New "Missing link" for evolution!
- Thread starter Seydaman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Not really. There's a difference between chemicals creating self-replicating DNA though a massive random process - and designer popping out of thin air magicking things into existence. I can't think of how random chemical reactions could produce that - and then make it completely intangible and unprovable. How can a god randomly come into existence?Nuke_em_05 said:
You can't get a seven on a six sided die.
Quite late on my part, but it was found in 1983 in some ancient caldera (old volcanic crater) that is known for it's well preserved fossils. Not sure why, but you can google that. Ash or something I'd wager.gigastrike said:
And BTW, it was found initially by some amateurs that didn't see it for what it is. Some more experienced researchers bought it off of them and started studying it in the 90's. It has just been released to the public that they figured out: it's the missing link!
It has a fucking tail. Something closer in the evolutionary scale wouldn't have such a long fucking tail. It's a monkey skeleton. Good job.theSovietConnection said:
You mean your friend mocks aethists?nicole1207 said:
The scientist and Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaître originally proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, although he called it his "hypothesis of the primeval atom."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
It's worth noting that aethists attacked the big bang theory because they felt it was a thinly veiled attempt to bring God into science, it was far too close to the "Let there be light" scenario for their liking, in addition to defying Newtons First Law of Motion:
First law
There exists a set of inertial reference frames relative to which all particles with no net force acting on them will move without change in their velocity. This law is often simplified as "A body persists its state of rest or of uniform motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force." Newton's first law is often referred to as the law of inertia.
In essence, if everything existed at the "center" of the universe, then why would it suddenly explode outward? What would MAKE it explode outward, except for an outside force like God?
For these various reasons Aethists originally attacked the big bang theory, right up until it was proven correct. The big bang theory has never disproven God or anything even remotely close: it was originally considered a stupid Christian lie.
As to the original topic: proving that humans evolved from lower animals and that God doesn't exist are two different things. Moreover, ASSUMING God does not exist is no more scientific than assuming he does. To be truly scientific, one must accept what is proven, reject what is disproven, AND KEEP AN OPEN MIND TO EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN. The truly scientific path, assuming there is no conlusive proof, is Agnosticism.
In conclusion, quite a few people in this thread need to grow up.
That's in the universe and existence that you understand, but what if your understanding is based on a universe created by something else? What if he isn't random? What if existence as we know it was completely created by a superior being on a higher level of existence? There is no individual trace of it because the entirety of our universe is a testament to it. You may not see the evidence, but I do. Call me crazy, that's fine, you're not supposed to like me for what I believe.ThrobbingEgo said:
Perhaps I just don't understand how any human can be all-knowing, or even pretend to know anything regarding a universe beyond comprehension. So, forgive me for not reaching your level of ultimate knowledge.
I do wonder sometimes, what is the point of investigating the history of the world? What can be learned? The world itself was much different. Why aren't more energies focused on the future? On solving problems now? Is it solely for people who don't like the idea of having been created to say "Suck it God!"? I still maintain that we can't possibly prove anything from pre-history. We barely understand the world as it exists now. What's so bad about believing in something bigger than yourself? If we're just the result of random chance, our lives have no value. At that, the end is just the end. What's the harm in believing that something better exists? That your life could have purpose? That life continues after death on a better plane of existence?
You enjoy your rocks, bones, and void at the end of it. I'm choosing to enjoy life for what it is, a gift from a benevolent creator, with eternal life in paradise at the end. Maybe I don't have logic like you do. Maybe that's not a hindrance.
Nuke_em_05 said:
One or the other, pal. You can't pretend to be humble and unknowing and yet be privileged to unspecified "evidence" that I'm apparently blind to at the same time. It can't work both ways. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't work either way.
It's possible that life could begin "spontaneously." Is it possible that an intelligent designer could begin the same way? No. We know life exists, but you have no evidence for god - and no way to create him through randomness. We can speculate how life began, but when you speculate how a god who supposedly created all life began - what once seems like a simple answer ("god did it") becomes a trick question.
But that's only as far as I can tell.
I'm sorry, but how has this not been quoted? That is not how evolution worked. You are fined 2 internets.sharks9 said:
i completely agree, is it not possible that there is a god, who uses evolution?EcoEclipse said:
i mean, really you can say how weird it is that we look for a cause for something, rather than it was a coincedence that the earth just happened to be perfect for life, that we are intelligent enough to even have this debate?
but the atheists on here are so condencending(spelling?) & sure that they are right no matter what, that they have a right to put down our religon when we have just as much of a reason, not "it just happened" or "it was a coincedence" have you thought exactly what causes evolution?
its probably from an old peat bog, when that stuff gets a hold of something it usually preserves itgigastrike said:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
on another note, the bible is a religious item, not a science book. I believe in evolution and I believe that's just advanced adaptation. but I'm also a Roman Catholic.
For all the supposed creationists claiming that it isn't proof, why haven't I seen any of them? If somebody can actually post a link to "justify" the bashing, please do. And for the record, I don't believe in creationism, so that won't work.