Why Ida fossil is not the missing link

Author Topic: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link  (Read 73896 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline matrixcutter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,135
Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« on: May 22, 2009, 09:40:15 AM »
Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
12:50 21 May 2009 by Chris Beard
For similar stories, visit the Evolution and Human Evolution Topic Guides


Ida's place in the primate family tree (2 more images here)

Unbridled hoopla attended the unveiling of a 47-million-year-old fossil primate skeleton at the American Museum of Natural History in New York on 19 May. Found by private collectors in 1983 in Messel, Germany, the press immediately hailed the specimen as a "missing link" and even the "eighth wonder of the world."

Google's homepage evolved, incorporating an image of the new fossil – nicknamed Ida – into the company's logo. Now that the first description of the fossil has been published, the task of sifting through the massive public relations campaign to understand the true significance of the new fossil can begin.

Ida forms the basis for a new genus and species of adapiform primate, Darwinius massillae. The adapids are a branch of the primate tree that leads to modern lemurs (see figure).

Ida's skeletal remains are remarkably complete, putting her in a small, elite group of well-documented fossil primates from the Eocene (55 to 34 million years ago) that also includes her North American cousin, Notharctus.

Uniquely for primate fossils this old, Ida's stomach contents and a few aspects of her soft anatomy are preserved. Like all adapiforms, Ida lacked a "toothcomb" at the front of her lower jaw – a structure that living lemurs use for grooming fur. Ida also lacked a "grooming claw" on her second toe, another difference from living lemurs. Otherwise, Ida's overall proportions and anatomy resemble that of a lemur, and the same is true for other adapiform primates.

What does Ida's anatomy tell us about her place on the family tree of humans and other primates? The fact that she retains primitive features that commonly occurred among all early primates, such as simple incisors rather than a full-fledged toothcomb, indicates that Ida belongs somewhere closer to the base of the tree than living lemurs do.

But this does not necessarily make Ida a close relative of anthropoids – the group of primates that includes monkeys, apes – and humans. In order to establish that connection, Ida would have to have anthropoid-like features that evolved after anthropoids split away from lemurs and other early primates. Here, alas, Ida fails miserably.

So, Ida is not a "missing link" – at least not between anthropoids and more primitive primates. Further study may reveal her to be a missing link between other species of Eocene adapiforms, but this hardly solidifies her status as the "eighth wonder of the world".

Instead, Ida is a remarkably complete specimen that promises to teach us a great deal about the biology of some of the earliest and least human-like of all known primates, the Eocene adapiforms. For this, we can all celebrate her discovery as a real advance for science.

Chris Beard is curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History

-----

An upcoming BBC propaganda piece has been advertised.  It will be shown on Tuesday 26th May.  After that you will probably be able to watch it online here, for about a week I think.

Offline gEEk squad

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,000
  • You're World Delivered... to the NSA
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2009, 11:41:14 AM »
Yeah. I commented earlier that they used missing link as a way to sell books and get people to watch a probably crummy TV show.

Offline Tds_kaneda

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2009, 11:49:38 AM »
*looks around* *waits* for dave to come and defend his faith as fact!
Some peculiar "random series of tornados" in a junkyard does not produce an airplane!

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2009, 12:03:09 PM »
*looks around* *waits* for dave to come and defend his faith as fact!
What do you expect me to defend? We'll find out eventually whether it is indeed a missing link showing where the simians come from or not. This is how science works. You see, religious fanatics read their scripture and try to make all evidence fit their little holy book. Scientists develop an idea and when the facts point out they're in the wrong direction the idea is adjusted. Well actually, religious fanatics will do the same but will deny ever having changed their opinion. "We never said evolution is satanic, we said macroevolution is satanic, microevolution is pretty patriotic!" But macroevolution is is just a bunch of microevolution... "LALALA I CANT HEAR YOU SAT'NIST"

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2009, 12:06:06 PM »
Here you go:

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #5 on: May 22, 2009, 12:14:16 PM »
Scientists divided on Ida as the missing link
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25515021-2702,00.html
"This is the first link to all humans", said paleontologist Jorn Hurum of Norway's University of Oslo.

Dr Hurum made this startling claim yesterday at the unveiling of a replica of the cat-sized creature at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

But not everyone agrees. "It's an extraordinarily complete, wonderful specimen but it's not telling us too much that we didn't know before," paleoanthropologist Elwyn Simons of North Carolina's Duke University said of the fossil, discovered in 1983 by private collectors.

Writing in the open-source journal Public Library of Science One Dr Hurum and his international colleagues claim Darwinius masillae -- Ida, for short -- is a member of a primitive group called the adapidae and that the group gave rise to the anthropoids, a group of primates including apes, monkey and humans.

Like Dr Simons, University of New England paleoanthropologist Peter Brown remains sceptical. He pointed to a story in The Weekend Australian in which one of Dr Hurum's co-authors, University of Michigan paleontologist Philip Gingerich, said the team would have preferred to publish in a more rigorous journal such as Science or Nature.

Dr Gingerich told The Wall Street Journal: "There was a TV company involved and time pressure. We've been pushed to finish the study. It's not how I like to do science".

"That rings all sorts of warning bells," Professor Brown cautioned. He said that however it was prepared, the paper did not provide sufficient proof that Ida was the ancestral anthropoid.

"It's nice it has fingernails, something we have, as do most primates ... but they've cherry-picked particular characters and they've been criticised (by other scientists) for doing that."

Regardless of its significance, the fossil is so well preserved that 95 per cent of it remains. Using computer imaging techniques, the investigators unquestionably confirmed that Ida really was female, a juvenile who died in her first year of life.

They also identified the contents of her digestive tract, revealing a diet of leaves and fruits.

"Study of these (and other) features allows a fairly complete reconstruction of life, history, locomotion and diet," they wrote.

The oldest undisputed anthropoids lived in Egypt 32-35 million years ago. But according to a story in Science's online publication ScienceNOW, researchers have unearthed older fossils which most scientists believe are the earliest anthropoids or their relatives, the tarsidae.

Most experts agree that anthropoids evolved from tarsidae, precursors of the tarsier, a tiny big-eyed creature living in Asia. A smaller group sides with the Dr Hurum and co, arguing that the first anthropoids were adapidae, ancestral lemurs like those living in Madagascar.

As University of California, Berkeley, paleontologist Tim White noted, Ida is unlikely to settle the matter.

