New "Missing link" for evolution!

[murphy7801]

um the Inquisition is fair time after the crusades

Yeah, I was citing a few examples through history, sorry thought that was clear.

your comment sound like it was just about the crusades sorry for the misinterpretation

 

[the_baku_eats_dreams]

-snip-


So the crusades is irrelevant... but something that happened much longer ago (Everything in the bible) is? ZING!

lol, that was funny and logical, great argument

 

[murphy7801]

anyway this discussion never going to go anywhere so im off to play deus ex 2 because i cant wait for the third

 

[ShadowStar42]

So the crusades is irrelevant... but something that happened much longer ago (Everything in the bible) is? ZING!

The Bible is relevant in my life, I don't think anyone here has tried to make it relevant in this agrument though. I mean, in certain circumstances Jeffery Dahmer is relevant, but that didn't make him meaning full in this discussion. We're discussing the possibility of the origin of life on Earth and whether a higher power was involved and more specifically about respecting the ideas and beliefs of those who disagree.

 

[Kinguendo]

Where did I even hint at being pissed off at the crusades and still holding a grudge? Also I never asked for an apology, and who? Who are these people? What connection do they have to me? Also, what did et do?

Saying that Christians have no right to talk about atheist actions because of the actions of other Christians implies our ownership of those actions. These people are atheists who have committed horrible atrocities who I'm sure you have no more connection to than I do to any crusader. The point I'm making is that its pretty foolish to bring up the Crusades in a religious discussion in the modern age.

Hmm, except this Kraken guy is apparently an atheist so does that make your comment a fail? I think it might. Also, that is 2 atheists and ET (Although I still dont know what ET did that was so bad.). Also, there is no such thing as Atheist history because that is just called history whereas you can get the history of christianity... and it wasnt just christians who were involved in the crusades so stop being so self-centred. Christians always think that Atheist dont like them when they say religion, honestly do you think christianity is the only religion?

I'm not an Atheist.

I hoped you would say that, would you kindly look at this quote "They asked if I was familiar with the teachings of god. I said I'm not a very religious person and I would prefer to stay that way". So you arent an Atheist but you arent much of anything else if it will help your argument in a miniscule way... Pointless believing if you abandon it at the drop of a hat.

I never said I believe. I was never using my religious standing to support my position.

I may not believe in religion but I am not so narrow minded that I have blocked it from my mind. I am willing to hear other peoples beliefs and respect these beliefs. I don't use religion or science to make myself appear smarter.

When Darwin wrote the Origin of Species he was not trying to destroy religion. He was trying to advance the field of science. Yet most people use evolution as a way to destroy religion. It's not about science anymore. Now it appears to be about finding a way to make people lose faith completley, because this would apparently advance society in some way.

So you arent a christian? That comment still stands then.

Also how is being on the fence more intelligent than being decisive? I was raised a catholic so how exactly am I close minded? I got out of it so I was clearly open to logic and evidence, please stop placing people in a column without knowing their history.

Oh and I really like Bill Maher so that should inform you on my stance about all religion.

 

[LoFr3Eq]

As a globally recognised theory, Evolution didn't need more proof to be accepted.

The Catholic Church has even recently released a statement saying that "Darwin was probably right."


This find is however great for exploring the fossil record in an era where there are many gaps.

Religion is a personal thing, and the amount of times I've been approached by someone of the christian faith at uni is far too many. And it's only ever been christains. I have many friends who are Muslim, they have never tried to convert me, they usually don't talk about it unless I ask.

I get extremely offended when my views on personal beliefs get aggressivly challenged by others. My view is that while God probably doesn't exist, people can stand together and prosper if they can believe in a greater good than themselves. This is the good that comes from religion.
-note- I am only giving this view because I will be asked about what I believe in.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Also, if i asked alot of Christians today what they thought about the christians during the crusades murdering muslims do you really think they would be full of regret? REALLY?

I don't think they would regret it. But that's only because they didn't murder Muslims. People in their region at one point in time did, but they did not. So they shouldn't have to feel guilty over it.

I definitely do not think most Christians would support the murder of the Muslims. You seem to have the idea that everyone in a religion wants other people to die just because they have a different religion.

 

[scotth266]

Snip.

