Missing Link Between Man and Apes Found

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]magus678 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]magus678 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Why can’t you be a religious person and accept my super great relative?

I thought religions were supposed to be accepting of others :)[/quote]

Nobody? :([/quote]

BackInAction you are a smart guy. As you can probably guess this question comes up all the time when religion is talked about. I can not speak for other religions, but Christianity is very accepting of others. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. The whole world is pretty accepting of others. The part that every one jumps on as not accepting; is people go to Hell for not beleiving in him. This is a hard topic to discuss with out people getting all pissed off and such and rightfully so. [/quote]

Thanks dmaddox, but that’s still avoiding it. I don’t see anything wrong with being a religious person and accepting finds like this. So what if the world isn’t 5000 years old. That doesn’t mean you’re beliefs are instantly nulified.

Avoiding finds like this is just wrong.
[/quote]

I am no scientist, and as I read a lot of the posts about science, it is very interesting. I am a creationist to the extent that I beleive God made everything. The part I find hard to understand is how the World was made. When you read Genesis you see that the sun was not made till the 4th day. I am trying to go on memory here so please forgive me is I am off a day or two. A day is twenty four hours, and explains the earth turning on its axis and the revolution around the sun. If the sun was not made till the 4th day what time frame was the first 3 days? Who knows? Also I find it amazing how people of 5000 years ago were pretty spot on the creation/evolution of the fish, animals, and beasts of the air, and the order in which they were created. These people being ignorant of science hit it pretty spot on. Humans were made last and no one will dispute that modern humans were created or evolved last in the chain. Modern Humans as all would agree are really different than any other hominid spelling ever found. This new find might show we are close to the same make up, but we are different. Chimps and Modern Humans are very close in make up, but we are very much different. Agree?[/quote]

You bring up some things of interest, although the simple solution would just be that the bible isn’t literally correct. In some cases I know that there are things lost in translation (genesis i remember having a hebrew word that isn’t quite “day” and is more something like "an unspecified period of time) so that can account for a bit of it, although I dont know how much really.

Taking the bible literally may be possible, but at least for me, it doesn’t seem likely. Even if they started with divine gold, the council that created the King James Version probably did not get it 100% right.
[/quote]

I will tell you I do not have all the answers, and dont believe anyone that says they do. From my studies of the translation of the Bible, and they are not exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination, it shows the the KJV and the pieces found in the Dead Sea Scrolls the translations were almost identicle. The only differences were mostly punctuation and changing of some words that did not change the meaning of the scripture. I find that absolutely mind boggling. I can not tell you for sure, but for a book to be translated and copied the amount of times that it has been, tens of thousands or maybe hundreds of thousands, and stay that true to the original is pretty impressive. You might say that well since there are a couple of mistakes so the whole thing is wrong. I say that that God had his hand in it to make sure that his word was not changed by humans. These are just my thoughts, and there will always be arguments about Christianity, and understandably so.[/quote]

I’m by no means a scholar either, the hebrew thing was something I had run across and seemed applicable to what you were asking about.

And defintely, I dont think a wrong word or what have you invalidates the whole thing, it still has value to offer, I just am of the camp of it not being some divine truth. That does not mean, however, that I am against someone else believing it. Hell man, go to town; you may even end up being right.

Kudos for having an open mind and all that.
[/quote]

Thanks for your willing to listen. When it comes to time in the Bible it can become subjective kind of like the numbering of the people. If God is not bound by time how can we say a certain period of time is that actual amount of time. I would hope that if I wind up being right you would be along for the ride, but it is your choice. I hope you would be willing to check it out, and make up your own mind. Thanks again.

82

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Eph, you ARE one of the faithful. You just place your faith differently than I do.

You make huge leaps of faith and then settle back on your haunches and convince yourself you did it “scientifically.”

You have your space genie, bud; you just are too blinded by your faith to see him.

No sarcasm.[/quote]

…just keep telling yourself that friend, whatever helps you sleep at night…
[/quote]

Lifting weight in the gym, day after day, year after year, decade after decade, helps me sleep at night. Chiding your skinny little Dutch ass is like chewing gum - no big deal.[/quote]

You two sound like an old married couple. Funny as all get out. Hopefully all in jest.

84

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Eph, you ARE one of the faithful. You just place your faith differently than I do.

You make huge leaps of faith and then settle back on your haunches and convince yourself you did it “scientifically.”

You have your space genie, bud; you just are too blinded by your faith to see him.

No sarcasm.[/quote]

…just keep telling yourself that friend, whatever helps you sleep at night…
[/quote]

Lifting weight in the gym, day after day, year after year, decade after decade, helps me sleep at night. Chiding your skinny little Dutch ass is like chewing gum - no big deal.[/quote]

You two sound like an old married couple. Funny as all get out. Hopefully all in jest.[/quote]

I wuv lil Eph plumb to death. He is my European project. I plan to continue to ejicate 'im until the scales fall from his eyes and he has a Road to Damascus conversion.[/quote]

Maybe that will happen and Eph will then convert the masses to Christianity. Eph you see what your future holds?

85

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Eph, you ARE one of the faithful. You just place your faith differently than I do.

You make huge leaps of faith and then settle back on your haunches and convince yourself you did it “scientifically.”

You have your space genie, bud; you just are too blinded by your faith to see him.

