challenging itself, and that is what makes it right; being wrong and admitting it made a mistake.

I'm with you James!

And that sure looks like a lizzard.

Dang, not that pesky devil again. What's up with that guy??

Now we're talking Cheney about right?

6000 years old? Are you high? The Egyptians were already settled in Egypt by that time and we already know as a fact that the Egyptians migrated from central Africa many years before that. We also know that the Earth was around many millions of years before that along with many of the sea creatures.

Christianity has clearly turned you into a fool, James. God is real because the universe is real, Science is real because scientific discovery is real, Jesus is just another Osiris-like myth. Accept it.

JBD,

..............6,000 years old? are you mentally ill?.......

Captain Liberal, since you have all the answers, I assume you are a believer in the Big Bang, so, what exactly preceded the Big Bang, genius? I guess it must have been something Osiris-like, right?

God said nothing. A bunch of men wrote a book to scare people into behaving. Do not attribute the words of a bunch of men to god just because they said so.

It's evident none of your have ever "studied" the Bible because if you had you would know Christians are taught in scripture to think for themselves. Case closed.

You wouldn't want to provide some actual proof for all that biblical stuff would you? Just ONE shred of verifiable evidence of the existance of God or the Devil?

No? I didn't think so.

NOTHING in the Bible indicates the age of the earth as 6,000-10,000 years AT ALL. In fact, careful study of Genesis and Isaiah taking into account the Hebrew language reveal that the earth existed for untold eons before God recreated the earth for mankind.

Here is a fact for you, both Christians and Aethiests make MANY claims on the Bible without having the SLIGHTEST clue.

Captain Liberal, since you have all the answers, I assume you are a believer in the Big Bang, so, what exactly preceded the Big Bang, genius? I guess it must have been something Osiris-like, right?

Well that depends on the reality governing quantum physics. If the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics is correct then nothing existed prior to the big bang, but if the Mulitple Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is correct then the universe has simultaenously always existed and doesn't exist.

You see the Copenhagen interpretation essentially requires all probability reduces down to a single solution, at which point all of reality becomes defineable, linear, and predictable. This is the basics of wave function collapse.

MWI however, states that all probable outcomes of an event exist in divergent "branch" dimensions where that outcome occured instead of the other one, meaning that for every causal event, a new dimension is created at the instant the result is observed. This means an infinite number of realities are created at a nearly infinite rate. Thus, at the moment the universe was created, an infinite number of possible outcomes were created. In such an event, God does indeed exist and so does a scientific explination for creation albiet in seperate, non-interconnecting realities, thus preserving both causality and permitting a closed system.

Hey, Knight, I actually believe in 'GOD" because I don' t believe this amazingly intricate machine called the universe came to be without a plan, and no plan ever came to be without a "planner." Now, how this "planner" or "planners" work is beyond my comprehension as well as yours. That's not to say I don't believe that anyone can find God in their "own" hearts by way of their "own " experiences, I just don't believe it will happen by way of some false, prewritten law of religious text written by a bunch of folk who thought the world was flat. Science is as close to fact as the human race will ever get. And to answer your question about the Big Bang. It makes sense to me that it happened, but it also makes sense that the creator of the universe is who made it happen. (whoever or whatever that creator is)

Evolution makes sense. Religion is divisive poison. God is personal.

How is that so? You see you blind faith people are the ones who gain from you mystic this and mystic that milarky and right now you are doing the wrong thing again denying scietific proof that man evolved just like ever other living thing on earth did.

Never in my life have I ever heard a true scientist deny that God exists. No one knows what the length of time was in Gods eyes. Evolution and creationism can both exist if that was the way God planned it.

Read that over carfeully three times. Then go somewhere and get a life.

We have an inquisitive nature. We are going to discover remarkable thing in the future. We will evolve to a higher being as we are in the process of that right now as we speak. If you choose to believe in a higher being and that comforts you I do not have a problem with that, Keep you beliefs to yourself unless you can walk into a room with proof of what you believe.

Oh I also forgot to mention that the radioactive decay of certain isotopes is random. So yes God would be random.

oh, there's a plan! and it's a good thing I'm not one of the "oppressive" countries that don't allow free thought...

according to Moses, God told him to make an altar of earth and then have everyone "sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your cattle"

Exodus 20:24-ish

my question is what happens to all the cattle and sheep Moses collects from everyone ? does it just like "poof" disappear ? or did moses find a real cash cow business with this religion gig ?

I wonder if there's a market for a talking burning bush ? ( Patent pending! )

I seem to remember a famous quote ( I think from Voltaire) that went something like "If God did not exist, it would be necessary for man to invent him". I think that is true. All people, as individuals, have completely different experiences for the entirety of their lives. The more traumatic or dramatic of these experiences cause them to become judgmental toward some things and judgmental against others. When these judgments become deeply and measurably integrated into the very neurology of the brain, they become beliefs.

A belief is something which feels for all the world like a fact. But the reality remains. It cannot be either proven or disproven. It indeed a matter of faith.

We all need beliefs of this type. They form half of our value system. Belief if what gives us hope in the face of facts which tell us otherwise. Beliefs comfort us in times of trouble. Beliefs smooth the hard edges of what might otherwise be a very sharp edged world.

But the other half of our belief system is formed by a series of things that always seem to turn out exactly the same - - - except for that one time when... These are our assumptions, the things we can depend on most all of the time. We can do a lot of the planning of our lives on these, and we could hardly do without them, or we would have to stop and consider every move we made every minute of the day.

In the scientific world, these are called theories. There is so much evidence in favor of them, but there are still a few pieces of the puzzle that don't fit. But when every piece fits, every time, and no matter who puts the puzzle together, even if they start totally believing that the puzzle won't fit, and it comes together the same way every time, we have a fact. There really aren't a lot of facts, because the standards are so very high. But the things that are facts are indisputable.

And assumptions and facts also contribute to our individual value systems.

And so each of is who we are because of all these things. But we need to remember that we are the product of all these things, and especially those that we can prove and those we can't. And we need to know the difference.

Hey James,

Don't get so excited over nothing, jeez, you can choose to ignore this or react to it. You can't change people's opinions, and telling them they are going to hell is just immature at best. How do you know where people go when they die anyway, are you on the inside of something nobody else knows about?? By the way, are you from the south?? They spout alot of this nonsense down there to keep people in line with their way of thinking, which is exactly what you're doing here. Please, if you have faith in your convictions then something like this shouldn't steer you away from your beliefs. You aren't always going to like what you read on the news, etc., so I guess you're going to have to just deal with it or change the channel!

