PDA

View Full Version : ‘Missing link’ primate likely to stir debate



BAMAPHIN 22
05-19-2009, 09:03 PM
A discovery of a 47 million-year-old fossil primate that is said to be a human ancestor was announced and unveiled Tuesday at a press conference in New York City.

Known as "Ida," the nearly complete transitional fossil (http://www.livescience.com/animals/090211-transitional-fossils.html) is 20 times older than most fossils that provide evidence for human evolution.

It shows characteristics (http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?s=history&c=news&l=on&pic=090518-plos-fossil-ancestor-02.jpg&cap=The+newly+claimed+primate+genus+and+species+Darwinius+masillae%2C+said+to+be+an+ancestor+of+humans.+The+fossil+dates+to+47+million+years+ago.+The+abdomen+contains+organic+remains+of+food+in+the+di gestive+tract.+The+skeleton+was+split+into+two+parts+before+scientists+put+it+all+back+together%2C+leading+to+today%27s+announcement.+Credit%3A+PLoS+One%2C+Hurum+et+al.&title=) from the very primitive non-human evolutionary line (prosimians, such as lemurs), but is more related to the human evolutionary line (http://www.livescience.com/health/top10_missinglinks.html) (anthropoids, such as monkeys, apes and humans), said Norwegian paleontologist Jørn Hurum of the University of Oslo Natural History Museum. However, she is not really an anthropoid either, he said.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30826552/?GT1=43001

syborg
05-20-2009, 07:48 AM
YAWN. :sleep::lol2:

science is so desperate to debunk faith in a God that they make most 'facts' fit to accomodate. .

they use terms such as . . it is thought, possibly, perhaps. .and so on. .

I do not see how this dinosaur looking fossil looks anything at all like a transitional lemur, or primate or human. .or anything else, it is in my humble opinion nonsense.. but what ever helps you sleep at night I guess.. :crazy:

I really have nothing else to say on this http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

SirDrums
05-20-2009, 08:46 AM
It looks like any other monkey to me. They say it has an extra bone in its foot. Fine, if it really is a missing link, shouldn't there be millions of other fossils of monkeys with an extra bone in its foot? We can find millions of fossilized clams and such but we can only find one of these links?

I think it probably just a mutation or a deformity in that particular monkey. Maybe it’s the result of how it died (they say it was squished).

But what do I know? I don’t have a Doctorate in paleontology and haven't worked exclusively in the field for 20 years so that makes my common sense thoughts worthless
...:rolleyes2:

tylerdolphin
05-21-2009, 11:37 PM
It looks like any other monkey to me. They say it has an extra bone in its foot. Fine, if it really is a missing link, shouldn't there be millions of other fossils of monkeys with an extra bone in its foot? We can find millions of fossilized clams and such but we can only find one of these links?

I think it probably just a mutation or a deformity in that particular monkey. Maybe it’s the result of how it died (they say it was squished).

But what do I know? I don’t have a Doctorate in paleontology and haven't worked exclusively in the field for 20 years so that makes my common sense thoughts worthless
...:rolleyes2:
Dont you think thats a tad arrogant to assume you know more than the scientists? I know Id think someone was pretty bold if they told me they can do my job better and have never even had training to do it.

Tetragrammaton
05-22-2009, 01:02 AM
Burn the books!

TedSlimmJr
05-22-2009, 01:40 AM
I can definitely see some characteristics similar to that of my ex.....

ih8brady
05-22-2009, 02:07 AM
I can definitely see some characteristics similar to that of my ex.....


What are you referring to? :confused:

TedSlimmJr
05-22-2009, 03:04 AM
What are you referring to? :confused:

Well the stumpy forehead....long snout....hunched posture...long toe-nails....etc....jumped right off the page at me....

....age isn't too far apart either....

For a second I thought they'd found her....oh well..

ih8brady
05-22-2009, 03:17 AM
Exactly how old are you?

SoJoMike
05-22-2009, 06:04 AM
YAWN. :sleep::lol2:

science is so desperate to debunk faith in a God that they make most 'facts' fit to accomodate. .

they use terms such as . . it is thought, possibly, perhaps. .and so on. .

