Look here....
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090519/twl-scientists-unveil-missing-link-in-ev-3fd0ae9.html
Cheers,
Stuart
Visit my blog at http://stuartsorensen.wordpress.com/
Utter rubbish more like!!! Why are there still lemurs, goriillas, chimpanzees and even amoeba? If it all about evolution then the process has clearly failed dismally because those distinct species still remain as distinct as ever they were.
You are perhaps grasping at straws Stuart - anything to try to deny creationism when God created men and women following creating other creatures and so they have remained!
Over my lifetime the "missing link" seems to have been discovered at least a dozen times! Just how many missing links are there?
RupertM2:Why are there still lemurs, goriillas, chimpanzees and even amoeba? If it all about evolution then the process has clearly failed dismally because those distinct species still remain as distinct as ever they were.
Man didnt evolve from lemurs, goriillas or chimpanzees. Man, and all three of the creatures named there evolved along seperate paths together from primitive apes changing to adapt to their environment. The platapus is a transitional creature.
RupertM2: You are perhaps grasping at straws Stuart - anything to try to deny creationism when God created men and women following creating other creatures and so they have remained!
Well a glance at the fossil records would suggest that you are wrong. Rabbits have not always existed (Haldane you old devil). I realise that your faith means that you belive this but its an opinion that isnt based on empirical evidence and so, as such, is utter bunk. Evolution may not have all the answers but it faces the issue based on science which can be prooved and tested, unlike the magic man in the sky theory.
"We speak, and the word goes out beyond us, to consequences and ends which we had not conceived of." - Gadamer
So why haven't your apes etc. all moved on? If you reject creationism for lack of empirical evidence then you must equally reject evolution which does not command anything like overwhelming scientific support either!!! Both are unproveable but I know which one I prefer to believe and which one makes the most sense - intelligent creation.
Not getting into slagging people off here but I'll answer your question as best I can from memory - don't have any literature to hand:
But - there is a lon and traceable fossil recodrd of early hominid species leading one to oanoither until we get closer to modern humans. Then we have Australopithecus Robustus which leads to Austrolapithecus Afarensis - a similair (and later) species that has characteristics of the older Robustus but also new features (notably Broca's area in the skull which is related to language). Folllowing on from that we have various changes relating to size and bone density as well as relative brain size leading to Australopithecus gracile and then finally we have the two later human branches of modern human (homo sapien) or the now extinct (or possibly subsumed) species of Neanderthal.
So to answer your question the answer is clear - they have moved on and the fossil records demonstrates this extremely well. The recent discovery [rovides the missing link from much earlier in the evolutionary chain.
Yep the apes have evolved but specificaly for their own environment. The lema is a good example as they have evolved to be experts in the trees. We, on the other hand, and apes for open country. Tall to see over high grass, fast on open ground. Just because other apes cant talk and write does not mean they are not as advanced as us on the evolutionary road, just with a different set of priorities.
Also, if man was made to always be the same how can you account for average hights increasing in the last few hundred years? is that god improving us?
There seems little doubt that species have adapted (evolved) within their own kind - if apes became humans what have humans become!!!??? If evolution was so good and effective why are there still apes, orangutans etc? Equally, would we not have learned far more from evolution than to continue killing each other, killing off species of animals, polluting our environment and not checking up on greedy bankers???
And 'Adra' human beings have improved due to advanced medical care, improved environments, better diets etc.
Rupert - evolution is a mechanism for procreation and survival lpong enough to breed - not a mechanism for discernement or morality. It never claimed to be.
But are you actually suggesting that a flawed creation (as anticipated by evolution) is actually evidence of intelligent design?
Stuart - yes, exactly as so clearly stated in The Bible. We were not created as robots and the exercise of free will sadly often means that people behave in line with 'baser' rather than 'higher' motives - a bit like MP's and their expenses!!!
Adra: Also, if man was made to always be the same how can you account for average hights increasing in the last few hundred years? is that god improving us?
The issue for evolution is the "jumping" of species - mere adaptation (tallness, etc.) is irrelevant; there remain billions of short people who are fully human!
RupertM2: And 'Adra' human beings have improved due to advanced medical care, improved environments, better diets etc.
