New Fossil Discovered: So We DID Come From Apes?

Submitted by: bobhub600 7 years ago Science
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8285180.stm

LOOKIT, opposable toes!
There are 109 comments:
Female 3,828
ooh i watched a thing on discovery channel about ardi. they found this in the 90`s, but had to do so so so so much testing before it could be official.
0
Reply
Female 22
The truth about the matter is that NO ONE EFFING KNOWS how we really came to be and anyone who pretends to know is friggin retarded. We can only guess and to spread hate and strife in the name of God AND/OR Science is pointless and, quite honestly, stupid. The only way we will know the true origins/meanings of the universe is to learn to love each other and to get along...which I NEVER see happening...
0
Reply
Male 336
its not even a full skeleton they only found certain parts of it and made an assumption on its appearance. plus what about the discovery of a hammer found in a rock dated 140 million years old (when humans were not suppose to be alive). or the 65 million year old dinosaur mummy found with fossilized soft tissue like skin, ligaments, and tendons (which should not be possible). and when science is confronted with these things they either deny its authenticity or they come up with a once in a million scenario of how it might be possible for that to have happened. they are not willing to consider the fact that they are wrong. to consider that maybe they got carbon dating wrong( which is based on the fact that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has never changed). or consider the reason they cant find the missing link (which is the fossil of the transition from sea to land) is because it does not exist.
0
Reply
Male 336
My whole point is I`m tired of people thinking that science is 100% proven. It is not and it requires just as much faith as religion. so stop thinking that your right and those that choose to believe in god are wrong.
0
Reply
Female 3,598
Subushie, you are probably the smartest person on this site right now.
0
Reply
Male 431
you people can argue all you want. science will always win. religion would do well to work WITH it rather than against it.
0
Reply
Male 74
testicles, that is all. you may now resume your flame war.
0
Reply
Male 1,646
all religious people out there, you all are so awesomely wrong that you all become offended when someone states something that is obviously correct, chill out just because someone has a different opinion doesn`t mean you have to hate them.

to all atheists out there, religion although with its many faults and cons. come many positives, religion of all sorts bring happiness and hope in times when there isnt any, chill out just because someone has a different opinion doesnt mean you have to hate them.

0
Reply
Male 277
OoooO look angery pplz
||
\/
0
Reply
Male 4,807
After reading ALL the rambling comments on this post ( and thinking almightybob1`s link was awesomness)
I have just one thing to say....... BOOBIES

you may now continue your flame war

0
Reply
Male 721
f*ck all religions. its common f*ing sence.
0
Reply
Male 237
"Religion claims absolutely knowledge and truth. Science only claims the PURSUIT of knowledge and truth. That pursuit, of course, involves checks and balances, corrections, and disputes. Science is always rediscovering and finding anew.

And THAT is the difference between science and religion."

Unless the religious are willing to weigh the evidence and try to understand their faith in light of science, as opposed to forcing their faith onto science.

0
Reply
Male 473
"You demonstrate your ignorance again. Scientists are not searching for "the missing link" because they don`t think there is "the missing link". It`s an over-simplification for use in the media."

Yes I was using a common phrase that everyone is familiar with. I was responding to quotes like this

"Asked whether A. ramidus was our direct ancestor or not, the team said more fossils from different places and time periods were needed to answer the question."

If you get a mo, pop over to the journal of The Scientist and search for "fossil missing link" and you will see that it is a common term even in the scientific community.

0
Reply
Male 473
"And yet you typed that statement into a computer keyboard. Made from a plastic compound manufactured from crude hydrocarbons, recovered from geological reservoirs miles beneath the earth`s surface. Processed by microchips millimetres in size, using semiconductor technology. And posted on this website by sending thousands of bits of binary information down fibre-optic cables for thousands of kilometers, before being reassembled, reprocessed, and appearing on my liquid crystal display flatscreen for my perusal."

And so the boundaries between exact science and non-exact science get blurred. In a discussion about the scientific view of the big bang and fossils, the fact that science has created computers is brought up. Exact science is exactly that, exact. Processes can be replayed infinite times in the lab. This is science. Non exact science such as fossil dating and the origin of the universe is a totally different thing, and this is the area that I liken to religion.

