You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Strategy and General Discussion
Moderated by Yeebaagooon, TAG

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.202 replies, Off-Topic
Age of Mythology Heaven » Forums » Strategy and General Discussion » Bruce Shelley's religion comment
Bottom
Topic Subject:Bruce Shelley's religion comment
« Previous Page  1 ··· 5 6 7  Next Page »
MurphGuitar
Mortal
(id: Sir William of Pork)
posted 22 August 2001 04:25 PM EDT (US)         
Quote:
Keep in mind that Christianity and the other active religions today are mythologies.

This was copied and pasted directly from Mr. Shelley's Gamespot UK interview. Is anyone else surprised by this? I'm an atheist, and I certainly agree with him, but I'm still surprised he said it. Could it have been a typo? Do you suppose he meant something different when he said "mythology" that what we typically consider it to mean?


Defy me at your peril

[This message has been edited by Sir William of Pork (edited 08-22-2001 @ 04:26 PM).]

AuthorReplies:
black_beserker
Mortal
posted 08 September 2001 02:23 PM EDT (US)     181 / 202       
Sorry about mispelling your name Cian.

Yes I am aware that bible scholars disagree on many points, oh well. Yes, there are so many different interpretations on some of the harder things to understand, that it's not surprising that they disagree ont them. But in the end these little detals aren't that imporatant, it's the overall message that counts, and I think most bible scholars agree on these.

Just curious, why would you like to lie in those countries rather than the U.S?

I am really getting tired of people using stupid, out dated, or just plain wrong arguements to combat evolution. Statements like "why are there worms?", or claiming there are "invalid creatures", are really starting to frustrate me. If you want to convince anybody of anything, you have to use good, accurate information and be able to back it up. Otherwise you just make yourself look stupid, and you give creationists everywhere a bad name.

SoR_Anarchy
Mortal
posted 08 September 2001 03:28 PM EDT (US)     182 / 202       
I would love free college too. It's great when hard working ppl pay for something you didn't earn.

God Bless America.

I am the state.

eifersucht
Mortal
posted 08 September 2001 09:13 PM EDT (US)     183 / 202       
Quote:
it's the overall message that counts, and I think most bible scholars agree on these.

I agree that it's the message that counts. Just for the record, would you mind stating what it is?
Quote:
I would love free college too. It's great when hard working ppl pay for something you didn't earn.

So nobody should be allowed to go to college until they're in, what, their mid-30's or so, at least?



Historical data show a strong correlation between US involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorst attacks against the United States. - CATO Institute, 1998
Perseus wore a magic cap so that the monsters he hunted might not see him. We draw the magic cap down over our own eyes and ears so as to deny that there are any monsters - Karl Marx
Écrasez l'infâme


Cian McGuire
Member
posted 09 September 2001 01:38 AM EDT (US)     184 / 202       
Quote:
Sorry about mispelling your name Cian.

De nada

Quote:
But in the end these little detals aren't that imporatant, it's the overall message that counts, and I think most bible scholars agree on these.

But the problem is one of validity- what makes your version of the 'overall message' count more than anyone elses?

Not that I disagree, I think the most important point of life is to enjoy yourself as much as possible without infringing on another's right to do so.

This is what drives me- being kind and making this world a little easier to live for everyone.

And, this is remarkbly similar to 95% of all the core religious teachings, so what does it matter?

Quote:
Just curious, why would you like to lie in those countries rather than the U.S?

Well, the Netherlands for 3 reasons- the tolerance of the society, the rich artistic tradition, and I've always wanted to live in Rotterdam.

Quote:
I would love free college too. It's great when hard working ppl pay for something you didn't earn.

No, it's great when society realizes that it should invest in what determines the course of it's future. Why do you think that the economy has done so swimmingly over the past decade, bringing prosperity to the nation as a whole?

It is due to college-educated men and women.

You want to speak to me of hardworking? How about:

22 hours/week at Job #1
35 hours/week at Job #2
10 hours/week at Job #3
37 hours/week of college
30 hours/week of transportation
50 hours/week of homework

This is what was expected of me this time last year.