Captain Liberal, I will give you a nod on this post. Can't disagree with what you presented. Because, you are right, in the end it is all a personal issue with each and every one of us. Our opinions will differ and that can be good. Definitely sets up a good debate on all sides of the issue. I guess that in the long-run is the beauty of the creation story.

Thank you sir, for showing us the true feelings and tenor of a real Christian. You sir, are epitomizing what many of your more enlightened brethren always accuse us Athiest/Agnostic/Freethinker/Rationalist/Naturalists might be accused of stereotyping Christians as. Thanks so much for proving this is not simply a caricature.

I'll stick with science and reason sir. And don't worry about me roasing in Hell. I know that idea thrills you, but just think on this, for a second. There are over a billion Muslims in this world who are just as certain that you are going to Hell for thinking the way you do, as you are that I am going to Hell for thinking the way that I do. Please be aware, and feel free to point out where my logic is wrong, but realize that. . . I AM IN THE EXACT SAME DANGER OF GOING TO YOUR HELL THAT YOU ARE OF GOING TO THE MUSLIM HELL. Meaning, sir, that we are both just fine, have a great day and thanks, again, really.

Exeder,

Faith in the unseen and unprovable is a powerful and frighteningly dangerous thing. When a person refuses to question what is fact, then they permit the source of thier facts complete and total power over them. They will follow commands without hesitation, all the while believing they are correct. Even when confronted with an absolute truth they are apt to denying reality in favor of dogma and doctrine. Faith at it's core, is in all actuality, fear.

So what fear are you looking to escape by holing up in libraries citing text books on physics in forums, Exeder? Stick to reciting thermodynamics and how an atom works. That seems like your gift.

No amount of text recitals will allow you the credibility to evaluate millions of people over hundreds of years on why they believe what they believe. Nor do you have the knowledge of the subject, but simply speak of it from some self elevated, pseudo objective stance that really isn't all that objective.

Keep on having pity for people that do not think the way you think - nice superiority complex you have going on for you, by the way.

I pity them because they cannot stand on thier own, because they're weak, and they're afraid to take responsibility for thier lives, and they're too weak to admit they are wrong.

So, mind telling us pitiful people of faith how to be brave, responsible, strong and basically how to live our lives? Seems like you have it all figured out, as I would assume someone posting a statement such as this wouldn't be so stupid as to not have that down prior to posting it.

I'm sure the text books you pull all your crap out of in your posts makes you not only feel "in the know" enough to elevate yourself to a position to pity others based on what they believe, but I assure you it is not.

While you come across as a very intelligent person, and I have absolutely no doubt you are, it's not intelligence and a lack of facts that's your problem. It's your total lack of wisdom (at least in your posts) and your pride that is blinding you as to why people actually have a hope in something not seen.

Why do you zealots keep asking what preceded the big bang. Its elementery, it was the big foreplay. Any fool can see that. I can see it.

Knight///// How is it that you can ask for proof of what was here before the big bang and what created all of that? If you are willing to accept the premise that God was here before the big bang, what created God? Where is your proof that God existed then or now?

You can't have it both ways. You don't get to ask for absolute proof of one and accept the other based on faith.

Its silly talk like this that proves how unstable some religious folks can be. God, satan the most ridiculous notions MAN has ever created. When you hear talk like this you no longer have to wonder why the world is so screwd up, between the taliban types and these christian types the world will never be a sane place where logic and reason can prevail.

Mhatt1, I do not run nor hide from my fears. I stand up and face them at my own pace. If I had intended to speak objectively I would have done so. Having read accounts and witnessed first hand the effects of religion I have formed my opinion on the subject and gave it as such.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I pity them because I want them to be free from thier fear but they instead choose to embrace it and I believe it holds them back. I may also have not been clear on my stance on God. I believe everyone has the right to believe in God. Considering the implications some fields of science bare, I myself cannot deny the possibility that God exists. I do decry religions though, as they foster fear and blind faith and make many turn away from the truth of reality, never question, and never challenge themselves. In my opinion that is life being wasted.

As for telling others how to live? I wouldn't dream of it. I would be really arrogant if I claimed I had all the answers. My personal observations and opinions are just that. I believe they are right, but I know that they may not be and I recognize that. Of course I know that my way doesn't work for anyone else but me, and it is up to everyone to find thier own. That doesn't mean I'm not going to voice my opinions with all my conviction though. I'm certainly not above or more valuable than anyone else, though I can see how my posts can certainly make others think that, and I'm not above admitting I am or can be wrong. Of course you are right in that I am arrogant, to some extent, in the belief I am correct and it does get the better of me. That just means I'll have to work harder at being a better person.

Louis J, your post is nothing more than the standard atheistic circular logic drivel. Why always this fuss about who or what created or preceded God? NOTHING preceded God, God always was and always will be, simple enough, right! THAT was the point I was trying to make and I foresaw that someone, like yourself, would trip over my lead. You non-believers are always trying to paint believers as ignorant, but it is you who always spew the same predictable arguments. Sorry, but your logic is illogical, case closed.

Knight - Whether God was, is, or will be has nothing to do with science. The scientific facts make it clear that evolution happened. Don't you think God can handle that?

I'm calling his god a myth.

The stories we call myths were once a people's religion. Zeus, Thor, Horus, the Dreaming, Takanaluk, and Citlalicue have, for the most part, been relegated to the realm of myths. I can only wonder what our ancestors will think of our time period's beliefs and what will replace them.

On topic though, it irritates me when people dream up the death scenes for fossilized animals. It makes scientists out to be fiction writers.

I'd call him a delusion.

I'm calling his god a taxi!

The original biblical texts - at least the New Testament - were first written in Greek, not "Coptic" or Aramaic, although they were certainly copied in those and many other languages, just as they are today. Those whom we would call "scholars" (who could read and write) that lived in Judea during and following the days of Augustus Caesar could speak, read and write in multiple languages - Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic - probably more. The ability to read and write was a saleable skill back then, just as being computer literate is today.

Moses is credited with having made the first written record of Hebrew scripture. Many scholars opine that his writings were recorded in Hebrew, although he may - having been raised as an Egyptian - also have been able to write in Hieratic, the written language of ancient Egyptian nobility, scribes and priests.

SCSlim

How interesting that even back then, it was considered the sign of a well-educated person to be multi-lingual, or at least bi-lingual. We are the only country where we look down on other countries because they don't speak ONLY English and we really only show respect people who speak ONLY English. Even people with slight foreign accents are considered slightly inferior to real Americans.