Offline Tds_kaneda

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #6 on: May 22, 2009, 12:22:02 PM »
What do you expect me to defend? We'll find out eventually whether it is indeed a missing link showing where the simians come from or not. This is how science works. You see, religious fanatics read their scripture and try to make all evidence fit their little holy book. Scientists develop an idea and when the facts point out they're in the wrong direction the idea is adjusted. Well actually, religious fanatics will do the same but will deny ever having changed their opinion. "We never said evolution is satanic, we said macroevolution is satanic, microevolution is pretty patriotic!" But macroevolution is is just a bunch of microevolution... "LALALA I CANT HEAR YOU SAT'NIST"

FYI I don't believe in the bible. I can understand why some might, being one of the oldest books around. To believe in the bible literally doesn't make sense me, seeing as King James probably didn't have our best interests at heart. I just think is arrogant to say evolution is a 100% concrete fact or to think that it's just evolution vs creationism. O so only two argument can exist, yeah right. To say macroevolution is just microevolution over and over again is silly too. Just like saying the great plains are flat so the earth must be flat too only way it makes sense ... OK  ::) So you don't know and probably will never know but I guess your just afraid of the unknown and could never admit your not in the know just like the so called bible thumpers you make fun of.
Some peculiar "random series of tornados" in a junkyard does not produce an airplane!

Offline blackturtle.us

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 734
    • blackturtle.us
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #7 on: May 22, 2009, 12:24:22 PM »
It's odd that such a big deal is being made over fossil evidence. This would have been big news several decades ago, but now with our increased understanding of genetics it's really not that big of a deal. The most compelling evidence supporting evolution comes from genetic analysis of organisms. There is no way that fossil evidence can be even a fraction as compelling as genetic evidence. HOWEVER, that being said, I understand that those with a weak background in science are more apt to understand fossil evidence than genetic evidence and so I guess fossil evidence is a big deal to that audience.  :-\

Offline jshowell

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 762
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #8 on: May 22, 2009, 12:28:23 PM »
Why does anyone think there's one missing link?  Aren't there enough ancient hominids that show the progression from ape to man?  I mean really there's hundreds of different ape like species that have been found and probably half or more of them are bipedal.     

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #9 on: May 22, 2009, 12:29:41 PM »
FYI I don't believe in the bible. I can understand why some might, being one of the oldest books around. To believe in the bible literally doesn't make sense me, seeing as King James probably didn't have our best interests at heart. I just think is arrogant to say evolution is a 100% concrete fact or to think that it's just evolution vs creationism. O so only two argument can exist, yeah right. To say macroevolution is just microevolution over and over again is silly too. Just like saying the great plains are flat so the earth must be flat too only way it makes sense ... OK  ::) So you don't know and probably will never know but I guess your just afraid of the unknown and could never admit your not in the know just like the so called bible thumpers you make fun of.
It's the same principle. You change reality into what you want it to be, and because you don't like the implications of a theory you refuse to accept it. Whether it's because you're a Christian a theist a Hindu a Muslim or someone who just doesn't want to have common ancestors with the non-human primates doesn't matter. I'm not afraid of admitting there are things I don't know, I don't know where you get this stuff from. I call myself an agnostic remember?

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #10 on: May 22, 2009, 12:33:55 PM »
Why does anyone think there's one missing link?  Aren't there enough ancient hominids that show the progression from ape to man?  I mean really there's hundreds of different ape like species that have been found and probably half or more of them are bipedal.     
It's the dumbing down by the popular media. A news report about fractions of Dinosaur DNA being found is mixed in with video footage of Jurassic Park and a bunch of soundbites from the scientists involved.
You're right when you say there are plenty of ancient hominids that show the progression from ape to man. We see a straight line when it comes to skull size for example:


Offline jshowell

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 762
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #11 on: May 22, 2009, 12:48:13 PM »



That's an interesting graph.  I wonder if men's brains are larger because they were mostly the ones hunting so they needed more coordinated efforts to bring down large game.  Also other hominids look like they have similar brain sizes to present day humans.  I wouldn't rule out current day man being a menagerie of what we classify as "different" today. 

Offline Tds_kaneda

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #12 on: May 22, 2009, 01:00:22 PM »
Here you go:


Yeah see ^^^ how that pic says THEORY

Quote
It's the same principle. You change reality into what you want it to be, and because you don't like the implications of a theory you refuse to accept it. Whether it's because you're a Christian a theist a Hindu a Muslim or someone who just doesn't want to have common ancestors with the non-human primates doesn't matter. I'm not afraid of admitting there are things I don't know, I don't know where you get this stuff from. I call myself an agnostic remember?

Yeah I'd lay off the crack there buddy and learn how to read. I'm saying your a know it all asshat. I'm not saying I know all or refuse to accept science. I'm calling you out cuz you keep spreading dis info saying theories are facts. You have no common sense, what are we in kindergarten "I know you are but what am I". To say things like well if there is a GOD I want nothing to do with him cuz he murders children. Are you really that dumb you think thats evil. If GOD is real guess what he would have created EVERTHING and if he/she /it ends the lives of children well they'd go to heaven. Which is would be a better place. See things like that just show how you equate yourself as GOD like.
Some peculiar "random series of tornados" in a junkyard does not produce an airplane!

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #13 on: May 22, 2009, 01:10:39 PM »
Yeah see ^^^ how that pic says THEORY
Yeah, and see how real patriotic Americans don't understand what the word theory means. The atomic theory is a theory, and so is the theory of gravity. It's a model used to explain the world around us. You're not denying atoms and gravity exist are you? "David... atoms are just a theory, everything is made of fire water earth and air !!!"

Quote
Yeah I'd lay off the crack there buddy and learn how to read. I'm saying your a know it all asshat. I'm not saying I know all or refuse to accept science. I'm calling you out cuz you keep spreading dis info saying theories are facts. You have no common sense, what are we in kindergarten "I know you are but what am I". To say things like well if there is a GOD I want nothing to do with him cuz he murders children. Are you really that dumb you think thats evil. If GOD is real guess what he would have created EVERTHING and if he/she /it ends the lives of children well they'd go to heaven. Which is would be a better place. See things like that just show how you equate yourself as GOD like.
I don't understand what it is that causes people to get so angry when I explain evolution. I'm a "know it all asshat"? Why? Killing children is evil. If it isn't evil because they go to heaven, you could start killing children yourself now, since it'd mean they go to heaven. These are the exact type of people I'm fighting, people who try to justify evil. I don't care whether you say it's because some holy text says you get to kill children, whether some dumb higher official tells you it's patriotic and constitutional, whether you do so because you think you'll create a paradise on Earth filled with superhumans or for some other reason, I'm against it. It's evil and it's against everything we are as a species.

Offline gEEk squad

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,000
  • You're World Delivered... to the NSA
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #14 on: May 22, 2009, 01:18:07 PM »
Calling Ida the missing link is not science, it is marketing pure and simple.

