Fungi Forums
Miscellaneous => General Chat => Not at the Dinner Table => Topic started by: PaperLuigi on May 19, 2009, 05:36:15 PM
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/ida-fossil-missing-link
"Scientists have discovered an exquisitely preserved ancient primate fossil that they believe forms a crucial 'missing link' between our own evolutionary branch of life and the rest of the animal kingdom."
The term "missing link" is a misnomer (the correct term is "transitional fossil"), but it's still pretty fascinating. Any comments?
-
I always thought it was called the "missing link" because it's the missing part of the chain of species consisting of monkeys, more monkeys, neanderthals and us.
-
The term "missing link" in paleoanthropology is a misnomer. The idea refers to a popular belief that there is just one piece of the puzzle, which simply isn't the case. The human family tree contains many different species.
Please, let's discuss the fossil and it's importance to human evolution, not whether or not we should be calling it the missing link.
-
What's to discuss? If it is a transitional dead man-ape, well alright then, score one for the not-Christians. If it isn't, then it's nothing that hasn't already been done by scientists time after time: Misidentifying crap that's stuck in a rock.
Yeah, I know, that was pretty cynical, but I guess it's because I could've sworn we had a found an, uh... screw it--I could've sworn we'd found a missing link before.
-
Well...nevermind then.
-
Okay... it's just that, well... I don't think there's a whole lot of discussion to be made, but that doesn't mean someone else doesn't have something to say. Sorry.
-
I guess topics like this aren't interesting until someone comes in and complains about the validity of the discovery, huh...
That, and it's not like the majority of the members here have a vast understanding of biology/evolution. :/
-
Is it bad that I'm thinking of the Piltdown Man right now? This looks cool anyway.
-
What's to discuss? If it is a transitional dead man-ape, well alright then, score one for the not-Christians.
Christians now can't even consider the possibility of theistic evolution? Huh.
-
Well, don't discoveries like this contradict the Bible?
-
It depends on how you interpret the Bible. Some Christians take the Bible figuratively in certain areas.
In fact, a good friend of mine believes the creation myth in Genesis is actually describing evolution. I'm a deist though, so I can't honestly say I agree with him.
EDIT: About a month ago I said I was an agnostic...that's not really true. Like I said above, I'm more of a deist than an agnostic. I sympathize more with agnostics and atheists however, simply because a lot of evangelicals/fundamentalists use their religion to trample on the rights of others.
-
By definition, a Christian is one who accepts Jesus Christ as the son of the eternal God and the atoner of our sins. Everything else is comparatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things. I sometimes see questions like the origin of Man to be little more than things He deliberately left unanswered to let us ponder over the next quintillion years or so.
-
I guess that still makes me a Christian then because I haven't denounced that yet.
But seriously, my reason and logic dictates that I cannot believe in a lot of the things in the Bible...like God striking down a guy for masturbating, a talking serpent, etc.
Why oh why did God call on us to believe in such ridiculous things? This is my main problem with Christianity and faith. They request that we suspend our reason. If I was a soldier and I did that on a battlefield, I'd get killed.
-
I get really annoyed at people who:
-Think that Christianity consists of mindless drones and can't have any logic.
-Believe they are entitled to something that excuses them from submission to God.
-Accuse the Bible of being ridiculous when they believe that we gradually developed from a completely different species.
As for the fossil, things like this have been discovered before and then later proved to be, as ShadowBrain put it,
Misidentifying crap that's stuck in a rock.
I wouldn't put too much stock into it, even if I were an evolutionist.
-
I get really annoyed at people who think that Christianity consists of mindless drones and can't have any logic.
That's understandable....
I get really annoyed at people who believe they are entitled to something that excuses them from submission to God.
....nevermind.
-
This seriously did not need to turn into Religious Discussion #45. Honestly, evolution and religion are not opposites, people, nor are they 100% related. Learn to seperate the two.
-
Photograph of the Missing Link (http://whenigrowupcoach.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/giant-inflatable-sausage.jpg)
-
Is it bad that I'm thinking of the Piltdown Man right now?
That depends on what you are thinking about Piltdown Man. Since most of the above posts are creationism vs evolution* it may be important to point out that Piltdown Man was a hoax purported by Charles Dawson**. Also, it was science that proved Piltdown Man a fake, not religion. Science is a self-correcting process. So, if this new transitional*** fossil is fake to should meet the same demise.
* I purposely did not use the term Darwinism. Evolution did not end with Darwin.