No wonder some people have a problem with a fact which is truly a great addition to our scientific knowledge that shows we had distant ancestors 47,000 years ago. What an amazing ride our species has been on so far.

And assuming we survive our own foolishness, I wonder what we will be like 47,000 years from now.

Heidi...... According to the Bible God is not a myth. He is a mythter.

Pinch,

I think your point that American exceptionalism informs our apparent inability to institutionalize science is really strong. I had never thought of it that way. Good insight.

The belief in a 6000 year old earth has always really made religious nuts look...well...nuts. Their theories against carbon dating and the other technologies is based on absolutly rubbish.

Creag

I am always amazed at how long it takes the mass media to catch up, particularly in the world of the hard sciences. They sure manage to know what Paris Hilton of Brittany Spears does three seconds after it is done. And this kind of "behind the times" stuff happens a lot.

This information has already been published in scientific literature. I can't say just when, but I read it in one of them well before I saw this. Do a quick search, and I know you will come up with a lot more information than what is here.

The key actually is the talus bone and also the structure and arrangement of the teeth. In particular, the precise shape and placement of that ankle bone is only found in human beings. Of course, there are a number of scientists who believe there might have been a number of human species developing during the same or overlapping time periods, and some may have been more genetically suited to long term survival than others.

Anyway, I for one will be enthusiastically anticipating the next major discovery. What a glorious history we have.

Sad, ignorant, and a coward.....you sir are all of these things along with JBD. I'm sorry to call names, but I just can't stomach this senseless trust in a religion to a false deity.

Bob, there are two types of people in this world as far as I can tell:

Those who allow their beliefs to shape their reality, and those whose reality shapes their beliefs.

The first type go through life in ignorance of the true nature of reality. Kind of like driving with your eyes closed.

Now you're free to believe whatever you want, but when thousands of people like yourself go to the polls it becomes everybody's problem. We don't want you people driving this car. So please keep your ignorance to yourself, because that's what it is - ignorance. The most dangerous thing in the world.

Ahem. Ridiculous, trot (1 t please) and if you want to say something is supporting the infinite stupidity of science, or rediculous (hehe) ideas, both times you should use the word 'its,' not 'its'' (incorrect in any circumstance, by the way) or 'their.'

Now then, what were you saying? Oh yah, hooie (actually hooey, but I digress.) It is apparent that you belong to the category of folks that shall remain unconvinced, no matter the circumstance. As my uncle would say, "you've got your mind made up and you're not gonna let the facts get in the way."

If you had followed any actual science for any significant amount of time in your life, you would realize the "hooey" of your statement that science "trotts" out these "rediculous" missing links every now and then. I don't have enough space on here to explain these concepts to you and it would be an act of futility equivalent to trying to nail your egg brain to a tree, so, carry on with whatever line of thinking makes you feel better about your world, just please PLEASE don't register to vote.

Show us the money! Please do not wuote the bible you are already on the revised addition and some are working on the third one. How can a holy book be revised? If its holy it says the same thing throghout history.

that's why they're scientists and your not...

Kill Dog, rob-carpenter, & logdump

Chill! didn't momma tell you "it's not nice to heckle the mental ill" ?

There really is not necessary a conflict between deeply held beliefs, religious or otherwise, and facts, those absolutely provable things, of which there are actually very few. Many great scientists believe in God, and many great religious leaders believe in scientific facts. But the one thing both these groups have in common is education.

Intelligent, educated people do not have to take their beliefs over the facts about the world around them or vice versa. They are easily able to reconcile the two. So there is another great argument for getting a wonderful, well-rounded education.

kill dogg, logdump, radagast,
We get it, you don't believe in God. But do you believe in the devil?

I don't believe God takes any of this seriously. Believing in a religion won't get you into "heaven", rather loving him will. Now where did I hear that? And since God created everything then loving everything or anyone is loving God.

I don't believe God really wants us to carry the pain of hate, judgment and divisiveness in our hearts, rather he wants to carry the splendor and bliss of the heavens. We can start by loving our neighbors.

MakeYourBed,

No I don't.

It is true that the Bible does not indicate that the earth is 6000 years old. A careful reading of Genesis makes this clear. But it's just as important to realize that the Catholic church is not a valid authority on the Bible. They teach many things that directly contradict it. They burned people at the stake for reading it and translating it during the dark ages. If you want to know anything about the Bible or God, the vatican is the wrong direction to look.

Earlier this year the vatican formally announced that Darwin's theory of evolution is in line with the Bible's teachings.

Given enough irrefutable evidence the Vatican (and religion) will announce that just about anything is in line with the Bible's teachings. Earth revolving around the sun, dinosaurs, evolution, whatever. Just keep spinning and changing your story, denying you ever disagreed, whatever it takes to keep the myth alive.

These posts show how little you truly understand. The Vatican was reaffirming what it already stated. The media just lies to make the Vatican look stupid.

If you read hisotry you would know a Catholic Cleric defined heliocentrism and it was accepted by the Church long before Galileo. His names was Copernicus. You might want to also read up on Galileo. His theory was wrong! In fact if you read it you will laugh out loud it was a joke. Kepler proved Galileo's theory wrong within his lifetime. Kepler, a Protestant, was supported by the Catholic Church.

Yes, it's always that darn lying media.

You might want to take your confused rantings up with the Catholic church:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0305sbs.asp

As for you confusion on Copernicus see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

I rarely post on these discussion boards because it often entails discussing matters, big and small, with irrational people (that would be you). But this I can't let go by.

Yes, if you go back far enough into the history of a 2000 year old church, one born in opposition of the Roman Empire and against all odds, you're going to find some awful stuff. No doubt about it; burning folks at the stake, incarcerating Galileo in his villa, or telling ignorant peasants that they ought to reproduce no matter what, was / is dreadfully wrong. But, and now that we're talking about science and confused rants, I think you should know that Georgetown, Notre Dame, Loyola Marymount, the Sistine Chapel, Saint Peter's Square, the Jesuit Order...and on and on, are all cherished Catholic institutions and places.

Richard Vidaurri

There are so many divisions of Christianity that one wonders how anyone could find the truth in here. The same thing is true about the number of authors and subsequent revisionists of the different sections of the Bible, and the many different versions and translations that have evolved (excuse the terribly topical world) over the past two thousand years.

Each time a new church is born, or a new version or interpretation of the Bible is released, it is heralded as based on truth, because all the others preceding it were somehow "false".