0
Reply
Female 4,225
If you look at the actual skelton, the hands look like the hands are proportionally bigger and the pelvis is long like a chimps.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
"Oddly, the scientists don`t call this the missing link, it`s only the hangers on that use this phrase, the scientists are actually admitting that this isn`t quite the missing link that they are still searching for."

You demonstrate your ignorance again. Scientists are not searching for "the missing link" because they don`t think there is "the missing link". It`s an over-simplification for use in the media.

"Theories are by definition proposed answers, followed by lots of research to try to prove that theory as being true. It is the whole principal behind any non-exact science (a science that can`t be repeated in the lab, which is the case when working such old remains)."

Theories are the principle behind *all* science.
A proposed answer is a hypothesis, not a theory. A theory is much more than that. Experiments can`t prove that a theory is true. They can fail to prove it false, but that`s not the same thing.

You don`t understand scien

0
Reply
Female 15,763
Religion claims absolutely knowledge and truth. Science only claims the PURSUIT of knowledge and truth. That pursuit, of course, involves checks and balances, corrections, and disputes. Science is always rediscovering and finding anew.

And THAT is the difference between science and religion.

0
Reply
Female 4,225
It is O_O *thinks about it* BLAH! Y`wer right.

Do you know how many books we`re going to have to edit? O, it`s only that one page for now.

*has it fixed*

Fem- you`re probably right

0
Reply
Male 12,365
"Science and religion are the same thing. Think of the answer, then work backwards to make everything else fit."

That is not science. You don`t know what science is.

"Look at Dawkins now, he even acts like a religious preacher."

That`s true, but it`s not what makes him a scientist.

"If both sides to this debate were man enough to agree that their own side was flawed, then a lot more respect would be given."

You prove that is untrue - you eagerly seize on any acknowledgement that science is not perfectly true at all times in order to ridicule science for being imperfect. That is not respect.

"As for me, I am well read in both camps and have an empathy for both arguments."

You don`t know what science is and you ridicule it for being honest rather than claiming perfect knowledge of everything. Your claim is therefore completely false.

0
Reply
Female 15,763
Left hand, Turn. Left hand.

Fem... that is a frightening prospect.

0
Reply
Female 4,225
I’m pretty sure it says somewhere in the Book of the Bored, that the goddess Opie sacrificed her right hand and her feet to humanity, to create it.

THEREFORE, anyone that ‘suffers’ from ABS is really someone blessed by Opie.
(See I blame science. Everyone knows that if you have ABS, it really means that you’ve been chosen by Opie as a demi-god.)

“Blessed is they who sits at Opie’s right stump. For they be a true friend of the goddess/”
Testicles XXIX; 34.5

0
Reply
Female 262
Come on you guys, don`t scare away the creationists, they`ll quit posting and then what will we have to laugh at?
0
Reply
Female 15,763
"Yea, and on the First Day, Opie did create the beasts of the land, and she did so with cardboard tubes and a marker pen. And it was good."


HAHAHAHA.

I love this.

A lot.

0
Reply
Male 12,138
bob, that link was epic. I`m going to keep that one in my wallet for future use.

I`m currently rolling on the floor laughing my ass off.

0
Reply
Male 4,290
10bears, you`re wrong. In many, many ways, as davy and others have pointed out. Just FYI, the Big Bang was not 14 million years ago. More like several billion.

In conclusion, 10Bears, I award you no points.

0
Reply
Male 90
@davymind that was win
0
Reply
Male 792
Actually, to be more precise, the cosmic event that converted energy to matter occurred ~15-16 billion years ago. The universe itself has always existed. What happened prior to that event is unknown...since matter didn`t exist, we can`t see what it was like before matter existed.
0
Reply
Male 29
@10Bears, the Big Bang is currently estimated to have happened around 15 BILLION not million years ago.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
>> "Science and Religion are the same thing... And so I remain unconvinced of either"

*removes palm from face*

And yet you typed that statement into a computer keyboard. Made from a plastic compound manufactured from crude hydrocarbons, recovered from geological reservoirs miles beneath the earth`s surface. Processed by microchips millimetres in size, using semiconductor technology. And posted on this website by sending thousands of bits of binary information down fibre-optic cables for thousands of kilometers, before being reassembled, reprocessed, and appearing on my liquid crystal display flatscreen for my perusal.