Of course, a simple calculation can determine that there aren't enough hours in the week for all of this, especially without sleep factored in.

I stubbornly persevered for 3 months, doing horribly in all areas, and making myself sick, undernutriented, and depressed to boot.

It is well-nigh impossible for a student to both go to school and pay for it at the same time, if society were to help students and view it as an investment in the future, everyone will be much better off.


In vino veritas
Clarissimus
Mortal
posted 09 September 2001 03:36 PM EDT (US)     185 / 202       
Well, I'm gone for a while and look at all the stuff that crops up. I'll answer as much as I can. . .

Theistic Evolution
You seem to have forgotten the millions of Christians living outside of North America and Europe. The continent with the most Christians on it is South America. I haven't seen recent figures but I know it was expected to be passed by Africa around the (recent) turn of the century. Christians who have never heard of evolution would never get it from the Bible.

As far as evolution contradicting the Bible, there is a major portion of Genesis (chapters 1-11) that expresses quite blatantly that God made the universe in six days.

Even if you don't believe that, consider this:
The basic tenet of Christianity is that Christ died to save humankind from sin. If evolution happened, death was in the world millions of years before humans, and therefore death existed before Adam's first sin. If death is not a consequence of sin, then Christ's death is functionless, and so is Christianity.
Evolution is not compatible with the Bible.


Also, a note on the talk about mass burial grounds. These are not refering to people being buried as in a funeral service. This is talking about a massive flood or mudslide burying the people and animals in contorted and twisted positions. (I think that's what you were trying to talk about.)


eifersucht, your responses are many and well-thought, but most of the them come down to speculation. If you say languages had 200,000 years to evolve, that does not prove anything. It is not science. If you say the cell or the eye or the duck-billed platypus came from intermediate forms that have vanished, that is not science. It is speculation.

Think about how many beneficial mutations would need to occur to get a platypus from its evolutionary ancestor. (By the way, what its ancestor?) The changes in genetic codes to gradually grow a bill, fur, egg-laying ability, mammary glands, venom, etc. are monstrous. (I realize that not all of these would have to evolve, but that would depend on its ancestor.) Why are there no fossils even close?

Fossilization is rare process, you say. But you have to give some evidence for your millions (perhaps billions?) of missing links. Quite frankly, there is no experimental evidence for macro-evolution or spontaneous generation. If you want to believe in evolution, I cannot technically prove it wrong. But I if say that purple parrots are living inside Neptune, you cannot prove me wrong either.
In order for a scientific theory to have weight, it must rely on as few assumptions as possible. When you bring in so many speculations, I have no rational choice but to reject your assertion.


24. Missing Trunk
The evolutionary tree has no trunk. In the Cambrian sedimentary layers, life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified, and dispersed (fish, worms, corals, trilobites, jellyfish, sponges, mollusks, & brachiopods.) These layers contain all animal phyla, including flowering plants, vascular plants, and vertebrates.
Insects, which comprise about 80% of all known animal species, have no evolutionary ansectors.

25. Out-of-Place Fossils
In Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs.
In Turkmenia and in Arizona, dinosaur and humanlike footprints have been found together.
In South Carolina, dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse and other fossils, plus crude human tools were found in phosphate beds.
In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, and in Guyana, ferns spores and pollen are found in Precambrian rocks.
In Virginia, hoofprints are alongside 1000 dinosaur footprints.
In Arizona, petrified trees contian fossilized bee nests and wasp cocoons.

26. Ape-Men?
The Piltdown Man was a universally acknowleged hoax, yet it was in textbooks for over 40 years.
Prior to 1978, the evidence for Ramapithecus consisted of a handful of teeth and jaw fragments. It is now know they were pieced together incorrectly to resemeble a human jaw. Ramapithecus was just an ape.
The only evidence for Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig's tooth.
Eugene Dubois admitted 40 years after he discovered Java Man that it was just a large gibbon.
The skulls of Peking Man are considered by many experts to be the remains of apes. The classification Homo erectus is a category that never should have been created.
The first confirmed limb bones of Homo habilis have been discovered recently. They should this animal cleary had apelike proportions and should never have been classified as manlike (Homo)
The Australophithecines are quite distinct from humans. Studies of Lucy's entire anatomy, not just a knee joint, now show that she not never walked upright.
For about 100 years the world was led to believe Neanderthal man was stooped and apelike. Recent studies show that this belief was based on some Neanderthals with bones diseases such as arthritis and ricekts. Neanderthal Man, Heidelberg Man, and Cro-Magnon Man were completely human.