But fortunately, science is not concerned with such things. The only thing scientists are interested in is satisfying their curiosity and either proving something absolutely and unquestionably true and establishing it as a proven fact, or disproving something and either relegating it back to the realm of theory or setting a new direction for scientific inquiry. And thus we have the difference between a belief and a fact, both of which we can hold simultaneously and not mutually exclusively in our amazing brains.

And here we have a new fact, and yes, it's all because of one small bone in her ankle.

pinch,
Quite often, religion (new church) or "interpreters" of the Bible get in the way of finding the "truth" in the Bible. It's like linking "fact" to "theories" in science. All require great leaps.

Made...

Scientists are not the ones who make the great leaps to link facts to theories. Non-scientists and journalists do that.

Well said and packaged. Bravo.

If you feel you're entitled to make judgements about God based on the beliefs of a select, misguided minority, then perhaps it would be reasonable to judge evolutionists and Darwin himself based on the Piltdown Man. No?

I have no qualms believing in a God or some force greater than ourselves. I don't know what happens when we die, and that's really what I'm getting at. I just don't know. I do however have an issue with people saying they know 100% what happens based on a silly book written by people with their own agendas.

You sound like someone willing to make their own choices, which is good. Just try to realize that the Bible is not nearly as silly as some of the people that claim to speak for it. Perhaps it would be better to learn what it actually teaches before judging it, just as it's better to learn science before judging it. Consider how silly quantum mechanics sounds until you learn the details and the basis for its claims. Learning is often a good thing.

It's pretty silly. Read it cover-to-cover with a highlighter. Two different versions. Actually I'd say it's quite silly. Interesting, inspiring at times, entertaining and full of action, but definitely silly.

Show me an oft quoted verse and I'll show you the silliness in the paragraph or page right before or after.

Dave - I see what you're saying and I didn't intend my post to sound self-righteous. I grew up going to church so have a good understanding of some of the bible teachings. I can surely take it as an interesting book (as saws correctly mentions above) written to make people ponder their existence. However I absolutely cannot believe it to be literal truth. The stories in the bible were written when people didn't have the knowledge about the Earth that we have now, so people wrote these stories to try and answer the big questions.

If it helps inspire someone to think critically - then I'm completely for that. If it makes someone close their minds and blindly believe what's there is 100% factual, then I can't get behind that.

Save Me Jesus,

You do not understand the Bible at all. Whoever taught you misguided you. No wonder you don't follow it.

I would give it another try. This time perhaps use a true theologian to help you understand. Read Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict. As stated your understanding of the Bible is wrong.

Save Me Jebus, thank you for the clarification. I now understand your perspective, and it is not an uncommon one. Many people are actually turned against the Bible by false religion that claims to teach it. But I do believe you're throwing out the baby with the bath water. I myself find it impossible to accept a line of reasoning if the pieces do not all fit, and in my experience and years of study (I'm not a theologian nor do I have any trust for anyone that claims such a title) I have found that what is in the Bible fits together very well and satisfies my mind's demand for answers. Perhaps at some point in the future you may search out some of the answers to your questions about the Bible that your previous religious experience failed to satisfy. But in the mean time, thank you for the discussion.

AMEN!!!

Just when you thought you had heard from all the nuts here comes another. I Know GOD creator, energy whatever created the universe. What an awesome job. How today i don't know. Do I believe he created man, oh yes, how I dont know. I pray to him, have received several miracles. Prayed prayers that I receive no answer for. When i leave here I will sleep until he gets back and calls us all up for judgment. We will receive accordingly or be discarded, maybe into that black hole out there. Every day I look around me on this grear earth and say 'HOW GREAT THOU ART!!!!!!!!

The Bible still remains the best selling book of all time, if you count all the versions and revisions.

If course, it is composed of two different parts, one which was written by primarily Hebrew storytellers, with an obvious penchant for poetry and symbolism, in addition to a need, as all cultures have, to try explain the very real natural events around them in their world, such as the Great Flood.

The second part was written again by a variety of authors, not all from either the same time or place, but all trying to capture the life and teachings of a great man, and even extending them into the future.

One can hardly criticize a book of such dimension and breadth, and yes, there are some wonderful and inspiring life lessons in those pages. But the choice of whether to be inspired or to read all these diverse pieces as a unquestionable owner's manual is a matter of belief.

Science actually does begin as a belief, commonly known as a hypothesis, but it then requires the application of the scientific method, which when followed correctly, allows no room for personal feelings or opinions. There must be solid corroborating references, a precise plan for pursuing an answer, with the standards set in advance, a implementation strategy governed by a whole gaggle of very tight rules, a statistical analysis of results, which of course is strictly about numbers which have no biases at all, and finally, a look at the conclusion to see if it had any relativity to the original hypothesis. More times than not, it doesn't. But scientists learn even from those experiences.

So there we are, complex human beings made ultimately of both the beliefs we choose, and the facts we do not choose - - - those are there whether we want them to be or not.

DaveB001,
You represent yourself well, with wisdom. Though it may seem you're fighting the good fight here, alone. I know ,you know, you are not. John 3:16, Romans 10:17.

hows this one for u

beilieve in evolution= nothing forever in the ground in a casket thinking we were once monkeys gee that sounds fun....

terrible person who only looks out for themselves cheats steals lies saying jesus is lord= heaven????????? whered you get that? once again your ignorance blinds you from seeing the truth. i mean you just made that up........

My bible tells me that when I die I will have an all-you-can-eat ice cream bar open 24 hours a day.

Who's next? What does YOUR bible tell you?

My bible tells me that half of stupidcongress' bible is centered around the pagan beliefs of Zoroanastrianism. Hell was rarely (if at all) mentioned in the Old Testament. Furthermore, the Old Testament had Satan as a member of God's court. I'm still waiting for a christian to explain to me how that changed between the Old and New Testaments? I'm also waiting for someone to point out in the bible the story of Satan's fall.

I want to go to the ice cream bar heaven. What do I have to do to get in? :-)

To John-755418. This is off subject, but in answer to your question on the fall of Lucifer, please read, Ezekial 28: 12-19: Isaiah 14: 12-20; Luke 10:18. By the way, the doctrine of an eternally burning hell is false. The devil started that lie when he contradicted the Creator that Adam & Eve wouldn't DIE. I could give a great supply of Scripture that shows the fallacy of sinners burning in hell without end. That is from Plato, paganism, & the devil. Peace!!

You guys have it all wrong. Not an ice cream bar. The Flying Spaghetti Monster clearly states that there will be a beer volcano in heaven. All hail His Holy Noodliness! R'amen.

It's not Lite beer, is it? Cause that would be Hell not Heaven.

Well said.

