|
Post by Afgncaap5 on Apr 6, 2006 11:43:44 GMT -5
articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060406093109990001&ncid=NWS00010000000001I think it's funny that the media team who presented this were more excited about it "undercutting Christianity" than the scientists were. The scientists at least know what their discovery shows, that there is evidence supporting an aquatic-to-land type of animal, not that it disproves any major religious theories. I didn't like the poll, either. Where's the "I think God used evolution as a component of His creation" option?! That's the theory I've had for about ten years, and I don't think this discovery really shifts that theory too much (it'll make some of my friends get a bit on-edge, though.) What I want to know, though, is why this fish is more "amazing" than the current fish we have who are capable of getting onto land, "walking," and even climbing a tree. Those fish seem more amazing if you ask me, since they have no limbs to do it all with. I mean, yeah, it's cool for those who study Evolution, but it's seems a bit like stuff I've seen before. It is interesting how crocodilian the model of the thing looks, I'll give it that. Though to be honest a missing link between fish and crocs isn't as stunning a thought as, say, a link between lizards and mammals. Now THAT would be cool: a transition from cold blooded to warm blooded, kind of like that dinosaur with feathers (Except that's a bird, not a mammal.) Anyway, just thought I'd point you people towards this.
|
|
|
Post by Bix Dugan on Apr 6, 2006 12:00:32 GMT -5
That was interesting. But I saw a link on that page to a story about Tina Fey. She's doing a sit-com, and Tracy Morgan (one funny MF) will be in it.
|
|
|
Post by Afgncaap5 on Apr 6, 2006 12:16:37 GMT -5
Woah, Tina Fey? Rockin'! I've gotta go read that.
|
|
|
Post by MSTJedi on Apr 6, 2006 12:23:33 GMT -5
Yeah, I still don't understand why people who are "intelligent" enough to report on such matters still think of things in such black and white terms. Science doesn't have to negate religion.
|
|
|
Post by Afgncaap5 on Apr 6, 2006 12:40:28 GMT -5
Yeah, I still don't understand why people who are "intelligent" enough to report on such matters still think of things in such black and white terms. Science doesn't have to negate religion. Exactly! And religion doesn't negate science either. I mean, most of the most impressive, astounding scientific principles that "challenge" religious viewpoints have been theorized by religious people (Darwin was a monk, and that guy who figured out that Earth wasn't at the center of the Universe was Catholic, I think....I may be wrong about that, actually, I'll have to research it.)
|
|
|
Post by Don Quixote on Apr 6, 2006 12:45:54 GMT -5
Yeah, I still don't understand why people who are "intelligent" enough to report on such matters still think of things in such black and white terms. Science doesn't have to negate religion. Exactly! And religion doesn't negate science either. I mean, most of the most impressive, astounding scientific principles that "challenge" religious viewpoints have been theorized by religious people (Darwin was a monk, and that guy who figured out that Earth wasn't at the center of the Universe was Catholic, I think....I may be wrong about that, actually, I'll have to research it.) Copernicus or Galileo? Copernicus probably discovered it first, but Galileo is more widely recognized. Copernicus was Polish and Galileo was Italian. There's a fair chance that they were both Catholic.
|
|
|
Post by goflyers on Apr 6, 2006 14:36:36 GMT -5
Galileo was born 20 years after Copernicus died. Both were in fact Catholic
|
|
|
Post by Afgncaap5 on Apr 6, 2006 16:26:50 GMT -5
I was speaking about neither of them, actually. Someone less well known, but I can't recall their name...
|
|
|
Post by Emperor Cupcake on Apr 6, 2006 18:27:29 GMT -5
Darwin wasn't a monk, though he did consider joining the priesthood before his famous voyage aboard the Beagle.
