Hobbits are a real species

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Homo floresiensis, one meter tall humans that may have lived as recently as 18,000 years ago.

Bad news for the god created Adam and Eve people.

If we can get DNA, someone should clone them.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/full/050228-13.html

There's a discussion here:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/04/2123244&tid=14

[Frodo]

i love how science validates many of the more fantastical elements of heroic myths like the Lord of the Rings trilogy!  perhaps they could also find the ruins of Minas Tirith if given time.....  maybe even find remains of orcs buried deep within the ground. 

 not unlike those who take the Bible literally (or the Iliad, or the Odyssey), i always had a sentimental heart-felt desire to believe the historicity of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the Hobbitt, and the Silmarillion -that the events depicted did actually happen, but being the rational-minded person i am,  i didn't.   
still, it is heart-warming to read stories like this that show paleontological proof that Hobbitts did actually exist.  i suppose they haven't found an extensive network of burrows in the ground, now did they?     

[phk]

Evolution in action.

[senatortombstone]

Bad news for the god created Adam and Eve people.

how so?  This new species is probably a midget that died, much like suppsoed neanderthal man was nothng more than a poor old man suffering from arthritits and rickets.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bad news for the god created Adam and Eve people.

how so?  This new species is probably a midget that died, much like suppsoed neanderthal man was nothng more than a poor old man suffering from arthritits and rickets.

That's not true. Did you read the Nature article?

[senatortombstone]

I got a question for you Jfern.

If human evolved from monkeys (or whatever primate evolutionists think we did) why are there still monkeys?

just answer it if you can.

[Alcon]

I got a question for you Jfern.

If human evolved from monkeys (or whatever primate evolutionists think we did) why are there still monkeys?

just answer it if you can.

This is a common, rather uneducated misconception. We didn't evolve from monkeys. We share common ancestors. If you are going to debate evolution, you might as well read up on it beforehand, so you understand at least the basics of the theory before you dive in the discourse head first.

[senatortombstone]

I got a question for you Jfern.

If human evolved from monkeys (or whatever primate evolutionists think we did) why are there still monkeys?

just answer it if you can.

This is a common, rather miseducated misconception. We didn't evolve from monkeys. We share common ancestors.

If you are going to debate in this aggressive manner, you might as well read up on what you are arguing about beforehand, at least lightly.

Hey I provided the disclaimer *or whatever primate they say we evolve from* after all scientists keep changing the history of descent everytime some hick digs up a chicken bone.

for real though, what is the or one of the common ancestors of men and monkeys/apes?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I got a question for you Jfern.

If human evolved from monkeys (or whatever primate evolutionists think we did) why are there still monkeys?

just answer it if you can.

1. We didn't evolve from monkeys
2. There can be evolutionary divergence, one species involves into 2. Haven't you heard about Darwin's finches?

[Alcon]

I got a question for you Jfern.

If human evolved from monkeys (or whatever primate evolutionists think we did) why are there still monkeys?

just answer it if you can.

This is a common, rather miseducated misconception. We didn't evolve from monkeys. We share common ancestors.

If you are going to debate in this aggressive manner, you might as well read up on what you are arguing about beforehand, at least lightly.

Hey I provided the disclaimer *or whatever primate they say we evolve from* after all scientists keep changing the history of descent everytime some hick digs up a chicken bone.

for real though, what is the or one of the common ancestors of men and monkeys/apes?

I believe Pierolapithecus catalaunicus is the most recent ancestor that they think at this time to be in common. I am unaware that chicken bones have contributed significantly to evolutionary theory, but rather that most discoveries have been carefully orchestrated digs.

Science is a process of evolution in itself; you cannot reasonably expect perceptions to not change overtime, but that does not make the "whatever we think today is wrong tomorrow!" argument valid, unless you desire to never understand anything. Sometimes we have to make mistakes in science; most of the time, we end up right, or some approximation of it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hey I provided the disclaimer *or whatever primate they say we evolve from* after all scientists keep changing the history of descent everytime some hick digs up a chicken bone.

for real though, what is the or one of the common ancestors of men and monkeys/apes?