27. Fossil Man
Bones of many modern-looking humans have been found deep in rocks long before man supposedly began to evolve. Examples include the Calaveras skull, the Castenedolo skeletons, Reck's skeleton, and many others.

[This message has been edited by Clarissimus (edited 09-09-2001 @ 03:40 PM).]

SoR_Anarchy
Mortal
posted 09 September 2001 08:42 PM EDT (US)     186 / 202       
Cian, if you perform well in school you can get grant and scholarships. Also there are things called student loans.

God Bless America.

I am the state.

Cian McGuire
Member
posted 10 September 2001 01:35 AM EDT (US)     187 / 202       
Quote:
Cian, if you perform well in school you can get grant and scholarships.

Many of which I was not eligible for, due to race or religious background information.

Quote:
Also there are things called student loans.

Something I've avoided trying to get saddled with due to the fact that they will haunt me for years to come.

Neither or these two options refutes the statement that society would be better off providing the necessary funding for any student to get a decent higher education. We do it for primary and secondary, and now that we have progressed to the point that this is no longer good enough to make it in the world, we should either take on support of colleges and universities, or rework 'lower education' to provide students with the necessary skills for anything straight out of high school.


In vino veritas
eifersucht
Mortal
posted 10 September 2001 03:55 AM EDT (US)     188 / 202       
Quote:
You seem to have forgotten the millions of Christians living outside of North America and Europe. The continent with the most Christians on it is South America. I haven't seen recent figures but I know it was expected to be passed by Africa around the (recent) turn of the century. Christians who have never heard of evolution would never get it from the Bible.

I am counting those who are in a position to compare the 2 positions.

I have no doubt at all that millions of uneducated people might not agree with evolution.

Quote:
The basic tenet of Christianity is that Christ died to save humankind from sin. If evolution happened, death was in the world millions of years before humans, and therefore death existed before Adam's first sin. If death is not a consequence of sin, then Christ's death is functionless, and so is Christianity.
Evolution is not compatible with the Bible.

That is your view of it.
Some other alternatives:
1. (ultra-metaphorical): "Jesus" dying for our sins shows the suffering + sacrifice of the world for the sake of humans, and that we should understand this suffering + sacrifice in order to get in touch with "God".
2. That the adam + eve story is metaphor, basically for the human nature of sin. This is useful because it gets rid of the ridiculous idea of punishing decendants for the sins of ancestors, clearly not a just tradition. As for death being in the world, I don't see that as an issue. Animals without souls dying mean nothing. If it did, then Jesus' death would have to involve them in some way as well. Since animals (most, at least) are unable to comprehend, that would involve making the comprehension of the fact (even of the events that happened, ie, any knowledge at all) meaningless, making Christianity itself meaningless.

There are more, but I'm not interested enough to argue it (because I see no point defending a religion I don't like).

Quote:
Also, a note on the talk about mass burial grounds. These are not refering to people being buried as in a funeral service. This is talking about a massive flood or mudslide burying the people and animals in contorted and twisted positions. (I think that's what you were trying to talk about.)

Yes. A local flood could do this. The ground that it occurred on could easily later become a mountain.
Quote:
If you say languages had 200,000 years to evolve, that does not prove anything

It means that pointing to languages 5000 years ago being developed as proof that they don't evolve, it does quite a lot.

What it means that languages 5000 years old are only 1/20'th or so the length of language evolution. That is, we are near the end anyway, languages can fully evolve by that point. If you bear in mind that the languages we are most likely to find are the most prolific, which would tend to be from the most advanced societies, it is no surprise at all.
It isn't science, granted. However, that is because it is dealing with a complaint that also isn't science. It is explaination of an event.

Quote:
If you say the cell or the eye or the duck-billed platypus came from intermediate forms that have vanished, that is not science. It is speculation.