** Not to be confused with Darwin. I've heard many people confuse the two.
*** I also don't like the "missing link" moniker. It implies that just-one-more will make evolution complete.
I guess that still makes me a Christian then because I haven't denounced that yet.
Ditto.
-
Yeah, it was basically a "what if this is fake" type thought.
-
Fake or maybe misinterpreted, says my uncynical side.
-
That's uncynical?
-
That's uncynical?
No, this is an uncynical:
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unicycleshop.co.nz%2Fimages%2F20aL.jpg&hash=f857551c9d3b6745b86786a716b798ee)
Anyways, I think that it's been pretty soudly established that these bones, whatever they happen to be, are authentic. You know, PL was right about the title of "missing link" being a misnomer -- I had always thought the term referred to the supposed middle ground between man and monkey, not chimp and dinosaur-era creature.
-
Your jokes are getting worse, Weegee. I suggest you quit while you're ahead. :P
-
Actually, the fact that his jokes are bad makes him awkwardly hilarious.
-Believe they are entitled to something that excuses them from submission to God.
Why would God create us and then demand that our entire life be one of submission? And that if we don't submit, we suffer forever? If it's because God knows what's best for us, how are we to know what He wants?
-
We don't know what God wants...and I already said that it shouldn't matter to any of us because it's probably not possible for any normal human to comprehend such a power. This is why I think nobody has any right to tell anybody that they know what God wants better than others do (in this case Turtlekid).
-
Well, don't discoveries like this contradict the Bible?
Why, yes it does completely.
-
If it's because God knows what's best for us, how are we to know what He wants?
There's this great little book called the Bible...
We don't know what God wants...and I already said that it shouldn't matter to any of us because it's probably not possible for any normal human to comprehend such a power. This is why I think nobody has any right to tell anybody that they know what God wants better than others do (in this case Turtlekid).
You just don't get it, do you? This is not me telling you I know what God wants. This is me telling you what the Bible says, which is most definitely what God wants.
That's uncynical?
My suspicion that it was misinterpreted is somewhat less cynical than my suspicion that it was deliberately faked.
-
There's this great little book called the Bible...
How can you be so certain that the Bible is the inerrant word of God?
-
Here we go again...
-
It's reliable.
Several scientific truths (such as the shape of the earth) were related in the scriptures before they were "discovered." (Not in today's technical jargon, mind you.)
Many prophecies in the Bible concerning Jesus, Rome, historical events, etc. have been fulfilled.
We derive our moral laws from the Bible. Would it not be foolish to derive such laws from a book that isn't totally inerrant?
-
Yes, and indeed, it has proven foolish. (Actually, most of what people consider to be "acceptable behavior" isn't acceptable just because the Bible says it is.)
P.S. People knew the Earth was round before people wrote the Bible.
-
You just don't get it, do you? This is not me telling you I know what God wants. This is me telling you what the Bible says, which is most definitely what God wants.
The people who wrote the Bible are telling me they know what God wants. Same situation. They could be as far away from the truth as possible for all I know. They could've made the whole thing up and nobody would know.
This is why I say forget about it. It's not worth it.
-
PL and Turtlekid, Christianity has already experienced more than its share of schisms over the past two millennia. Below is a hopefully-familiar summary of what all genuine Christians subscribe to. Please note the absence of any mention of how and when Creation occurred, whether or not the Bible was divinely inspired, or if the book of Revelation is a literal or figurative work. I believe that if a matter isn't listed below, it isn't something that your faith hangs in the balance over:
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.
This is why I say forget about it. It's not worth it.
O RLY? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager)
-
I once had a modified version of Pascal's Wager for my sig...
Some people can say without a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist...but they could be wrong. They could be dead wrong. Still, Pascal's Wager is a horrible reason to believe in God. It's like...believing in Santa Claus because you want presents. Also, once you've made the gamble, you've got to pick the right god.
There's also this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist%27s_Wager)
-
Why certainly. Pascal's Wager could never be a justifiable reason for living one's faith, but it helps the cause. As for Dawkins' Wager, it's even less reasonable once it's picked apart: You're refusing to live by God to "fully enjoy" your finite life, only to either spend eternity in hell or simply cease to exist, which is decidedly a rather hellish sentiment in itself.
-
Yes, and indeed, it has proven foolish. (Actually, most of what people consider to be "acceptable behavior" isn't acceptable just because the Bible says it is.)
P.S. People knew the Earth was round before people wrote the Bible.