Here`s a hint. These things didn`t come about from prayers.

You remain "unconvinced" of science? Forgive me for being reminded of the "what have the Romans ever done for us" scene from the Life of Brian.

0
Reply
Male 2,229
ignorance creates a state of bliss, but it is also creates fear, which leads to hate then to pain. The ignorance of history, makes one doomed to repeat it.

A friend of mine once said `A history heeded, is a future improved`. Those that don`t `see`, or refuse to `see` what their actions and lack of action is creating, will ultimately succumb to their `un-knowing`.

0
Reply
Male 473
One more thing before I get back to wasting time on flash games...
The "science" followers ridicule the young earth followers because `how can we see the light from stars millions of light years away if they were only created 6,000 years ago?` A good question indeed and certainly one chalked on the board for science. BUT....

Science has the same problem! We can see light from stars supposedly 47million light years away, yet the big bang only happened 14million years ago. Exactly the same problem. The scientists reconcile this with a peculiar answer that tries to circumvent the obvious conclusion that at the big bang, matter had to travel many times faster than the speed of light, thereby breaking one of the fundamental laws of physics.

And so I remain unconvinced of either.

0
Reply
Male 473
Hi Deevo,
I think we are agreed that science (in this particular discussion) is based on theories. Theories are by definition proposed answers, followed by lots of research to try to prove that theory as being true. It is the whole principal behind any non-exact science (a science that can`t be repeated in the lab, which is the case when working such old remains).

It is the reason that people call this "the missing link", because that`s what they want to find. Oddly, the scientists don`t call this the missing link, it`s only the hangers on that use this phrase, the scientists are actually admitting that this isn`t quite the missing link that they are still searching for.

I am in a rare position of not being in either camp at the moment, which gives me the clear and unbiased view that both sides are equally dogmatic. You can`t question either without being considered an idiot. Your call for me to re-read everything is a case in point!

0
Reply
Male 45
10Bears, many scientists have admitted many times over that there are flaws in their theories and ideas. Thats the point of science; to try and find the best possible fit of ideas at any one time. If these ideas and theories should change in the light of new evidence then all the better as this is the only way we will get any closer to knowing the truth about any given situation.

To describe science and religion as the same thing is ridiculous and extremely disrespectful to all scientists working hard every day to determine truth and proper conclusions in their work. Religion asks its believers to "keep the faith" in spite of evidence, science does the opposite.

Your example of why science and religion are the same is confusing. Science does not claim to "have the answer" as religion does. If you are indeed well read in both camps then I suggest that you begin to re-read your material as you seem to have completely missed the point when it comes to the developme

0
Reply
Male 473
"Science is essentially about what seems most likely to be true in the light of current evidence."
QFT :-)
Science used to say that the earth was flat, and that there were tiny babies in semen and that the sun travels around the earth. Popular belief is not truth as has been proven so many times. Just because popular belief is led by men in white coats doesn`t make it any truer.

Science and religion are the same thing. Think of the answer, then work backwards to make everything else fit. Look at Dawkins now, he even acts like a religious preacher.

If both sides to this debate were man enough to agree that their own side was flawed, then a lot more respect would be given.

As for me, I am well read in both camps and have an empathy for both arguments. But I do want to see a fair and honest debate - after all, I too am looking for the answer - and this kind of theoretical science being quoted as "science" is just misleading and misguided.

0
Reply
Male 3,425
And the final piece of the puzzle falls into place...
0
Reply
Female 5,222
moobs..
0
Reply
Male 12,365
"This is not science. It is a theory. Theories are not science."

That statement is so utterly wrong that I`m having trouble describing how wrong it is.

"Words like *suggests* and *may* and *supposed* are ambiguous and are hardly the language of science."

"the language of science" often contains words indicating uncertainty because acknowledging it is part of science. Scientists shouldn`t state certainty unless it is proven and proof is only certain in maths. Science is essentially about what seems most likely to be true in the light of current evidence. Something might stand up to testing a billion times, but science still allows for the possibility of it being incorrect or incomplete. Acknowledging uncertainty is a key strength of science.