Evolution as a theory is just as bad as creationism and ID. People who call themselves scientists act as if it is just as sound as gravity and doesn't need to be questioned or changed. It is just as much as a religion to many people as the latter two. (I am not accusing you of being so)

However, it is pointless to really debate this because it won't be answered, ever.

Offline EarthAngel_2012

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #15 on: May 22, 2009, 01:23:06 PM »
what the mhell is Ida???? ???
The Hegalian Dialect:Control thru duality. Guide and manage a conflict and chaos so both sides have the same destination(order). It symbolizes a pyramid meanig left thesis vs. right thesis =middle thesis. 1 leads to 2 leads to 3.The 3rd is possible because of and NOT insipit of the 2 opposing sides.

Offline Tds_kaneda

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #16 on: May 22, 2009, 01:33:41 PM »
Yeah, and see how real patriotic Americans don't understand what the word theory means. The atomic theory is a theory, and so is the theory of gravity. It's a model used to explain the world around us. You're not denying atoms and gravity exist are you? "David... atoms are just a theory, everything is made of fire water earth and air !!!"

Yes they are just thoery they are what we understand as of now. No one really knows what gravity is we just see how it behaves. Maybe one day 1000s of years from now people will laugh at our so called THEORIES, maybe not. Guess you need to go learn more about that!

Quote
I don't understand what it is that causes people to get so angry when I explain evolution. I'm a "know it all asshat"? Why? Killing children is evil. If it isn't evil because they go to heaven, you could start killing children yourself now, since it'd mean they go to heaven. These are the exact type of people I'm fighting, people who try to justify evil. I don't care whether you say it's because some holy text says you get to kill children, whether some dumb higher official tells you it's patriotic and constitutional, whether you do so because you think you'll create a paradise on Earth filled with superhumans or for some other reason, I'm against it. It's evil and it's against everything we are as a species.

You are a moron. Do you not understand the differnce between a GOD and PEOPLE, guess not. I AM NOT GOD AND YOU ARE NOT GOD. Ever heard of the saying "playing GOD" or have you been living under a rock. If I were to do that YES, YES it would be EVIL. If you were to try that people would call you an EVIL know it all asshat for trying to PLAY GOD. Thx for proving my point you have no common sense and equate yourself as GODLIKE.
Some peculiar "random series of tornados" in a junkyard does not produce an airplane!

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #17 on: May 22, 2009, 01:46:14 PM »
Yes they are just thoery they are what we understand as of now. No one really knows what gravity is we just see how it behaves. Maybe one day 1000s of years from now people will laugh at our so called THEORIES, maybe not. Guess you need to go learn more about that!
It doesn't mean they're not facts as well. Evolution is a fact, gravity is a fact, and it's a fact that everything we see is build up out of Atoms.
Here, read this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Quote
You are a moron. Do you not understand the differnce between a GOD and PEOPLE, guess not. I AM NOT GOD AND YOU ARE NOT GOD. Ever heard of the saying "playing GOD" or have you been living under a rock. If I were to do that YES, YES it would be EVIL. If you were to try that people would call you an EVIL know it all asshat for trying to PLAY GOD. Thx for proving my point you have no common sense and equate yourself as GODLIKE.
I still don't understand why you're so angry. Anyway, you said God killing children is OK since they're going to heaven anyway. Since when you'd kill them they'd go to this magical place which may or may not exist as well, there's no difference between you or God killing them. You see, God doing something doesn't make it right. Something is evil and wrong when it causes unnecessary suffering of human beings or violates our rights. Whether God, Satan Santa or you does it makes no difference. Since God is seen as an omnipotent being, when he kills children this is evil. Their parents and sibblings will suffer greatly from it. Chances are they'll become bitttered and inflict suffering on others as well. As a God he could find an alternative solution that doesn't cause suffering, but he doesn't. This is evil. I don't understand why people hold God to a lower moral standard than human beings. As a perfect being he should be held to an even higher moral standard, and we would never tolerate a human drowning every other human being on Earth except for one family.

Offline Tds_kaneda

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #18 on: May 22, 2009, 02:06:58 PM »
It doesn't mean they're not facts as well. Evolution is a fact, gravity is a fact, and it's a fact that everything we see is build up out of Atoms.
Here, read this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Wow is this the only site you go to cuz it's the site you post 95% of the time. Yes there are facts that the THEORY is based on. Just cuz a theory has facts that support it doesn't mean the WHOLE THEORY IS A FACT. More facts to my theory of you being arrogant and slow.

Quote
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
I still don't understand why you're so angry. Anyway, you said God killing children is OK since they're going to heaven anyway. Since when you'd kill them they'd go to this magical place which may or may not exist as well, there's no difference between you or God killing them. You see, God doing something doesn't make it right. Something is evil and wrong when it causes unnecessary suffering of human beings or violates our rights. Whether God, Satan Santa or you does it makes no difference. Since God is seen as an omnipotent being, when he kills children this is evil. Their parents and sibblings will suffer greatly from it. Chances are they'll become bitttered and inflict suffering on others as well. As a God he could find an alternative solution that doesn't cause suffering, but he doesn't. This is evil. I don't understand why people hold God to a lower moral standard than human beings. As a perfect being he should be held to an even higher moral standard, and we would never tolerate a human drowning every other human being on Earth except for one family.


And again more proof you are someone who can't comprehend what I'm saying cuz your a moron. Just cuz I called you out doesn't mean I am mad (but I guess that comforts you thinking that way). I'm insulting you cuz your insulting everyones intellect and you think your actions have no consequences. See if there WAS key word there WAS a GOD he is NOTHING like a human. But you continue to lie to yourself and believe whatever helps you sleep at night. But your above statement just shows how narrow minded you are if you think your anything like a GOD.
Some peculiar "random series of tornados" in a junkyard does not produce an airplane!