I remember you! You were one of the really rational people who joined not too long ago. Well, it's nice to see you're still about here on the Escapist.

I can actually respect your views, believing in Creationism, because you're willing to accept other's viewpoints and offer reasons as to why yours are valid. I myself am a semi-Creationist: I believe that God made everything in seven not-literal-days, and that he did so via the manipulation of physical laws and chance.

It's sad: this is a truly great scientific discovery, but all that seems to have occured is that the religion-haters have come to town. I find this whole religion war to be silly: I mean, when GOOGLE makes a special format for their site to celebrate something, you know it's big stuff: but the original article has been forgotten amidst the flame wars.

I like that last paragraph: very well-written.

 

[jboking]

Sorry but there was plenty of proof of evolution before they found this.

Macro evolution(evolution between above the level so species) and Creationism are in the same boat when it comes to teaching them for one serious reason. Neither is provable or testable.

Archaeopterix (can't remember spelling) was much more significant as it showed where reptiles evolved to birds (I presume that is what you mean by macro evolution), much better than one mammal turning to another mammal.

The thing is that evolution is really so simple there really isn't any need to proove it further. We can see it happening in bacteria and other micro-organisms. Anybody who denies it is happening might as well deny gravity exists, I mean it's equally obvious.

Macro Evolution is said to occur over eons, it is not provable. Archeopteryx is not proof of macro evolution, which is where most of the Creationism vs. Evolution arguments are set. No one is stupid enough to say that Micro Evolution doesn't occur becasue it is provable and observable. If you don't know the terms then I'm sure Wikipedia can help you out.

Wikipedia eh? Alright I'll quote them...

"The consensus of the scientific community is that the alleged micro-macro division is an artificial construct made by creationists and does not accurately reflect the actual processes of evolution."

"While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data."

So, Creationists use the term macroevolution elastically dependant on whether or not the evidence supports their argument. Surely it is obvious that a serious of evolutionary steps (or microevolution) occurs in speciation.

Macroevolution requires interation between two species. Microevolution does not. That is the only point I was trying to make, clearly it was too hidden for you. My bad I suppose.

Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence, while controversial with the public at large, is not disputed within the scientific community.

Just how my religious beliefs coincide with evolution. Marco-micro theory can coincide with evolution theory. The criticism section, which seems to be the only one you read, is looking directly at a type of misuse of the terms.

I don't see why people are so afraid of evolution, it poses no threat as to the existence of a god. Can't you still think of God as the creator and evolution as a tool?

I find it hard to argue for evolution because it all just seems so simple and obvious and I can't think why anyone wouldn't believe it exists. Creationism for me just presents new problems like "how did God create everything?" and of course "why?".

I didn't mean to be rude, but if we want to handle it that way. I believe in gap theory, I am not afraid of evolution, I believe it coincides with my religious beliefs. Did I once say that Evolution does pose a threat to gods existence? No, I did not.

For fucks sake, I said it exists, simply that on a large scale it cannot be fully proven. I'm done arguing this with those who find it necessary to assume and be condescending based on those assumptions.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Interesting, we found a crucial piece of evidence in establishing the links between us and other species.

Instead of discussing what advances this could have in the fields of science, let's instead bash creationists. How dare they think differently.

Oh, if only you knew about the crusades? Whats that... you do? Well, this doesnt make sense... why would you be complaining about people saying relevant things about religion rather than people prancing around the world murdering people... Yeah, do I need to say more?

So every creationist is an intolerant psychopath?

Way to be ignorant.

Apparently I do need to say more, fantastic. NO! But everyone who was a part of the crusades was... I never went out of the crusades, I never said anything more about religion than that! The only thing I was saying is you are defending people whos religion has caused the deaths of so many people and what deaths have the people on this forum caused? 1... maybe at a push. And you are jumping around like a god damn monkey slinging crap at people that havent really done anything to deserve it, by the way the monkey crap thing is the best thing I have typed today (in my opinion).

Modern society has advanced, religion included. So I don't go around blaming Christians for the crusades. Mainly due to the fact that the modern Christians where not in the fucking crusades.

This would be like me judging Germans based on the actions of the Nazis.

So no apology for falsely accusing me of ignorance? and youre point is? I never said mordern day christians have anything to do with the crusades... other than their religions blood drenched history.