That is just wrong. I provided sources of people who have examined it. I have given you the available materials to at least start your search in this area. Clearly you haven't, from which I can only assume that you aren't looking for answers to questions, but questions without answers. If you can give a rational reason why what the sources I provided are faulty, then go ahead. If you can't, then admit you were wrong, or at least drop the point.
Quote:
Think about how many beneficial mutations would need to occur to get a platypus from its evolutionary ancestor. (By the way, what its ancestor?) The changes in genetic codes to gradually grow a bill, fur, egg-laying ability, mammary glands, venom, etc. are monstrous. (I realize that not all of these would have to evolve, but that would depend on its ancestor.) Why are there no fossils even close?


1. I'm not sure on the "no fossils" thing. I'm pretty sure I mentioned it before. Frankly, I am quite busy, and can't check every claim that everyone who is debating against me (multiple forums, not just this thread) makes. I will get to it eventually, but this may be a matter of weeks. Sorry about that.
2. Even if there were no ancestors (that we can find and identify as such), this simply means that in the stages between modern platipii and proto-platipii no fossilisation events occurred. This is hardly unlikely in the 2nd dryest continent on the planet.
Quote:
But you have to give some evidence for your millions (perhaps billions?) of missing links

Millions?
Define "missing link".

I should point out that for every new fossil we find, by definition we increase the number of 'missing' links.
Say there the numbers 1-10.
We find number 1 and 10. There is 1 gap. If we find number 3, there are suddenly 2 gaps. If we find number 6, there are 3 gaps. If we have all numbers, there are 9 gaps.
The "missing links" tend to be terms for "Gaps", which, as you can see, aren't intrinsically bad. The problem with gaps is when they are of a sufficient degree, and those gaps are quite rare.

Quote:
Quite frankly, there is no experimental evidence for macro-evolution or spontaneous generation.

1. Speciation events are, at the moment, thought to occur roughly every 10 000 years. Experimental evidence for it would be very very lucky.
2. Nobody believes spontaneous generation as science. [the only people that believe it are religious people "god made the world..."]
Quote:
If you want to believe in evolution, I cannot technically prove it wrong. But I if say that purple parrots are living inside Neptune, you cannot prove me wrong either.

Except evolution provides evidence for every single thing it claims. It isn't a baseless claim to knowledge, requiring the proof of a negative propasition.
Quote:
24. Missing Trunk
The evolutionary tree has no trunk. In the Cambrian sedimentary layers, life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified, and dispersed (fish, worms, corals, trilobites, jellyfish, sponges, mollusks, & brachiopods.) These layers contain all animal phyla, including flowering plants, vascular plants, and vertebrates.
Insects, which comprise about 80% of all known animal species, have no evolutionary ansectors.

I have already dealt with this. Fossilisation is rare. Fossilisation requires hard parts to have any reasonable chance of occurring (although it can, in very rare situations occur without them).
Quote:
The Piltdown Man was a universally acknowleged hoax, yet it was in textbooks for over 40 years.

And when it was discovered to be a hoax, was instantly removed. Had the removal of the evidence been vital to evolution, evolution would be in serious trouble.
However, it isn't. Evolution is not reliant on the fossil record, and the fossil record is not reliant on any 1 fossil.

The rest of this is the same.
If you want, I can post all the accurate fossil records, you can post the hoaxes, and we'll compare, ok?
[note: Last time I did this, I maxed out the post-size, twice].

Quote:
27. Fossil Man
Bones of many modern-looking humans have been found deep in rocks long before man supposedly began to evolve. Examples include the Calaveras skull, the Castenedolo skeletons, Reck's skeleton, and many others.


1. The Calaveras skull was a hoax. It wasn't found underground at all. Totally false.
2. "The bones from Castenedolo, near Brescia in Italy, belong to several skeletons of men, women, and children and were found on various occasions in a shelly bed of sand and clay, of marine origin and of Pliocene age. In 1899, the discovery of a new human skeleton was the subject of an official report by Professor Issel, who then observed that the various fossils from this deposit were all impregnated with salt, with the sole exception of the human fossils... It seems certain that at Castenedolo we are dealing with more or less recent burials." (Boule and Vallois, 1957, Fossil Men, pp107).
3. I've not seen anything on Reck's skeleton that makes it appear anomolous. Perhaps you could fill me in...


