bad week for creationists

genericguy

god is fail, biologists win!


http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Missing-Link-Scientists-In-New-York-Unveil-Fossil-Of-Lemur-Monkey-Hailed-As-Mans-Earliest-Ancestor/Article/200905315284582?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15284582_Missing_Link%3A_Scientists_In_New_York_Unveil_Fossil_Of_Lemur_Monkey_Hailed_As_Mans_Earliest_Ancestor

Dawkins must be creaming his pantaloons this evening.

JimiTime

The king is in his altogether, his altogether, his altogether.
The king is in his altogether as naked as the day that he was born.

Hivemind187

genericguy wrote: »

god is fail, biologists win!


http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Missing-Link-Scientists-In-New-York-Unveil-Fossil-Of-Lemur-Monkey-Hailed-As-Mans-Earliest-Ancestor/Article/200905315284582?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15284582_Missing_Link%3A_Scientists_In_New_York_Unveil_Fossil_Of_Lemur_Monkey_Hailed_As_Mans_Earliest_Ancestor

Dawkins must be creaming his pantaloons this evening.

Unlike Jimitime I will be hoping to see the peer reviewed documentation surrounding this.

To Theists: Decry it all you want, science does the one thing you cant do - backs up its claims!

O'Coonassa

genericguy wrote: »

god is fail, biologists win!

Go on then I'll bite, how does this discovery indicate that there is no God?

JimiTime

Hivemind187 wrote: »

To Theists: Decry it all you want, science does the one thing you cant do - backs up its claims!

Indeed.

Liber8or

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Go on then I'll bite, how does this discovery indicate that there is no God?

It doesn't refute the existence of God, it simply highlights the fact that what your preachings are saying are not accurate and lack substance. When accuracy becomes dubious in one area, especially an area that acts as the fundamental beliefs of a religion, suspicion must be cast upon the remaining areas. Quite simply; if there is doubt as to how creatures on this planet came about and when they appeared, we must question all the other claims made by the same source.

As time goes by, the steady foundations of Christianity crumble away, without anything to seal up the cracks in between.

The Mad Hatter

genericguy wrote: »

god is fail, biologists win!


http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Missing-Link-Scientists-In-New-York-Unveil-Fossil-Of-Lemur-Monkey-Hailed-As-Mans-Earliest-Ancestor/Article/200905315284582?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15284582_Missing_Link%3A_Scientists_In_New_York_Unveil_Fossil_Of_Lemur_Monkey_Hailed_As_Mans_Earliest_Ancestor

Dawkins must be creaming his pantaloons this evening.

Ugh, Sky News?

Cool story, mind, but bad source.

anonymous_joe

Liber8or wrote: »

It doesn't refute the existence of God, it simply highlights the fact that what your preachings are saying are not accurate and lack substance. When accuracy becomes dubious in one area, especially an area that acts as the fundamental beliefs of a religion, suspicion must be cast upon the remaining areas. Quite simply; if there is doubt as to how creatures on this planet came about and when they appeared, we must question all the other claims made by the same source.

As time goes by, the steady foundations of Christianity crumble away, without anything to seal up the cracks in between.

What a load of cock.

I'm not even religious, but seriously, most major religions long ago accepted evolution.

The missing link is crucial for supporting Darwin's theory, but it's hardly going to end organised religion all of a sudden.

Liber8or

anonymous_joe wrote: »

What a load of cock.

I'm not even religious, but seriously, most major religions long ago accepted evolution.

The missing link is crucial for supporting Darwin's theory, but it's hardly going to end organised religion all of a sudden.

This is why I really shouldn't get involved in Religious debate anymore.

Most religions? Name them. Prove it.

I never said Religion will end all of a sudden, I suggest you read what I wrote, again and slowly.

Hivemind187

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Ugh, Sky News?

Cool story, mind, but bad source.

New scientist

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124235632936122739.html

Wall Street Journal

BBC

... the story is all over the place from what I can tell. Though sky seem to be sensationalising it a little. Mostly to enrage Jimitime the reactionary christian types.

The Mad Hatter

Hivemind187 wrote: »

New scientist

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124235632936122739.html

Wall Street Journal

BBC

... the story is all over the place from what I can tell. Though sky seem to be sensationalising it a little. Mostly to enrage Jimitime the reactionary christian types.

'cause Sky is sensationalist tripe?

Thanks for the other links.