No idea, but I found this:


On the other hand, humans and nonhuman primates shared common ancestors as recently as 6 to 14 million years ago for apes, 25 million years ago for Old World (African) monkeys, and 40 million years ago for New World (South American) monkeys.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/02/030228072746.htm

[senatortombstone]

What happened to our missing links?  what is the full chain of descent?  no one knows.  I'll tell you why, there is no chain of descent, none.  The cryptotaxonomy is full of gaps that will never be filled.

Jfern, do you honestly believe that all matter in the unvierse was compressed into the space of a hydrogen atom and suddenly exploded and formed every element galaxy, star and planet?  Do you believe that all life on earth is the result of a puddle of chemicals becoming alive after being struck by lightening or as a result o comets depositing amino acids on earth?

Look if you want to abandon God and morals just be honest and do it, but don't perpetuate a lie that brings other people down, stop lying!

[Alcon]

What happened to our missing links?  what is the full chain of descent?  no one knows.  I'll tell you why, there is no chain of descent, none.  The cryptotaxonomy is full of gaps that will never be filled.

Jfern, do you honestly believe that all matter in the unvierse was compressed into the space of a hydrogen atom and suddenly exploded and formed every element galaxy, star and planet?  Do you believe that all life on earth is the result of a puddle of chemicals becoming alive after being struck by lightening or as a result o comets depositing amino acids on earth?

Look if you want to abandon God and morals just be honest and do it, but don't perpetuate a lie that brings other people down, stop lying!

Very dramatic. "Don't perpetuate a lie that brings other people down!" Who is "the big lie" (which most Americans believe) bringing down, exactly? And what do morals have to do with this?

The problem with what you offer is that no one can possibly argue with a devoted religious person; religion is entirely based in faith. If you expect us to argue with your religious views, we are not going to. This is fruitless.

Also, I like that explanation of the Big Bang. It certainly is colorful, if not accurate to theory.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What happened to our missing links?  what is the full chain of descent?  no one knows.  I'll tell you why, there is no chain of descent, none.  The cryptotaxonomy is full of gaps that will never be filled.

Jfern, do you honestly believe that all matter in the unvierse was compressed into the space of a hydrogen atom and suddenly exploded and formed every element galaxy, star and planet?  Do you believe that all life on earth is the result of a puddle of chemicals becoming alive after being struck by lightening or as a result o comets depositing amino acids on earth?

Look if you want to abandon God and morals just be honest and do it, but don't perpetuate a lie that brings other people down, stop lying!

The laws of physics were different at the very very beginning of the universe. Physicsists are working on finding those laws. The idea is to unite the gravitation, strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces. The last 2 forces have been united in an electroweak theory. We can't run experiments to verify the other theories yet.

There are various theories for exactly how the first self-replicator came about.  Whether you'd call the simplest possible self-replicators alive is a fuzzy decision.  Here's some information on some of the theories.
http://aci.mta.ca/Courses/Biology/BioWeb/b1501originssumm.html

God has no evidence, evolution has plenty.

[senatortombstone]

The problem with what you offer is that no one can possibly argue with a devoted religious person; religion is entirely based in faith. If you expect us to argue with your religious views, we are not going to. This is fruitless.

I will debate anyone.  When I discuss evolution, I start from the beginnings: the big bang and primordial earth.

There is no way that the Big Bang about it.  How on earth can matter just compress itself into an atom and then you know that scientists believe that there has already been several big bangs and big crunches?  There is no proof, just big conclusions from very limited observations.

BTW, in order for a big crunch to occur there has to be a change in the laws of physics, specifically the laws of gravity.  Gravitational pull has to become very strong, all of a sudden and on its own, to re compress the matter.

Life on Earth starting when lightening struck chemicals which formed into amino acids, which lined themselves up to form the first unicellular organism?  Dude, that did not happen, okay. that sounds like something out of a cartoon. 