No sarcasm.[/quote]

…just keep telling yourself that friend, whatever helps you sleep at night…
[/quote]

Lifting weight in the gym, day after day, year after year, decade after decade, helps me sleep at night. Chiding your skinny little Dutch ass is like chewing gum - no big deal.[/quote]

You two sound like an old married couple. Funny as all get out. Hopefully all in jest.[/quote]

I wuv lil Eph plumb to death. He is my European project. I plan to continue to ejicate 'im until the scales fall from his eyes and he has a Road to Damascus conversion.[/quote]

Maybe that will happen and Eph will then convert the masses to Christianity. Eph you see what your future holds?[/quote]

…hmmm, only if i become clinically insane could that happen. You see, life and all it’s mysteries; the path humankind has taken during all those thousands of years until this point in time, that is wonderful and glorious in itself. Religion does not, and will never be able to, add to that. So inspite of push’s best efforts, religion has nothing to offer me…

86

This is for you “Eph”…

EPHREM:

"EPHREM the Syrian was an Assyrian and a prolific Syriac-language hymnographer and theologian of the 4th century. He is venerated by Christians throughout the world, and especially among Assyrian Christians, as a saint.

“EPHREM wrote a wide variety of hymns, poems, and sermons in verse, as well as prose biblical exegesis. These were works of practical theology for the edification of the church in troubled times. So popular were his works, that, for centuries after his death, Christian authors wrote hundreds of pseudepigraphous works in his name. Ephrem’s works witness to an early form of Christianity in which western ideas take little part. He has been called the most significant of all of the fathers of the Syriac-speaking church tradition.”

You have a very devout Christian name, Eph!

88

[quote]IronRhino wrote:
This is for you “Eph”…

EPHREM:

"EPHREM the Syrian was an Assyrian and a prolific Syriac-language hymnographer and theologian of the 4th century. He is venerated by Christians throughout the world, and especially among Assyrian Christians, as a saint.

“EPHREM wrote a wide variety of hymns, poems, and sermons in verse, as well as prose biblical exegesis. These were works of practical theology for the edification of the church in troubled times. So popular were his works, that, for centuries after his death, Christian authors wrote hundreds of pseudepigraphous works in his name. Ephrem’s works witness to an early form of Christianity in which western ideas take little part. He has been called the most significant of all of the fathers of the Syriac-speaking church tradition.”

You have a very devout Christian name, Eph!

[/quote]

…yeah, actually E.P.H. are my initials…

89

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…So inspite of push’s best efforts, religion has nothing to offer me…
[/quote]

I can see you don’t sit up straight and pay attention in class, do you? You snap Suzie’s bra strap, look out the window, fiddle with your shoes, doodle pics of boys sticking their fingers in dikes hoping to be a hero someday and somehow think I’ve been talking about “religion” all these years.

You flunk.[/quote]

…i love you too push…

91

This will always be the same argument.

Scientists: in searching for a conclusive link between #1 and #3 we have discovered the number 2.

Creationists: but two still isn’t quite three now is it?

Scientists: of course not, but if you simply draw a line between one and three you can see that two lies right on that line

Creationists: I don’t belive your lines, I only belive in discrete points that touch one another

Scientists: that kind of data is impossible to find. It is conclusive that two is the link between one and three.

Creationists: ahh so you can’t prove it then? Oh and good job on finding two, but how do you propose that two magically becomes three?

Scientists: are you serious?

93

[quote]pushharder wrote:
What a silly boy for trying to delineate between creationists and scientists as if they are in two distinct categories. This, in spite of the fact that numerous, highly esteemed scientists are indeed creationists.

You really should’ve known.

You too have been fartin’ around in class and not paying attention. I’m gonna tell your mom.[/quote]

I myself am a scientist, and believe in God and that man is His creation. That some scientists do not believe in evolution, does not disprove evolution. Your semantics were hasty and incomplete, I did not say “all scientists”

96

[quote]pushharder wrote:
What a silly boy for trying to delineate between creationists and scientists as if they are in two distinct categories. This, in spite of the fact that numerous, highly esteemed scientists are indeed creationists.

You really should’ve known.

You too have been fartin’ around in class and not paying attention. I’m gonna tell your mom.[/quote]

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

The important bit :

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in “creation-science” or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent

Admittedly the figures are like 13 years old, but even with some pretty liberal margin of error and some shifting trends…thats a pretty steep margin. Not sure “numerous” is the right word. “Highly esteemed” could perhaps be an exaggeration as well, although I’m only familiar with a few, such as Behe, which I wouldn’t really count.

If this is the stuff he is posting I’m starting to think maybe I shouldn’t have put him on ignore.

98

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
Where’s the evidence for a 6000 year-old universe?[/quote]

can you imagine some idiot trying to tell you the universe is 6000 years old.Meanwhile there car has oil in it and there wife is wearing diamonds.

99

[quote]borrek wrote:
This will always be the same argument.

Scientists: in searching for a conclusive link between #1 and #3 we have discovered the number 2.

Creationists: but two still isn’t quite three now is it?

Scientists: of course not, but if you simply draw a line between one and three you can see that two lies right on that line

Creationists: I don’t belive your lines, I only belive in discrete points that touch one another

Scientists: that kind of data is impossible to find. It is conclusive that two is the link between one and three.

Creationists: ahh so you can’t prove it then? Oh and good job on finding two, but how do you propose that two magically becomes three?

Scientists: are you serious?[/quote]

why is it that people will discount what they can see with there own eyes, but believe fully in something no one has ever seen.

100

…extra details on the find in S.A…