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #19 on: May 22, 2009, 02:19:05 PM »
Wow is this the only site you go to cuz it's the site you post 95% of the time. Yes there are facts that the THEORY is based on. Just cuz a theory has facts that support it doesn't mean the WHOLE THEORY IS A FACT. More facts to my theory of you being arrogant and slow.
Evolution is a theory and a fact. It's a fact evolution takes place. Evolution is also a theory used to explain why we have the various species we see today. You'll understand it eventually, it just takes time, but that's OK.
Quote
And again more proof you are someone who can't comprehend what I'm saying cuz your a moron. Just cuz I called you out doesn't mean I am mad (but I guess that comforts you thinking that way). I'm insulting you cuz your insulting everyones intellect and you think your actions have no consequences. See if there WAS key word there WAS a GOD he is NOTHING like a human. But you continue to lie to yourself and believe whatever helps you sleep at night. But your above statement just shows how narrow minded you are if you think your anything like a GOD.
You're behaving like an angry person would. Whether you're angry or just for some reason acting like an angry person would I can't tell from behind a screen. It doesn't really strengthen your point either when you're insulting people. You still haven't brought up any counterargument by the way. Why do I have to hold God to a lower moral standard? "Because he's oh so different." I already told you that whether he's different or not doesn't matter. We as humans are all different. But it has no effect on whether our behavior is good or not. We grow up in different circumstances and we're not all as intelligent. This doesn't make any difference when determining what kind of behavior is good and what not. It can have an effect on the punishment, but it doesn't make any difference when determining whether behavior is good or not. And since God is supposedly perfect, we'd just have to hold him to a higher standard. It doesn't mean that his evil behavior is suddenly acceptable.

Offline Tds_kaneda

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #20 on: May 22, 2009, 02:50:10 PM »
Evolution is a theory and a fact. It's a fact evolution takes place. Evolution is also a theory used to explain why we have the various species we see today. You'll understand it eventually, it just takes time, but that's OK.

Wow guess you just love the thought of doublethink in the morning. That logic contradicts itself.

Quote
You're behaving like an angry person would. Whether you're angry or just for some reason acting like an angry person would I can't tell from behind a screen. It doesn't really strengthen your point either when you're insulting people. You still haven't brought up any counterargument by the way. Why do I have to hold God to a lower moral standard? "Because he's oh so different." I already told you that whether he's different or not doesn't matter. We as humans are all different. But it has no effect on whether our behavior is good or not. We grow up in different circumstances and we're not all as intelligent. This doesn't make any difference when determining what kind of behavior is good and what not. It can have an effect on the punishment, but it doesn't make any difference when determining whether behavior is good or not. And since God is supposedly perfect, we'd just have to hold him to a higher standard. It doesn't mean that his evil behavior is suddenly acceptable.

Your so passive aggressive. You think cuz you play it all clam and cool I wouldn't clue in to how you insult people too (or me “We grow up in different circumstances and we're not all as intelligent”) Please I’m not 5 child. Why would I being up counter points, I’m not for GOD or for evolution I think we as HUMANS (not GODS) have a lot to learn. I don’t argue with idiots, all they do is bring people down to their level and beat them with experience. Plus all you ever do is master the copy and paste technique more by posting stuff from that one website and wiki. See just more know it all behavior and inability to understand that you have no idea what the hell your talking about. I guess you've never killed anything, like an ant per say cuz GOD would be way more then people are to ants then GOD is to people. You crying over your child would be like you crying over a toy your father through away when you were/are 5 to GOD. Guess you'll never understand that if there is a GOD HE/SHE/IT created the rules/laws and wouldn't ANWSER TO YOU!
Some peculiar "random series of tornados" in a junkyard does not produce an airplane!

Offline jshowell

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 762
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #21 on: May 22, 2009, 03:14:13 PM »
Evolution by natural selection is flawed, but the theory of evolution is on the right track.  It's been proven we evolve as we live, and the mechanisms that shape evolution (DNA, RNA, proteins, etc.) have shown an ability to be malleable in their function.  I think some people are unsatisfied with a messy answer and go towards the "I don't have all the facts so I'll just throw everything out" theory.  All the evidence shows organisms have evolved over billions of years.  The mechanisms involved are still in debate. 

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #22 on: May 22, 2009, 03:15:36 PM »
Wow guess you just love the thought of doublethink in the morning. That logic contradicts itself.
It contradicts what you've been taught in American society. "WAKE UP AMERICA, EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY !!!" Take a look at the dictionary:
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861719564/theory.html
5. scientific principle to explain phenomena: a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena

Now take a look at a fact:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact
3: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
And a scientific fact:

Main Entry:     scientific fact
Part of Speech:     n
Definition:     any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted
Example:     The structure of a cell membrane is considered a scientific fact.


This is what Evolution is. A scientific principle to explain what we observe around us. But it's also a fact. Why? Because we can show that it happens. It's the same for gravity for example. Gravity isn't just a theory either.

I'm afraid you're still not going to get it now, but that's ok. Take a look at it again when you're no longer so upset.
Quote
Your so passive aggressive. You think cuz you play it all clam and cool I wouldn't clue in to how you insult people too (or me “We grow up in different circumstances and we're not all as intelligent”) Please I’m not 5 child. Why would I being up counter points, I’m not for GOD or for evolution I think we as HUMANS (not GODS) have a lot to learn. I don’t argue with idiots, all they do is bring people down to their level and beat them with experience. Plus all you ever do is master the copy and paste technique more by posting stuff from that one website and wiki. See just more know it all behavior and inability to understand that you have no idea what the hell your talking about. I guess you've never killed anything, like an ant per say cuz GOD would be way more then people are to ants then GOD is to people. You crying over your child would be like you crying over a toy your father through away when you were/are 5 to GOD. Guess you'll never understand that if there is a GOD HE/SHE/IT created the rules/laws and wouldn't ANWSER TO YOU!
You see, this is another problem with religious fanaticism. It ends up dehumanizing people, because when compared to the almighty diety we're all worthless. But, even if it were true that we are just ants when compared to the diety, it still means he doesn't have to make us suffer. You are worth more than an animal. Still, when you throw rocks at a dog, you are going to be punished for this. Why? Because you are not allowed to make another creature needlessly suffer. In certain ocassions it can be justified to murder an animal, for example if you depend on murdering animals for your survival. The thing is, God as an omnipotent being has no reason to murder our children. He makes us needlessly suffer. Even if God were a higher being than us, he does not have this right. Also, I'm afraid you may be slightly paranoid. I wasn't talking about you when I said that people are born in different circumstances. I mentioned this to illustrate my point, that whether we are different or not, this has no effect on what is good and what is not. But oh well, it's no use. I hope you reread this conversation when you calm down a bit.

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #23 on: May 22, 2009, 03:26:51 PM »
Evolution by natural selection is flawed, but the theory of evolution is on the right track.  It's been proven we evolve as we live, and the mechanisms that shape evolution (DNA, RNA, proteins, etc.) have shown an ability to be malleable in their function.  I think some people are unsatisfied with a messy answer and go towards the "I don't have all the facts so I'll just throw everything out" theory.  All the evidence shows organisms have evolved over billions of years.  The mechanisms involved are still in debate. 
I think you may be interested in Lamarckian evolution. I started a topic about it in a time long ago when mentioning evolution didn't turn you into an unpatriotic unamerican unconstitutional satanic luciferian:
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=50194.0
It seems that Lamarck was onto something.

