logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Theophilus  
#1 Posted : Tuesday, May 19, 2009 9:14:23 AM(UTC)
Theophilus
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 544
Man

Thanks: 4 times
I wasn't sure if this should be in this folder or possibly in another such as "World News." I saw this article declaring the Eigth Wonder of the World - "Scientists Unveil Missing Link in Evolution."

http://news.sky.com/skyn...s_Mans_Earliest_Ancestor

It looks essentially like a monkey to me but I thought I'd share this here and see what others make of it?
Offline James  
#2 Posted : Tuesday, May 19, 2009 10:08:21 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
It looks like a monkey with a thumb.
I personally don't have a problem with the idea of evolution.
I like how Dr. Schroder put it once, "People argue over rather man did or did not come from monkeys, when you look at it, we all came from light beams, man is no more a monkey than he is a light beam, and it doesn't change rather or not God made man."

So if this fossil is the "Missing Link" between man and ape, cool, how come there is only one, shouldn't there be lots of these, as well as other transitional forms. There would be more than just one step between apes and men I would think. And if this is the "Missing Link" I guess the first few generations of man must have been midgets cause that is pretty small.

Just my two cents.

Edited by moderator Wednesday, May 20, 2009 5:01:22 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline edStueart  
#3 Posted : Tuesday, May 19, 2009 11:35:16 AM(UTC)
edStueart
Joined: 10/29/2008(UTC)
Posts: 370
Location: Philadelphia

Theophilus wrote:
It looks essentially like a monkey to me but I thought I'd share this here and see what others make of it?


A pate, perhaps?
"You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."
But first, it will piss you off!
Offline kp  
#4 Posted : Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:30:46 PM(UTC)
kp
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,030
Location: Palmyra, VA

I just want to know one thing: did the lemur have a neshamah? Was he capable of inviting Yahweh's spirit to indwell him and make him eternally alive? Now that would be evolution.

kp
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#5 Posted : Tuesday, May 19, 2009 11:37:09 PM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I love the "Missing link found". Well I'm sorry, but surely there are a few more links? lol. People are so scared that we might not have evolved they cling to ridiculous "stuff", lol

Edited by moderator Wednesday, May 20, 2009 4:57:52 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline James  
#6 Posted : Wednesday, May 20, 2009 4:18:14 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
I was listening to an interesting discussion the other day on the topic of objective morality without God. The discussion at one point turned to people having an inherent ability to discern right from wrong, to which the theist in the discussion pointed out that it was because God gave man a conscience.

This got me to thinking about conscience and evolution. There is no evidence of the conscience evolving, but more to the point there is no evolutionary answer to a conscience, since according to evolution, beneficial changes continue on, while non beneficial ones do not. In a primitive world there would be no benefit what so ever to having a conscience, and in fact it would likely be a great detractor.

The first human to develop a conscience would be at an extreme disadvantage to those that don’t.

1)Mating – a being without a conscience has no issue with rape, and would likely take every women he found attractive, thus increasing the spreading of his genes, while the man with the conscience would have issues with doing such a thing, and would be less likely to procreate in large amounts.

2) Helping others – a man with a conscience might see others suffering and feel bad, and help them. There is no evolutionary advantage to this, as it decreases his own supplies, and in all likely hood risks himself to help them, as the being without the conscience would have no issue with killing him to take what was not given.

That’s just two reasons that I can think of. I don’t know if this is really the place for this, but it was a thought I had, and thought I would share. Can anyone think of an evolutionary advantage to a conscience?
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline Matthew  
#7 Posted : Wednesday, May 20, 2009 5:00:49 AM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
I see Google has gotten on to it quick. Their homepage has the following image today:

UserPostedImage

Offline sirgodfrey  
#8 Posted : Wednesday, May 20, 2009 6:30:46 AM(UTC)
sirgodfrey
Joined: 10/2/2008(UTC)
Posts: 512
Location: North Carolina

I am not so big on evolution and all that jazz (absolutely no offense to anyone who studies or is interested in this), but this was a huge post for me. It makes quite a bit of sense James.


Quote:
I was listening to an interesting discussion the other day on the topic of objective morality without God. The discussion at one point turned to people having an inherent ability to discern right from wrong, to which the theist in the discussion pointed out that it was because God gave man a conscience.

This got me to thinking about conscience and evolution. There is no evidence of the conscience evolving, but more to the point there is no evolutionary answer to a conscience, since according to evolution, beneficial changes continue on, while non beneficial ones do not. In a primitive world there would be no benefit what so ever to having a conscience, and in fact it would likely be a great detractor.