The Bible records history very accurately from the beginning, the Bible has a precise and gap less chain of descent from Adam to Jesus, 56 generations, I believe.  The old testament accurately predicted the life of Jesus and the condition of this world today is exactly how the New Testament describes it.  Unruly children, mockers, scoffers, bold homosexuals, world at war, etc.  The Bible even predicted in 2nd Peter that people would deny the account of creation and the flood.  It's all there you just choose not to believe it.  I wish you would change your mind, but oh well, that is your bad.

[senatortombstone]

God has no evidence, evolution has plenty.

There is absolutely no evidence for macro-evolution and spontaneous generation.  none whatsoever.

micro-evoltution and linguistic evolution has plenty of evidence though.

The Bible is evidence of God, our existence is evidence of God.

Jfern, you should really choose your words carefully, whether or not you believe it, you will one day be made accountable for all of them.  I pray you come to know the truth.  I thank you for your time.  I must go to bed and pray to the Father, and you should go to bed and pray the atom and the ameoba.  gute Nacht, schlaf gut bis der Tag erwacht!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

God has no evidence, evolution has plenty.

There is absolutely no evidence for macro-evolution and spontaneous generation.  none whatsoever.

micro-evoltution and linguistic evolution has plenty of evidence though.

The Bible is evidence of God, our existence is evidence of God.

Jfern, you should really choose your words carefully, whether or not you believe it, you will one day be made accountable for all of them.  I pray you come to know the truth.  I thank you for your time.  I must go to bed and pray to the Father, and you should go to bed and pray the atom and the ameoba.  gute Nacht, schlaf gut bis der Tag erwacht!

What about the Iliad? What does it prove?

[John Dibble]

BTW, in order for a big crunch to occur there has to be a change in the laws of physics, specifically the laws of gravity.  Gravitational pull has to become very strong, all of a sudden and on its own, to re compress the matter.

And why is that? What possible logic brought you to that conclusion? The big crunch, if valid, would be a very gradual process - no scientist ever said it would happen very quick. There are various forces across the universe tugging at eachother - the initial force from the big bang would still be in play, as it was so tremendous that it would take a long time for the other forces to completely cancel it out. There's other theories to - the Big Chill and the Big Crackup among them. Just because science doesn't have all the answers immediately does not make the Bible correct by default.

And once again, you never know - there might be a God involved in the scientific processes like the Big Bang or evolution, but no decent scientist will actively try to prove it. God can't really be proven, only the mechanisms that make things work can really be understood to an extent.

[KEmperor]

The Bible is evidence of God

If I write a book with the words, "There is no God," does that provide evidence for the non-existence of God?

[John Dibble]

The Bible is evidence of God

If I write a book with the words, "There is no God," does that provide evidence for the non-existence of God?

Indeed. I could write a book with complex, intertwined history, predictions, and geneaology, with fantastical stories about miracles and faith, but it wouldn't make it true.

[opebo]

I got a question for you Jfern.

If human evolved from monkeys (or whatever primate evolutionists think we did) why are there still monkeys?

just answer it if you can.

You are way out there man.  We are the monkeys!
Check it out:
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html

[angus]

Homo floresensis (As it is usually spelled!) is the name to a skeleton found in October 2004, in Indonesia.  Though it has been described as a tiny hominid that lived twelve thousand years ago on an Indonesian island, and, moreover, claimed to support the existence of proto-pygmies in equatorial jungles worldwide, it is merely a a natural quirk.  It is not a newly discovered species.  Probably a particularly dimunitive Homo Sapiens or Homo Erectus specimen.  The specimen does not pass the rigorous tests for determining whether it is a different species, rather than just an extreme version of what had already evolved.  This is an example of bad science, like the time the Yale Peabody Museum placed the wrong skull (a camarasaurus head) on the Apatosaurus body, and for years it was thought to be a different species than what it was.  [Ironically, all the while the correct head was sitting in a museum storage room.]  In fact, I think the wrong head remained there for about 40 years, giving rise to the term Brontosaurus, which is now known to be the incorrect name of a species already identified as Brachiosaur.  Enthusiasm about science is great!  Enthusiasm while performing science can be disastrous.  We should regard such reports with a great deal of skepticism.

