human evolution's missing link found (95% complete fossil, w/ pics)

Now I Am Really Convinced

emazur said:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo...Lemur_Monkey_Hailed_As_Mans_Earliest_Ancestor
documentary coming within a week:
http://www.revealingthelink.com/more-about-ida/the-film
Click to expand...

That is, I'm fully convinced that evolution is a faith-based religion. You have got to be kidding me that people think that fossil is a missing link between apes and humans. Clearly it is a lemur-like creature, that's all. The only way a person can say that fossil is a missing link is by faith. A fossil can never show evolution, for fossils are unchanging records of dead organisms. Fossils show "evolution" only if one presupposes evolution, then uses that presupposed belief to interpret the fossil.

One may say there are similarities between that fossil and humans, but that is false reasoning. Correlation does not prove causation, and similarities can never show evolution. If two organisms have similar structures, the only thing it proves is that the two have similar structures. Once again, one must presuppose evolution to say that the similarities are due to evolution rather than design. Furthermore, when it comes to "transitional forms," the slightest similarities often receive great attention while major differences are ignored. We have the media to thank for that.

Evolutionists only open up about the lack of fossil missing links once a new one is found. Sky News reports, "Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution," while David Attenborough commented that the missing link "is no longer missing." So are they admitting the evidence was missing until now (supposedly)?
 
I was digging around at the junk yard the other day and found a small oval shaped four wheeled horseless carriage with an insignia on it showing the letters VW. It really looks a lot like a very small version of a semi truck and has many of the same components.

Could this be the missing link between the horse and buggy and a semi truck?

Of course, it may be that, both the horseless carriage and the semi truck both had the same creator.
 
torchbearer said:
most scientist of his day were.
The guy he first understood how plants transfer genetics was a monk too.
Click to expand...

It was particualry relevant for Occam. The Razor works on the Basis that God would not make something more complex than it needed to be. Without a belief in a creator, and a particular type of creator there is no rational basis to apply Occams Razor.
 
LATruth said:
This discovery has the potential to rock some belief system's foundations to the core and convert a "THEORY" of evolution to a scientific law.

This IMO is a BIG deal.
Click to expand...

I believe I may convert to Jainism, which is fully compatible with evolution:

Jainism differs from other religions in its concept of God. Jainism regards every living soul as potentially divine. When the soul sheds its karmic bonds completely, it attains God-consciousness. It prescribes a path of non-violence to progress the soul to this ultimate goal.
...
Jains hold that the Universe and Dharma are eternal, without beginning or end. However, the universe undergoes processes of cyclical change.
...
According to Jain beliefs, the universe was never created, nor will it ever cease to exist. Therefore, it is shaswat (infinite).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism
Click to expand...
 
idiom said:
It was particualry relevant for Occam. The Razor works on the Basis that God would not make something more complex than it needed to be. Without a belief in a creator, and a particular type of creator there is no rational basis to apply Occams Razor.
Click to expand...

the idea is still relevant today, the principle that the simplest explanation is often the most likely.
it isn't a proverb, it is common sense.
 
Brian4Liberty said:
I believe I may convert to Jainism, which is fully compatible with evolution:
Click to expand...

Yeah, the everything reverts to "energy/consciousness" belief. To me, this is more of a philosophy than a religion. Like Buddhism. If I had to classify myself to any certain sect, it would be this. A previous post of mine...

LATruth said:
Let me also make this point, obviously "something" created the universe. It does not have a name, consciousness, empathy towards humans or even recognize our existence.

ENERGY

Nothing more. It can not be created nor destroyed, it's origin vastly beyond our comprehension. It always is and always was. I do not need faith to corroborate this claim, it's a faithless belief. There is nothing sentient about it, it just is. Projecting human traits onto such an idea is insulting and limits the true nature of it. I do not Believe it is a "God" or a "creator". It just is. Everything that stems from it is a random reaction to external stimuli as a result of the universe evolving, thus making evolution possible on Earth as well.

What is so speculative about this? Seems factual based on our knowledge of energy and evolution, scripture is "speculative".
Click to expand...
 