Historical data show a strong correlation between US involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorst attacks against the United States. - CATO Institute, 1998
Perseus wore a magic cap so that the monsters he hunted might not see him. We draw the magic cap down over our own eyes and ears so as to deny that there are any monsters - Karl Marx
Écrasez l'infâme


[This message has been edited by eifersucht (edited 09-13-2001 @ 08:32 PM).]

Clarissimus
Mortal
posted 11 September 2001 10:29 PM EDT (US)     189 / 202       
Quote:
I am counting those who are in a position to compare the 2 positions.

[sarcasm]Thank you for clearly stating that earlier[/sarcasm]

Quote:
"Jesus" dying for our sins shows the suffering + sacrifice of the world for the sake of humans, and that we should understand this suffering + sacrifice in order to get in touch with "God".

This is not Christianity.

Quote:
As for death being in the world, I don't see that as an issue. Animals without souls dying mean nothing.

The whole point of original sin is that it totally messed up the world. It brought natural disasters, disease, etc. that affect animals as well as people.

Quote:
I'm not interested enough to argue it (because I see no point defending a religion I don't like).

Fine then. We'll get back to the debate at hand.

Quote:
What it means that languages 5000 years old are only 1/20'th or so the length of language evolution.

This is your circular reasoning I was talking about. Don't back up evolution with evolution.

Quote:
It isn't science, granted

Too bad it's taught as fact in the public schools. Maybe that's why so many "educated" people believe it. It's because they have been "educated" (Read "indoctrinated").

Quote:
2. Even if there were no ancestors (that we can find and identify as such), this simply means that in the stages between modern platipii and proto-platipii no fossilisation events occurred.

If fossilization is so rare, why is it that we find multiple fossils of the same spieces and no intermediate forms. I know that many fossils come from large groups, but sometimes many fossils of the same species are found all over the world. (This is why so many evolutionists are into punc. eq.)

Quote:
Define "missing link".

I have defined "link" as "species." Maybe this is not proper, if so, I change my wording to "missing species."

How many mutations does it take for an ape to change into a human? Look at their vast anatomical and intellectual differences (for a start.) A thousand? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand or more? Every time there is a beneficial mutation, a new species would be produced. At least, we could expect a hundred or more transitional forms. Yet they are nowhere to be found!
(Also refer to my comments on ape-men hoaxes and fossil appereances.)

Quote:
evolution provides evidence for every single thing it claims

You just admitted it wasn't science. How can you turn around and make a statement like that?
There are no records of any transitional forms.
Macro-evolution has never been observed.

Looking at diversified fossils and making proposterous claims does not count as evidence!

Quote:
when it was discovered to be a hoax, was instantly removed.

My high school Biology textbook cited "Lucy" as a link between apes and humans and referred to embryonic development as evidence for evolution, among other things. (And I graduated this year.)

Quote:
1. The Calaveras skull was a hoax. It wasn't found underground at all. Totally false.

Also there were hundreds of human bones and artifacts (ancient tools) underneath undisturbed strata and a layer of basaltic lava.

The Castenedolo skeletons were encased in clay. This prevented the water from dripping in (with dissovled minerals) and thus preventing the bones from fossilizing.

See for info on reck's skeleton:
M. Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fiction?, 2nd edition (Bromely, England: Sovereign Publications, 1981), pp183-193

You didn't comment on the out of place fossils (#25). I guess that will come later. . . .

Life Is So Complex That Chance Processes, Even With Billions of Years, Cannot Explain Its Origin

28. Chemical Elements of Life

The rocks that supposedly preceded life have very little carbon. Today's atmosphere only holds 1/30,000th of the carbon that has been on the earth's surface since life first appeared.

If the early earth was high in oxygen, amino acids could not form. If the early earth was low in oxygen, it was low in ozone (O3)

Nitrogen is earily absorbed by clay and various rocks. Sediments that preceded life should be filled with nitrogen. (But these have never been found.)