Tim Robbins

genericguy wrote: »

god is fail, biologists win!


http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Missing-Link-Scientists-In-New-York-Unveil-Fossil-Of-Lemur-Monkey-Hailed-As-Mans-Earliest-Ancestor/Article/200905315284582?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15284582_Missing_Link%3A_Scientists_In_New_York_Unveil_Fossil_Of_Lemur_Monkey_Hailed_As_Mans_Earliest_Ancestor

Dawkins must be creaming his pantaloons this evening.

How's J C taking this?

Tyler MacDurden

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Ugh, Sky News?

Cool story, mind, but bad source.

Indeed, becoming more Fox-like by the week. Convergent evolution?

Does anyone else ever wish that a discussion on evolution could be held without someone bringing the god fella into it? It's an irrelevance, unless of course some fundamentalists are trying to shoehorn religion into the classroom.

On the article itself, I don't particularly like the tone that suggests that the evolutionary process was in need of a single 'missing link' to prove its veracity. Should any issues arise with this one fossil, it will be seized upon by the IDiots as another stick to beat science with.

Ciaran500

Tim Robbins wrote: »

How's J C taking this?

He's started saving his coppers so he can buy it and dispose of it correctly.

sink

There is still debate about whether Ida is a direct human ancestor or a just a close relative of one i.e a cousin rather than grandparent. Of course Sky don't report any facts that detract from the sensationalism.

JimiTime

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Though sky seem to be sensationalising it a little. Mostly to enrage Jimitime the reactionary christian types.

Indeed. Or maybe their tabloid approach will make it easy for people to talk about how god doesn't exist 'cause a 45million year old monkey was found that proved.. well ye get the idea. Evolution for Sun reading atheists. So far it seems to have atheists creaming their y fronts, not enraging anyone. But ye never know, its early days.

O'Coonassa

Liber8or wrote: »

It doesn't refute the existence of God, it simply highlights the fact that what your preachings are saying are not accurate and lack substance. When accuracy becomes dubious in one area, especially an area that acts as the fundamental beliefs of a religion, suspicion must be cast upon the remaining areas. Quite simply; if there is doubt as to how creatures on this planet came about and when they appeared, we must question all the other claims made by the same source.

As time goes by, the steady foundations of Christianity crumble away, without anything to seal up the cracks in between.

'Your preachings' lol You seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking that Jehovahgod is everyone's God.

Handsome Bob

I heard about this on BBC world news, but correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that I heard that the scientists stopped short of describing it as the missing link in the official presentation of their findings?

Hivemind187

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I heard about this on BBC world news, but correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that I heard that the scientists stopped short of describing it as the missing link in the official presentation of their findings?

Its not the missing link only a missing link.

A rather important one at that.

The Mad Hatter

JimiTime wrote: »

Indeed. Or maybe their tabloid approach will make it easy for people to talk about how god doesn't exist 'cause a 45million year old monkey was found that proved.. well ye get the idea. Evolution for Sun reading atheists. So far it seems to have atheists creaming their y fronts, not enraging anyone. But ye never know, its early days.

Don't think I've ever met an atheist who reads the Sun...

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Its not the missing link only a missing link.

A rather important one at that.

Thought they weren't sure about that?

Galvasean

Hivemind187 wrote: »

New scientist

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124235632936122739.html

Wall Street Journal

BBC

... the story is all over the place from what I can tell.

You forgot the Palaeontology forum

The Mad Hatter

David Attenborough on it. Apparently. I can't get it to load.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Indeed. Or maybe their tabloid approach will make it easy for people to talk about how god doesn't exist 'cause a 45million year old monkey was found that proved.. well ye get the idea. Evolution for Sun reading atheists. So far it seems to have atheists creaming their y fronts, not enraging anyone. But ye never know, its early days.

... well obviously we didn't mean god was literally at the top of the mountain

... well obviously we didn't mean god was literally in the clouds

... well obviously we didn't mean god was literally in the Sun

... well obviously we didn't mean god was literally in the Sky

... well obviously we didn't mean god literally created the Earth

... well obviously we didn't mean god literally created life

... well obviously we didn't mean god literally created the universe

I would be shocked to my very core if anything is ever discovered from now until the Sun burns out that would actually make a fundamentalist stop believing. That isn't how it works.

For the rest of us though ....