0
Reply
Male 473
The caption to the picture says
"An *impression* of what `Ardi` would have looked like"
So now artists are scientists. Cool.

Phrases like this...
"it suggests this common ancestor may have existed much further back in time than had previously been supposed"
Words like *suggests* and *may* and *supposed* are ambiguous and are hardly the language of science.

Here`s another quote from the same article...
"We will need many more fossil recoveries from the period of 3-5 million years ago to confidently answer that question in the future,"
So some things aren`t answered concretely yet. Will those standing by the article with a passion please take note.

There`s a section called "Rapid evolution" too. Every book I`ve read about evolution (and it`s quite a few) talks about inexplicably rapid steps in evolution.

This is not science. It is a theory. Theories are not science.

By the way, I have the same problems with religion, b

0
Reply
Male 12,365
"Sorry I`m late back I nodded off a bit. Angilion, you`re Stephen Fry aren`t you?! LOL!"

Not quite, no. I`m like a cheap knock-off of him :)

"So what you`re saying is when we started using tools we jumped straight in with flint axes and reciprocating saws and missed the sticks and stones bit? I find this harder to swallow than a whole pineapple."

No, I`m saying "Humans were using tools in a more complex way than other apes long ago." Humans right back to the beginning of humans used tools in a more complex way than other apes do today. In some ways, tool use is the defining feature of our species.

"And that one day an ape woke up and sang wop bop a do wop a wop bam boo pretty far fetched too."

Which might be why no-one is suggesting it happened.

Would you provide references for the statement you made about why we sometimes jerk as we`re falling asleep? It doesn`t match what I`ve read.

0
Reply
Male 1,108
Sorry I`m late back I nodded off a bit. Angilion, you`re Stephen Fry aren`t you?! LOL!
So what you`re saying is when we started using tools we jumped straight in with flint axes and reciprocating saws and missed the sticks and stones bit? I find this harder to swallow than a whole pineapple. And that one day an ape woke up and sang wop bop a do wop a wop bam boo pretty far fetched too.
The first tools we used would have been exactly the same as the apes, sticks for example to poke into crevises to retrieve honey or insects and termites. Hammer and anvil type stones to nuts. Our language then would have been a series of grunts and clicks and moans, th same as the apes and chimps and even some primitive tribes today.
You know the urrrgh bit when you jump just as you`re dropping of to sleep? This is a defence mechanism from when we used to sleep in trees at felt we were falling. We would dwell on the ground during the day and sleep in the trees at night just as many great apes
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Yea, and on the First Day, Opie did create the beasts of the land, and she did so with cardboard tubes and a marker pen. And it was good.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
And I said to God, "You carried me?
What the f*ck are you talking about?
My dog died.
My sister got killed in a car accident.
Maybe instead of carrying me,
You could have stopped these bad things from happening at all.
Did you ever think of that, you f*cking prick?"

And God replied, "You stupid Human, do not question the Lord.
I f*ck with you and then I carry you.
It`s just something that I enjoy doing.
If you don`t like it, you can just go to Hell."

0
Reply
Male 12,138
I know Opie. I know. Last thought of the day, I`ll leave you with a poem. Not my work, but thought-provoking to those capable of thought:

"One night I dreamt that I was walking along the beach with God.

Across the sky flashed scenes from my life. For each scene, I noticed two sets of footprints in the sand. One belonged to me, and the other to God.

But I noticed something strange.

I noticed that many times along the path of my life, there was only one set of footprints. I also noticed that it happened at the hardest times in my life.

I said, "God, I have noticed that during the most difficult times of my life, there is only one set of footprints. I don`t understand why, when I needed you the most, You would leave me".

God replied, "I didn`t leave you. During your times of trial and suffering, when you see only one set of footprints, that was when I carried you."

0
Reply
Female 15,763
Bu we need that head! D:
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Opie, you flawsome bitch. Damn them flaws. You know, that the God dude gave you as a present. Cause he has a plan.

*heads the desk repeatedly, and at considerable velocity*

0
Reply
Female 15,763
Oh Davy, don`t forget my Jehovah`s Witness "friend" (No offense to any Jehovah`s Witnesses, this chick might`ve just been a raging bitch) who told me that when I go to heaven, God will make me perfect and not flawed. So I`ll have fingers and toes. Because you know... that`s my flaw.