While I don't deny that there must be some scientists out there that flub the facts (that's like saying there aren't any priests molesting small children out there), you cannot compare something that can be seen, touched, tested, and replicated to a religion. You show me any way to see or test religion, I will deem your arguments valid. Until then, you're talking about a boogey-man that all children are supposed to tip toe around lest we be sent to permanent timeout (aka Hell). The bible is a story written by man to entertain and influence others to bring the authors wealth. Nothing more.

The bible is a story written by man to entertain and influence others to bring the authors wealth. Nothing more.

That's a new one. I'm curious as what wealth you feel the Bible writers gained from their writings? They weren't selling manuscripts in the first century, and there is a wealth of historical evidence that dates Bible writings back that far (and earlier in the case of the Hebrew scriptures.

It's not as though they were competing for wealth in the form of grant money, lecture fees and the like...

You guys are idiots.

questionable persons of supposed science will forgo all measures of scientific proof/scientific test/cause and effect proof and all other scientific standards in an effort to promote the “theory” of evolution.

Are you suggesting that the researchers aren't doing science when they sat down for an interview to discuss the possibilities of a new find? OF COURSE THIS ISN'T SCIENCE!! You wouldn't know science if you sat on test tube, my friends. The facts that you long for aren't going to be found in an MSNBC story, they will be in the scientific literature. But don't look there, I wouldn't want you to get a headache trying to actually read the big words. Try getting an education before you attempt to poke holes in knowledge.

Bill Bill Bill. Perhaps this will help:

"Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis."

The only ones using the term "theory" to mean something which has not been rigorously tested and generally agreed upon are the ones who are not as highly educated, certainly not in science. It's so sad that there are full-grown adults (am I making a poor assumption here?) still trying to use the old 'it's just a theory' argument. As soon as I hear this from someone, I know I must immediately adjust the level of my sentences so as not to further confuse.

Do you speak/read Coptic or Aramaic? Then you assume much about your "censored" and "translated" Bible is true; unless you can read the original texts in Coptic/Aramaic then you are very trusting and believing. Since most people refer to the Bible and are meaning the King James version which was again a translation of a translation created by a King James of England then you have no idea of what you are reading is true word of God or not or merely James' version of events, But I do know that whatever form God is... that they gave us this fossil so as to potentially educate the ignorant like yourself. Science does not exclude God, however creationism allows no room for Science. Who is the most fearful of the truth? I will forgo one line of scientific evidence ( you choose:biochemical, fossil, geographical, anatomical) if you forgo your only line of religious evidence...the Bible. I will still have things to talk about...however when you lose James' version you have squat to discuss :) Peace

To Bill

"Science is no longer science" - because a few scientists may have rushed to judgement and grand standed to the public? All of science is to be villified now? According to you, they used a small bit of evidence and leapt to an unwarranted conclusion. This is pretty much what you did with your opening statement. Neither science or religion should be judged by the bad behavior of a few of it's practicioners.

You said the beginning of evolutionary theory can't be proven-I assume you are talking about the origin or spark of life. Evolution is meant to address the diversity and complexity of life, not the origin. Climatology doesn't address how climate came into existance and botany doesn't address how plants came into existance. Why do you think (if you do) evolution needs to be concerned about lifes origins?A convergence of empirical evidence from the fields of biology, astronomy, paleantology, geology, zoology, etc. all agree that evolution happened and is happening. How can one say then that evolution is faith based?

Evolution is taught in schools science classes because it is scientific and there is no competing scientific theory. Creationism could be taught in a philosophy, social studies, or comparative religion class, but not in a science class. .

"Science" has never been designed or expected to explain the entire continuum of any subject, including evolution. Science is a series of small discoveries that are then verified by even those who are "naysayers", and if all results are the same, a small piece of the very long puzzle falls into place.

This means that each piece of the puzzle is proven, and cannot be disproven. However, a new fact may emerge that incorporates previous facts but may alter the theoretical outcome of the final puzzle. However, they are of necessity proven facts, small and discrete, but proven facts nevertheless.

Beliefs are a necessary part of all of our lives. But since they can't be proven or disproven, it is almost impossible to change the beliefs of someone with a contrary view. The debates can be interesting, but there is never any "winner", nor should there be. Ultimately, neither side has any proof that a belief is right or wrong. Beliefs are a matter of personal faith, and that is as it should be.

Many of the problems that arise between family members, communities, large groups of people, and even countries, come from this very premise - - the attempt to argue facts against a belief system or vice versa.

Your lack of scientific knowledge is telling, science is not "trying" to disprove creation the FACTS do that themselves. When you can study something and garner knowledge about that object its called research, not theology.

These facts are not peoples "opinions" as peoples faiths are. Theology is simply peoples opinion on a subject with no actual facts or proof available. Unlike science where results are not of peoples opinions but actual research and study. The observable universe is there for us to study and try to understand where we came from. We may never be able to find out the answer to that question but I would rather leave it blank than attribute it to a "god" and ignorance.

Thank you for the link. This is not surprising, as more and more the media lives on hype and shock value, not good old facts.

Unfortunately, the scientists behind the study are in fact guilty of a bit of hype this time as well. They just included an interview with them on CBS radio news, and one of them made the claim concerning this fossil that "we're dealing with our grand, grand, grand aunt". Technically not a claim of a direct human ancestor, but clearly attempting to give that impression in people's minds. After all, that's what a lot of people want to hear. If they had left it at something like "a new species that warrants more study", does anyone seriously think we'd be hearing about it in the mass media? Me neither.

Scientists are human too, and when the lime light turns on, many are not above "coloring outside the lines", as it were, to make a more interesting picture.

Riiight, it's the SCIENTISTS that are guilty of hype, those proclaiming some things in the bible are completely logical. (Because all of those ideas make perfect sense.)

No, I didn't mean to imply that scientists are the only ones hyping. Certainly many religious propronents are literally nothing but hype. But while it's generally accepted that many religous people are willing to indulge in hype, it's often assumed that scientists are universally above such a thing. If only that were true.

I still think it is MSNBC spewing slanted news. "Missing link to cause stir". I think it is a back hand to Christians. Trying to make us look like scientific idiots.

There are many scientists who believe the evidence actually suggests that there were a number of different groups of homo sapien ancestors, both at different times and in different places. This is the same for many other species. The talus is characteristic of all these members of the phylogenetic tree resulting in homo sapiens and does not appear in this form in any other species discovered to date, but that just means that it is a relative to one of the branches of this tree. And at this point, we know that we constitute the only line that has survived.