1. How has it been proven foolish?
2. Where, praytell, did our ethics originate then?
-
I was slaughtering people and animals, then made love to their still-warm corpses until a nun told me it was a no-no.
Man, whudda thunk?
-
So, when you refer to a moral compass other than the Bible, you refer to an internal one? I hate to say it, folks, but the internal one is just as God-given as the Bible.
-
Ha ha buts its not the bible i didn't eat a bible
-
I just want to say that Boo Dudley won the thread with his first post on Page 2.
-
2. Where, praytell, did our ethics originate then?
It seems to me that ethics/morals emerged out of social necessity. It's even been observed to emerge in robots. Kinda freaky, but take a few courses in sociology and psychology and you'll probably reach the same conclusion. Ethics and morals change as society changes because they are a product of the society.
Some rules may be written in a very old text, but how we interpret/follow them has changed over time. We (bar a few countries) no longer stone to death an adulterer. Did God change his mind from the old to new testaments? We can't legally or morally enslave someone from another country, but that was allowed in the old testament and it even went as far as telling the slave to accept his/her slavery.
Edit: After making this post I stumbled upon: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/05/has-evolution-h.html
-
It seems to me that ethics/morals emerged out of social necessity. It's even been observed to emerge in robots. Kinda freaky, but take a few courses in sociology and psychology and you'll probably reach the same conclusion. Ethics and morals change as society changes because they are a product of the society.
My goodness but that is arrogant to an unhealthy degree.
-
...Which of course brings us right back to the issue of subjectivity. While morals and ethics certainly can be melded by society, whether they should change with the times is a whole nother beast of a question. Pardon me for quoting myself:
"...Not to sound entirely pessimistic towards the state of humanity's affairs, but it's become apparent that every issue to become tolerated by society (i.e. same-sex marriage, abortion), opens the door for another, more extreme issue to rear its ugly head before mankind. For instance, just wait until these guys get their way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA).
Anyways, this picture seems relatively topical. Note that the second-last "scenario" in the below diagram is indeed a lame hentai joke, but, otherwise... yeah. It speaks for itself:"
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsick%2A%2A%2A%2A%2A%2A%2A.files.wordpress.com%2F2007%2F10%2Fsupport_love.jpg&hash=1f39018a7c275addd3a47fef7ceba2b8)
-
Yes, they should, because the way humans think is directly related to how much they understand.
-
I get really annoyed at people who:
-Think that Christianity consists of mindless drones and can't have any logic.
The way you interpret the Bible makes it seem like a book for mindless drones.
-
Yes, they should, because the way humans think is directly related to how much they understand.
And... what, humans should think differently for the sake of thinking differently?
-
Are you saying we should all think the same?
-
No.
I'm saying that people shouldn't think differently for the heck of it. They should think differently if something is wrong with the way they're thinking at the time. So actually I am advocating thinking differently, because the way most people seem to be thinking these days, they are going to run themselves into the ground (why should God waste time smiting the sinful when they'll just smite themselves?) like every other society that's made the same errors. It occurs to me that we really haven't learned much from history.
-
...Apparently not.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gJI1HgiSNA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gJI1HgiSNA)
This was uploaded yesterday
-
That video...pretty much sums up why I can not implement any of the Bible's teachings in everyday life. I'd be ostracizing and hurting others, which (by nature) is something I'm horrible at doing, simply because I was ostracized as a kid.
-
Because I haven't been ostracized by the atheistic members of the board at all.
-
It irks me how atheists consider themselves to be the only "neutral ground" for discussing religion, as they don't partake in it. What they consistently fail to acknowledge is that their state of suspended disbelief is, regardless of how vehemently they may deny it, simply their plug for the God-sized hole inmankind's heart.
-
Because I haven't been ostracized by the atheistic members of the board at all.
Only a few members here are truly atheistic. A lot of us have some concept of God.
-
What they consistently fail to acknowledge is that their state of suspended disbelief is, regardless of how vehemently they may deny it, simply their plug for the God-sized hole inmankind's heart.
My response to that would be that God is simply a plug for a brain-sized hole in Christians heads.
-
Mkay, when it gets to petty insults instead of real discussion, it's time for me to quit the thread.
-
Agreed. Some backlash was to be expected at my prior post, but we were really anticipating an intelligent counterpoint.