Religion is not kind to the toeless!

0
Reply
Male 12,138
On Opie`s lack of toes (and some fingers if I`m not mistaken):

The Conservative Christian view: "You`re (very slightly) disabled. That`s just God`s will. He has a plan. He Made you with a disability a reason. He has a plan blahblahblah horsewank"

The slightly more sane, scientific view: "You suffered from ABS (look it up, those who are unfamiliar) in the womb. That sucks, but it`s no big deal. Roll with it honey, we all love you big time."

Let`s face up to it. If God exists, he`s a wanker.

0
Reply
Female 1,604
this is going to bring out the bible fanatics isn`t it?
ok just to give you something to read
go to Skeptics Bible, very interesting.
I won`t get into the whole debate on the magickal world of the bible.
0
Reply
Male 1,918
OMFG theres no point in coming to IAB anymore, I`ve seen all the stories they post
0
Reply
Female 15,763
I was born without toes...

OMG THAT MEANS I PROVE EVOLUTION WRONG.

I AM THE NEXT JESUS.

0
Reply
Male 12,138
Also, to the amateur (but enthusiastic, I’ll give you that) scientists on IAB who spout that the world was made is 4004BC. With all due respect, I’ve tried hard to make this comment less than condescending, but I can’t. The fact of the matter is, I have a PhD and an BSc (First Class Honours) in Geology from some pretty fine Universities. I know how old the world is. In fact I’ve contributed to several books on the subject. Not trying to be an ass here, but I may know a little more than some on the subject. What with not having got all my information from a pamphlet I picked up from a dude at my last Prayer Meet.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
“My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that’s going to make him blind. And [I ask them], “Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a God who’s full of mercy.”
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Good advice to the lad there Bob. In other news, sorry for the multiple post, but on-topic.
I can only quote the great naturalist and broadcaster Sir David Attenborough (my childhood hero, who has a very large part to play in me being the man I am today). I`ve used this quote before, so apologies to those who have heard it already:
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Have I? Missed that part.

All you just did was prove that the Bible is full of conflicting advice and inconsistencies.
We both have Bible verses backing up our points. If anything, mine should supercede yours, since mine is the word of Jesus himself, whereas yours isn`t.

Have a nap.

0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]why the f*** is my ex on iab??? not cool guys not cool[/quote]

Mate, anyone can make an account. Which is why the BanHammer is always put back on the recharge cradle after every use. I`m talking spambots and wankers here obviously, not you guys. Much love. You`d be staggered at how many times it`s wheeled out on an average day at IAB.

0
Reply
Male 1,381
@almightybob1:

"Don`t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels." - 2 Timothy 2:23


you might wanna sit down, dude. you`ve been pwned pretty hard. :- )

0
Reply
Male 12,365
Genuinely unintended - I didn`t see the pun. I must need more coffee :)
0
Reply
Male 161
"It depends on what you mean by "ape", which has a bit of a woolly definition." You forgot to say no pun intended. =3
0
Reply
Male 12,365
3inABed:

Your mind is boggling because you`re doing something that isn`t allowed in young earth creationism: thinking.

Incidentally, YEC stems from ignorance of ancient Jewish customs regarding written genealogies...and I`d be willing to bet that most YECs don`t even know that the origin of their belief is Jewish, let alone anything about ancient Jewish customs.

0
Reply
Male 12,365
"I heard somewhere else that this fossil "proves" we didn`t come from apes or chips, but that we share a common ancestor with them. "

It depends on what you mean by "ape", which has a bit of a woolly definition. It`s correct to say that humans *are* apes, but it`s also correct to exclude humans from that term.

There`s no indication that humans evolved from any currently living ape species, though, so what you read was right in terms of the common ancestor and also the rather long time scale. The generally accepted timescale is in the region of 10 million years ago for the great apes diverging from other apes and about 2 million years ago for the homo genus diverging from the great apes, with homo sapiens a relatively recent ~150,000 years ago.

I`d just like the strength and toughness of other great apes along with the human dexterity and intelligence. We`re rather frail in comparison.