This is how science evolves. At the present time, based on the information we have, "Ida" is a part of this phylogenentic tree, and yes, it is based on one small fact that has stood so far. Another discovery may find another piece of this fascinating puzzle. Who knows what awaits us under another lake in another faraway place.

Very true. Many can't even agree on the whole monotheism thing. Many who claim to be monotheistic or not viewed as such in the eyes of others (1. father, 2. son, 3. holy spirit anyone?)

Jim

What an excellent post. You made the distinction between facts, small and discrete as they are, but when strung together, give us more and more indisputable information about the world and even the universe around us.

The beliefs of different cultures have always existed. All peoples have had a need to leave a record of their lives and beliefs, whether carved on the walls of caves or illuminated on parchment. Each demands respect, but as you point out, religions have been used to justify some of the greatest atrocities humans have ever committed against other humans, even to the present day.

So many great scientists honor their religious beliefs, and so many renowned theologians have an intelligent respect for the accomplishments of science. I sincerely wish this was typical of the rest of the world.

Unfortunately, since beliefs are so personal and unprovable, it seems that those who value beliefs and disregard facts are more aggressive than the scientists who can entertain and respect both. It is too bad that everyone does not realize how much value there is in balancing one's personal beliefs with the facts as they are uncovered in this increasingly marvelous world we all share.

Sadly evident, just read some of the posts on here.

I wish someone could give me a straight and preferably factual answer for the number 6000 as the age of the earth. I have gotten so many different explanations that I guess I just don't get it. I know it is not in the Bible. I have read it many times.

Funny thing is, the water they drink everyday has been around longer than 6,000 years. The rocks and minerals they see everyday are older than 6,000 years. The molecules that make up the air they breath everyday is older than 6,000 years. As a geologist I can do this all day long. Shall I continue?

BTW, I think this a very fascinating and intruiging find. Unfortunately, we will really not understand the full implications of this discovery for some time. Just like the geological time scale, patience my friends.

Kinda like a REALLLY old version of the telephone game, right?

Yeah but the Christians had to change things up. That God the Hebrews got was a really mean vindictive SOB. To Hell with a bunch of forgiveness. Do it my way or I will getcha.

Too bad He gave them the only land in the region without oil. He really was vindictive.

Louis

Actually the Allies carved out the actual boundaries after WWII so they should get some of the blame.

You would not have to read a true bible. It would be universal, as science is. You don't have to read science. You can go out into the world and observe it, because it is universal. Since we are evolving and becoming smarter, we have learned to manipulate it and use it to our advantage. That is how we now have material objects like vehicles, computers and microwaves. You cannot recreate a bible, torah, koran without having read them before han, just ask Joseph Smith. Science and Mathematics is not like this. Anyone, anywhere, are able to come to the same conclusion without ever having any link.

Joseph Smith's wife was well ahead of her time.

What, that doesn't make sense?? Ooh Ooh, don't forget the drinking of blood!! Ha ha

Wow... I cant believe that you said that! First off it aint a cookie Visit Laciano Italy and you will see that it is truly Jesus Body Blood Soul and Divinity But hey its your choice not to believe that and I am sorry you dont.. Secondly I think it is Kind of Convenient that they find this "fossil" (which was probably a bunch of fossils thrown together to decieve us) When is it this week we are "celebrating" or an anniversary of Darwin? Coincidence? I dont think so. I think it is a rouse.. So next year at this time what will they find? "we found the bones that say we came from birds.. ya Seagulls to be exact!" during Darwin week...lol or how about WE Found the Bones of Aliens.. ya we are all descendants of Aliens!!! So I think this is a publicity stunt myself.

Maybe they are Holy Bones and we should build a big-ass rastafarian reggae cathedral on the site and grow the chronic for as far as the eye can see...................beats the pi$$ out of a dry cookie on Sunday morning!!!! You people are crazy and have fukked up our whole society for two-thousand years. Not just the Christians but the crazy Muslims too. Jews tend to mind their own business until you fuk with them and then they beat the shyt outta you and YOU $hitheads complain that they have no right to do it! So you can take all your man-made religions far away from me. You are child-molesting, greedy mafias, sucking the spirit of your "believers".

the host as flesh? well, that makes you a cannibal, by definition, does it not? you are a god eater in a long history of god eaters. wine as blood? vampiric. leechy. blech. in what possible manner can either of these situations, much less both, be considered sane and whole, much less "holy"?

F Lynns,

Let me ask you a question. If you sat down with a person for a couple of years. Hung out with them, ate dinner went everywhere with them. Would you be willing to be crucified for that person? Would you be willing to have your head cut off? Would you ask to be eaten by lions? I wouldn't volunteer for this to happen to me. So why did the apostles do this? Why did Peter believe so much in a person that he was crucified for the belief. If it was all made up wouldn't he have just fessed up at the end. What about the martyrs that refused to submit to Roman law and where killed. Would Paul really have suffered imprisonment and tortures repeatedly. Would he have suffered a stoning and yet continued to evangelize. After a stoning wouldn't you have just given up. Told everyone that you really didn't see the Lord.

Why did the secular historians like Josephus, Pliny and Tatitus support the myth of Jesus? We have more support for the existence of Jesus than any other ancient person.

Historically it is very reliable that Jesus lived. I will ask the question again. If Jesus lived and was a fraud. He never was resurrected or performed miracles. Why did everyone but one of his apostle voluntarily be martryed for him? They did not become rich. Paul worked by day as a tent maker and evangelized at night. He was marched outside the walls of Rome and was beheaded. Wouldn't it have been easier to just deny Christ?

wncRanger,

That is one of the many proofs of the act. When he stated that this was his body and blood many of his supporters fled. Catholics were persecuted by Romans for 300 years because the believed in the body and blood of Christ. After 300 years Catholics never denied Christ nor his teachings.

Christ does this because when we take the body and blood of Christ we are in a heavenly place with God. He infuses us with his grace.

One word simon.............fanaticism. And to compare the early Christians to the major religions of today is not exactly apples to apples. I do not deny the existence of numerous human spiritual communities, but i am convinced that large theocratical organizations, either political or purely religious, are to the absolute detriment of humankind. As evidence I point to the slaughter of millions in Gods name in recorded history. And we are still not done.

F Lynn,

Why do you only look at the negative half. Catholics created the first hospital and orphanages. We created the Rule of Law and the Scientific Method. We created the first International Laws. In fact it was to control Catholic Zealots killing natives in the Americas. Catholics were the first to criminalize torture. The Catholic Church created the first universities. In the beginning no one could get a degree without the Popes signature. They supported the arts. Churches were built in Rome and Florence to study heliocentrism. In WWII the Pope saved over 800,000 Jewsih people from the Nazis. The list goes on and on.

