[_ Old Earth _] The Lame Link Lemur - - Not Evolution

[John]

[youtube:32fpl3il]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx4o2UEG00Q&feature=channel_page[/youtube:32fpl3il]

Scientists have unveiled a fossil that the claim is 47-million-year-old (not). It is being hailed as the missing link in human evolution.

The search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years - but it was presented to the world today at a special news conference in New York.

The discovery of the 95%-complete 'lemur monkey' - dubbed Ida - is described by experts as the "eighth wonder of the world".

They say its impact on the world of palaeontology will be "somewhat like an asteroid falling down to Earth".

 

[John]

I do not know who this guy is but i love his videos.

 

[Crying Rock]

Amid Media Circus, Scientists Doubt 'Ida' Is Your Ancestor

You know science has made it big when the Google homepage logo is changed to celebrate a fossil finding and the mayor of New York shows up at a press conference to unveil it.

http://www.livescience.com/animals/0905 ... tions.html

 

[Barbarian]

It's just a stem primate, not the "missing link." (that's a popular myth, not a scientific idea)

 

[coelacanth]

I do not know who this guy is but i love his videos.

I love the videos, too... They are pretty good comedy as far as I'm concerned, but not to be taken seriously other than something else that perpetuates myths and untruths. The arguments contained in that video and others by him that I have seen regarding evolution are pretty poor, and he doesn't seem to understand what evolution even is...

 

[John]

I do not know who this guy is but i love his videos.

I love the videos, too... They are pretty good comedy as far as I'm concerned, but not to be taken seriously other than something else that perpetuates myths and untruths. The arguments contained in that video and others by him that I have seen regarding evolution are pretty poor, and he doesn't seem to understand what evolution even is...

Sorry but i am not gonna listen to anyone who thinks Ida is anything credible. If you want real comedy watch some Richard Dawkins.

 

[coelacanth]

I do not know who this guy is but i love his videos.

I love the videos, too... They are pretty good comedy as far as I'm concerned, but not to be taken seriously other than something else that perpetuates myths and untruths. The arguments contained in that video and others by him that I have seen regarding evolution are pretty poor, and he doesn't seem to understand what evolution even is...

Sorry but i am not gonna listen to anyone who thinks Ida is anything credible. If you want real comedy watch some Richard Dawkins.

I'm fairly certain I never credited Ida with anything. I discredited the videos because they contain absolute nonsense.

As for the other issue, I have watched and read much of Dawkins' works. I don't agree with everything he says, but I would not call him comical; he is an extremely intelligent man who has contributed volumes to the advancement of science, public understanding of it (I'm guessing this must have been lost on you), and discussion of religion from a rational mindset.

 

[John]

I'm fairly certain I never credited Ida with anything. I discredited the videos because they contain absolute nonsense.

If it was not your intention then my apologies. But the video is dead on. :yes

As for the other issue, I have watched and read much of Dawkins' works. I don't agree with everything he says, but I would not call him comical; he is an extremely intelligent man who has contributed volumes to the advancement of science, public understanding of it (I'm guessing this must have been lost on you), and discussion of religion from a rational mindset.

I have read some of his books he is intelligent but when it comes to religion he has lost very badly in his debates. I recently watched him debate John Lennox and i must say John wiped the floor with him.

I am not waiting for the debate with Dawkins VS Comfort.

 

[coelacanth]

I'm fairly certain I never credited Ida with anything. I discredited the videos because they contain absolute nonsense.

If it was not your intention then my apologies. But the video is dead on. :yes

I am in no way endorsing the video he is commenting on, but rather I am deconstructing his foolishness because it is anything but "dead on". There are a few of the problems that stuck out:

Calling evolution a church and a religion, and then moving on to implication of some sort of vast conspiracy in science. This is probably the most preposterous assertion contained in the video that makes his argument pathetic and laughable.

Repeatedly tying evolution to atheism which are completely separate ideas, although some who give credence to evolution are atheists, and there are atheists who know very little about evolution. Judging by your signature, you seem to think evolution and religion are incompatible as well, but there are many who disagree and have found sophisticated ways to believe in both.

On to a few quotes:

He refers to “neurolinguistic programming†of which he himself is guilty to the extreme, as when he says things like: “something that is totally opposite of humans†regarding something which contains obvious homologous structures and similarities.