Then what was your fucking point? Are you saying you brought up the crusades for absolutely no reason?

If you do have a point then your original post was so convoluted it was hard to find it.

Still no apology? Well, thats rude. My point was to put youre hatred of people typing words at chrisitans that arent ever going to see it, into perspective, regarding what other methods SOME people use on people they disagree with.

I'm not going to apologize because I have nothing to apologize for.

Your point is irrelevant. You brought up the Crusades, yet the methods of converting people in that time period are not used by the vast majority of religious people in this modern age.

So the crusades is irrelevant... but something that happened much longer ago (Everything in the bible) is? ZING!

The bible is still relevant to a lot of people because they follow the ideas in it.

The ideas in the Crusades are not followed by a lot of people, so they are no longer relevant. You can't use them to judge people.

 

[Kinguendo]

The Karate Kid had a weak position (One "S") and an injured foot and he still won. Except there is a Christian history... the bible is full of it... there is Christian history and it ties in with history but Atheist history doesnt exist because it is just normal history because people dont do things in the name of Atheism, much like there is English history that ties in with history of the world. Also there should be no such thing as Atheism, if Christianity is belief in Jesus and God then why should there be a thing for not believing that as well? Surely we should just be called you know... normal.
Also, if you are willing to wait 12 hours I wont be tired anymore so I could clean up my side of the argument a bit... word it a bit better and maybe some better punctuation.

I don't concied the connection between modern Christians and people who were Christian hundreds of years ago, but fair enough on the 'in the name of' argument. The important thing to remember there though is the most of those situations the organizers were disingenuous at best. The Crusades were about land and money, the Inquisition about power, and extremist the world over is more about dispair than about faith. But, you brought it up and you were trying to make a false point with it, so I countered with a false point of my own. Sleep well and I'd love to take this up again at a later time.

Woah, where is my false point? It was a fair point, and if it has revieled that religion is easily corruptable then there is clearly something wrong there... oh, and that wasnt my intention... I just wanted that guy to see that people saying stuff like "Suck it, christians" is nothing in comparison to people going "DIE MUSLIMS AND JEWS!" and chopping them up. Also, have you not heard about the piece of wood from the true cross that the christians wanted and killed for? That wasnt about land or money.

 

[Kinguendo]

-snip-


So the crusades is irrelevant... but something that happened much longer ago (Everything in the bible) is? ZING!

lol, that was funny and logical, great argument

Yep, my whole argument was in the hope that someone would say something that I could reply to with this. =D

 

[Anarchemitis]

National Geographic is not particularly credible in my book when it comes to paleontology and archaeology.

 

[Kinguendo]

So the crusades is irrelevant... but something that happened much longer ago (Everything in the bible) is? ZING!

The Bible is relevant in my life, I don't think anyone here has tried to make it relevant in this agrument though. I mean, in certain circumstances Jeffery Dahmer is relevant, but that didn't make him meaning full in this discussion. We're discussing the possibility of the origin of life on Earth and whether a higher power was involved and more specifically about respecting the ideas and beliefs of those who disagree.

I wasnt saying that the bible isnt relevant to some people, but the Kraken guy said that because of how long ago the crusades happened it is no longer relevant... hence my comment.

 

[ShadowStar42]

Woah, where is my false point? It was a fair point, and if it has revieled that religion is easily corruptable then there is clearly something wrong there... oh, and that wasnt my intention... I just wanted that guy to see that people saying stuff like "Suck it, christians" is nothing in comparison to people going "DIE MUSLIMS AND JEWS!" and chopping them up. Also, have you not heard about the piece of wood from the true cross that the christians wanted and killed for? That wasnt about land or money.

Your right, him saying 'Suck it, christians" is nothing in comparison to people saying "DIE MUSLIMS AND JEWS!" in that he actually said 'Suck it, christians'. So yeah, the Crusades reference is still a false point you were trying to make. So far as the religious rationale behind the Crusades, they wouldn't have happened if King Richard didn't want the land and resources that could be gained and we can't say whether or not it would have happened if there wasn't something of religious significance there.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Snip.

I remember you! You were one of the really rational people who joined not too long ago. Well, it's nice to see you're still about here on the Escapist.