I do not see how this dinosaur looking fossil looks anything at all like a transitional lemur, or primate or human. .or anything else, it is in my humble opinion nonsense.. but what ever helps you sleep at night I guess.. :crazy:

I really have nothing else to say on this http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif


Same things can be said about the "faith in God" people, except they use words like "know" when they should be using words like "feel"...whatever helps you sleep at night I guess.

emeraldfin
05-22-2009, 06:30 AM
47 million years old....

Have to give credit to people who still believe in the creationist theory.

steeda
05-22-2009, 10:00 AM
YAWN. :sleep::lol2:

science is so desperate to debunk faith in a God that they make most 'facts' fit to accomodate. .

they use terms such as . . it is thought, possibly, perhaps. .and so on. .

I do not see how this dinosaur looking fossil looks anything at all like a transitional lemur, or primate or human. .or anything else, it is in my humble opinion nonsense.. but what ever helps you sleep at night I guess.. :crazy:

I really have nothing else to say on this http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif


There's no scientific proof that God exists in any form. Please show me concrete evidence that God exists.

Think about it for a second, do you think we popped up out of nowhere? Just magically created?

:chuckle:

Dolphan7
05-22-2009, 12:31 PM
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200905.htm

Ho-Hum, Another Human Missing Link 05/19/2009 http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2009/05/pushpin-1.gif (http://creationsafaris.com/crev200905.htm#20090519b)
May 19, 2009 — Shoppers typically are wary of over-hyped ads, knowing that any claim sounding too good to be true probably is. What would they think about media reports claiming a new fossil monkey is the “8th wonder of the world”?
The scientific paper in PLoS ONE1 had hardly been published before the press went ape, as if on cue, at the buzzphrase missing link. A couple of press releases about the new lemur fossil of a female nicknamed Ida are calm and rational, like the one by Gautum Naik at the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124235632936122739.html). If what he wrote is true, that existing debates will persist in spite of the fossil, then the statements made by other reporters are clearly over the top (sampling below).
All that was found was a well-preserved fossil in Germany that is 95% lemur, alleged to be 47 million years old. The only things it lacks from modern lemurs is a specialized tooth for grooming, a specialized claw for grooming, and a wet nose (although “We can’t say whether it had a wet nose or not,” American Paleontological Society president Philip Gingerich confessed). Other than that, the fossil looks like a modern lemur. To evolutionists, it bears on debates over whether the common ancestor of all monkeys, apes, and (presumably) us, was a tarsier or a lemur. It has nothing to do with downstream questions about human evolution from chimpanzee-like apes which, according to the Darwinian story, diverged 41 million years later. As Naik pointed out, this fossil is neither likely to convince creationists, who deny humans evolved from any lower mammal, nor the evolutionists who believe that a tarsier-like animal was the ancestor of the primates. Even this UK Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/fossil-ida-missing-link) article answers the question whether Ida was a missing link with a firm “yes and no.” It says, “The paper’s scientific reviewers asked that they tone down their original claims that the fossil was on the human evolutionary line,” stating that was the job of the scientific community to sort out.
One would never know any of this from some of stories in the press. Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519104643.htm) labeled it “extraordinary” and freely made use of the Darwinian buzzwords transitional, primitive, and ancestor. This fossil is like a “Rosetta Stone” we are told, and “world heritage” in its significance. It is the “first link to all humans” said one evolutionist. David Attenborough, who is preparing a TV documentary called Link about this specimen, said, “This little creature is going to show us our connection with all the rest of the mammals. The link they would have said until now is missing ... it is no longer missing.”
One might wonder how Attenborough could have a documentary ready to air by May 25 if this is just being announced now. Well, it was part of a two-year study that was kept top secret by an international team of scientists, who apparently had plenty of time to get the press ready for a blitz of hype. And hype they did: National Geographic (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090519-ida-primate-fossil-link.html) ran the bold headline, “MISSING LINK Photos: New Fossil Links Humans, Lemurs?” Sky News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Missing-Link-Scientists-In-New-York-Unveil-Fossil-Of-Lemur-Monkey-Hailed-As-Mans-Earliest-Ancestor/Article/200905315284582) seemed to run out of superlatives in its coverage. The fossil is “described by experts as the ’eighth wonder of the world’,” Alex Watts reported; “They say its impact on the world of palaeontology will be ‘somewhat like an asteroid falling down to Earth’.” Charles Darwin has been vindicated: “Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, and the then radical, outlandish ideas he came up with during his time aboard the Beagle.” Quoting Attenborough: Darwin “would have been thrilled” to have seen this fossil:
“This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of the mammals,” he said.
“This is the one that connects us directly with them.
“Now people can say ‘okay we are primates, show us the link’.
