Missing link found by Norwegian scientist

[Hespera]

So [true] science is either supported hypotheses, insofar as it's not?

There's no such dichotomy as proven/unproven?

Instead, it's supported/unproven?

Sceince is the only religion I know that runs on a network of supported guesswork.

Has there ever been a time in the past, where a gue... er... hypoth... er... theory has been "proven" false, then later shown to be supportable?

You got the sanrk thing down pretty well, but the rest of it is just a buncha washmymouth.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Except that you used the word "guesswork" there, Poe.

 

[fated]

Reasonable scientists know that the "missing link" is a headline catching pipe dream. Actually, though, this particular find might not even be on the human style primate continuum. I've heard other information on it...

That's all beside the point to half the stuff on this thread, but for those actually interested in it, and who wants to understand this find, that's what I have to say.

Evolution is so well documented that it is difficult to reasonably deny. On the other hand, I believe that you can certainly find yourself impressed by the complexity and beauty of the world enough, either statistically or by simply inspection to conclude that there was a creator involved.

Also, this really doesn't solve the debate as to whether evolution was preordained or if certain pieces or all the pieces are the result of direct intervention, or a mixture of the two. (Except for micro-level evolution, which is obvious and easy to prove and observe).

 

[AV1611VET]

Except that you used the word "guesswork" there, Poe.

Should I have said, "assumption"?

(After all, you know what they say about "assume" --- don't you?)

 

[AV1611VET]

Reasonable scientists know that the "missing link" is a headline catching pipe dream.

And they feed us just enough "discoveries" to make us look like their craft is legitimate.

After all, they don't want to lose any support.

At least S.E.T.I. was honest enough not to start "finding things" out there when their support came into question.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Should I have said, "assumption"?

(After all, you know what they say about "assume" --- don't you?)

You should refrain from discussing that which you time and time again demonstrate little to no knowledge of. You should visit the theology section more often than not.

 

[Hespera]

And they feed us just enough "discoveries" to make us look like their craft is legitimate.

After all, they don't want to lose any support.

At least S.E.T.I. was honest enough not to start "finding things" out there when their support came into question.

Now for honest support you cant beat forced tithes, and execution for those who dont believe.

Honest? Here's a book. Its not based on anything but some visions but its all true and if you dont believe it you will go to hell.

Legit? Faith man, faith! If you dont have faith you will go to hell.

 

[AV1611VET]

You should refrain from discussing that which you time and time again demonstrate little to no knowledge of. You should visit the theology section more often than not.

You're the one not answering my questions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now for honest support you cant beat forced tithes, and execution for those who dont believe.

Honest? Here's a book. Its not based on anything but some visions but its all true and if you dont believe it you will go to hell.

Legit? Faith man, faith! If you dont have faith you will go to hell.

Meanwhile --- back to the subject at hand...

 

[fated]

And they feed us just enough "discoveries" to make us look like their craft is legitimate.

After all, they don't want to lose any support.

At least S.E.T.I. was honest enough not to start "finding things" out there when their support came into question.

I think you're unreasonable. I think that this may or may not be a significant find, but also that regardless it does not 'show us' the mechanics of macro-evolution... Which is the most... awesomely intriguing part of the theory. I've wondered if such macro-evolution and rapid revolution was brought on by hostile and deadly periods in history, such as magnetic pole shifts, solar flares, high relatively corrosive gas in the atmosphere, high amounts of UV radiation, etc...

I'd be let down if macro-evolution wasn't behind it. I think macro-evolution builds up awe in the Creation without limiting God at all. That is, the wonder involved clearly points to the existence of a Creator.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

And they feed us just enough "discoveries" to make us look like their craft is legitimate.

After all, they don't want to lose any support.

At least S.E.T.I. was honest enough not to start "finding things" out there when their support came into question.

Conspiracy theories not withstanding.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think you're unreasonable. I think that this may or may not be a significant find, but also that regardless it does not 'show us' the mechanics of macro-evolution... Which is the most... awesomely intriguing part of the theory. I've wondered if such macro-evolution and rapid revolution was brought on by hostile and deadly periods in history, such as magnetic pole shifts, solar flares, high relatively corrosive gas in the atmosphere, high amounts of UV radiation, etc...

I'd be let down if macro-evolution wasn't behind it. I think macro-evolution builds up awe in the Creation without limiting God at all. That is, the wonder involved clearly points to the existence of a Creator.

WOW --- you want "hostile and deadly periods in history" to have occurred so as macroevolution can function?

How romantic are you towards this doctrine?

Then, to top that off --- all this death, destruction, and survival points to our Creator???

No, thanks --- I'll stick with the Documentation.

 

[Hespera]

Meanwhile --- back to the subject at hand...

Good idea! Go forth, and stray no more.

 

[AV1611VET]

[deleted]

 

[mpok1519]

Our origins are thoroughly Documented and preserved in a Book that tells us not only Who did it, but when He did it, how He did it, where He did it, why He did it, what order He did it in, and even who the eyewitnesses were.You don't understand enough of it to challenge it.

No. It doesnt. I do understand it well enough to challenge it.

We're not a species --- we're a kind --- humankind.

Again you're wrong. We are of the genus homo and the species sapien. Homo sapiens.

And eventually isn't the word for it --- it was done in a day.It's not hard to believe because you're taking it on faith --- and your evidence is only stuff retro-fitted to look legitimate.

at least its evidence and not a myth, legend or story.


Evolution again, ftw.

 

[fated]

WOW --- you want "hostile and deadly periods in history" to have occurred so as macroevolution can function?

How romantic are you towards this doctrine?

Then, to top that off --- all this death, destruction, and survival points to our Creator???

No, thanks --- I'll stick with the Documentation.

There is no necessity to interpret Genesis as you have.

death, destruction, and survival, actually points to reality, which I consistently call people to understand. I believe one of the pope's, maybe the current one, explained why, in my opinion, and likely his, gnosticism is wrong: "You are your body."

There is death, destruction, and survival all around us right now, why would this change God for you?

You are your body. You are a Creature*. You are subject to laws, even harsh laws, regarding the pilgrimage of earthly life.

Science measures these laws and their corresponding constants, but it does not explain them or their existence.

 

[mpok1519]

In order for those events to fully align the way they did in the precise order they did is simply not possible by chance. You would have better odds of winning the lottery jackpot....in all 50 states at once.

.

Chance and random possibility have little or nothing to do with evolution, really. Everything happens for a reason.

Also, have you calculated the odds and probabilities of descent with modification,mutation, geographic isolation, enviornmental influence, AND the chances of hitting the lotto in all fifty states? Can you give me the equation you drew these conclusions from?

No?

Okay, so, why would we believe you over, say, an anthropologist with a PHD who contends the opposite?

I think people'd believe the scientist bro.

leave the science to the ones who know what theyre talking about.

 

[AV1611VET]

Again you're wrong. We are of the genus homo and the species sapien. Homo sapiens.

And I'll be glad to repeat myself here --- I am not a Homo sapien.

 

[TheReasoner]

And I'll be glad to repeat myself here --- I am not a Homo sapien.

What are you then? A chimpanzee? An alien from planet Nibiru?Or some trans-dimentional visitor from the realm of.... Nah, i don't know. What ARE you if not a human being?

 

[mpok1519]

And I'll be glad to repeat myself here --- I am not a Homo sapien.

Yes, you are, whether you want to be or not. You can call yourself a unicorn or dragon or dryad gnome whatever, but you are still a Homo Sapien.