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

... well obviously we didn't mean god was literally at the top of the mountain

... well obviously we didn't mean god was literally in the clouds

... well obviously we didn't mean god was literally in the Sun

... well obviously we didn't mean god was literally in the Sky

... well obviously we didn't mean god literally created the Earth

... well obviously we didn't mean god literally created life

... well obviously we didn't mean god literally created the universe

I would be shocked to my very core if anything is ever discovered from now until the Sun burns out that would actually make a fundamentalist stop believing. That isn't how it works.

I don't know what folk you're talking about here, so i wouldn't know.

jhegarty

Liber8or wrote: »

Most religions? Name them. Prove it.

Lets start with the Pope

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/

Tim Robbins

JimiTime wrote: »

Indeed. Or maybe their tabloid approach will make it easy for people to talk about how god doesn't exist 'cause a 45million year old monkey was found that proved.. well ye get the idea. Evolution for Sun reading atheists. So far it seems to have atheists creaming their y fronts, not enraging anyone. But ye never know, its early days.

I agree in some respects. Nearly all media coverage of evolution is p*ss poor.

The best evidence is in DNA. All it requires is a simple understanding of expondential mathematicals, random mutations and non random selections and that the word theory meaans something different when used in a scientific context.

This should be all within the remit of a 15 year old.

I don't see how this fossil find is such a big deal. It has a tale and is hence not even an APE. The fossiles between us and our closest relatives, the other APEs are much more interesting.

Homo Erectus, Homo Egaster and all that.

Elliemental

The thing is though, the bible is so open to interpretation, that the Creationuts will always be able to find away around all evidence that to prove that there is no God, just like they always do. Because they`ve changed thier tune now. They still say that the earth was created in seven days, just not seven consecutive days, and that is why the earth is so old. So according to them, this fossil will still be the product of "creation".

Flamed Diving

Wicknight wrote: »

... well obviously we didn't mean god was literally at the top of the mountain

... well obviously we didn't mean god was literally in the clouds

... well obviously we didn't mean god was literally in the Sun

... well obviously we didn't mean god was literally in the Sky

... well obviously we didn't mean god literally created the Earth

... well obviously we didn't mean god literally created life

... well obviously we didn't mean god literally created the universe

I would be shocked to my very core if anything is ever discovered from now until the Sun burns out that would actually make a fundamentalist stop believing. That isn't how it works.

For the rest of us though ....

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't know what folk you're talking about here, so i wouldn't know.

That would be fundamentalists.

Dades

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

David Attenborough on it. Apparently. I can't get it to load.

Didn't work for me either in Firefox, but appears fine in IE.

Sir David seems pretty adamant this is the real thing. He's featured in a documentary called "The Link" due to be shown on BBC later this month.

Trailer on official site here. (Again, only worked in IE for me). Despite the use of the words "top scientists" and Da Vinci Code'esque music - it's looks interesting.

Goduznt Xzst

oh ho ho. That Satan fellow, what a rascal. What will he think of next... putting monkey bones in the ground to test the faith of Creationists.

Zillah

Has Creationism ever had a good week?

"Dinosaur fossil with riding harness still attached unearthed in Mexico!"

Valmont

What if all this is just an elaborate marketing scam to promote some new shopping mall or something?

toiletduck

Zillah wrote: »

Has Creationism ever had a good week?

The First Week :pac:

Dades

Just noticed Google today...



Now that's coverage.

Stephen

Awesome @ google

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R370YkYhV0w

genericguy

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Unlike Jimitime I will be hoping to see the peer reviewed documentation surrounding this.

To Theists: Decry it all you want, science does the one thing you cant do - backs up its claims!

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005723

The ed of nature doesn't have any time for it at all, but I think it's very convincing myself.

Tim Robbins

Elliemental wrote: »

The thing is though, the bible is so open to interpretation, that the Creationuts will always be able to find away around all evidence that to prove that there is no God, just like they always do. Because they`ve changed thier tune now. They still say that the earth was created in seven days, just not seven consecutive days, and that is why the earth is so old. So according to them, this fossil will still be the product of "creation".

Or they say, the earth was created to just look like it was created another way. Yes they're daft. But Science has a responsibility to teach what it knows correctly, coherently and properly rather. It's not doing that IMO.

Flamed Diving

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Or they say, the earth was created to just look like it was created another way. Yes they're daft. But Science has a responsibility to teach what it knows correctly, coherently and properly rather. It's not doing that IMO.

