New "Missing link" for evolution!

[VZLANemesis]

Of course, but the atheists like to feel superior and condescending. They fail to realise that it's called the 'Big Bang Theory' and the 'Theory of Evolution'. Funny how the people who created these ideas are willing to accept them as fallible and yet the followers don't, talk about blind faith...

I agree about the atheists liking to feel superior and condescending BUT..
http://xkcd.com/54/
^^ dude, first, read my post about the "theory of evolution" above. They are not "theories waiting to be proven" they're fucking facts that can't be recreated by experimentation and are therefore called theories. But yeah, look at the comic ^^

 

[Daveman]

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.

 

[Legion]

*snip*

1: I never said I was a theist, the fact you jump to that conclusion and wrote that pointless and rather idiotic reply based on me pointing out how atheists like to feel superior just proves my point.

and

2: Theory:

?noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

I bolded the key parts so as not to confuse you.

 

[ShadowStar42]

they found a monkey. yay.
until evolution has been 100% proven, I'll choose to believe in creation.

I was tempted to respond to the 'oppressed' anti-creationist but then realized that that was a headache I didn't need right now. I'd like to say though that if you take this stance then you likely will never believe in/accept evolution. Due to the time period involved in the evolutionary processes the burden of proof scientifically can't be met. I'd like to put this to you though. If we accept that 1) God is a rational being and 2) G-d isn't a jerk then you should really give the evidence for evolution a second look. I was a creationist for several years, but with the fast amount of evidence out there the only conclusion I could come to is that either evolution occurred or G-d was actively trying to make it look like it did (which I would see as kind of jerkish). We live in a world full of laws and rational processes, saying that G-d didn't built is using those laws doesn't deny anything.

 

[Legion]

Of course, but the atheists like to feel superior and condescending. They fail to realise that it's called the 'Big Bang Theory' and the 'Theory of Evolution'. Funny how the people who created these ideas are willing to accept them as fallible and yet the followers don't, talk about blind faith...

I agree about the atheists liking to feel superior and condescending BUT..
http://xkcd.com/54/
^^ dude, first, read my post about the "theory of evolution" above. They are not "theories waiting to be proven" they're fucking facts that can't be recreated by experimentation and are therefore called theories. But yeah, look at the comic ^^

I do not argue against that. My point is merely that they are theories, and as such are not infallible even though atheists tend to treat it as such, and take anyone claiming otherwise as a "crazy creationist", even when the person in question has never even said what their personal beliefs are.

 

[Internet Kraken]

*snip*

1: I never said I was a theist, the fact you jump to that conclusion and wrote that pointless and rather idiotic reply based on me pointing out how atheists like to feel superior just proves my point.

and

2: Theory:

?noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

I bolded the key parts so as not to confuse you.

To be fair, theory has a different definition in Science.

Hell there was a whole section in my text book talking about why it is called the theory of evolution and what "theory" means.

 

[Sindre1]

EDIT: also, Norwegian scientists found it! Yey for Norway

Yaaay ^^
But what where they doing in Germany? :/

 

[DestroytheTyrant]

Here we go again with the whole Religion v.s Atheist .

 

[The_Echo]

If it's true then yessssss! Creationists can FINALLY retire.

Except for innovative creationists such as myself, who believe that it's possible that creationism and evolution could be intertwined. Sorry to burst your bubble there.

 

[fenrizz]

EDIT: also, Norwegian scientists found it! Yey for Norway

Yaaay ^^
But what where they doing in Germany? :/

Erm.. visiting Reeperbahn?

 

[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.

 

[Sindre1]

EDIT: also, Norwegian scientists found it! Yey for Norway

Yaaay ^^
But what where they doing in Germany? :/

Erm.. visiting Reeperbahn?

And they just stumbled upon the missing link? ...Sure, makes sence.

 

[Colonel Rosso]

It was found in Germany? didn't monkeys lemurs ect evolve in Africa? If you ask me, this was a hoax by some neo-nazis who want to steal Africa's thunder as the "cradle of human evolution." If it's not a hoax, then You'd have to explain how it got into africa in time to make apes/monkeys/gorillas ect. I'm pretty sure Africa and Europe weren't linked, so the "missing links" would have to have crossed through the middle east. I don't think that's likely, as frankly, the middle east is a really lousy place to live.

 

[Thanatos34]

Suck on it, Christians!!!!

im ubberly offended. im catholic and i believe in creationism WITH WITH evolution. why cant they exist together? in peace and harmony bla bla bla

Because one idea is founded on scientific discovery and the other on an invisible sky man who magic'd everything into being.

mmm... basically what you said is all biased but yeah. Many christians believe in both things coexisting. The bible isn't meant to be taken literally so yeah, 7 days, maybe not, but how else would you have explained it to people 2000 years ago?
It could have been a way to simplify things for ignorant people, that's what they taught me in school (christian opus-dei funded school ^^) but yeah, I later became kind of an atheist, I'm more of a sciense man, but I do believe that both theories can exist together not the "Intelligent Design" or however it is that US christian fanatics wanna teach it at schools, that is just plain absurd, but that there is a god that created things... that later evolved?

People who don't believe in evolution are just plain blind or ignorant.

You just summed up Intelligent Design....

 

[Thanatos34]

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.

Err, let's not use bad examples to convince creationists, eh? Archaeopteryx, or however the hell you spell that bloody thing, was as much of a fraud as Nebraska Man.