Ah I see so God made us flawed and badly built but we have improved on his design by our own knowledge.
surfer: The issue for evolution is the "jumping" of species - mere adaptation (tallness, etc.) is irrelevant; there remain billions of short people who are fully human!
All evolution and change is based on having to adapt to situation or environment. The fact that you just refered to adaption means that you have excepted its existance. If anything has to adapt, or even have the ability to do it over generations, then isnt that an indication that creatures where not made perfect, or to stay the same, because they have to change to meet new needs. If god had made them fixed then they would not do that.
Anyway we can go round and round on this. I belive I'm right because of what scientific empirical evidence says, you belive your right becuse you belive in stories. I know I cant change your mind and you wont change mine so no worries.
Why the rant against God? Seems brilliant to me to make human beings in such a way that they would adapt to externally changing circumstances.
The empirical scientific evidence is entirely equivocal; so don't base your beliefs on that!
Adra:Anyway we can go round and round on this. I belive I'm right because of what scientific empirical evidence says, you belive your right becuse you belive in stories. I know I cant change your mind and you wont change mine so no worries.
OK, so taking this to the next level, science is beginning to unravel the big bang, matter and antimatter etc, but I have questions which science has not yet explained and not sure it can - so here we go;
1 - What was there before the big bang?
2 - As the universe is expanding, where is it expanding into?
What I don't understand is how something can be made from nothing
No 'Adra' the Bible says that we were created in the image of God and that God gave us freewill - the freewill to abuse our bodies and our environment so we have paid the price for not following the right ways.
Also, men and women have always been men and women, just as birds and animals have always been birds and animals.
IF the 'big bang' theory (and it is only a theory) is correct where was the matter before that?
Both creationism and evolution are not scientifically proveable but I know which one I prefer to BELIEVE and which makes more sense. The Bible has to be read as a whole before being dismissed and there is far too much that makes enormous sense and is also proveable (i.e. many of the prophecies) but that is heading towards another debate altogether.
As a matter of interest the whole judicial system is also derived from biblical principles and not humanist ones.
surfer:Why the rant against God? Seems brilliant to me to make human beings in such a way that they would adapt to externally changing circumstances.
Your right it is brilliant. Evolution is brilliant. What an amazing and powerful process.
surfer:The empirical scientific evidence is entirely equivocal; so don't base your beliefs on that!
What I know of science is this: There have been many times in history where superstition has given way to what science has proved. The earth is in fact round, not flat. We know why the tides work, why the wind blows and why the sun can vanish behind the moon. Slowly science answers the questions that superstition has made things up to try and cover. Science bases its statements on facts and changes if proved wrong. It relies on evidence. If the pattern continues then science will one day have an answer to many more of the questions we now have no way of answering and superstition will have fewer and fewer places to hide itself. And it is only in ignorance that superstition thrives. I don’t believe in science, nothing so active, I just know that it gives answers to questions based on facts. And I'll trust facts over superstition any day.
RupertM2: As a matter of interest the whole judicial system is also derived from biblical principles and not humanist ones.
Creation is brilliant - it reflects the Creator!
It was religious people who demonstrated that the world was flat! Copernicus and others.
How do you know what you think are facts are "facts"? God is a fact - how can mere human science prove or disprove that?
Sorry, above should say "It was religious people who demonstrated that the world was round! Copernicus and others."
Edit function doesn't seem to work.
Adra you suffer (and I'm trying to be devils advocate here) from 'last worditis'. It is the gospel according Adra. Rupert is quite able to respond and will do I expect, but debate is the order and disagreement is the result. Your response to him was so different to others on these threads.
Not entering into this debate, just an interested bystander on this and other threads.
surfer:How do you know what you think are facts are "facts"? God is a fact - how can mere human science prove or disprove that?
This is the problem. Facts are things that can be proved by man. You just said god cant be proved or disproved by man so how can it be a fact? Because you say so? Because someone says so? No they have to back it up with evidence. There isnt any evidence for god. I except that people have faith in god but dont say its a fact because you cant prove it.
No science starts with facts and build on that. Faith starts with only faith. Please dont make out that faith alone is enough to prove god exists. Thats like saying "i want aliens to exist so they do."
surfer:Sorry, above should say "It was religious people who demonstrated that the world was round! Copernicus and others."