Offline Tds_kaneda

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #24 on: May 22, 2009, 04:06:09 PM »
The other site
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a: a belief SEE BELOW, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

Your first site
1. rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice
economic theories
Many coaches have a good grasp of the theory of football but can't motivate players.

2. speculation: SEE BELOW abstract thought or contemplation

3. idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture
She believed in the theory that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

4. hypothetical circumstances: a set of circumstances or principles that is hypothetical
That's the theory, but it may not work out in practice.

5. scientific principle to explain phenomena: a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena

Speculation
1: an act or instance of speculating: as a: assumption of unusual business risk in hopes of obtaining commensurate gain b: a transaction involving such <speculation >
Assumption
1 a: the taking up of a person into heaven bcapitalized : August 15 observed in commemoration of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary2: a taking to or upon oneself <the assumption of a new position>3: the act of laying claim to or taking possession of something <the assumption of power>4: arrogance, SEE BELOW pretension5 a: an assuming that something is true b: a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted6: the taking over of another's debts
Arrogance
1: an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions
 Belief
1. acceptance of truth of something: acceptance by the mind that something is true or real, often underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense of certainty
belief in an afterlife

2. trust: confidence that somebody or something is good or will be effective
belief in democracy

3. something that somebody believes in: a statement, principle, or doctrine that a person or group accepts as true

4. opinion: an opinion, especially a firm and considered one

5. religious faith: faith in God or in a religion's gods

Plausible
1. believable: believable and appearing likely to be true, usually in the absence of proof

2. persuasive: having a persuasive manner in speech or writing, often combined with an intention to deceive


Why did you have to use two different sites? O cuz they have different meanings! Why the Cherry picking there scum? See I can do that to. Why not post the whole thing, have something to hide?

O wait there is more

Fact
1: a thing done: as aobsolete : feat b: crime <accessory after the fact> carchaic : action
2archaic : performance, doing
3: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a: something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b: an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
Fact
1. something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened

2. truth or reality of something: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something
based on fact

3. piece of information: a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth

4. law actual course of events: the circumstances of an event or state of affairs, rather than an interpretation of its significance
Matters of fact are issues for a jury, while matters of law are issues for the court.

5. law something based on evidence: something that is based on or concerned with the evidence presented in a legal case


I have nothing to hide so I thought I'd post ALL THE INFO
But wait how can that be TWO different site have to different meanings WOW ::) GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS.


Quote
You see, this is another problem with religious fanaticismWhen did I say I believed in the bible??. It ends up dehumanizing people and evolution doesn't, because when compared to the almighty diety we're all worthlesAgain when did I say that? Only said that about you. But, even if it were true that we are just ants when compared to the diety, it still means he doesn't have to make us suffer.And your pecfect eh never made anyone suffer? You are worth more than an animal. Still, when you throw rocks at a dog, you are going to be punished for this.UMM YES ASSHAT Why? Because you are not allowed to make another creature needlessly suffer. In certain ocassions it can be justified to murder an animal, for example if you depend on murdering animals for your survival. The thing is, God as an omnipotent being has no reason to murder our children.HOW THE F**K would you know? He makes us needlessly suffer.Is your life shit or something? Even if God were a higher being than us, he does not have this right.Cuz you equate yourself as GODLIKE again HOW THE F**K would you know?  Also, I'm afraid you may be slightly paranoid. I wasn't talking about you when I said that people are born in different circumstances. I mentioned this to illustrate my point, that whether we are different or not, this has no effect on what is good and what is not.Yeah I believe I really do... ::) But oh well, it's no use. I hope you reread this conversation when you calm down a bit.Take your own advice
Again I was insulting what you have done here but you like to make countless "assumption" SEE ABOVE about me!
Some peculiar "random series of tornados" in a junkyard does not produce an airplane!

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #25 on: May 22, 2009, 04:21:52 PM »
The other site
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a: a belief SEE BELOW, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

Your first site
1. rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice
economic theories
Many coaches have a good grasp of the theory of football but can't motivate players.

2. speculation: SEE BELOW abstract thought or contemplation

3. idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture
She believed in the theory that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

4. hypothetical circumstances: a set of circumstances or principles that is hypothetical
That's the theory, but it may not work out in practice.

5. scientific principle to explain phenomena: a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena

Speculation
1: an act or instance of speculating: as a: assumption of unusual business risk in hopes of obtaining commensurate gain b: a transaction involving such <speculation >
Assumption
1 a: the taking up of a person into heaven bcapitalized : August 15 observed in commemoration of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary2: a taking to or upon oneself <the assumption of a new position>3: the act of laying claim to or taking possession of something <the assumption of power>4: arrogance, SEE BELOW pretension5 a: an assuming that something is true b: a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted6: the taking over of another's debts
Arrogance
1: an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions
 Belief
1. acceptance of truth of something: acceptance by the mind that something is true or real, often underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense of certainty
belief in an afterlife

2. trust: confidence that somebody or something is good or will be effective
belief in democracy

3. something that somebody believes in: a statement, principle, or doctrine that a person or group accepts as true

4. opinion: an opinion, especially a firm and considered one

5. religious faith: faith in God or in a religion's gods

Plausible
1. believable: believable and appearing likely to be true, usually in the absence of proof

2. persuasive: having a persuasive manner in speech or writing, often combined with an intention to deceive


Why did you have to use two different sites? O cuz they have different meanings! Why the Cherry picking there scum? See I can do that to. Why not post the whole thing, have something to hide?

O wait there is more

Fact
1: a thing done: as aobsolete : feat b: crime <accessory after the fact> carchaic : action
2archaic : performance, doing
3: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a: something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b: an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
Fact
1. something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened

2. truth or reality of something: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something
based on fact

3. piece of information: a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth

4. law actual course of events: the circumstances of an event or state of affairs, rather than an interpretation of its significance
Matters of fact are issues for a jury, while matters of law are issues for the court.

5. law something based on evidence: something that is based on or concerned with the evidence presented in a legal case


I have nothing to hide so I thought I'd post ALL THE INFO
But wait how can that be TWO different site have to different meanings WOW ::) GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS.

Again I was insulting what you have done here but you like to make countless "assumption" SEE ABOVE about me!

I tried to hide it by posting the links for you? Anyway, I showed you the most relevant explanations of these words, and as you can see, the Theory of Evolution fits both the definition of a theory and a fact. And yes, you're insulting me when you call me a moron.