0
Reply
Male 736
science is real. deal with it.
0
Reply
Male 3,314
I heard somewhere else that this fossil "proves" we didn`t come from apes or chips, but that we share a common ancestor with them. Kind of like you`re not your aunt and uncle`s kid, but you share a common ancestor with your cousins, but on a much, much, MUCH longer timeline.
0
Reply
Male 29
This thought just struck me, correct me if I`m wrong.

According to YEC, the Universe is around 6013 years old right? So does that mean that the Universe only extends out from the Earth for 6013 (for arguments sake) light years? Seeing as the Milky Way alone is well over 100,000 light years across how is it that we on Earth can see stars further than 6013 light years away as they didn`t exist before that time? Also, other galaxies which are too far away for their light protons to have arrived in this creation time-frame shouldn`t exist either right? Does the Milky Way exist for you guys?
Or does Creationism allow for the billion upon billions of stars to be instantly formed and be shining onto Earth even those who are further than 6013 light year away from Earth?

My mind boggles.

0
Reply
Male 12,365
Handsompod:

Humans were using tools in a more complex way than other apes long ago. Ancient humans also had art, music, etc.

I agree that the number of people not spending most of the waking life on surviving is a big factor in the pace of technological change (see my post 2 before yours).

Cultural values and religion are also big factors. Many religions suppress change of any kind and culture can suppress or promote it. The industrial revolution was enabled by technological advances, especially the reinvention of the steam engine, but it was also driven by cultural values that enthusiastically supported it, especially in Britain.

A similar combination of cultural values, freedom from religious oppression and enough people with enough free time existed in ancient Greece, with similar results. It was much less pronounced in the much more pragmatic Roman republic, an example of the effect of cultural values.

0
Reply
Female 1,306
Sorry, I`m just imagining all the crazy religious people at their computers in formal wear and combed hair, saying "Huh, Jesus. Supposedly fossils were found that prove humans are most likely descended from apes." and then his hand puppet goes, "No, John! Heed not these heathens! Slander, I tell you, slander!"

Seriously my imagination is out of control.

0
Reply
Male 29
@Angillion, ah..so that`s where the "good morning" saying comes from.
0
Reply
Male 29
ukulelemike, most of the greatest inventions man has made that had a massive shift on us as a species are very old. For example; the wheel, language, weapons, artistic expression.
It also didn`t take us 70 years to get from horse to the moon, let`s be sensible here, 70 years ago people were driving around in cars, humans domesticated the horse thousands of years ago. So it`s really from horse, to horse and cart (also thousands of years ago) to steam engine (train, car) to combustion engine vehicle to moon, right? There`s nothing stupid about it taking man 3 million years to get to space flight, it is just the natural order of things. It`s not a race.
As far as I know, the oldest human artifacts that have been found are around 2 million years old, from the Stone Age. Not billions.


0
Reply
Male 1,108
"Why then would we expect man was so stupid it took us 3 millions years to get to that point, when 70 years took us from the horse to the moon?"
Because after the industrial and agricultural revolutions we could get on with other things than growing crops and hunting for food. That was pretty much all we had time for before that happened. Look at how apes use tools now, that`s us a long time ago.
0
Reply
Male 265
why the f*** is my ex on iab??? not cool guys not cool
0
Reply
Male 12,365
"Also, consider that most great inventions of man have been very recent, taking us from horses and carriages, about 1900, to flight, to space, within about 50 years. Why then would we expect man was so stupid it took us 3 millions years to get to that point, when 70 years took us from the horse to the moon?"

3 million years? Homo sapiens is far more recent than that.

The increase in the pace of technological advance has nothing to do with intelligence. It`s far too complex for ~970 characters, but I`ll have a go:

i) It`s all built on earlier work, which was built on earlier work, etc. It didn`t pop out of nothing in the 20th century.

ii) Widespread education, a very new idea, provided a massive increase in the number of people who could contribute. Social changes likewise.

iii) The reinvention and *practical application* of the steam engine transformed society, urbanising it and putting technology into the heart of society.

0
Reply
Male 1,108
Erm Ukulelmike, surely god wouldn`t bury the same piece 36 times.
"But the researchers have other fragments that may represent perhaps at least 36 different individuals"

.........another knee, another knee, another knee.........Holy cow this thing has fifty legs!!!