29.Proteins
Since 1930 it has been known that amino acid cannot join if oxygen is present. The chemistry of the earth's rocks (on land and below ancient seas) show the earth had oxygen before the earliest fossils were formed. (Oxygen would anyway be produced by solar radiation breaking apart water vapor.)

30. The First Cell
There is not the remotest chance proteins could randomly form a membrane-encased, self-reproducting, metabolizing, living cell. The is no evidence there are any stable states between the assumed formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells. No scientist has advanced a testable procedure by which the fantastic leap could have occured -- even if the whole universe were filled with proteins. (Didn't you decry spontaneous generation.)

31. Barriers, Buffers, and Chemical Pathways
A typical cell contians thousands of different chemcials, some acids, some bases. Were it not for an incricate system of chemical barriers and buffers. Apparenly these buffers and barriers evolved at just the right times to prevent harmful chemical reactions. How could such precise, miraculous events have happened for many millions of species?

All living organisms are maintained by thousands of chemical pathways, each involving a long series of complex chemical reactions. For example, the clotting of blood, which invovles twenty to thiry steps, is absolutely vital to heal a body. However, clotting is fatal if it happens inside the body. If one of these steps goes wrong, is omittied, or changed in timing, all the other steps that were performed flawlessly are in vain.

[This message has been edited by Clarissimus (edited 09-11-2001 @ 10:45 PM).]

eifersucht
Mortal
posted 13 September 2001 08:46 PM EDT (US)     190 / 202       
Quote:
Thank you for clearly stating that earlier



Why would people who haven't got any idea about the subject be taken into account?
Quote:


Quote:
"Jesus" dying for our sins shows the suffering + sacrifice of the world for the sake of humans, and that we should understand this suffering + sacrifice in order to get in touch with "God".

This is not Christianity.


In your opinion.
I know quite a few clergymen who are OK with this interpretation.
Quote:
The whole point of original sin is that it totally messed up the world. It brought natural disasters, disease, etc. that affect animals as well as people.



In your opinion. It could easily (and more sensibly) be taken to simply mean that human capacity for evil is created out of disobediance of god.
Quote:
This is your circular reasoning I was talking about. Don't back up evolution with evolution.

I'm not "backing up evolution with evolution". I am pointing out that an attack on evolution is baseless, since what is being attacked fits perfectly. Language isn't used as evidence for evolution, thus this is perfectly valid.
Otherwise your "don't back up evoelution with evolution" would have me haing to describe how an evolutionary event could occur in an otherwise creationist scenario, which is patently absurd.
Quote:
It isn't science, granted

Too bad it's taught as fact in the public schools. Maybe that's why so many "educated" people believe it. It's because they have been "educated" (Read "indoctrinated").



WTF? Evolution is science. I cannot believe that you could take a quote so blatently out of context.
Read the whole thing again. You really, really aren't reading this normally (looking for quotes to take out of context, a-la most creationists).
What I said is not taught in schools. It is a specific response to a specific question, explaining evolution. It isn't scientific research used to support theory, but explaination of said theory.
Quote:
If fossilization is so rare, why is it that we find multiple fossils of the same spieces and no intermediate forms.

What do you mean by "no" intermediate forms? On this specific animal?
Anyway, the simple answer is that fossilisation events are rare, because it needs certain circumstances. This doesn't mean that every 1/100 000 animals will randomly be fossilised. It means that 1/100 000th of animals will be fossilised, because they were in the right conditions. These conditions obviously would mean fossilisation is more common at this period. Thus, we see some clumping.
However, this is still fairly minor, and we have nearly complete fossil records for most groups.
Quote:
How many mutations does it take for an ape to change into a human? Look at their vast anatomical and intellectual differences (for a start.) A thousand? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand or more? Every time there is a beneficial mutation, a new species would be produced.

That wouldn't be a new "species" at all. A new species would be the result of hundreds of thousands of mutations.
Quote:
At least, we could expect a hundred or more transitional forms. Yet they are nowhere to be found!
(Also refer to my comments on ape-men hoaxes and fossil appereances.)