“The link they would have said up to now is missing – well it’s no longer missing.” Jorn Hurum, Norwegian paleontologist who obtained the fossil, got a big callout quote: “This fossil is really a part of our history; this is part of our evolution, deep, deep back into the aeons of time, 47 million years ago.” The fossil was admired “like a cherished Van Gogh or Picasso painting.” Hurum was so in awe of it, “he could not sleep for two days.” The creature lived when “the first whales, horses, bats and monkeys emerged” and is the “final piece of Darwin’s jigsaw,” Watts wrote. He ended with the triumph of science over religion: the reaction of the Bishop of Worcester’s wife to Darwin’s theory, “famously” worrying, “Descended from the apes! My dear, let us hope that it is not true, but if it is, let us pray that it will not become generally known.” To which Watts added in triumph, “Now, it certainly is.”
The BBC News (http://creationsafaris.com/crev200905.htm), surprisingly, seemed to smell a conspiracy:
But some independent experts, awaiting an opportunity to see the new fossil, are sceptical of the claim. And they have been critical of the hype surrounding the presentation of Ida. The fossil was launched amid great fanfare at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, by the city’s mayor. Although details of the fossil have only just been published in a scientific journal - PLoS One - there is already a TV documentary and book tie-in....
Independent experts are keen to see the new fossil but somewhat sceptical of any claim that it could be “a missing link”. Dr Henry Gee, a senior editor at the journal Nature, said the term itself was misleading and that the scientific community would need to evaluate its significance. “It’s extremely nice to have a new find and it will be well-studied,” he said. But he added that it was not likely to be in the same league as major discoveries such as “Flores man” or feathered dinosaurs. Nevertheless, the media frenzy seemed urged on by the discoverers themselves. The timing seems hardly coincidental. “They have called her Darwinius masillae,” the BBC News noted, “to celebrate her place of origin and the bicentenary of the birth of Charles Darwin.” Hurum also told the BBC it was “a dream come true.” And Chris Beard, American paleontologist, was “awestruck” – not by the fossil, but “by the publicity machine surrounding the new fossil.”
Live Science (http://www.livescience.com/animals/090519-fossil-scene.html) also reported the suspicious-looking ballyhoo around this fossil. “Scientists unveiled the fossil with much pomp and circumstance at the American Museum of Natural History, where even New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg was on hand to extol the discovery,” the report by Clara Moskowitz said. “....The fossil has been shrouded in secrecy and its unveiling unfolded more like a Hollywood production than a scientific discovery.” Moskowitz reported superlatives coming from the mouth of Jorn Hurum, team lead, almost as if to mock them: “This is like a holy grail for paleontology,” he said; “This fossil will probably be pictured in all the text books for the next 100 years.”
When asked if the publicity surrounding the fossil was overdone (the History Channel touts the discovery as “the most important find in 47 million years”), Hurum said he didn’t think so.
“That’s part of getting science out to the public to get attention,” he said. “I don’t think that’s so wrong.” The scientific paper, as expected, is much more reserved in tone. “We do not interpret Darwinius as anthropoid, but the adapoid primates it represents deserve more careful comparison with higher primates than they have received in the past.” In fact, the most remarkable thing about the fossil was its exceptional preservation – and its shady past. The fossil had a checkered history. It was found by private collectors in 1983 and split into two halves. One half was doctored up by a Wyoming fossil collector to make it look complete, reported Science Daily. The other half stood on a German collector’s wall till 2006, then fell into the hands of a private dealer, who presented it to Prof. Hurum at a fossil trade show. Sky News said Hurum had to raise the equivalent of $1 million US dollars to obtain it – ten times the price of rare fossils. No one is saying whether he is hyping the fossil to help recoup his investment.
Robert Crowther, writing for the intelligent-design blog Evolution News and Views (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/if_they_werent_atheists_youd.html) seemed to enjoy watching the evolutionists do their May Day dance around their new monkey puzzle (http://www.evergreenspecies.com/2008/05/monkey-puzzle-tree-araucaria-araucana.html) tree – which tree is, by the way, another “living” fossil.
Update 05/21/2009: Indications that the media circus is collapsing started appearing on science blogs and science news sites. The stauchly pro-evolution site Live Science, for instance, had no less than four critical articles: by Robert Roy Britt (http://www.livescience.com/culture/090520-ida-fossil-hype.html), Clara Moskowitz (http://www.livescience.com/animals/090520-fossil-reactions.html), Benjamin Radford (http://www.livescience.com/health/etc/090520-myth-the-missing-link.html) and Meredith Small (http://www.livescience.com/history/090520-hn-ida.html). At the Smithsonian, Brian Switek (http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2009/05/poor_poor_ida_or_overselling_a.php) criticized the media hype roundly on his blog, as well as the “shoddy scholarship” in the PLoS ONE paper that tried to tie this fossil, exceptional as it is, to the anthropoid line. All of them decried the fact that the History Channel appears to be treating this fossil as a cash cow to the detriment of scientific integrity. All of them also criticized use of the term “missing link” – a vacuous and misleading phrase even for evolutionists.