The first human to develop a conscience would be at an extreme disadvantage to those that don’t.

1)Mating – a being without a conscience has no issue with rape, and would likely take every women he found attractive, thus increasing the spreading of his genes, while the man with the conscience would have issues with doing such a thing, and would be less likely to procreate in large amounts.

2) Helping others – a man with a conscience might see others suffering and feel bad, and help them. There is no evolutionary advantage to this, as it decreases his own supplies, and in all likely hood risks himself to help them, as the being without the conscience would have no issue with killing him to take what was not given.

That’s just two reasons that I can think of. I don’t know if this is really the place for this, but it was a thought I had, and thought I would share. Can anyone think of an evolutionary advantage to a conscience?


Offline kp  
#9 Posted : Wednesday, May 20, 2009 7:29:47 AM(UTC)
kp
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,030
Location: Palmyra, VA

There is no evolutionary advantage to having a conscience. Quite the contrary. Yahweh's "agenda" of love, especially as applied to the less advantaged (the "widows and orphans") of the world makes absolutely no sense if "survival of the fittest" is what drives our development and advancement. The darwinist mind states, in Charles Dickens' words, "...Then let them die, and so decrease the surplus population." The Wikipedia article on Social Darwinism states,

Quote:
Social Darwinism reached a peak in Adolph Hitler’s Mein Kampf (My Struggle), which was strewn with evolutionary thought. Its theme of the supremacy of the Aryan race led to the Jewish holocaust. Hitler also persecuted other races and ethnic groups he considered inferior, such as blacks, gypsies, and Christians. The effect of evolutionism on Hitler’s thinking is not often alluded to, but it lay at the root of his philosophies: "He who would live must fight, he who does not wish to fight in this world where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist." (Mein Kampf, as quoted in Robert E. D. Clark in, Darwin, Before and After, Paternoster Press, London, 1948 )


Stalin, I'm told, was also deeply affected by Darwin's theories as applied to political science.

kp
Offline James  
#10 Posted : Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:33:58 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
Anyone who takes the time to study Hitler will see that Darwinian evolution was at the heart of his plans, it was the whole basis for the Super Race, and Aryan Supremacy. Beyond the Jews The Nazis also murdered the mentally ill and physically disfigured, He saw there procreation as harming the genetic makeup.

Darwinian Evolution is completely amoral. Evolution grants no moral right, and the furthering of evolution is often immoral. Without God morality is just a group consensus at that moment.

i have been reading the book Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin, and writing of Faith and the Founding of America he writes
Mark Levin wrote:

Some resist the idea of Natural Law's relationship to Divine Providence, for they fear it leads to intolerance or even theocracy. They have it backwards. If man is "endowed by [the] Creator with certain unalienable rights," he is endowed with these rights no matter his religion or whether he has allegiance to any religion. It is Natural Law, divined by God and discoverable by reason, that prescribes the inalienability of the most fundamental and eternal human rights--rights that are not conferred on man by man and, therefore, cannot legitimately be denied to man by man.


Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline Matthew  
#11 Posted : Thursday, May 21, 2009 6:43:13 AM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Yada's post today on the YY Letters thread:

Yada wrote:
Quote:
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 8:19 AM, "JM"wrote:

http://news.sky.com/skyn..._Mans_Earliest_Ancestor

What do you make of this?

-JM



Yada's response:


Quote:
Re: Missing link?‏
From: Yada (Yada@winns.org)
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 7:43:30 AM
To: "JM"

J,

It is stunningly pathetic. It's a monkey which has made a monkey of men.

It is obvious that homo Sapians have existed for a hundred thousand years--long before Adam and Chawah were expelled from the garden. And it is obvious that man, apart from our nesamah/conscience is an animal like every other animal. Scripture says as much. But to think that this little lemur fossile is "the missing link which prove Darwin right" is pathetic in the extreme. (Not to mention that Darwin's natural selection theory based upon positive mutations within genes is mathematically impossible.)

Science has become less credible than the religious clerics scientists have assailed. The more they protest, the more they make fools of themselves.

Yada


Offline Matthew  
#12 Posted : Friday, June 5, 2009 1:30:25 AM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
From NewScientist.com:

Quote:
Why Ida fossil is not the missing link
By Chris Beard, curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History
21 May, 09

...

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).


UserPostedImage
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.