Sorry Simon but your point is moot when you figure in islamic extremists. These people blow themselves and innocent people up over the promise that they will go to heaven by doing so. So basing belief on how crazy someone is, is not a good way to prove a point. People can be nut jobs for absolutely any reason....money, love, and most of all RELIGION, drives people to do crazy things...

Catholics created the rule of law? Since when? Ever heard of the code of Hammarabi? Do you really think the Greeks and Romans didn't have laws? Wouldn't the laws of the Roman Empire be international laws? How about the Greek gymnasiums where Plato and Socrates taught? Not enough of a university for you?

hahaha: We created the Rule of Law and the Scientific Method. We created the first International Laws. In fact it was to control Catholic Zealots killing natives in the Americas.

So catholics created laws to stop crazier catholics from killing innocent people- and you're using this as a selling point on catholicism?? interesting.....

Simon Cyrene: It's called fanaticism. That's why Jim Jones followers drank the Kool Aid. The early Christians were pathetic fanatics, blindly believing the something/someone that gave them hope for deliverance from a miserable existence. When you believe that the only pie you will ever get to taste is in the sky, you'll go to great lengths to get there.

we created the scientific method. tell that to Galileo..... and the romans were around well before the catholics with laws.

Jim Jones was a Marxist community organizer, lonecrone, not a Christian. There was nothing Christian about his "church".

Did the Catholic Church criminalize torture before or after the inquisition?

Add the fact that the pope of today was a member of the Hitler Youth. BTW that is not the German version of the Boy Scouts.

Did their support of the arts include stealing and hoarding as much of it as possible in the Vatican? Did they outlaw priests marrying because of religious convictions or to keep from having to share the estate?

Simon

There is nothing personal here, but you need to get your facts straight. Relative to the Code of Law, the Catholic Church was rather late to the table on that except for Canon Law which only applied to the Church.

Meanwhile the Egyptians had actually developed the first written code of law covering an entire empire and written on papyrus about 1600 B.C. Then there was the Hebrews' Halakka, which codified the laws from the Torah, and Hammarabi's codification mentioned by another poster above.

Modern Codes of Law are actually traced to 6th century Roman Law, the Corpus Juris Civilis.

Relative to your comment about the scientific method, scientifically inclined people as early as ancient Greek societies were arranging the steps of the Scientific Method. But though a number of people were using the method informally, let's be fair. Rene Descartes (early 16th century) and Francis Bacon (late 16th century actually are given credit for the development of the Scientific Method. Decartes was a Catholic, but Bacon was a member of the Church of England.

I have to admit I love the lemurs in Madagascar!

Evolution and the creation of life are two different subjects.

Right. Oh and how is that recreation of god or any of those miracles going? I tell you what, first one to actually recreate either argument wins. And....GO

Wait a second, seeded with life from elsewhere? Do I spy a THIRD possibility a la aliens? I'm intrigued.

Wow, lame scientist who cannot recreate an exploding star in a dish in a lab on earth !

Hey Sick--Not an exploding star. They place the compounds/elements/gases they believe were present, e.g., water, oxygen, carbon and other substances in an enclosed chamber, warm it to temperatures conducive to life, and even introduce electrical pulses, all to try to create even the smallest virus/bacterium anything. It ain't happening.

Actually JF, the experiment you are referring to, done by Miller and Urey in 1953, produced many common organic compounds. Other experiments since then created many amino acids from scratch using either UV light or electricity as a source of energy to drive the reactions. Nowhere was any scientist actually trying to create life, by the way, so that assumption of yours is wrong.

Many more organic compounds and amino acids have been found at high concentrations in meteorites so it is also possible that life's ingredients were already part of our solar system before the earth was even formed. The point is that life's ingredients can be spontaneously formed in this universe without magic, which makes life almost inevitable.

O.K., radagast, you've brought up an interesting point in your rebuttal to JF. I'm not arguing here, I don't have a science education and I don't know anymore about evolutionary biology than any other well-read person. But you say, "Nowhere was any scientist actually trying to create life, by the way, so..."

I cannot believe that many scientists in many places have not attempted to do just that, if they haven't than they wouldn't be scientists, right? So, that said, is there a "scientific" answer to JFs question? Does anyone have a clue as to what force(s) could have caused those compounds and amino acids to turn into a puppy who loves you?

Richard Vidaurri

and i love how he/she just ignored the part about creating god in a laboratory. i guess using that logic god doesn't exist

There's a third possibility, of course. All the ingredients were here and conditions were just right for life to begin. That's a possibility that at least has evidence to support it.

What is the alternative to the "theory of evolution" ?

I think a lot of you bible thumping morons are missing the point here, its not the creation of life that's important here its the creation of "conciseness" that's more important, when did we become self aware?

When did "man" look up to the stars and wonder who am I. Not being able to figure this out he attributed the universe to a myth that you people still perpetuateto this day. For me the origins of life is a simple question of chemical reactions to the surroundings that existed at the start of it all.

I do not subscribe to the "big bang" theory at all, I am a string theorist and believe in the different membranes that fill the universe and the many parallel dimensions that exist there. If you should find this a little weird then may I suggest you re-read your bible to know what weird really is.

You are actually using the headline grabbing semantics of a news editor as proof that science is wrong? I hope you know how dumb that sounds, right?

Van

As usual, the media is late and uninformed, but looking for that big story. If you want to discuss science in an intelligent manner, try reading actual scientific journals. This isn't exactly brand new news, nor is it actually reported. We are talking about phylogenetic trees here, not direct line evolution, which even Darwin didn't really think existed.

And by the way, reading a scientific journal and even agreeing with things in it is not even a venial sin.

I know that your family has not evolved.

But the bible doesn't mention such a thing. 47 million years??? Can't be. Sarah Palin said that the earth is only 5000 years old... it says so in the Bible. My entire belief system is crushed. Oh wait, the bible doesn't mention how long a day is. Maybe science and reason make more allowances for variables than any one religion.... Sorry Walt-211334, your an idiot.

Well, you convinced me!

absence of phone/human hybrid=proof of intelligent creation

*just fyi... I think you only have to capitalize the H when you are speaking of "Him". "Hand" and "Half"... not so much.

The more you know!

Did not MAN come up with a way to write books about God? Or were we created with literature too? That would seem to make carbon dating just as reliable as literature. You know, Mohammed claimed to have received the Koran directly from the archangel Gabriel - maybe you had better read and obey! His claim sounds as good as Moses' or Isaiah's.