“Presupposition that evolution is correct regardless of all the facts†What facts is he referring to? The facts point to him being wrong, but I am unable to find his thesis of purported “facts†that debunk evolution. Did I miss something?

“She transformed herself†This one seems to be implicating some sort of Lamarckian evolution which, at the very least, will delude others who misunderstand evolution to begin with, but he very much seems to think the theory of evolution involves intentional transformation; it does not.

“you spin it to be a transitional creature†This was humorous to me because it is something that an overwhelming number of Christians do with interpreting the meaning of the Bible. When you have your conclusions before you start and you are compelled to make them fit, it is quite different from the world of science. I could go into more depth in a more appropriate topic line.

“The atheists are standing on sinking sand. Their links are not links at allâ€Â. I don’t even know where to start with this one… perhaps you could tell me why you think it is “dead onâ€Â

“Testament to the rapid burial mechanism and the fact that the Bible is trueâ€Â…… “Fossils are a testament to the great flood†Uhhh… again… don’t even know where to start…

“She breathed in carbon dioxide and then fell into the pool in a drunken gaseous stuporâ€Â. Obviously he is saying this in jest and satiric mockery, but when he says things like this it would be helpful if he were able to show scientific knowledge at some point.

That's a start on it, at least.

 

[coelacanth]

As for the other issue, I have watched and read much of Dawkins' works. I don't agree with everything he says, but I would not call him comical; he is an extremely intelligent man who has contributed volumes to the advancement of science, public understanding of it (I'm guessing this must have been lost on you), and discussion of religion from a rational mindset.

I have read some of his books he is intelligent but when it comes to religion he has lost very badly in his debates. I recently watched him debate John Lennox and i must say John wiped the floor with him.

I am not waiting for the debate with Dawkins VS Comfort.

I enjoyed the Dawkins/Lennox debate as well, and think that Lennox is the best contender I have ever heard debate with Dawkins. Lennox seems like a brilliant and well educated man as well, but didn't sufficiently deconstruct Dawkins' main arguments in a way that would be considered wiping the floor with him. I am sure Dawkins had more to say as well. It was rather long, but I wished it could have continued because I am certain those two could go at it for weeks on end.

In other debates, I have seen/heard him destroy the competition

 

[kenan]

I agree with some of his points, but I believe that some of his points are not credible: the same arguments are used by evolutionists against creationists.

Natural selection involves creatures which are born with different characteristics to one another which aid in their survival. Basically, survival of the fittest: creatures with characteristics which are favourable survive and breed. Creatures with less favourable characterists eventually die out. This fossil possibly was an ancient ancestor to humans.

But this does not rule out creationism, not by a long shot: there must've been the necessity for an initial act of creation, and even Dawkins agrees with that (but he proposes life from space because, like creationism, it cannot be proven wrong in a sense). The creation story in Genesis does not rule out all of the geological eras which precede us.

edit: I just got up to 6:00. I like that point about worshiping ancestry.
edit2: as I keep watching, he keeps making very good points. I definitely agree with position.

 

[coelacanth]

I agree with some of his points, but I believe that some of his points are not credible: the same arguments are used by evolutionists against creationists.

Natural selection involves creatures which are born with different characteristics to one another which aid in their survival. Basically, survival of the fittest: creatures with characteristics which are favourable survive and breed. Creatures with less favourable characterists eventually die out. This fossil possibly was an ancient ancestor to humans.

But this does not rule out creationism, not by a long shot: there must've been the necessity for an initial act of creation, and even Dawkins agrees with that (but he proposes life from space because, like creationism, it cannot be proven wrong in a sense). The creation story in Genesis does not rule out all of the geological eras which precede us.

edit: I just got up to 6:00. I like that point about worshiping ancestry.
edit2: as I keep watching, he keeps making very good points. I definitely agree with position.

The literal Biblical version(s) of creationism, the flood, etc. is (are) completely ruled out by enormous amounts of evidence, and Dawkins says the thing about aliens mostly as a joke when asked if there is any possibility of intelligent design. It's his way of "giving ID its best shot", and does it tongue-in-cheek. I hope you are not basing that off watching the movie Expelled.