This is really cool -- I'm really into evolutionary topics and it's awesome whenever scientists find something of this magnitude. Religion doesn't enter into it for me because I'm an atheist and to me religion is just a set of cultural myths that are interesting for what they tell us about the cultures that spawned them, not an accurate description of history or science. It's silly to try to fit myths into science.
Hey, how come no love for ambulocetus natans, a transitional form between a land mammal and a whale?
|
|
|
Post by Afgncaap5 on Apr 7, 2006 1:07:24 GMT -5
I tried to accept that theory a while back, but there's a major flaw in the loigc - the primary leg that the theory of evolution stands on is natural selection, accidents, radomness - while God is special creation.... you can't have natural selection and special creation as an explanation to the universe because one says everything is for a reason while the other says everything is chance. If in fact God designed the universe to be determined by natural selection, then I suppose He has no control over the universe. Isn't this, according to Christianity, blasphemy? I'm not saying that God created a Universe that He has no control over. I'm saying that God created a Universe where natural selection could occur randomly wherever, but that He would give it guiding nudges. So find a suitable species,...say, that group of ape descendants over there...and instill them with sentiency, morals, all that stuff. Sorry, koalas, I thought your second thumb'd make you the chosen people, but humans win this time. If they die out, maybe you'll get a shot. What about that dinobird from a while back? Anyway, while I don't doubt that this is, in fact, a transitional creature, lemme just play Devil's advocate for a second: what's to prevent an All-Powerful God (capital letters) from creating a creature that looks just like this? I'm not saying that He did, mind you, He could've just let it occur naturally through evolution....but the fact is that there's no single piece of "scientific evidence" that couldn't be fabricated by a hyper-intelligent being capable of reworking the laws of time and space, creating matter, shaping things into new forms, and instilling life and sentience wherever He wants. Anyone who thinks that they can locate some piece of evidence that'll "disprove" a concept like that simply isn't thinking it through. It can't be disproved except by dying and checking to see if there's an afterlife.
|
|
|
Post by spacechief on Apr 7, 2006 3:56:49 GMT -5
Wow. This is big news. I mean there's only been 50 frauds before this, so this will be different! Right? Come on. Has anyone actually seen this skeleton? It looks like a crocodile. Only evolutionists can look at a skeleton (actually only half a skeleton. They only have the front) and say "Ah ha! This thing had scales and lungs and gills!". According to their logic you should be able to dig a person up, say what nationality they are, give their politic opinions, and what job they had all by looking at their decaying teeth. I just feel sorry for these evolution scientist. The only people with more boring, pathetic, and lie-filled jobs are those freaks who sit around trying to make contact with aliens.
|
|
|
Post by Don Quixote on Apr 7, 2006 9:04:16 GMT -5
What about msties?
|
|
|
Post by spacechief on Apr 7, 2006 9:56:49 GMT -5
No way. We're at number 10 on that imaginary list at the very worst. (I would say the best guess would be number 14 just behind People who Voted for Ralph Nader)
|
|
|
Post by MSTJedi on Apr 7, 2006 14:12:44 GMT -5
I tried to accept that theory a while back, but there's a major flaw in the loigc - the primary leg that the theory of evolution stands on is natural selection, accidents, radomness - while God is special creation.... you can't have natural selection and special creation as an explanation to the universe because one says everything is for a reason while the other says everything is chance. If in fact God designed the universe to be determined by natural selection, then I suppose He has no control over the universe. Isn't this, according to Christianity, blasphemy? According to mainstream, modern Christianity, yes, it is considered blasphemy. There are those of us out there that are willing to be more open minded than the average Christian bear and accept science and faith and adjust both where necessary and logical. As for the scientists who claim that evolution can't fit into creationism, they're being just as closed-minded as those who reject evolution. As the (not-so) great Rodney King once said, "Can't we all just get along?"
|
|
|
Post by Bix Dugan on Apr 7, 2006 17:46:58 GMT -5
Cmon. Let's get back to Tina Fey! Chicks that wear glasses are hot.
|
|