Oh, and about the missing links: if you would study vertebrate anatomy, you would see that reptiles are links between amphibians and mammals, just as an example. What do you call the platypus, a mammal which lays leathery eggs and has venom glands? I call it a link. No links are missing because everything is a link. All species are in the process of evolution all the time. Take a look sometime at horse skeletons from the last few million years.

Good luck expanding your mind!

i love how people use their stupidity, misunderstandings and ignorance as proof against something. classic

Totally TRUE!!!! Thoreau once penned: "Hell is People"!!

Didn't man create God? If carbon dating is unreliable because man created it then the Bible must also be unreliable. Right?

Wolf

The reason carbon dating is a fact is that even if you did it (and it actually isn't that complicated), you would get the same exact results as anyone else in the world, and you would get those same results every time. That is what make a fact a fact. It can always be proven, by anyone, anywhere.

It's like gravity on earth. When you drop something, it drops to the ground, whether you are here or in China or in Siberia. And you can say over and over that you don't believe in gravity, but when you drop something, it will fall down too. Every time.

And that's also what differentiates a fact from a belief. But this does not detract from the fact that everyone has their own beliefs and needs them to form a value system. But they are not consistently provable. They are not facts.

Judging by your post Walt I can see how your intelligence never evolved. Tell me, who wrote created and put together your bible? Who first mentioned the theory of a "god"? That computer your sitting at was created by men of science, the telephone you use was created by man. Everytime you go to the doctor everything was created by man.

But most of all your "GOD" was created by man, so I agree with your post in some twisted way.

Do you even understand how radio carbon dating works?

Your relatives weren't created. They grew, starting as a single cell, just as life did on the planet earth.

And may G_d bless you for your opinion.

I'm nit-picking now, but Paul, did you purposely leave the "o" out of god to avoid the heresy of typing it? Please tell me that is a type-o. If not it would prove one of my points that religion is in fact based on fear. "Believe it without question - or else!" I'm sorry but any human action or way of thinking ruled by fear cannot be good.

radagast

It's not about fear. It's a traditional and cultural sign of respect.

Every culture that has existed on this earth has had their own creation myths. Interestingly, not even once, did the same myth arise in two separate cultures. Why would anyone think that god would only bestow his true form to one culture and leave the rest in the dark?

The plural of Religion is Mythology.

How many times do science and religion have to beat each other up?

Until the scientists stop refusing to believe in God. Truth is truth. True science and the biblical record will line up correctly. Fortunately more and more scientists are starting to realize that there had to be some sort of intelligent design. The sooner they stop denying this obvious fact, the sooner they can get on the same page and stop trying to force us to eat a bunch of monkey poop!

Right on! And amen!

That's what I think, too. I don't think science and religion have to be mutually exclusive.

I have a feeling that God is smart enough to have CREATED the organism that EVOLVED into the life we see on Earth, today.

I am spiritual. Not religious. God-LOVING... not God-FEARING. Because, as evidenced by many posts, the religious folk here are, at best, cruelly narrow-minded and, at worst, certifiably insane. I think that's really too bad, because I don't think God wants people preaching hate and ignorance and intolerance in His name. I think God wants people preaching love. Living love. Loving love. God is Love.

But maybe that's just my interpretation of God. 'Cause the God I worship is a nice guy, whereas, the God lots of other people seem to be worshipping sounds like kind of a butthole.

Wishful thinking. Every time they discover a fossil with anything that resembles modern humans in it, it automatically becomes a "missing link". There is no "missing link", because it didn't happen that way. This is an animal fossil and has nothing whatsoever to do with the ancestry of humans. As I said, it's wishful thinking by those who want to believe in evolution. I think evolution is the most ridiculous piece of nonsense I've ever heard. There isn't one shred of proof, while the whole universe literally reeks with evidence of intelligent design and construction. The theory of evolution is based on the premise that there is no God, and any theory that leaves out the evidence isn't a theory, it's propaganda. The evidence...actual honest evidence...is all on the side of intelligent creation, and when one does not leave God out, the theory of evolution is piece of elementary absurdity.

To Larry,

The theory of evolution is based on the premise that there is no God.

I am curious as to how you came to believe that statement. I've been studying evolution for years and have never known that to be a part of the theory. Evolution has nothing to say about God or religion or the spark of life. It simply addresses the diversity of life and the mechanisms that cause the diversity- genetic mutation ,natural selection, punctuated equilibrium, etc. Incidentally, being agnostic, I allow for the possibility that there is a God or Flying Spaghetti Monster or other deity who may have a hand in all this. I have no basis for determining which,of the many creation stories, is the correct one . How did you choose one over the others?

Larry

You are so sadly wrong in your assessment of scientists. Most of the finest scientists in the world are and always have been religious people. One has never precluded the other. You need to expand your circle of friends.

And as for evolution, the development of entirely new species obviously takes hundreds of thousands of years. But there are smaller instances of selective breeding (survival of the fittest is one of the tenets of evolution) for instance, that have happened in just a few generations within certain species. With plants, you can even do it faster and between unrelated species.

It's not magic. We do not have the whole puzzle yet. We only have small pieces. But these small pieces are facts. They are provable by anyone, anywhere, even by people who do not believe that that small piece is a fact.

Oh my God!!! LOL, LOL, LOL with tears!!!!!!!!!!!

I thought is was Joan Rivers

How can anyone equate years of study with a physical specimen in the same breath as religion and blind faith?

It's clear now why scientists have so much trouble getting through to you people...they use facts and tangible data. Maybe they need to go the religion route and say "@!$%# off I'm right, believe me or burn!"

it's genius.

I loved Blind Faith. It was sad to see them break up.

Blind Faith broke up??  But I just bought their latest album!

phil

You are totally incorrect. There is no real relationship between science and beliefs (which religion is based on), even though people need both of some kind to form a workable value system. A fact can be proved, every time, by anyone (even someone who doesn't believe it), and anywhere. The results will always be the same.

A belief is valuable to people for so many reasons, but it is not a fact. It can't be proved, different people will get different answers, and it will not turn out the same way every time.

"Neither side can win the debate, so don't waste your breath arguing."

That attitude is the worst out of all portrayed here.

No matter how absolutely uneducated and brainwashed these pumped-out-of-private-school creationists are, at least they're stepping out to butt heads with us.

Throwing our opposing views against each other is a fundamental part of societal growth and progress.

Sitting there and going, "Hmmph, well, I don't see either side winning, so you shouldn't be arguing about this at all," is degenerative heresy.