Yep and they did it with scientific methods.
Mary Brady:Adra you suffer (and I'm trying to be devils advocate here) from 'last worditis'. It is the gospel according Adra. Rupert is quite able to respond and will do I expect, but debate is the order and disagreement is the result. Your response to him was so different to others on these threads.
Maybe thats true but a forum needs to have a last word so it can have a next word. Also i realise you are playing devils advocate but really if all you can say about the topic is to comment on my post style then thats not really saying anything now is it? I may seem a little harsh in my posts but i find many faiths a bit offensive so i guess im speaking from a place of offence. That does not mean that people of faith offend me but, just like many political positions, i find many of the concepts and positions distasteful.
Just like those of us from a 'faith' background find some of your posts offensive - the 'arguments' / reasonings put forward ought to be respectful and that has to include accepting differences.
RupertM2: Just like those of us from a 'faith' background find some of your posts offensive - the 'arguments' / reasonings put forward ought to be respectful and that has to include accepting differences.
Oh I 100% respect your right to have a different opinion. I think the world is alot more interesting with lots of different opinions and I really do respect the right to have a different opinion to me. I just dont always respect the opinion. I realised for a long time that I was acting as a religious apologist, even though im agnostic. I really did think that faith automaticly deserved respect and you shouldnt question it because it may offend people. But then, after some significant events / people / places it became obvious that faith should be discussed and questioned just like any other theory or political position or opinion. If I disagree with the Labour party position on gay rights then I'll respect the right for them to have the opinion, but maybe the opinion is greatly different from my own, so I wont automaticly respect the opinion itself. Same with different interpretations of faith. Respect the right to have the opinion, but past that I dont afford it any special treatment. I think alot of people do and its a shame because we miss out on interesting debate. So I'm sorry if I seem like I dont respect your right to differ, I really do, I just dont always respect your position.
Galileo was a deeply religious man.
Adra: surfer:How do you know what you think are facts are "facts"? God is a fact - how can mere human science prove or disprove that? This is the problem. Facts are things that can be proved by man. You just said god cant be proved or disproved by man so how can it be a fact? Because you say so? Because someone says so? No they have to back it up with evidence. There isnt any evidence for god. I except that people have faith in god but dont say its a fact because you cant prove it. No science starts with facts and build on that. Faith starts with only faith. Please dont make out that faith alone is enough to prove god exists. Thats like saying "i want aliens to exist so they do." surfer:Sorry, above should say "It was religious people who demonstrated that the world was round! Copernicus and others." Yep and they did it with scientific methods.
Scientific methods are just that - scientific methods. Excellent within their own limitations, but useless beyond those limitations, for example in the realm of the spiritual. Beware of making Sicence your God - it is no more than a methodology useful to human beings, with all of our limitations of thought and understanding. It has nothing to say about God.
God is and needs no proof. The burden of proof lies with those who wish otherwise!
'Adra' - on the same scientific basis you would then also have to accept that the 'big bang' THEORY is just that - a THEORY and NOT A FACT.
surfer:God is and needs no proof. The burden of proof lies with those who wish otherwise!
No sorry but your wrong. The burden of proof lies with the faithful. If there is no proof of something it has to be proven not disproven. If someone says "the moon is made of cheese" that has to be proven befoe its a fact, otherwise its just a theory. So your theory of god is fine but its not a fact until its proved. And as you have said it cant be proven then it will never be a fact, just a theory. So next to the big bang theory and evolution the theory of god seems a bit silly.
Adra' - you clearly have no answers in the way of proving evolution over creationism - so stop criticising the one when you can not prove the other.
Adra, you really need to go away and learn the tenets of the scientific emprirical methods you keep quoting. The whole way science 'proves' something is by forming a hypothesis, testing it to form a conclusion, and then replicating it under controlled, conditions, to prevent any other factors interfering in the process and thereby skewing the results. However, something can only ever be 'proven' until somebody else comes along and 'proves' it otherwise.
Therefore, evolution can never be proven by scientific empirical methods- unless somebody can take one creature and cause it to evolve it into another creature under contolled conditions, and cause the same result to occur on numerous occasions to produce a statistically significant data set.