 

[Thanatos34]

Suck on it, Christians!!!!

im ubberly offended. im catholic and i believe in creationism WITH WITH evolution. why cant they exist together? in peace and harmony bla bla bla

Because one idea is founded on scientific discovery and the other on an invisible sky man who magic'd everything into being.

mmm... basically what you said is all biased but yeah. Many christians believe in both things coexisting. The bible isn't meant to be taken literally so yeah, 7 days, maybe not, but how else would you have explained it to people 2000 years ago?
It could have been a way to simplify things for ignorant people, that's what they taught me in school (christian opus-dei funded school ^^) but yeah, I later became kind of an atheist, I'm more of a sciense man, but I do believe that both theories can exist together not the "Intelligent Design" or however it is that US christian fanatics wanna teach it at schools, that is just plain absurd, but that there is a god that created things... that later evolved?

People who don't believe in evolution are just plain blind or ignorant.

You just summed up ID...

mmm... no? ID says that all things were created at the SAME TIME, that dinosaurs coexisted with men. And that the million species that no longer exist, no longer exist because they became extinct over time. Oh yeah, and that earth is like a couple of thousand years old. Which is fucking absurd.

What was taught to me (as a possibility because they fucking taught us to think by ourselves) was that maybe you know when it says in the bible that first god created light? Light is thought by scientists to have been the first result of the big bang (in form of photons). Get it? Some of what the bible says may be proven scientifically. MAYBE it was a way to teach humanity two thousand years ago a couple of things, by simplifying them. Do I make myself clear?

Edit: how do you think being an ass is gonna affect your credibility in the forums...
Be serious.

Err no. Now you just summed up creationism. ID is the idea that all things evolved, they just did so through an intelligent designer. An IDer believes the earth is billions of years old.

 

[VZLANemesis]

Suck on it, Christians!!!!

im ubberly offended. im catholic and i believe in creationism WITH WITH evolution. why cant they exist together? in peace and harmony bla bla bla

Because one idea is founded on scientific discovery and the other on an invisible sky man who magic'd everything into being.

mmm... basically what you said is all biased but yeah. Many christians believe in both things coexisting. The bible isn't meant to be taken literally so yeah, 7 days, maybe not, but how else would you have explained it to people 2000 years ago?
It could have been a way to simplify things for ignorant people, that's what they taught me in school (christian opus-dei funded school ^^) but yeah, I later became kind of an atheist, I'm more of a sciense man, but I do believe that both theories can exist together not the "Intelligent Design" or however it is that US christian fanatics wanna teach it at schools, that is just plain absurd, but that there is a god that created things... that later evolved?

People who don't believe in evolution are just plain blind or ignorant.

You just summed up Intelligent Design....

Read the whole fucking thread would you?
Already cleared the very same question.

 

[Thanatos34]

Suck on it, Christians!!!!

im ubberly offended. im catholic and i believe in creationism WITH WITH evolution. why cant they exist together? in peace and harmony bla bla bla

Because one idea is founded on scientific discovery and the other on an invisible sky man who magic'd everything into being.

mmm... basically what you said is all biased but yeah. Many christians believe in both things coexisting. The bible isn't meant to be taken literally so yeah, 7 days, maybe not, but how else would you have explained it to people 2000 years ago?
It could have been a way to simplify things for ignorant people, that's what they taught me in school (christian opus-dei funded school ^^) but yeah, I later became kind of an atheist, I'm more of a sciense man, but I do believe that both theories can exist together not the "Intelligent Design" or however it is that US christian fanatics wanna teach it at schools, that is just plain absurd, but that there is a god that created things... that later evolved?

Is there a disclaimer in the bible that says not to take it literally? Secondly, evolution is deeply corrosive to the creationist view. To believe in both is to not take either seriously. Thirdly, he showed absolutely no bias whatsoever.

I look forward to more news on this...would also like to know why they kept it secret for so long.

He showed no bias by saying an invisible sky man? Come on, I'm on your side, and I see the bias there.

There's a disclaimer in your head to not take Genesis seriously, at least. It's known as common sense.

 

[Thanatos34]

Suck on it, Christians!!!!

im ubberly offended. im catholic and i believe in creationism WITH WITH evolution. why cant they exist together? in peace and harmony bla bla bla

Because one idea is founded on scientific discovery and the other on an invisible sky man who magic'd everything into being.

mmm... basically what you said is all biased but yeah. Many christians believe in both things coexisting. The bible isn't meant to be taken literally so yeah, 7 days, maybe not, but how else would you have explained it to people 2000 years ago?
It could have been a way to simplify things for ignorant people, that's what they taught me in school (christian opus-dei funded school ^^) but yeah, I later became kind of an atheist, I'm more of a sciense man, but I do believe that both theories can exist together not the "Intelligent Design" or however it is that US christian fanatics wanna teach it at schools, that is just plain absurd, but that there is a god that created things... that later evolved?

People who don't believe in evolution are just plain blind or ignorant.

You just summed up Intelligent Design....

Read the whole fucking thread would you?
Already cleared the very same question.

And you were wrong. What you described is ID. Your description of what you say is ID is actually a description of creationism.

 

[ShadowStar42]

Err no. Now you just summed up creationism. ID is the idea that all things evolved, they just did so through an intelligent designer. An IDer believes the earth is billions of years old.

Actually this is a place where we bump into things. ID and Creationism used the be separated in the way you say, but during the whole Kansas thing the lobbyists for ID blurred to completely erased the line. Now real ID is just considered to be just a faction of ID which irritates me to no end.