Also, religious fanaticism is taking the Bible literally. This includes defending the murder of children by a God. Evolution doesn't dehumanize people, it simply explains where we came from. It makes no judgement of our value, unlike God when he simply kills people's first-born children because he feels like it. And yes, I've made people suffer. I'm fallible, I'm human. The thing is, I don't claim to be a perfect omnipotent God. Also, I've never committed crimes as severe as God. I've never murdered or ordered people to rape and murder. My life isn't "shit". For the millions of people needlessly starving to death and inflicted with terrible diseases it is. But we were talking about the killing of children. God's killing of children causes the needless suffering I mentioned.
And yes, God does not have the right to cause us unnecessary suffering. This is basic morality. If you are going to argue he does, you might just as well argue that you have this right. Both are ridiculous. This leads to the hedonism and collapse of society that people often blame on the lack of religious beliefs.

Offline joe911

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • im in love with a fairytale :D
    • alternative media
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #26 on: May 22, 2009, 04:24:30 PM »
Scientists say it is so it must be true. :D
Join and contribute to our alternate media network!
http://wecansee.co.cc/forum
Join us live: Tuesdays@8:30pm GMT
[/B]
Could you contribute to the making of a short 30min infofilm about the effects of tell-lie vision
http://wecansee.co.cc/news

Offline Tds_kaneda

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #27 on: May 22, 2009, 04:33:23 PM »


I tried to hide it by posting the links for you? Sitll cherry picking Anyway, I showed you the most relevant explanations of these words, and as you can see, the Theory of Evolution fits both the definition of a theory and a fact. And yes, you're insulting me when you call me a moron.Want a cookie?

Also, religious fanaticism is taking the Bible literally.Again I said I don't believe in that but if you going to make fun of something know wtf your talking about This includes defending the murder of children by a God. Evolution doesn't dehumanize people, it simply explains where we came from. It makes no judgement of our value, unlike God when he simply kills people's first-born children because he feels like it.Again didn't say that was what I believe but shows how you think of yourself And yes, I've made people suffer. I'm fallible, I'm human. The thing is, I don't claim to be a perfect omnipotent God. But you claim you know what being an omnipotent God would be like Also, I've never committed crimes as severe as God. Ok now your just digging yourself a whole I've never murdered or ordered people to rape and murder. My life isn't "shit".I was being sarcastic For the millions of people needlessly starving to death and inflicted with terrible diseases it is. But we were talking about the killing of children. Ok so you want god to do everything for you ??? I'd say the NWO has a lot to do with that God's killing of children causes the needless suffering I mentioned. And yes, God does not have the right to cause us unnecessary suffering. This is basic morality. If you are going to argue he does, you might just as well argue that you have this right.Wow you might want to install an airfield on your head for all that air traffic Both are ridiculous. This leads to the hedonism and collapse of society that people often blame on the lack of religious beliefs. [b[ When did I say anything like that[/b]

The fact that you the god should be fair and only do things you think as right just shows your a pussy
What scum sees in the morning everyday

Some peculiar "random series of tornados" in a junkyard does not produce an airplane!

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #28 on: May 22, 2009, 05:09:03 PM »


The fact that you the god should be fair and only do things you think as right just shows your a pussy
What scum sees in the morning everyday


I like the crying baby, it really strengthens your point. Ah well. If the fact that I only post relevant meanings of the words theory and fact means I'm cherry picking, not posting the entire Bible everytime you cite it means you're cherrypicking as well. It doesn't matter whether you believe it. When you're defending the murder of children by God in the Bible it's religious fanaticism. I don't claim to know what it's like to be a God, just like I don't know what it's like to be Henry Kissinger. It doesn't matter though, when determining the fact that they kill children is evil and as a result they are evil. I don't want God to do everything for me. I'm asking him not to kill children, and it'd be nice if he wouldn't allow children to starve to death or be born with terrible deformities that will make them die early deaths. Saying that this would violate our free will makes as much sense as asking not be treated after having been hit by a car while you yawalked. I still haven't heard a proper answer let alone a good rebuttal  of my statement that defending God's right to kill children makes as much sense as defending your right to kill children. I never claimed you said anything like that, I just wanted to point out why you shouldn't have the right to kill children and why religious people shouldn't blame non-theistic people and philosophies for the decline of civilization.

Also, this isn't about what I think is right. I do my best to follow a very general rule that is found in basically every society and every religion. Treat others like you want to be treated yourself. If the people in my country were being forcibly sterilized or starved to death by corrupt institutions I'd hope that someone who knows about this and has access to the facts would try to put a stop to this.

Offline Tds_kaneda

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #29 on: May 22, 2009, 05:52:50 PM »
I like the crying baby, it really strengthens your point. Ah well. If the fact that I only post relevant meanings of the words theory and fact means I'm cherry picking, not posting the entire Bible everytime you cite it means you're cherrypicking as well. It doesn't matter whether you believe it. When you're defending the murder of children by God in the Bible it's religious fanaticism. I don't claim to know what it's like to be a God, just like I don't know what it's like to be Henry Kissinger. It doesn't matter though, when determining the fact that they kill children is evil and as a result they are evil. I don't want God to do everything for me. I'm asking him not to kill children, and it'd be nice if he wouldn't allow children to starve to death or be born with terrible deformities that will make them die early deaths. Saying that this would violate our free will makes as much sense as asking not be treated after having been hit by a car while you yawalked. I still haven't heard a proper answer let alone a good rebuttal  of my statement that defending God's right to kill children makes as much sense as defending your right to kill children. I never claimed you said anything like that, I just wanted to point out why you shouldn't have the right to kill children and why religious people shouldn't blame non-theistic people and philosophies for the decline of civilization.

Also, this isn't about what I think is right. I do my best to follow a very general rule that is found in basically every society and every religion. Treat others like you want to be treated yourself. If the people in my country were being forcibly sterilized or starved to death by corrupt institutions I'd hope that someone who knows about this and has access to the facts would try to put a stop to this.

Cite the bible? when have I done that ... NEVER  cuz if you could understand what you are reading I DON"T BELIEVE IN GOD. And who are you talking to *looks around* your just putting words in my mouth.
Guess what words have many meanings, you were cherry picking cuz you just pick what fits into your narrow minded views
I was saying (if you can read) YOU don't' know period... see if there WAS a god, GOD>YOU but you think... If their is a god, GOD=YOU so don't cry now if you come off slow.

I don't think it's ok to kill kids but thats all you see with your selective reading. Just showing your know it all ways of reasoning

"I don't claim to know what it's like to be a God" not out right but pretty much do!

