47 Million Year Old Find..

[AllieBaba]

Study of the compressed skeleton was facilitated by X-radiography and microcomputerized tomography (CT):

PLoS ONE: Complete Primate Skeleton from the Middle Eocene of Messel in Germany: Morphology and Paleobiology

 

[AllieBaba]

The Bible does not conflict with Science...........

Care

I seriously doubt those men in the Old Testment lived to be hundreds of years old. Didn't the bible say Abraham lived to be 800 years old?

And I don't think it's scientifically plausible, or physically possible for Jonah to live inside a fish. And Noah really got every single land animal onto a boat?


You're right, human ignorance has projected a lot of baloney and scientifically invalid ideas onto the bible.

But a lot of the bible is flat out improbable, if not scientifically laughable.

Nothing personal, you make some good points....and I don't care if people want to view the bible as the literal word of God.

But I think its much more englightened and plausible to view the bible as metaphor and stories that are guidance for morality.

However, as far as reality goes, your "thoughts" are irrelevant. Whether you "thought" men lived only to 30 or "thought" monkeys used forks and spoke Latin has nothing to do with the truth of the matter.

The truth of the matter is you have no better evidence to support your "thoughts" than we do to support ours. So your superior attitude is laughable, at best.

 

[KittenKoder]

Wait ... thought you were clinging to carbon dating as proof they found pieces of the mythical "arc" on that mountain?

 

[AllieBaba]

After all, you "thought" that this stupid fossil brouhaha actually proved something.

The only thing that has been "proven" is that anti-Chrsitians will swallow any wad of garbage presented to them, and present it to others as "fact" without actually checking the validity themselves.

But then, you aren't a "chemist". You don't bother with trying to figure out anything on your own. You just trust that anything presented in a semi-palatable form is "fact".

What a yahoo. And you think you're "enlightened."

 

[AllieBaba]

Wait ... thought you were clinging to carbon dating as proof they found pieces of the mythical "arc" on that mountain?

I don't need proof that the Bible is true.

But that sample is considerable more recent than 47 million years ago.

 

[KittenKoder]

After all, you "thought" that this stupid fossil brouhaha actually proved something.

The only thing that has been "proven" is that anti-Chrsitians will swallow any wad of garbage presented to them, and present it to others as "fact" without actually checking the validity themselves.

But then, you aren't a "chemist". You don't bother with trying to figure out anything on your own. You just trust that anything presented in a semi-palatable form is "fact".

What a yahoo. And you think you're "enlightened."

No, but it does prove that some christian fanatics are willing to rant and rave just because their faith was challenged ... in their own minds.

 

[AllieBaba]

My point being is we are all equal in this debate. Nobody has "proof" of anything.

Except the science whores lie about it.

 

[strollingbones]

i am drawn like a moth to the flame ....to allie's posts

 

[KittenKoder]

My point being is we are all equal in this debate. Nobody has "proof" of anything.

Except the science whores lie about it.

Really? Is your faith so weak that you cannot accept the real world as part of your religious views? Science fills in the blanks, and no religion has more than reasons of why. Science doesn't lie, though it's not correct 100% of the time, without it and it's discoveries we would have nothing, absolutely nothing. So why do you fight against the things that give you medicine, computers, cars, lights, telephone, airplanes, food you don't have to hunt yourself, etc.?

 

[AllieBaba]

Actually, science does NOT fill in the blanks, as this thread has proven. This isn't science. It's conjecture combined with sham.

 

[AllieBaba]

Not only that, but I LOVE science. I believe good science and mathematics (which are interwoven with each other) do more to show us the face of God than anything else in the world, outside the bible.

And in GOOD science, I see the face of God. I see the face of God in genetics, in extended pi calculations, and in biology.....but I don't see science or the face of God in hyper, tongue-rolling chasing after of every unproven "theory" or bad science "breakthrough".

This stupid breakthrough isn't a breakthrough at all, nor is it evidence of anything. Yet it is being touted as such by people who sneer at those who have faith in something a lot more substantial than this alleged "primate".

 

[Care4all]

After all, you "thought" that this stupid fossil brouhaha actually proved something.

The only thing that has been "proven" is that anti-Chrsitians will swallow any wad of garbage presented to them, and present it to others as "fact" without actually checking the validity themselves.

But then, you aren't a "chemist". You don't bother with trying to figure out anything on your own. You just trust that anything presented in a semi-palatable form is "fact".

What a yahoo. And you think you're "enlightened."

No, but it does prove that some christian fanatics are willing to rant and rave just because their faith was challenged ... in their own minds.

I have never ever ever thought that Science challenges my faith.....

I see God in Science....

 

[KittenKoder]

After all, you "thought" that this stupid fossil brouhaha actually proved something.

The only thing that has been "proven" is that anti-Chrsitians will swallow any wad of garbage presented to them, and present it to others as "fact" without actually checking the validity themselves.

But then, you aren't a "chemist". You don't bother with trying to figure out anything on your own. You just trust that anything presented in a semi-palatable form is "fact".

What a yahoo. And you think you're "enlightened."

No, but it does prove that some christian fanatics are willing to rant and rave just because their faith was challenged ... in their own minds.

I have never ever ever thought that Science challenges my faith.....

I see God in Science....

I think I mentioned this before, but that's because you are stronger is all.