I can actually respect your views, believing in Creationism, because you're willing to accept other's viewpoints and offer reasons as to why yours are valid. I myself am a semi-Creationist: I believe that God made everything in seven not-literal-days, and that he did so via the manipulation of physical laws and chance.

It's sad: this is a truly great scientific discovery, but all that seems to have occured is that the religion-haters have come to town. I find this whole religion war to be silly: I mean, when GOOGLE makes a special format for their site to celebrate something, you know it's big stuff: but the original article has been forgotten amidst the flame wars.

I like that last paragraph: very well-written.

Problem is: his viewpoints are not valid, whatever he beleives himself, they're not. Sure he's wording it properly, without any odd bashing or anything, he's a polite fellow and that's indeed very good, but that makes it not less nonsenical. It's simply not true that the earth was created in 7X24 hours. He puts it nice, but that doesn't make him rational, his viewpoints can tell us that, since those viewpoints are not rational at all, and some of them are probably flat out wrong.

Anyway, that said, it's indeed a shame that the original subject of this thread is more or less buried under the religious discussion that always erupts over this subject. It's annoying. Anyway, 'bout the subject, I have the feeling that it's a bit overhyped you know. Like "OMG we've found the missing link know we know like a shitload more!" Em, no we don't. Yea we've learned, but it's not like we've solved the puzzle of human evolutionary history. It's coming together quite nicely though, but humans are just one species, and the evolutionary history of life spans millions of species.

For fucks sake, I said it exists, simply that on a large scale it cannot be fully proven. I'm done arguing this with those who find it necessary to assume and be condescending based on those assumptions.

You're misunderstanding 'macro-evolution', macro-evolution is not something you prove, it's not a theory, it's not an explanation for some observed data. No, macro-evolution is a name fór the data. Macro-evolution is nothing more than the evolutionary history of life on earth. It's just a fancy name for nothing more than a timescale of collected data: this fossil is this old, this one is this old, this species lived back then, this one lives now, this one lived before that, etc etc etc. That is why 'macro-evolution' is called the fact of evolution, it's nothing more than a collection of stuff we found. Macro-evolution is the thing we're trying to explain with evolutional theory. The theory of evolution tries to explain how all that macro-evolutionary changed happened. That it happened is a fact, everyone can see that. We can all see the fact that millions of years ago, certain animals lived that don't live anymore, and we can all see the fact that right now certain animals live that did not live a long time ago: something has changed over the millions of years. That change is sometimes called macro-evolution.

 

[jboking]

After all, micro evolution can be something as simple as a slight change in the pigmentation of skin in newborns over time. It doesn't lead to Kingdom, phylum, or class changes as Macro evolution would.

But it all starts out with small changes at the beginning and each separate tiny change has its own tiny branches which we then classify under these names, it's the tree of life. Also, technically we don't use the KPCOFGS system for classification any more. There are quite a lot more options, allowing for tiny changes in each.

We do too still use the KPCOFGS system. Just because there are more options does not mean you oust one completely.

Also, I can't see any other why of explaining why there weren't any of animal x for millions of years and then suddenly there was.

Interaction between separate species.

Edit: last thing I'm posting, better things to do than try and teach people about something when I lack the qualification to do so.

 

[Skeleon]

It's really scary to see how many people think a scientific theory is some kind of wild guess.

Also: Go, team! Another piece of the puzzle falls into place.

 

[ShadowStar42]

I wasnt saying that the bible isnt relevant to some people, but the Kraken guy said that because of how long ago the crusades happened it is no longer relevant... hence my comment.

Once again though, arguing the that bible isn't relevant to whether or not evolution is proven is akin to me arguing that fish are not vegetables. Nobody here has claimed they are and I'm pretty sure that nobody here would disagree with me. You keep bringing up these straw men, trying to fight someone who hasn't shown his head hear yet.

 

[Internet Kraken]

You know what? This only proves my point that all debates involving religion accomplish nothing.

This entire thread, my own arguments included, has degraded into a mindless squabble between two opposing forces. Any points that could have been made in this thread have been crushed under a layer of hatred and ignorance. We are all to attached to our own beliefs to truly consider what the other side is saying.

Nothing can come from this thread. The original subject of this thread was a fossil, yet all of the discussion has been shifted upon the debate between religion and science. I don't see the focus shifting back to the original subject.