"I'm asking him not to kill children, and it'd be nice if he wouldn't allow children to starve to death or be born with terrible deformities that will make them die early" really but that would go against your theory of evolution

"I still haven't heard a proper answer let alone a good rebuttal" again arguing with know it all idiots not my forte. Why do you lock your topics from before eh? Mission failed spreading disinfo or something? 

 "I just wanted to point out why you shouldn't have the right to kill children and why religious people shouldn't blame non-theistic people and philosophies for the decline of civilization"  you are pretty thick aren't you I DON"T THINK THAT STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!!! I don't think it's ok I think it's horrible BUT GUESS WHAT THATS LIFE DEAL WITH IT. Your argument how god would somehow answer to people is just stupid. You from PETA or something we eat and kill animals, thought to be lower life. If it was thought taboo for anything to kill anything well the world would be pretty damn different. But guess what girlscout it's not. So to think some 10 dimensional thing or whatever 200d for all I care has to live by 3d/4d laws is just stupid. So what if that makes you think (if there one and I think not) god is evil. I think your evil for ever eatting an animal or hurting someone. GUESS WHAT LIFE IS NOT FAIR JACKASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and and when did I say that this supposed god is prefect again I DIDN'T. But whatever



Some peculiar "random series of tornados" in a junkyard does not produce an airplane!

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #30 on: May 22, 2009, 05:57:25 PM »
gee dave im disappointed. i had a great rebuttle on this crap. and you choose not to respond. Hmmm.
HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship ;)

Offline Tds_kaneda

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #31 on: May 22, 2009, 06:02:34 PM »
gee dave im disappointed. i had a great rebuttle on this crap. and you choose not to respond. Hmmm.

cuz he has selective reading and reasoning. He thinks that "I don't like GOD he's evil I think is evolution better" somehow proves his point.
Some peculiar "random series of tornados" in a junkyard does not produce an airplane!

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #32 on: May 22, 2009, 06:05:25 PM »
cuz he has selective reading and reasoning. He thinks that "I don't like GOD he's evil I think is evolution better" somehow proves his point.

i think he just dosent like the truth, just put out there for all to see. Its easier to believe a lie than to face the facts that you have believed a lie your whole entire life.

Pigs tooth people, pigs tooth.
HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship ;)

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #33 on: May 22, 2009, 06:09:03 PM »
Cite the bible? when have I done that ... NEVER  cuz if you could understand what you are reading I DON"T BELIEVE IN GOD. And who are you talking to *looks around* your just putting words in my mouth.
Guess what words have many meanings, you were cherry picking cuz you just pick what fits into your narrow minded views
I was saying (if you can read) YOU don't' know period... see if there WAS a god, GOD>YOU but you think... If their is a god, GOD=YOU so don't cry now if you come off slow.

I don't think it's ok to kill kids but thats all you see with your selective reading. Just showing your know it all ways of reasoning

"I don't claim to know what it's like to be a God" not out right but pretty much do!

"I'm asking him not to kill children, and it'd be nice if he wouldn't allow children to starve to death or be born with terrible deformities that will make them die early" really but that would go against your theory of evolution

"I still haven't heard a proper answer let alone a good rebuttal" again arguing with know it all idiots not my forte. Why do you lock your topics from before eh? Mission failed spreading disinfo or something? 

 "I just wanted to point out why you shouldn't have the right to kill children and why religious people shouldn't blame non-theistic people and philosophies for the decline of civilization"  you are pretty thick aren't you I DON"T THINK THAT STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!!! I don't think it's ok I think it's horrible BUT GUESS WHAT THATS LIFE DEAL WITH IT. Your argument how god would somehow answer to people is just stupid. You from PETA or something we eat and kill animals, thought to be lower life. If it was thought taboo for anything to kill anything well the world would be pretty damn different. But guess what girlscout it's not. So to think some 10 dimensional thing or whatever 200d for all I care has to live by 3d/4d laws is just stupid. So what if that makes you think (if there one and I think not) god is evil. I think your evil for ever eatting an animal or hurting someone. GUESS WHAT LIFE IS NOT FAIR JACKASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and and when did I say that this supposed god is prefect again I DIDN'T. But whatever




I'm starting to think it's useless to reply to you because I already explained a lot of this, yet you keep repeating yourself. I already told you that we don't have a right to cause unnecessary suffering. You can't just go ahead and kill an animal for fun, you'll be criminally prosecuted when people find out because it's evil. God can't just kill our children either, that's evil. If you depend on killing animals to survive, you can kill them. I lock my topics when I see it turns into people insulting eachother for no good reason or anti-Jewish propaganda. I didn't put words in your mouth, I just said that God has as much of a right to kill children as you have, none. You don't have to believe God is perfect but when he kills children this makes him evil. The theory of Evolution explains how nature works, it doesn't have anything to do with how I want the world to be (without needless suffering). It appears to me that you only choose to believe what you like, but I don't. I would much rather have God not killing our children for no good reason and not letting children be born deformed. If that would violate the theory of evolution? So be it, I'd love it if God would no longer let children be born deformed and needlessly suffering! It seems you have given up on most of your points haven't you? For example you're not answering my question why God has the right to kill children but you don't. I also never said you cite the Bible it's an example. Can't you see that? This is getting pointless. I think I already explained to you everything you need to know, just reread it before replying again please.

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #34 on: May 22, 2009, 06:13:04 PM »
i think he just dosent like the truth, just put out there for all to see. Its easier to believe a lie than to face the facts that you have believed a lie your whole entire life.
I'm sorry, but that's really ironic.

But yeah, my entire life, I actually used to be a lot like you. I was taught the same ideas you have, in school actually. Young Earth Creationism by a zealous teacher. I believed it for a while. I was told all sorts of crap.

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #35 on: May 22, 2009, 06:15:34 PM »
gee dave im disappointed. i had a great rebuttle on this crap. and you choose not to respond. Hmmm.
I was kind of sick of the whole debate after the topic I created about it turned into so much hatred. But go ahead and repost it here, I'll see what I have to say about it. Also, I'm kind of busy, I'm already arguing with two persons right now, one in this thread and another through PM's.

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #36 on: May 22, 2009, 06:18:46 PM »
I'm sorry, but that's really ironic.