BTW, most of us do not use the term "evolutionist" as it is a word crafted to give the illusion of symmetry between competing beliefs where no such symmetry exists. Otherwise, I would call myself a "germist" because I give credence to the idea that microorganisms can cause disease, as well as a "gravitationist" and an "electromagnetist". There are, however, "evolutionary biologists", who are serious scientists that work very hard to continue advancing our already vast amounts of knowledge on the topic.

 

[kenan]

The literal Biblical version(s) of creationism, the flood, etc. is (are) completely ruled out by enormous amounts of evidence

...what? It looks pretty plausible to me. Remember that the Bible, like all texts, has several layers of meaning, and it is open to interpretation: some things can be taken literally, which others can be taken metaphorically or allegorically.

II Peter 3:8 says "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." From this, we can conclude that God is not bound by time, and the days of the beginnings of the earth and universe were as long as the working day was for God. So there's one problem solved. I'll explain more if you ask for more.

Dawkins says the thing about aliens mostly as a joke when asked if there is any possibility of intelligent design. It's his way of "giving ID its best shot", and does it tongue-in-cheek. I hope you are not basing that off watching the movie Expelled.

I'm basing it on what I read on another forum, which has no religious affiliations (religion is shunned for all intents and purposes). Until now, I hadn't heard of the movie Expelled.

BTW, most of us do not use the term "evolutionist" as it is a word crafted to give the illusion of symmetry between competing beliefs where no such symmetry exists. Otherwise, I would call myself a "germist" because I give credence to the idea that microorganisms can cause disease, as well as a "gravitationist" and an "electromagnetist". There are, however, "evolutionary biologists", who are serious scientists that work very hard to continue advancing our already vast amounts of knowledge on the topic.

Fine.

 

[coelacanth]

Remember that the Bible, like all texts, has several layers of meaning, and it is open to interpretation: some things can be taken literally, which others can be taken metaphorically or allegorically.

II Peter 3:8 says "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." From this, we can conclude that God is not bound by time, and the days of the beginnings of the earth and universe were as long as the working day was for God. So there's one problem solved. I'll explain more if you ask for more.

It was primarily the literal interpretation that I was referring to, once metaphors and allegory are incorporated as explanations of Biblical meaning you could pretty much find a way to interpret the Bible any way you want, I find. I am curious, though. Is this your explanation for how we see galaxies that are billions of light years away? I have also heard it posited that God created the universe in a mature state as He did with Adam as an explanatory device for the same phenomenon. How old do you think the Bible says that earth is? That life is? Did the flood happen?

 

[kenan]

Remember that the Bible, like all texts, has several layers of meaning, and it is open to interpretation: some things can be taken literally, which others can be taken metaphorically or allegorically.

II Peter 3:8 says "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." From this, we can conclude that God is not bound by time, and the days of the beginnings of the earth and universe were as long as the working day was for God. So there's one problem solved. I'll explain more if you ask for more.

It was primarily the literal interpretation that I was referring to, once metaphors and allegory are incorporated as explanations of Biblical meaning you could pretty much find a way to interpret the Bible any way you want, I find. I am curious, though. Is this your explanation for how we see galaxies that are billions of light years away? I have also heard it posited that God created the universe in a mature state as He did with Adam as an explanatory device for the same phenomenon. How old do you think the Bible says that earth is? That life is? Did the flood happen?

I was going to write that when the creation story said that God "made the stars", which would've, given the evidence that we have, been impossible seeing as the earth was already created, it could metaphorically be interpreted as the light of the stars finally reaching the earth, which would've occurred millions of years following the current Big Bang theory.

I think that the Bible is ambiguous when talking about the age of the universe and when life itself came into existence. And in response to the flood, given that the majority of the known human population would've been in northern Africa, the Levant and the Middle East, the Great Flood was probably local: when God said that he would flood the world, since the world known man was pretty limited, this could metaphorically mean that God was going to flood the known world. Also, the stories of old testament concentrates on God's covenant with the Jews, so it is conceivable that it was to be understood in a cultural context: the Jews wouldn't've been aware of tribes or civilisations living in China, India or the Pacific Islands, and so they weren't mentioned.

I think that the beauty of the Bible is how it continuously adapts itself to our current stage of understanding, and that is an example of how it is a living, dynamic text.