You say you respect the right of individuals to hold an opinion that differs from yours, but do not respect the opinions. Sadly, attacking the holders of those opinions contradicts any truth in that statement- it shows a total lack of respect for their right to hold an opinion, and also, in the willingness to attack their deeply held personal beliefs, a sad lack of respect for their inherent worth as a fellow human being.
Adra: surfer:God is and needs no proof. The burden of proof lies with those who wish otherwise! No sorry but your wrong. The burden of proof lies with the faithful. If there is no proof of something it has to be proven not disproven. If someone says "the moon is made of cheese" that has to be proven befoe its a fact, otherwise its just a theory. So your theory of god is fine but its not a fact until its proved. And as you have said it cant be proven then it will never be a fact, just a theory. So next to the big bang theory and evolution the theory of god seems a bit silly.
The vast majority of human beings throughout the ages have acknowledged the existence of God. The burden of proof lies with those who, for whatever reason, wish otherwise. Why would I need to prove that the moon exists?
Please stop misusing science, which has nothing to say about God. "Big Bang" and "Evolution" are theories, largely unproven. Many see them as entirely compatible with the existence of God. If you do not wish to believe in God, that is fine; but please don't insult the intelligence of others who do so believe.
queenb:You say you respect the right of individuals to hold an opinion that differs from yours, but do not respect the opinions. Sadly, attacking the holders of those opinions contradicts any truth in that statement- it shows a total lack of respect for their right to hold an opinion, and also, in the willingness to attack their deeply held personal beliefs, a sad lack of respect for their inherent worth as a fellow human being.
This is interesting. Does a lack of respect for an opinion mean that you are not respecting their right to hold an opinion? i would argue that these are seperate things. Just because someone may find belief in god silly or wrong doesn't mean that they have no respect for the inherent worth of the believer, it means they dont respect the belief. The way in which this is talked about is what causes problems- there is a world of difference between saying 'I dont believe in God' and 'people who believe in God are crazy', but where is the line?
And can we stop the circular 'There is no proof' 'God needs no proof' argument? Because you aren't going to change each others minds here.
Pardon ? You've lost me adriand (!) ........
adriand: Just because someone may find belief in god silly or wrong doesn't mean that they have no respect for the inherent worth of the believer, it means they dont respect the belief. The way in which this is talked about is what causes problems- there is a world of difference between saying 'I dont believe in God' and 'people who believe in God are crazy', but where is the line?
Just because someone may find belief in god silly or wrong doesn't mean that they have no respect for the inherent worth of the believer, it means they dont respect the belief. The way in which this is talked about is what causes problems- there is a world of difference between saying 'I dont believe in God' and 'people who believe in God are crazy', but where is the line?
I agree that simply saying that a belief is wrong, or that you find it wrong or silly, does not imply a lack of respect. There are however ways of saying that- not simply saying that people are wrong, implying they are a fool and not able to think for themselves but simply repeating what they themselves have heard and just blindly accepted. Respect implies giving people the right to be listened to, and heard- even being willing to alter your own views in light of those of another person. Not to allow them to speak, but with the attitude that nothing they say can or will be worth listening to, or ever change one's own mind. That reveals a lack of respect for the person- in my view anyway. I accept that others may disagree and am willing to have my viewpoint changed- it frequently happens as I read posts on here!
I do respect people's right to have different opinions but I dont always respect the opinion or the person holding that opinion. And faith is just another opinion like everything else. If it upsets you that I dont respect peoples opinion on faith then sorry but thats too bad. If this was any other topic I dont think we would have so much of the "hurting deeply held beliefs" daftness. Opinions on faith dont get a free ride just because some people are offended so easily.