I saw the History channel commercial about it's Monday night debut of the "Link", and thought to myself....wow that was quick. Now I know why. LOL!

Locke
05-23-2009, 10:35 AM
YAWN. :sleep::lol2:

science is so desperate to debunk faith in a God that they make most 'facts' fit to accomodate. .

they use terms such as . . it is thought, possibly, perhaps. .and so on. .

I do not see how this dinosaur looking fossil looks anything at all like a transitional lemur, or primate or human. .or anything else, it is in my humble opinion nonsense.. but what ever helps you sleep at night I guess.. :crazy:

I really have nothing else to say on this http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

And here is the fundamental difference between an evolutionist and a creationist. You refuse to even consider the evidence here. Before even looking at it, you decided it was wrong. Evolutionists have readily considered any and all "evidence" creationists have presented. Once its researched and debunked, they move on. It would be nice if both sides did that once in a while.....

syborg
05-23-2009, 10:49 AM
And here is the fundamental difference between an evolutionist and a creationist. You refuse to even consider the evidence here. Before even looking at it, you decided it was wrong. Evolutionists have readily considered any and all "evidence" creationists have presented. Once its researched and debunked, they move on. It would be nice if both sides did that once in a while.....


To be honest I did look at the evidence and I was not and am not convinced. . I should of made it clear that I did look. . so not your fault. .

:safe:

syborg
05-23-2009, 01:24 PM
Mind you I fail to see what is so different with this 'new' missing link. . here is the old one they touted. .:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0413_060413_evolution.html

go figure. .yeah evolution you can count on that being the truth of our existance. . right? :crazy:

Also . . remember Piltdown Man:

The "Piltdown Man" is a famous paleontological hoax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax) concerning the finding of the remains of a previously unknown early human (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution). The hoax find consisted of fragments of a skull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull) and jawbone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandible) collected in 1912 from a gravel pit at Piltdown, a village near Uckfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uckfield), East Sussex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Sussex), England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England). The fragments were thought by many experts of the day to be the fossilised (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil) remains of a hitherto unknown form of early man. The Latin name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_nomenclature) Eoanthropus dawsoni ("Dawson's dawn-man", after the collector Charles Dawson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dawson)) was given to the specimen. The significance of the specimen remained the subject of controversy until it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgery), consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangutan) that had been deliberately combined with the skull of a fully developed modern human (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_human).
The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleontological hoax in history. It has been prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of human evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution), and the length of time (more than 40 years) that elapsed from its discovery to its full exposure as a forgery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

SoJoMike
05-23-2009, 09:35 PM
go figure. .yeah evolution you can count on that being the truth of our existance. . right? :crazy:
[/quote]


Yeah, much better to believe in magic:crazy:

ih8brady
05-24-2009, 02:31 AM
Evolution is not about the start of life. Perhaps this explains the lack of understanding?

Tetragrammaton
05-24-2009, 10:33 AM
Evolution is not about the start of life. Perhaps this explains the lack of understanding?

That has been told to them one hundred different ways, but they refuse to hear of it. Some of them even tie it into the Big Bang!

