Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

bad week for creationists

«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    genericguy 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!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭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? :confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


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

    Indeed.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 662 ✭✭✭Liber8or


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    Go on then I'll bite, how does this discovery indicate that there is no God? :confused:

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,255 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 662 ✭✭✭Liber8or


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    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. ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 351 ✭✭Tyler MacDurden


    Ugh, Sky News?

    Cool story, mind, but bad source.

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

    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,225 ✭✭✭Ciaran500


    How's J C taking this?

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭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 :confused: You seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking that Jehovahgod is everyone's God.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,905 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭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...
    Its not the missing link only a missing link.

    A rather important one at that.

    Thought they weren't sure about that?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean



    You forgot the Palaeontology forum :(


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭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 ....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,441 ✭✭✭jhegarty


    Liber8or wrote: »
    Most religions? Name them. Prove it.

    Lets start with the Pope

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,016 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 924 ✭✭✭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".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    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. :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Has Creationism ever had a good week?

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭toiletduck


    Zillah wrote: »
    Has Creationism ever had a good week?

    The First Week :pac:


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Just noticed Google today...

    missinglink.gif

    Now that's coverage.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,484 ✭✭✭✭Stephen




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,831 ✭✭✭genericguy


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,016 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    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...?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭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.

    :confused:

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    :confused:

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

    Its from 'The Kings New Clothes'.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Its from 'The Kings New Clothes'.

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭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!


  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,459 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    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.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,320 ✭✭✭Teferi


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


  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,459 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭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/


  • Advertisement
Advertisement