Theocrat said:
That is, I'm fully convinced that evolution is a faith-based religion. You have got to be kidding me that people think that fossil is a missing link between apes and humans. Clearly it is a lemur-like creature, that's all. The only way a person can say that fossil is a missing link is by faith. A fossil can never show evolution, for fossils are unchanging records of dead organisms. Fossils show "evolution" only if one presupposes evolution, then uses that presupposed belief to interpret the fossil.

One may say there are similarities between that fossil and humans, but that is false reasoning. Correlation does not prove causation, and similarities can never show evolution. If two organisms have similar structures, the only thing it proves is that the two have similar structures. Once again, one must presuppose evolution to say that the similarities are due to evolution rather than design. Furthermore, when it comes to "transitional forms," the slightest similarities often receive great attention while major differences are ignored. We have the media to thank for that.

Evolutionists only open up about the lack of fossil missing links once a new one is found. Sky News reports, "Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution," while David Attenborough commented that the missing link "is no longer missing." So are they admitting the evidence was missing until now (supposedly)?
Click to expand...

Bingo. When I saw that fossil I was expecting something at least somewhat human - something Neanderthalish or Cro- Magnanish. Anyone that sees this new fossil as proof of a missing link truly needs their head examined.

Of course, this is where the pro-evolutionists say "YOU aren't an expert! You just don't understand how this provides a missing link! If you knew what we knew you would understand!" Which just proves your point Theo - they DO sound just like religious zealots.
 
Perhaps the fossil was never an animal at all, and was simply always a fossil. Assuming it was a living animal would require faith.
 
Original_Intent said:
I believe this is known as conflating an argument (?)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean. I was trying to illustrate that if we take the approach that was originally suggested regarding the fossil to its logical extreme we end up being able to draw zero conclusions from it, other than that it is a fossil in the ground.

Do you consider it faith if someone concludes this fossil once belonged to a living organism? Why or why not?
 
Faith, as stated previously, had a duality in meaning. Creationists like to counter arguments with "so isn't believing in evolution a form of faith since there is no evidence?" Implying that evolution is tied to some creationist belief due to us having "faith".

I have faith in the assumption that if I jump off of the statue of liberty that I will fall to my death. I have faith that if I gouge my own eyes out with a spoon I will be blind. I have faith that if I drink whats in this bottle of Bawls soda the bottle will be empty...

I also have faith that evolution is how we came into being. Countering with the use of the word faith to twist an argument is 2nd grade logic, wordplay. Believing evolution stems from fossils, DNA and other scientific discoveries that have been researched for years.

Belief in creationism is having faith that a bedtime story about mystical beings rising from the dead that will burn me in a pit of fire if I don't conform is a reality.
 
If you don't have facts, then you must have faith.
That is why you must have faith to believe in god.
 
Have the discussion any way you wish, but please understand the words that you are throwing around.

Facts are abundant in science, they don't mean much. Evolution is a fact. It's a data point; an observation. We see evolution occurring every day. The theory that we're concerned about is not evolution. The theory is evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION. Natural selection is the theory that is being debated, not evolution.
 
cjhowe said:
Have the discussion any way you wish, but please understand the words that you are throwing around.

Facts are abundant in science, they don't mean much. Evolution is a fact. It's a data point; an observation. We see evolution occurring every day. The theory that we're concerned about is not evolution. The theory is evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION. Natural selection is the theory that is being debated, not evolution.
Click to expand...

Wordplay, natural selection spawns evolution.

ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)
n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

This being a direct result of natural selection.
 
LATruth said:
Faith, as stated previously, had a duality in meaning. Creationists like to counter arguments with "so isn't believing in evolution a form of faith since there is no evidence?" Implying that evolution is tied to some creationist belief due to us having "faith".

I have faith in the assumption that if I jump off of the statue of liberty that I will fall to my death. I have faith that if I gouge my own eyes out with a spoon I will be blind. I have faith that if I drink whats in this bottle of Bawls soda the bottle will be empty...

I also have faith that evolution is how we came into being. Countering with the use of the word faith to twist an argument is 2nd grade logic, wordplay. Believing evolution stems from fossils, DNA and other scientific discoveries that have been researched for years.

Belief in creationism is having faith that a bedtime story about mystical beings rising from the dead that will burn me in a pit of fire if I don't conform is a reality.
Click to expand...

I just wanted to point out here, that it's this kind of stuff that spawns the threads about Christianity. So, next time you see one, don't wonder why someone created it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top