I do find it fascinating that those with an agenda will point so quickly to two or three bad scientific claims in order to wash all of them. It is a type of defense mechanism that is disappearing in the new generations, however, and for that the scientific community can be grateful.

Jimi
05-25-2009, 03:15 PM
Evolution is not about the start of life. Perhaps this explains the lack of understanding?

I thought the currently accepted belief in evolution was that we came from some murky pile off goo, then on to a fish, reptile etc etc till u get to humans? Wouldnt that be the start of our lives?

tylerdolphin
05-26-2009, 11:52 PM
I thought the currently accepted belief in evolution was that we came from some murky pile off goo, then on to a fish, reptile etc etc till u get to humans? Wouldnt that be the start of our lives?
Not exactly. There are MANY christian evolutionists who believe God set created life and put the evolutionary process into motion

Dolphan7
05-27-2009, 02:30 AM
Not exactly. There are MANY christian evolutionists who believe God set created life and put the evolutionary process into motionThis is true. This is called Theistic Evolution. But the Theory of Evolution does not refer to a deity as a cause of life on earth. Only so called christians believe God started it, and evolution took over from there.

Secular science does not bring God into the picture, but evolution is invariably linked to abiogenesis whether it wants to or not, simply based on the theory that life came from pre-existing life.....that process, going back in time, eventually ends up being the first life on this planet......and thus demands an explanation.

SirDrums
05-27-2009, 11:21 AM
Dont you think thats a tad arrogant to assume you know more than the scientists? I know Id think someone was pretty bold if they told me they can do my job better and have never even had training to do it.

Arrogance abounds in our world. Arrogance is what would prevent a Scientist from even considering my ideas in the first place. Which was the point of my comment.

HansMojo
05-30-2009, 02:59 AM
This is true. This is called Theistic Evolution. But the Theory of Evolution does not refer to a deity as a cause of life on earth. Only so called christians believe God started it, and evolution took over from there.

Secular science does not bring God into the picture, but evolution is invariably linked to abiogenesis whether it wants to or not, simply based on the theory that life came from pre-existing life.....that process, going back in time, eventually ends up being the first life on this planet......and thus demands an explanation.

Hey D7. :)

Of course, there's also lots of us who believe in the Genesis account but also believe that God gifted the lifeforms He created with the ability to adapt/evolve (within their own kind of course) and even pass some of these new traits down to their offspring. Hence, animals can adapt to their surroundings/circumstances and over time permanent change can take place. But of course, dogs will still be dogs and fruit flies will still be fruit flies...IMHO. Anyway, I'm 99.9999% sure you agree with this, so I'm not debating you but rather I wanted to make the point that Christians don't have to be theistic evolutionists to accept certain observable aspects of Evolution theory.

Dolphan7
05-30-2009, 02:06 PM
Hey D7. :)

Of course, there's also lots of us who believe in the Genesis account but also believe that God gifted the lifeforms He created with the ability to adapt/evolve (within their own kind of course) and even pass some of these new traits down to their offspring. Hence, animals can adapt to their surroundings/circumstances and over time permanent change can take place. But of course, dogs will still be dogs and fruit flies will still be fruit flies...IMHO. Anyway, I'm 99.9999% sure you agree with this, so I'm not debating you but rather I wanted to make the point that Christians don't have to be theistic evolutionists to accept certain observable aspects of Evolution theory.Hi Hans. You have been away way too long. You are correct God does provide the ability for small adaptations within kinds. That has never been in dispute. We see that all the time just with Dogs as has been mentioned before. This is micro-evolution, or adaptation within species. It is very biblical.

The problem is that this cannot account for the massive genus jumps that macro evolution demands. This plus the argument that micro evolution is proof of macro evolution doesn't fly. It has been my counter argument that macro evolution has never been seen, witnessed, copied, duplicated anywhere.... at anytime. There is no proof of macro evolution. Any evidence put forth always turns out to be micro evolution.

Christians who believe in God and "Macro" evolution most certainly are Theistic evolutionists.

I hope that clears things up.

You should post more. Go update your photo in the Pofo.:up:

HansMojo
06-01-2009, 12:43 AM
Hi Hans. You have been away way too long. You are correct God does provide the ability for small adaptations within kinds. That has never been in dispute. We see that all the time just with Dogs as has been mentioned before. This is micro-evolution, or adaptation within species. It is very biblical.

