Well, religion has taken a beating over the last few hundred years. Surprised anyone still believes in it at all actually, considering the massive amount of evidence against it and the absolutely-no-evidence-whatsoever for it.
This fossil can't help religion. But I don't think it's the last blow. I think the blows to the coffin nails finished ages ago, and this is a fiftieth layer of glue and packing tape around it.
I'm suprised anyone made a topic about that.
I read that, but it really isn't very significant. One example doesn't prove a theory. Positivism is not a method of science.
Religion is about belief and faith and thus people don't need evidence to think it's true or not.
I personally do not feel we are a product of intelligent design and I also do not particularly agree with religion. However what we must be careful NOT to do is totally discredit the concept that religion represents. This in itself is un-scientific. To say there is NO god is terribly arrogant in itself. You, we, or anyone don't actually KNOW!
Nobody knows if apples fly when we're not looking at them. Not many believe in that though.
Nobody knows if computers are actually super intelligent beings. Not many belive in that though.
Nobody knows if a beardy man who hasn't done anything in the last 5000 years (apart from give a random woman a baby 2000 years ago, apparently) actually exists, and is everywhere and nowhere all at once. Quite a few people fall for that one.
The same people in group 3 are still happy to mock the existance of the tooth fairy - but I have seen, under my pillow, with my own eyes more evidence for her (or him) than anyone has for a (or several) Gods. It may well be a matter of faith, but it's blind faith whilst going 'la la la la la' to the evidence otherwise.
God designed evolution.
tada... it's all ok you can continue to keep your eyes shut and not ask questions !
I usually rear my head in religious threads so most of you already know i'm agnostic. I will not deny the existence of one or more Gods but I'll totally deny the existance and accuracy of every single faith on Earth.
They are all wrong. Categorically. They're just human social inventions with no evidence from an era that is best left behind us.
The continued faith that some bafoons put into the various denominations is, and I say this will absolute conviction in the accuracy of this statement, damaging to our societies.
So awesome, science has never been wrong or mislead about anything, ever in history. I in fact am 100% confident that everything we know and can measure today is the end-all, be-all of existance, period. For such powerful and "intelligent" beings us humans are, I am surprized we can't stop wee little organisms from killings us however .
A couple of people die in the most innert pandemic since 1976 when swineflu struck and Donald Rumsfelt made a killing selling a cure that didnt work with government indemnity for the harm it caused to children and the fatalities (which where greated than the actual deaths to swineflu), oh wait, it's the SAME pandemic they're just repeating the process because Donald is short of a few bob.
Anyway, the point being that you can hardly use this fabricated means to print personal expense checks as evidence that all science is wrong, and use as your supporting argument the sarcasm that all science is right.
That's just stupid God bothering talk that is, I have come to expect your comments to be a bit more thoroughly considered than that hun.
on the subject of religion, we had the Christian Aid rag pushed through our door last week and in it was a rather eye-opening interview with a Christian scientist who claimed that evolution and intelligent design can be compatible. Commendable you may think, but then you read he also believes humans coexisted with dinosaurs and the earth is indeed only 4000 years old
Indeed, the Bible makes no allowance for Humans not being here right from the off, there's this book called Genesis you see, and since in the Christian faith it was taken as fact because it start "In the beginning" although the earlier text it was based on in the Judaic faith begins "In a beginning" it very clearly states that God exists and he made the world (the only world mentioned in the bible because the others planets are 'the heavens') for Humans.
Whereas the earlier Judiac version is very specific about humbling Humanities place in the world (ref: Torah: Gemara Sanhedrin 38a) as Humans where created last.
It's all a bit daft really, the book is supposedly penned by Moses, who was born in 1525BC although the year of his death isn't known in Deuteronomy 31:2 he is said to be 120 years old, so Genesis was written sometime between 1525BC and 1405BC. Several thousand years after the alleged creation, so it's clear to see that he was somewhat after the events.
Although it is also clear that Moses was just editing it into a form comparable to what we have today as it's based on a number of seperate sources and stories which predated it.
The Christian version has had a number of edits over the years with it's most recently being in 1957.
In short, it's all a load of fictitious rubbish, and even Moses accepted that, when he wrote 'a' as the second word.
I'd be happy to post some well thought out drivel but in fact I spent about 50% of the forum's bandwidth last time I did so, and I'm not feeling the energy to do it again. Besides, last time Maggot got upset and left and I can't have a fellow Canadian becoming irate once more . If you're interested in my lengthy blatherings and missed them last time you can find them here: http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=23515 (you'd have to read the entire thread all the way through to see what I actually have to say, see you in two weeks)
I'm happy to let everyone carry on with their bawhawing this time.
Actually, God's existence, as exnihilator of the universe can be philosophically proven (it's complicated, but the theory exists). Whether or not that implies a supreme being is arguable, as obviously creating from nothing at all is a pretty awesome achievement, but obviously it cannot really be tangibly proven.
Can you please keep your gob shut for once? It's like you have this ridiculous obsession to always put your 2 cents in no matter how out of your depth you are. If you can't add anything of value, stay out of the thread.
Great fossil, I've been always wondering about how this guys, paleontologists, choose a piece of land to lurk around in... How? I supose it's not like they go and say "Oh look this place looks interesting, lets dig and see what pops up".
I wonder this because I could go to the empty lot a few blocks away from home and start digging but I'm pretty sure I couldn't find a thing hehe.
Reading through your early posts (admittedly, not the posts of anyone else) I don't see why I was angry at the time. I will continue on my stance that religion does both me, to a point, though. Or, rather, religious extremism anyways. In any case, my anger was in no way directed to you or your posts, either, so I hope you didn't take it that way. I've always considered you to be one of the more enlightening members of this forum.
It's partly based on previous accidental finds, geological information indicating possible presences, and a bit of luck. At least, that's how I understand it, anyways. If someone found something somewhere, there's a good chance there could be more in the area. Also, certain geological formations can indicate a possible repository of bones based on the environmental conditions (a dried up riverbed from the period, for instance, could have a herd of dead things along it). Extremely over-simplified, obviously, but you get the point. Of course, finding dead reptiles in the ground is not an exact science, and probably never will be, and there is some luck involved in finding the motherload, but it generally starts with an educated guess.
you obviously realise youre all barking up the wrong tree by claiming that this has anything whatsoever to do with religion or that any religion worth mentioning has seen any problem with evolution for the last however many years its been since darwin first came up with it? (and that includes the most stubborn dogmatic religion of them all ie the catholic church)
Science needs proof, religion doesn't. Debating science vs religion is just a waste of energy because both sides believe so strongly that they're not going to change. Some people believe one thing, others believe another thing. Why can't we leave it at that?
Because orthodox religious people are a weight and a stubborn anchor. They not only slow down our progress, but they also get in the middle. They also love to promote close-mindedness. I have seen far too many people that seem rather intelligent, but have been destroyed by years of dogmatic upraising and can't even seem to create a logical argument about anything.
I'm with you that one needs proof, the other doesn't, that's why we can't convince religious people, and we never will. The only thing that can change is better education and getting religion out of schools. Want to grow your kid as a god servant? Do it at home. Keep this manure out of the education system.
.
I will continue on my stance that religion does both me, to a point, though. Or, rather, religious extremism anyways. In any case, my anger was in no way directed to you or your posts, either, so I hope you didn't take it that way. I've always considered you to be one of the more enlightening members of this forum.