But yeah, my entire life, I actually used to be a lot like you. I was taught the same ideas you have, in school actually. Young Earth Creationism by a zealous teacher. I believed it for a while. I was told all sorts of crap.

gee really? Because i wasnt raised in the Christian faith, i was raised fully into evolution. seems we are complete opposites. Funny how i use science as its designed to, being raised from youth the method and principles, and you use science as well faith.  hmmm..... weird hunh. I am hurt though that you are debating this here and just blew me off.
HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship ;)

Offline David Rothscum

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,683
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #37 on: May 22, 2009, 06:27:31 PM »
gee really? Because i wasnt raised in the Christian faith, i was raised fully into evolution. seems we are complete opposites. Funny how i use science as its designed to, being raised from youth the method and principles, and you use science as well faith.  hmmm..... weird hunh. I am hurt though that you are debating this here and just blew me off.
I'm sorry. Don't take it personal. I actually generally like debating you more than the rest of the people here because most of the time you seem to remain more respectful. Like I said, if you want, just copypaste what you posted before, I'll give you my view on it.

Offline Tds_kaneda

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #38 on: May 22, 2009, 06:30:06 PM »
Still, when you throw rocks at a dog, you are going to be punished for this
I'm starting to think it's useless to reply to you because I already explained a lot of this, yet you keep repeating yourself. I already told you that we don't have a right to cause unnecessary suffering.what does that have to do with evolution? You can't just go ahead and kill an animal for fun,Hunting? you'll be criminally prosecuted when people find out because it's evil.not what you say before "Still, when you throw rocks at a dog, you are going to be punished for this God can't just kill our children either, that's evil. Again who cares If you depend on killing animals to survive, you can kill them. I lock my topics when I see it turns into people insulting eachother for no good reason or anti-Jewish propaganda. Guess you don't believe in free speach I didn't put words in your mouth, I just said that God has as much of a right to kill children as you have, none.Get that in the GOD times You don't have to believe God is perfect but when he kills children this makes him evil.Again so what The theory of Evolution explains how nature works, it doesn't have anything to do with how I want the world to be (without needless suffering). It appears to me that you only choose to believe what you like, but I don't. I would much rather have rather have eh? great reasoning God not killing our children for no good reason and not letting children be born deformed. Again this proves evolution how again? If that would violate the theory of evolution? So be it, I'd love it if God would no longer let children be born deformed and needlessly suffering! And your not repeating yourself It seems you have given up on most of your points haven't you? Again arguing with idiots not my forte For example you're not answering my question why God has the right to kill children but you don't.Repeating again are we? I also never said you cite the Bible it's an example. Can't you see that? Lair haha "Ah well. If the fact that I only post relevant meanings of the words theory and fact means I'm cherry picking, not posting the entire Bible everytime you cite it means you're cherrypicking as well." This is getting pointless. I think I already explained to you everything you need to know, See I could care less what you think you know  Mr. or wait Dr., I wasn't trying to teach you anything, I ain't your daddy or teacher just reread it before replying again please. Looks like I have



O the evil lion :'(
Some peculiar "random series of tornados" in a junkyard does not produce an airplane!

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
« Reply #39 on: May 22, 2009, 06:36:15 PM »
I'm sorry. Don't take it personal. I actually generally like debating you more than the rest of the people here because most of the time you seem to remain more respectful. Like I said, if you want, just copypaste what you posted before, I'll give you my view on it.

Quote
Quote
Quote from: doktorschnabelvonrom on Today at 05:42:07 PM

Quote
as soon as i read this article i knew Dave would post this as fact. 

And as soon as I posted it I realized you would react.

Quote

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

lets look at some things MISSING from Daves article. 

History of discovery
For the past two years, an international team of scientists led by Hurum has conducted a detailed forensic analysis of the fossil.

The fossil was apparently discovered in 1983 by private collectors who split and eventually sold two parts of the skeleton on separate plates: The lesser part was restored and, in the process, partly fabricated to make it look more complete.

This part was purchased for a private museum in Wyoming, and then described by Jens L. Franzen, part of Hurum's team, who recognized the fabrication. The more complete part has just come to light, and it now belongs to the Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo.

All i have to say is well it must be true. Theres NEVER been a history of fraud in the fossil field.   
what does that even mean?? Apparently discovered? ya if you believe that i have some authentic Al Gore hockey stick charts for ya also.

Now we dont even have a history of the fossil, hmm. Suspicious??  oh no, theyd never commit a fraud or anything like that. Its never happened before. 

Im sorry but WHAT? What do you mean restored and fabricated?? Hmmm interesting yes??

so they know its a fraud?

oh really? do you really believe this??   

If they discovered the part that was fabricated, what makes you believe the rest is fake as well?

What makes me believe its fake as well? well lets look here.

For starters
Quote
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.

Really ? scientists? i dont think so.
Quote
The fossil was apparently discovered in 1983 by private collectors

Looks like some one is either lying or has an agenda. Which one is the truth? You should really care about that statment as history has repeatedly shown the huge amounts of FRAUD that has been touted as the missing links. Just scroll this first page to see what i mean. http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html
So already its origins are in question. And historically speaking, well, lets just say they dont have a great track record there. So no matter what they say, it cannot be taken as the truth.

Quote
eventually sold two parts of the skeleton on separate plates

What?? they broke it up and sold them. Hmmm. So now we have the pieces disappearing. Hate to break it to you but that brings the whole thing into doubt. period.

Quote
The 47m-year-old primate – named Ida

How do they get this date? they cannot run radiometrics on fossils. The only way to determine the date is the strata that it was found in. And that alone has all kinds of problems. circular reasoning anyone??   ;D Plus back to my first point, it wasnt "found" by scientist it was found by private collectors who broke it up and sold it.   ::)

Quote
The top-level international research team, who have studied her in secret for the past two years,

Really? why the secrecy? its because of everything that was missing from Daves article, thats why. Everything about this is in doubt.

Quote
The skeleton is 95% complete and thanks to the unique location where she died,

Really? where did she die? we have no idea? All we have are some "scientists" who says we heard from a friend who heard it from a friend who said this person said this. Ya just like every other fraudulant find.   ;D
We have no proof what so ever it was found where they said it was.

Next we have,
Quote
The lesser part was restored and, in the process, partly fabricated to make it look more complete.

What?? lets see that again
Quote
The lesser part was restored and, in the process, partly fabricated to make it look more complete.

Now wait a minute here. we have a fossil that was restored and partly fabricated? you have got to be kidding me. Partly fabricated. nuff said.    >:( ;D

Sorry sport, but if you want to beieve anything about this is any true at all? that is your poragative. But just on the little bit that i have shown casts doubt on the whole thing. I mean your article wasnt even truthfull in its account. Agenda?? I think so.

PS,
Quote
The more complete part has just come to light

Really? when it was being examined in secret for 2 years? oh come on, thats like saying this pigs tooth is the missing link.true story

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=106623.msg646321#msg646321

you were given the link for this post, so i know you knew of it.
HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship ;)