0
Reply
Male 12,365
3inABed:

You have slightly misheard or misread young earth creationism. The "4000" you referred to is 4004 BC, i.e. 6013 years ago. Almost exactly 6013 years now - creation supposedly occured at 9 in the morning on the 23rd of October 4004 BC.

You`re spot on about how ludicrous it is, though. The only way it can make any sense is if their god does exist and is faking all the evidence for a laugh.

All of the vast amount of evidence of anything on earth older than 6013 years, or even of the earth itself being older than that, must be dismissed by lying about it not existing. See, for example, Reformer81 in this thread. YECs think that if they lie often enough most people will believe them and that if they get enough power anyone who doesn`t believe them can be suppressed. They might be right - it`s worked for other tyrants.

It isn`t really a creationism vs evolution thing. It`s a tyranny vs freedom thing.

0
Reply
Male 575
inb4 Religious flame war ... oh, never mind.
0
Reply
Male 129
3inabed: History is actually about 6000 years, biblically. Obviously the metals began to be worked with early on, according to Genesis. Much of the early tools we find were probably due to the flood, man having to revert back to having literally nothing.
But consider this, in earth`s age: numerous human artifacts have been found in coalbeds, supposedly billions of years old, including a brass bell with a human figure on it, and a small, silver airlplane-the 2,000 year old Baghdad battery, the egyptian hieroglyphs depicting lightbulbs, egyptian artifacts electroplated with gold.
Also, consider that most great inventions of man have been very recent, taking us from horses and carriages, about 1900, to flight, to space, within about 50 years. Why then would we expect man was so stupid it took us 3 millions years to get to that point, when 70 years took us from the horse to the moon?
0
Reply
Male 129
If anyone actually looks up a picture of the actual skeleton, rather than accepting the picture of it, you`ll notice some interesting things-for instance, the thigh bones, which the picture shows slanting inward, like a human`s, is pure interpretation, since the actual skeleton only has about 6 inches of that bone found, and neither socket it fits in is present, meaning we have no way of knowing how the bone sat. The skull is smashed, and in pieces, most of it being missing-the spine consists of two, vertebra, and one partial rib. The arms, feet, hands and teeth are classically solid ape-even the depiction looks totally ape, except for the upright stance, which could not be accurately depicted from the bones found, and the placement of the thighs, which is complete speculation considering what is present to work from.
Again, science proves themselves so completely unable to make an unbiased assessment of fossils, because everything ape/human like MUST be a proto-human. Phooey!
0
Reply
Male 1,108
£inabed I think Bill Hicks tells the story best. NSFW language.
History of creationism
0
Reply
Male 4,290
And Handsompod - yeah I`m pretty sure that`s Leviticus, or possibly Deuteronomy. Some good stuff in there too.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
3InABed - their usual claim is around 6000 or 7000 years I think.
0
Reply
Male 29
I`d like to know a few things about Creationism, am I right in thinking that history does not go back further than 4000 years? So in your book there was no Stone Age, Bronze Age etc? Or did it all just happen really quickly?
("Look, I made Bronze" "That`s nothing I made Iron last week" says one caveman to the other while in one corner another is perfecting gunpowder while in another two are working on the steam-engine)
I find it hard to even imagine refuting a couple of hundred years of scientific inquiry and discoveries.

@shunpo 31, I don`t think Creationists have a point in the first place. It smacks of zealotry. And is just plain weird.

0
Reply
Male 1,108
Oh what the hell i`m joining in.

"So if you`re unwilling to spread biblical teachings (creationism being one of them) then you`re directly disobeying Jesus."

I`m off to tell everyone to kill thier kids if they disobey them, all in the name of Jesus.

Leviticus I think. It`s been a while.

0
Reply
Male 9,306
"It took you this long to discover this story? It`s been out for weeks.
"

We have a considerable amount of USER SUBMITTED CONTENT to peruse. :)

Also, to throw my opinion into the ring, I am reminded of the episode "Go God, Go" of SouthPark where Stan says:

"Can`t evolution be the answer to `how` and not the answer to `why`?"

0
Reply
Male 4,290
Shunpo - that would be because Jesus commands you to go and spread the word of God, in Matthew 28:19-20.

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

So if you`re unwilling to spread biblical teachings (creationism being one of them) then you`re directly disobeying Jesus.