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmsa4.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F08%2Fostrich.jpg&hash=e312aeb9d178b6cc0c03a0f5d9b0763c)
Help, I've been ostrich-ized
-
Agreed. Some backlash was to be expected at my prior post, but we were really anticipating an intelligent counterpoint.
Because always saying "nope bible says so" warrants one.
-
I'm getting mighty annoyed at this default response of "you're a mindless Christian drone who only does what the bible tells you blah blah blah". It's a lazy, insulting, cop-out response that has no place in a serious discussion, and with the frequency that it turns up, it's ridiculously hypocritical.
To everyone arguing in favor of their personal beliefs: using the same couple of responses does not look intelligent at all and makes a bad case for your argument.
-
Unfortunately for Turtlekid, his chosen method of convincing others is wildly ineffective.
-
So is ours. We can't do jack [dukar] to change his beliefs.
-
Well, that is why they're beliefs.
-
I don't think anyone is really here to convert others to their beliefs. They're here to defend their own beliefs.
-
Judging from your posting method, I don't believe that.
-
Well, I am generally "wildly ineffective" at serving motives assigned by others.
-
So...you're a wildly ineffective Christian? I mean, you are serving God's motives...right?
-
"Others" in this case being other humans, more specifically Chupperson.
Assuming he isn't a bot.
-
Now you aren't even making sense.
-
Turdle, you've officially ascended to fanatic level. I hereby ignore all words outta your mouth from here on. :\
-
Are you really 16, Turtlekid?
-
Guys, guys, cut him a break.
-
Are you really 16, Turtlekid?
Do I sound older or younger than 16?
-
How are we supposed to know what you sound like?
-
1) I'm sure TK has a quite sexy voice.
2) I don't get how everyone's cool with TK everywhere except here, when suddenly everyone goes for his throat.
3) Everyone knows Chupperson is a bot, we just can't ever mention it or else we'll get ba
-
Glorb, I'm not fine with TK most places. :D
-
I like turtles. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMNry4PE93Y We just disagree on many issues.
-
I'm sure if I were to ask what people thought of me, most people would respond with something like "he's okay if you don't get him started on religion, politics, or Shadow the Hedgehog."
That being said, I'd rather be a hated Christian than a well-liked atheist.
-
One thing's for certain, Turtlekid: You always stand your ground on issues of importance, and for that you deserve props:*
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F7%2F7d%2FFistpound2.jpg&hash=b489c034d3a6de5af786eb413fffbb89)
*Shotgun on being the guy on the left, though.
-
That being said, I'd rather be a hated Christian than a well-liked atheist.
Why socialize at all then?
EDIT: Of course this is a rhetorical question, as I doubt I'll get a logical response.
-
Given the choice between the two, I would take the former.
Given the choice between any reputation (not just those two), I'll take "well-liked Christian."
-
Right, because imposing your views on others leaves you the option of "well-liked"
To quote the internet: You're doing it wrong.
-
So I can't say that you're doing it wrong, but you can say that I am?
-
Y'know, with this collapsing economy and changes in policy, I hope nepotism doesn't work in your favor as it has for your predecessors. When you are forced to meet the real world, the one outside your private Christian school and confines of your cozy gated community, you'll be popped out of your sanctimonious little bubble from which the world was a stark, black & white instead of the sickly mess of gray that it really is.
Until then, you're just an cute little nuisance. I JUST WANNA SQUEEZE THOSE WITTLE CHWEEK YES I DO.
-
So I can't say that you're doing it wrong, but you can say that I am?
We aren't telling you you're wrong for believing what you believe, we're telling you you're wrong for telling everybody else they're wrong for believing what they believe.
-
My beliefs tell me to spread my beliefs, which at some point will require me to come into conflict with someone else's beliefs, in this case telling them that they're wrong. So yes, you are telling me I'm wrong for believing what I believe.
-
-_-
-
Truttle, be a dear and pull this bible out of my throat on the way out.
-
I don't know what is right and what is wrong...I just don't think I could subscribe to something that tells me that if I'm wrong, I'm going to burn forever. I am a human being who doubts the occurrence of supernatural events on earth...why in the world would God send me to burn forever for that?
-
He doesn't send you to burn because you deny his existence. He sends you to burn because you're born sinful.
-
Right, because imposing your views on others leaves you the option of "well-liked"
Boo Dudley, please stop imposing your views on others. Thanks. Now, before being branded a hypocrite for the following response, please acknowledge that I am simply expressing what I know to be true:
why in the world would God send me to burn forever for that?