 

[KittenKoder]

Actually, science does NOT fill in the blanks, as this thread has proven. This isn't science. It's conjecture combined with sham.

Really, and your proof?

Of course I don't really care anymore than you care about science. But if your faith is so strong this shouldn't be bad in any way, because even is wrong should they come up with some better medical sciences (which is the usual result of such discoveries) then would you ignore that filled in blank just because you don't think this is real?

 

[Hillbilly]

Science neither has nor can disprove God so I'm not worried. It doesn't matter to me if when God said He formed Adam out of clay that the clay He was working with was an evolutionary system He designed. It doesn't matter to me if God's days are billions of years. The Bible was not intended to be a science textbook nor a history book, though it contains both science, history and many other subjects. Frankly, I think the whole argument over it is pretty stupid. The less people argue about this nonsense the more truth will come from it instead of ridiculous claims like this find.

 

[KittenKoder]

Science neither has nor can disprove God so I'm not worried. It doesn't matter to me if when God said He formed Adam out of clay that the clay He was working with was an evolutionary system He designed. It doesn't matter to me if God's days are billions of years. The Bible was not intended to be a science textbook nor a history book, though it contains both science, history and many other subjects. Frankly, I think the whole argument over it is pretty stupid. The less people argue about this nonsense the more truth will come from it instead of ridiculous claims like this find.

What, pray tell, is so ridiculous about this "claim" if you agree that science and religion co-exist without problems?

 

[Hillbilly]

Science neither has nor can disprove God so I'm not worried. It doesn't matter to me if when God said He formed Adam out of clay that the clay He was working with was an evolutionary system He designed. It doesn't matter to me if God's days are billions of years. The Bible was not intended to be a science textbook nor a history book, though it contains both science, history and many other subjects. Frankly, I think the whole argument over it is pretty stupid. The less people argue about this nonsense the more truth will come from it instead of ridiculous claims like this find.

What, pray tell, is so ridiculous about this "claim" if you agree that science and religion co-exist without problems?

I find the claim that this fossil represents a human ancestor ridiculous because they are announcing the verdict before the trial, as always, and it will almost certainly be shown to be nothing more than hype in the end. The people who make these claims are always so excited to get to go prove all the creationists wrong that they forget to check it out first.

 

[Care4all]

Science neither has nor can disprove God so I'm not worried. It doesn't matter to me if when God said He formed Adam out of clay that the clay He was working with was an evolutionary system He designed. It doesn't matter to me if God's days are billions of years. The Bible was not intended to be a science textbook nor a history book, though it contains both science, history and many other subjects. Frankly, I think the whole argument over it is pretty stupid. The less people argue about this nonsense the more truth will come from it instead of ridiculous claims like this find.

What, pray tell, is so ridiculous about this "claim" if you agree that science and religion co-exist without problems?

there's nothing wrong with their ''hypothesis''....they are projecting ideas that ''think'' come in to play here.... it by no means IS THE ''missing link'' fossil...that all paleontologists have been searching for....

it's hype for their tv promo coming up on the history channel

 

[KittenKoder]

Science neither has nor can disprove God so I'm not worried. It doesn't matter to me if when God said He formed Adam out of clay that the clay He was working with was an evolutionary system He designed. It doesn't matter to me if God's days are billions of years. The Bible was not intended to be a science textbook nor a history book, though it contains both science, history and many other subjects. Frankly, I think the whole argument over it is pretty stupid. The less people argue about this nonsense the more truth will come from it instead of ridiculous claims like this find.

What, pray tell, is so ridiculous about this "claim" if you agree that science and religion co-exist without problems?

I find the claim that this fossil represents a human ancestor ridiculous because they are announcing the verdict before the trial, as always, and it will almost certainly be shown to be nothing more than hype in the end. The people who make these claims are always so excited to get to go prove all the creationists wrong that they forget to check it out first.

Really, do you know who heads most of the archaeological departments in universities that make these finds, many of them are christians who want to know how it was done, since their own book only says why. This whole "missing link" nonsense also has no bearing on human evolution anyway, since the actual "missing link" is several steps back from modern human and does not prove anything one way or the other. So again, why is it so ridiculous to have found one such possibility, also note that it's still referred to as "highly possible" and not yet fact.

 

[Hillbilly]

What, pray tell, is so ridiculous about this "claim" if you agree that science and religion co-exist without problems?

I find the claim that this fossil represents a human ancestor ridiculous because they are announcing the verdict before the trial, as always, and it will almost certainly be shown to be nothing more than hype in the end. The people who make these claims are always so excited to get to go prove all the creationists wrong that they forget to check it out first.

Really, do you know who heads most of the archaeological departments in universities that make these finds, many of them are christians who want to know how it was done, since their own book only says why. This whole "missing link" nonsense also has no bearing on human evolution anyway, since the actual "missing link" is several steps back from modern human and does not prove anything one way or the other. So again, why is it so ridiculous to have found one such possibility, also note that it's still referred to as "highly possible" and not yet fact.

It isn't ridiculous to make such a find, it is only their showmanship and assumptions which are ridiculous. The claims that it is the missing link and giving it a human name are very presumptuous and intended for stirring up controversy only. I don't think we can talk about this case any further. From here we either have to wait several years or talk about the last missing link they rolled out with much fanfare and was then subsequently discredited.