[senatortombstone]

The Bible is evidence of God

If I write a book with the words, "There is no God," does that provide evidence for the non-existence of God?

Indeed. I could write a book with complex, intertwined history, predictions, and geneaology, with fantastical stories about miracles and faith, but it wouldn't make it true.

No offense, but those are terrible examples.  The Bible was written by several different authors over the course of nearly 2000 years.  If you wan to deny the facts contained in it, fine, but by that same logic I can deny the existence of major historical figures such as Alexander the great and Julius Caesar.  Afterall, none of us were there to see any of it, so it could be all one big hoax.  By that logic, 100 years from now you could deny that there were any world wars because there woul non longer be survivors or chldrn or grandchildren of survivors.  If you're not there you cannot prove it.

I especially get a laugh out of people who compare the Bible to a fairy tell or ancient pantheon that is only remembered in TVs hows and comic books.  Christianity is not a fairy tale it is reality, a very grim one for those who deny it.  The Bible has changed many corruptible people throughout the years.  Did you know that the man who wrote Amazing Grace was a slavetrader.  Then one day he had a religous experience and stopped what he was doing, wrote amazing grace and became an abolitionist?  What book was he reading?  SOmehow I don't think it was the origin of the species.  Did you know that General Nathaniel Bedford Forrest, the cruel andfeard KKK leader became a Christian during the last few years of his life and supported black advancement?  Whose life has ever been changed by reading Origin of the Species or one syphilitic psycho Nietzsche ramblings? (he should have wriiten "Der Wille zum Penizillin")

It takes a lot more faith to believe in the many wild cosmology and evolutionay theories out therethan it does to believe in God and creation.  With God we have a purposeful designer, with evolution, we have pure chance coinicidence governing everything.

[John Dibble]

No offense, but those are terrible examples.  The Bible was written by several different authors over the course of nearly 2000 years.

So, it being old and written by many makes it true? Sorry, but there are other holy books out there that are old and written by many people, but apparently they aren't accurate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's a ton of archaelogical evidence for all those events, not just written word. As for stuff in the Bible, there's far from a great amount of evidence, especially for some of the old testament stuff - Noah, for instance. You'd think there would be a junkload of evidence that the world was once entirely flooded, and furthermore there are millions of species in the world - how could Noah fit two of all of them on an single boat? It was four hundred fifty feet long, seventy-five feet wide, and forty-five feet high - no way in hell that it could have held two of every animal species on the planet. How is that even logistically possible?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly the reason I could never take up your brand of Christianity. I absolutely refuse to worship a god that would send people to hell simply for not believing in him, completely disregarding what type of person they are - that type of God is unjust and evil. Many other Christians believe that their God saves all good people, regardless of their religion - meaning he judges them on who they are, not what whether they hold a particular religious belief while they were alive. That's the kind of God I could respect - he's reasonable. If they are right then I'm in no danger, and would gladly worship their God in the afterlife. If you are right I'll be sent to hell simply for not worshiping him in life, so I'll be glad to give your God the finger as I'm going down to hell. But I find it more likely that neither of your sides are right about God, so I'll just keep up with the agnostic thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So? What's your point? Others used the Bible as justification for slavery. Other religions caused other people to change for the better. Christianity doesn't have exclusive rights to making people better.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again, you ignore the possibility of God having been active in evolution and other proposed scientific theories - you've no doubt heard of intelligent design. Also, *poof* it exists is what takes more faith in my opinion.

[ATFFL]

The biggest flaw in evolution is that it flies in the face of accepted science.  Things do not move from a less complex state to a more complex state unless acted upon by an outside force.

This is why Intelligent Design is on the rise as an accepted theory.