Now, I'm no theologist, but hear me out on this one: There is nothing we can do as human beings that can possibly exempt us from God's love. Anyone who repents and accepts Jesus as their saviour has received the grace of God. Anyone.
And lastly, in defense of Turtlekid, we as Christians feel (to varying degrees) obliged to "go and make disciples of all nations". How could he do that if oppressed into silence by his surrounding majority?
-
When you are forced to meet the real world, the one outside your private Christian school and confines of your cozy gated community, you'll be popped out of your sanctimonious little bubble from which the world was a stark, black & white instead of the sickly mess of gray that it really is.
Please introduce me to this so-called "cozy gated community." Christians have to face the real world just like everyone else.
Until then, you're just an cute little nuisance. I JUST WANNA SQUEEZE THOSE WITTLE CHWEEK YES I DO.
Don't be a dick. Seriously, how are we supposed to argue our points if we're just ****ing rude to the opposition?
-
I believe that Boo Dudley was referring to the steretypical "over-sheltered American Christian bigot" population with his decidedly dickish "cozy gated community" comment... but yeah.
-
Boo Dudley, please stop imposing your views on others.
I'm not, genius.
-
Please introduce me to this so-called "cozy gated community." Christians have to face the real world just like everyone else.
Don't be a dick. Seriously, how are we supposed to argue our points if we're just ****ing rude to the opposition?
First of all, when in bloody hell did I include all Christians in my statement? it was directed towards turtlekid.
Secondly, there is no "opposition". I never said I was anyone's team.
-
When exactly did Turtlekid state that he resides in a "cozy gated community"?
-
Secondly, there is no "opposition". I never said I was anyone's team.
So then you're just...commenting in this thread to be a dick to Turtlekid?
-
It was based on a hypothesis that only anyone blocked off to the real world could be so obtuse and close-minded. Seeing though that he hasn't refuted the accusation, I'd say I hit the proverbial nail on the head.
-
So then you're just...commenting in this thread to be a dick to Turtlekid?
Yes, that. Totally not because he was being an insufferable fascist.
-
Just because Turtlekid is (almost) the only religious guy here who consistantly and vocally stands up for his beliefs, not matter how crazy they may sound, doesn't make him a nuisance. It makes him, for lack of a better word, stubborn. I disagree with just about everything that comes out of the dude's throat, religion-wise, but does that make him some enemy of mine? No. So quit trying to convert him, 'cause it ain't gonna work, and quit acting like *******s towards him, since that ain't gonna work either.
-
You can't really get mad at someone for "imposing their views" on you without imposing your own view that imposing views is bad.
-
:)
-
So quit trying to convert him, 'cause it ain't gonna work,
Convert =/= telling someone to keep it to themselves
and quit acting like *******s
You know how to push my spite button like no-one else. Who the hell elected you mediator?
-
I believe that this discussion has come to the point where one guy decides to get mad at another claiming that everyone else is mad at him when only the person in question really is.
That said, he obviously isn't "shoving his beliefs down everyone's throats" because no one else feels that way. He is stating what he believes, and his logic. You don't have to take that as "YOU'RE WRONG AND THIS IS RIGHT."
-
Convert =/= telling someone to keep it to themselves
Keep your telling people to keep things to themselves to yourself.
Looks to me like you basically just admitted that when you say you want him to stop "imposing his views," what you really mean is you just want him to shut up when he says things you don't like. Who's the fascist now?
-
A fascist about fascist. Sounds about right to me.
-
Y'know, with this collapsing economy and changes in policy, I hope nepotism doesn't work in your favor as it has for your predecessors. When you are forced to meet the real world, the one outside your private Christian school and confines of your cozy gated community, you'll be popped out of your sanctimonious little bubble from which the world was a stark, black & white instead of the sickly mess of gray that it really is.
Until then, you're just an cute little nuisance. I JUST WANNA SQUEEZE THOSE WITTLE CHWEEK YES I DO.
POTY
-
Could we, y'know, talk about the fossil itself?
-
Sadly, as illustrated in the first two of the preceding three posts, their is no known cure for it. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=assholism)
-
Oh boo hoo
But yeah if the Wikipedia page is correct, the fossil had actually been discovered 8 years ago, and was floating around the black market until recently. Really makes you think about what other kinds of groundbreaking things could be just lying around.
-
Gentlemen, unless the next post either proves or disproves God's existence, it better be about the Transitional Fossil.
If you want to debate call each other names in the name of/lack thereof religion I suggest you make a new thread for it.