Sorry - the spacing went awry with that last post. Here it is again, edited for spaces:
Stuart Sorensen:Arguably we need to be able to challenge religious beliefs in the most robust terms or face terrible consequences. The Holy Wars of the middle ages were bad enough – the same ideological bigotry in a nuclear age could be catastrophic. By allowing the unsubstantiable claims of religion (particularly fundamentalist religions) to go unchecked we create a breeding ground for extremism and a social system that nurtures it. Sam Harris has written an excellent book called:"The End of Faith: religion, terror and the future of reason" ISBN: 978-0-7432-6809-7 His thesis is that it is the moderate believers and society's refusal to challenge them on their unsubstantiable views that makes mass destruction of humanity almost inevitable. The argument is compelling to say the least. Have a look. The book is published by 'The Free Press', dated 2004. From the book itself: "We all know that human beings are capable of incredible brutality but we would do well to ask 'what sort of ideology would make us most capable of it? And how can we place these beliefs beyond the fray of normal discourse, so that they might endure for thousands of years, unperturbed by the course of history or the conquests of reason? These are problems of both cultural and psychological engineering. It has long been obvious that the dogma of faith - particularly in a scheme in which the faithful are promised eternal salvation and doubters are damned - is nothing less then the perfect solution. We will see that the greatest problem confronting civilisation is not merely religious extremism: rather it is the larger set of cultural and intellectual accommodations we have made to faith itself. Religious moderates are, in large part, responsible for the religious conflict in our world, because their beliefs provide the context in which scriptural literalism and religious violence can never be adequately opposed." Cheers, Stuart
By allowing the unsubstantiable claims of religion (particularly fundamentalist religions) to go unchecked we create a breeding ground for extremism and a social system that nurtures it.
Sam Harris has written an excellent book called:"The End of Faith: religion, terror and the future of reason" ISBN: 978-0-7432-6809-7
His thesis is that it is the moderate believers and society's refusal to challenge them on their unsubstantiable views that makes mass destruction of humanity almost inevitable. The argument is compelling to say the least. Have a look. The book is published by 'The Free Press', dated 2004.
From the book itself:
"We all know that human beings are capable of incredible brutality but we would do well to ask 'what sort of ideology would make us most capable of it? And how can we place these beliefs beyond the fray of normal discourse, so that they might endure for thousands of years, unperturbed by the course of history or the conquests of reason? These are problems of both cultural and psychological engineering.
It has long been obvious that the dogma of faith - particularly in a scheme in which the faithful are promised eternal salvation and doubters are damned - is nothing less then the perfect solution.
We will see that the greatest problem confronting civilisation is not merely religious extremism: rather it is the larger set of cultural and intellectual accommodations we have made to faith itself. Religious moderates are, in large part, responsible for the religious conflict in our world, because their beliefs provide the context in which scriptural literalism and religious violence can never be adequately opposed."
I have read some utter rubbish in my time but, Stuart, I think that what you quote just about takes the 'biscuit' - so non-religious people are all 'touchy-feely', kindly disposed to each other, passive, non-conflictual, kind and compassionate as opposed to theose wicked religious people who just want to go out and kill everybody!!!!!!!!
Seems more like Stuart and Adra versus the rest of CareSpace.
I'm not suggesting that there aren't other evils in the world - just that other types of folly are challenged when they arise. The currently topcal sectarianism of the BNP being a case in point.
When the rest of us screw up we are taken to task for it. When we promote unsubstantiable ideas we are expected to at least attempt to justify our views.
When religious people promote ideas that can and regularly do lead to intolerance the world over and regularly result in violence they are protected. Those of us who break the social taboo and question the validity of thise views are demonised. Why should religions be exempt from the requirement of rational justification that everything else is subject to, especially when those religions so often promote intolerance and sectarian violence?
By the way - I don't see myself (or Adra come to that) as being 'versus' anyone. However I do strongly oppose the ideas inherent in religion because I see them as a dangerous threat both to social cohesion and individual psychological well-being.
However I do strongly oppose the ideas inherent in religion because I see them as a dangerous threat both to social cohesion and individual psychological well-being.
Do you Stuart - well I also see the same and even more so with the expressed views and actions of closed societies such as North Korea and the regimes of dictators such as Mugabe in Zimbabwe, not to mention China, Iran, certain Arab States etc. which have nothing to do with religion and EVEN if you choose to 'blame' religion you will find that underlying everything that is wrong with persecution and oppression is human nature in its most evil and vile forms - as spoken about so clearly in the Bible (and other scriptures of other religions). It is when people are driven by their own evil natures and they will 'use' religion or anything else when it SUITS them. You choose a very simplistic argument to blame religion rather than human nature.