Because...?

Hivemind187

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Scientists like to look smart, chicks dig smart guys.

And if Mick Jagger, Hugh Heffner and Peter Stringfellows conquests are anything to go by, chicks dig fossils too.

... I'll get my coat.

AtomicHorror

JimiTime wrote: »

The king is in his altogether, his altogether, his altogether.
The king is in his altogether as naked as the day that he was born.

This an anti evolution song or an anti tabloid media song? This fella fits into the tree of life, so at the very least he's yet more evidence of evolution by natural selection, and yet more evidence that there's no intent behind the system.

Genghiz Cohen

AtomicHorror wrote: »

This an anti evolution song or an anti tabloid media song? This fella fits into the tree of life, so at the very least he's yet more evidence of evolution by natural selection, and yet more evidence that there's no intent behind the system.

Could be a general dig at people believing just what they're told, in which case there is no facepalm.jpg large enough.

A Primal Nut

JimiTime wrote: »

The king is in his altogether, his altogether, his altogether.
The king is in his altogether as naked as the day that he was born.

For those of us who don't study poetry, what the hell are you talking about?

Hivemind187

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Could be a general dig at people believing just what they're told, in which case there is no facepalm.jpg large enough.

And THAT ladies and gents is the post of the evening.:D

JimiTime

A Primal Nut wrote: »

For those of us who don't study poetry, what the hell are you talking about?

Its from 'The Kings New Clothes'.

kiffer

JimiTime wrote: »

Its from 'The Kings New Clothes'.

It's 'The Emperor's New Clothes'... but set to music...

AtomicHorror

JimiTime wrote: »

Its from 'The Kings New Clothes'.

There's an element of that to the coverage, but have you seen the fossil itself? It's just about the most perfect fossil I've ever seen, though I'll admit I haven't seen many!

Mickeroo

AtomicHorror wrote: »

There's an element of that to the coverage, but have you seen the fossil itself? It's just about the most perfect fossil I've ever seen, though I'll admit I haven't seen many!

It is pretty rare to get something that intact right? Or even that many bones of the one specimen.

marco_polo

Mickeroo wrote: »

It is pretty rare to get something that intact right? Or even that many bones of the one specimen.

Not to mention that much of the softer tissues were fossilized as well, a very rare event.

I must admit that while it is good that science gets positive coverage, alot of the media coverage surrounding the whole affair was nearly as cringeworthy as when the LHC was switched on.

Galvasean

Its very rare to get something so complete (in this case 95% of the bones). Only part of one of the legs is missing. There is also a fur outline which is even more rare. Heck, skeletons with over 70% of the bones are considered 'complete' for some reason.
Some dinosaurs have been found with skin and even internal organ impressions, so it is not unheard of altogether, just very rare.
Here are two well known examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thescelosaurus#.22Heart_of_stone.22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scipionyx#Paleobiology

*shameless plug inbound?*

Also check out these amazingly preserved Cretaceous bugs trapped in amber:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055570707

Teferi

I guarantee it's just an advertisement for a new shopping mall.

Mickeroo

Galvasean wrote: »

Its very rare to get something so complete (in this case 95% of the bones). Only part of one of the legs is missing. There is also a fur outline which is even more rare. Heck, skeletons with over 70% of the bones are considered 'complete' for some reason.
Some dinosaurs have been found with skin and even internal organ impressions, so it is not unheard of altogether, just very rare.
Here are two well known examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thescelosaurus#.22Heart_of_stone.22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scipionyx#Paleobiology

*shameless plug inbound?*

Also check out these amazingly preserved Cretaceous bugs trapped in amber:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055570707

Internal organs? Jebus.

I think I read recently they consider some skeletons complete when they're only 70% or whatever because some bones correspond with others, like left and right legs, so for example if they have a fossilised primate with only one femur they consider it the same as having both as the bones would be more or less identical.

marco_polo wrote: »

Not to mention that much of the softer tissues were fossilized as well, a very rare event.

I must admit that while it is good that science gets positive coverage, alot of the media coverage surrounding the whole affair was nearly as cringeworthy as when the LHC was switched on.

Yea i agree,it is getting sensationalised a lot. And theres already a book and documentary tie-in?? Its like the paris hilton of fossils i say :P

It seems theres a fair few scientists who don't think its the missing link others claim to be.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/lets-not-go-ape-over-ida/