The problem is that this cannot account for the massive genus jumps that macro evolution demands. This plus the argument that micro evolution is proof of macro evolution doesn't fly. It has been my counter argument that macro evolution has never been seen, witnessed, copied, duplicated anywhere.... at anytime. There is no proof of macro evolution. Any evidence put forth always turns out to be micro evolution.

Christians who believe in God and "Macro" evolution most certainly are Theistic evolutionists.

I hope that clears things up.

You should post more. Go update your photo in the Pofo.:up:
Yeah, it's been a long time. Now that I'm teaching full time I just can't seem to find the time to post that much. I do still lurk around from time to time and I do miss hanging out with everyone very much. Maybe I'll become more efficient at my job but I think most likely I'm just going to be more of a hit and run kind of poster from now on. :boohoo:

Mile High Fin
06-01-2009, 04:31 PM
Too many people view Christianity vs. evolution/science as a "black-and-white" distinction. You are either in one camp or the other....

I believe they don't have to be in conflict:
See this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

HansMojo
06-02-2009, 12:18 AM
Too many people view Christianity vs. evolution/science as a "black-and-white" distinction. You are either in one camp or the other....

I believe they don't have to be in conflict:
See this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Some of the teachings of the Bible and Theistic evolution are mutually exclusive and this is why most Christians reject the idea outright. To accept Theistic evolution, one would have to actually reject more of the Bible than most people realize (unless they really dig below the surface that is). Once you start tossing Biblical truths out the window, where do you stop? People of course do this all the time, and this is part of the reason that I think there is so many differing opinions on religious issues out there.

To me, the Bible is like a rudder that steers the ship and helps keeps it on the right course. Remove the rudder and the ship is left to the whims of the wind and the currents. To me, I realize that I don't understand everything that the Bible teaches (don't imagine I ever will in this life), but it is my life long goal to understand it better and to model my life as well as I possibly can according to it's teachings. It is my standard. It is my creed. And so I will never accept Theistic Evolution because they truly are mutually exclusive.

Evolutionists reject Theistic Evolution for different but obvious reasons (such as God's involvement in anyway is outside of the realm of science, is untestable by science, and is therefore not even an option).

Anyway, that is why, IMHO, Theistic evolution will always be a compromise belief system that will appeal to less people than the other two options you mention.

Of course...I could be wrong.

JohnMarshall12
07-06-2009, 05:47 PM
I don't see there being a problem here. Scientists in these fields should keep looking into the past to see what they can discover. This is a significant find that can help shed more light on our past. This is a very good thing. Also, I watched the History Channel taping of this and think it was pretty fair in its coverage. I don't see that religion and science are at odds with each other and doubt the scientists do either. Proving evolution does not disprove God.

coalesce
09-11-2009, 12:42 PM
I don't see there being a problem here. Scientists in these fields should keep looking into the past to see what they can discover. This is a significant find that can help shed more light on our past. This is a very good thing. Also, I watched the History Channel taping of this and think it was pretty fair in its coverage. I don't see that religion and science are at odds with each other and doubt the scientists do either. Proving evolution does not disprove God.

EXCELLENT!!! Like I said in a previous post, I've always thought that science is the language of God and the more we learn, the closer we get to God.

Michael

Pandarilla 72
09-29-2009, 04:22 AM
There's no scientific proof that God exists in any form. Please show me concrete evidence that God exists.

Think about it for a second, do you think we popped up out of nowhere? Just magically created?

:chuckle:

You're both wrong, scientists will never be given the knowledge to create an instrument that can detect the presence of God (even though he's everywhere, i.e. intelligence). And the creationists will never grasp the concept of natural law. Meaning they are subtle individual pieces of God's consciousness, ultimately seperate from the gross matter of the Universe (plus, they usually are just blind believers who just want to get to heaven, not to be with God, rather probably just to use his pool).:chuckle:

That's why God will never reveal miracles to the masses, because he wants you to seek him. And if you're still not convinced, please try to explain dreams to yourself. I mean how is it that every night God entertains us in dreamland, allowing us to experience and create things merely for our enjoyment?

Pandarilla 72
09-29-2009, 04:26 AM
Whoops,...skipped the second page of this thread, sorry to sound redundant.