0
Reply
Male 2,600
"So we DID come from apes?"

No; we are apes. We never stopped being apes.

0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Caveat in the article "Even if it is not on the direct line to us.." Enough said.[/quote]

Well Crackr, while we`re quoting single lines from the article:

"This is not an ordinary fossil. It`s not a chimp. It`s not a human. It shows us what we used to be."

Note that last sentence.

0
Reply
Male 1,381
i don`t understand creationists` willingness to argue their point. i AM one, by the way, and i see no point.

if we`re right, everyone else will figure it out when they die.

why don`t we just wait till then? :-)

0
Reply
Male 2,486
"There is NO evidence (beyond circumstantial) for Evolution. At all. "

There`s plenty, you`re just too stupid to look it up. There`s a huge difference between "there isn`t", and "I don`t know there is."

0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote]There is NO evidence (beyond circumstantial) for Evolution. At all.[/quote]

Your cluelessness is legendary

0
Reply
Male 12,138
> "There is NO evidence (beyond circumstantial) for Evolution. At all."

Well see, that`s not exactly true now, is it? You could try starting HERE for a decent scientific synopsis of some of the evidence. Not that I actually expect any Young Earth Creationists present to read that article - reading must be pretty tricky with those big blinkers on.

0
Reply
Male 716
It took you this long to discover this story? It`s been out for weeks.

And this evolution/creation theory is really annoying. BOTH sides.

0
Reply
Male 2,440
"New Fossil Discovered: So We DID Come From Apes?"

The title of this link is wrong. Humans ARE apes (great apes). We and other modern primates share a common ancestor. But I`m sure those who care enough already knew and the creationists will scream and then retreat back to their outhouses.

Now carry on with your flame war. Go on.

0
Reply
Male 103
Just like to get this out of the way, because I can`t hold it back much longer: Creationists are wrong, and are only holding back further scientific progress.
0
Reply
Male 1,550
Jesus sucks!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
"And ardent Evolutionists keep mentioning "mountains of evidence" and "irrefutable proof" and yet when asked to produce any of it, they always balk."

This is a lie or delusion.

"There is NO evidence (beyond circumstantial) for Evolution. At all."

And so is this.

0
Reply
Male 81
i feel like this is the general christian thought process in situations like this, "oh god look. more evidence that threatens our religion and following. lets defensively curl up and violently lash out at anyone who questions us until this dies down"
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Caveat in the article "Even if it is not on the direct line to us.." Enough said.
0
Reply
Male 1,108
Oh dear, anyone going to ask about the lack of evidence of a certain something?
(I`m on shift for another 7 hours, this just might keep me going all night)
0
Reply
Male 606
Okay guys, evolution is proven. Creationists/religious people have nothing.
0
Reply
Male 38
And ardent Evolutionists keep mentioning "mountains of evidence" and "irrefutable proof" and yet when asked to produce any of it, they always balk.

There is NO evidence (beyond circumstantial) for Evolution. At all.

0
Reply
Male 38
Hmm... could this be another Lucy; a short human with advanced arthritis? Please, science has long-lost it`s objectivity and quest for truth. They`ve already found their "truth" in Evolution and now are only doing their best to find evidence to support it... even when there is none.
0
Reply
Male 1,254
Nearly all religions have little reason to refute evolution and by proxy these findings. A staunch creationist might bite, but the flame war baiting is likely going to fail.
0
Reply
Male 346
Ok ill start it up.

Jesus is a gay, and science is all cool and stuff.

0
Reply
Male 1,108
*waits with anticipation of inevitable flame war*
0
Reply
Male 674
Ooh look, another fossil. Not that it will convince any creationists, but it still looks neat.
0
Reply
Male 36
Just like to point out that it says at the beginning that Ardi isn`t a direct ancestor. This means in reality, it has nothing to do with humans.
0
Reply
Male 976
Everyone hold your bibles and science books close... a religious fight is about to insue.
0
Reply
Male 1,442
Oh dear, flame war subject. People should know by now it takes more then substantial evidence to convert creationists.
0
Reply
Male 587
Take that Religion
0
Reply
Male 155
the evidence really keeps piling up doesn`t it?
0
Reply
Male 964
0
Reply