Nonsense. Here is the primate transitional fossil record (no known hoaxes are included, lest you bring up that horse to try to flog again:
Quote:
2. PRIMATES
I'll outline here the lineage that led to humans. Notice that there
were many other large, successful branches (particularly the lemurs, New
World monkeys, and Old World monkeys) that I will only mention in
passing. Also see Jim Foley's fossil hominid FAQ for detailed
information on hominid fossils.

GAP: "The modern assemblage can be traced with little question to the
base of the Eocene" says Carroll (1988). But before that, the
origins of the very earliest primates are fuzzy. There is a group of
Paleocene primitive primate-like animals called "plesiadapids" that
may be ancestral to primates, or may be "cousins" to primates. (see
Beard, in Szalay et al., 1993.)

Palaechthon, Purgatorius (middle Paleocene)
Very primitive plesiadapids. To modern eyes they looks nothing like
primates, being simply pointy-faced, small early mammals with mostly
primitive teeth, and claws instead of nails. But they show the first
signs of primate-like teeth; lost an incisor and a premolar, and had
relatively blunt-cusped, squarish molars.
Cantius (early Eocene)
One of the first true primates (or "primates of modern aspect"), more
advanced than the plesiadapids (more teeth lost, bar behind the eye,
grasping hand & foot) and beginning to show some lemur-like arboreal
adaptations.
Pelycodus & related species (early Eocene)
Primitive lemur-like primates.

The tarsiers, lemurs, and New World monkeys split off in the Eocene.
The Old World lineage continued as follows:
Amphipithecus, Pondaungia (late Eocene, Burma)
Very early Old World primates known only from fragments. Larger
brain, shorter nose, more forward-facing eyes (halfway between
plesiadapid eyes and modern ape eyes).
GAP: Here's that Oligocene gap mentioned above in the timescale. Very
few primate fossils are known between the late Eocene and early
Oligocene, when there was a sharp change in global climate. Several
other mammal groups have a similar gap.
Parapithecus (early Oligocene)
The O.W. monkeys split from the apes split around now.
Parapithecus was probably at the start of the O.W. monkey line.
From here the O.W. monkeys go through Oreopithecus (early Miocene,
Kenya) to modern monkey groups of the Miocene & Pliocene.
Propliopithecus, Aegyptopithecus (early Oligocene, Egypt)
From the same time as Parapithecus, but probably at the beginning
of the ape lineage. First ape characters (deep jaw, 2 premolars, 5-
cusped teeth, etc.).
Aegyptopithecus (early-mid Oligocene, Egypt)
Slightly later anthropoid (ape/hominid) with more ape features. It
was a fruit-eating runner/climber, larger, with a rounder brain and
shorter face.
Proconsul africanus (early Miocene, Kenya.)
A sexually dimorphic, fruit-eating, arboreal quadruped probably
ancestral to all the later apes and humans. Had a mosaic of ape-like
and primitive features; Ape-like elbow, shoulder and feet; monkey-
like wrist; gibbon-like lumbar vertebrae.
Limnopithecus (early Miocene, Africa)
A later ape probably ancestral to gibbons.
Dryopithecus (mid-Miocene)
A later ape probably ancestral to the great apes & humans. At this
point Africa & Asia connected via Arabia, and the non-gibbon apes
divided into two lines:
1) Sivapithecus (including "Gigantopithecus" & "Ramapithecus", mid-
Miocene). Moved to Asia & gave rise to the orangutan.
2) Kenyapithecus (mid-Miocene, about 16 Ma)
Stayed in Africa & gave rise to the African great apes & humans.

GAP: There are no known fossil hominids *or* apes from Africa between
14 and 4 Ma. Frustratingly, molecular data shows that this is when
the African great apes (chimps, gorillas) diverged from hominids,
probably 5-7 Ma. The gap may be another case of poor fossilization
of forest animals. At the end of the gap we start finding some very
ape-like bipedal hominids:
Australopithecus ramidus (mid-Pliocene, 4.4 Ma)
A recently discovered very early hominid (or early chimp?), from just
after the split with the apes. Not well known. Possibly bipedal
(only the skull was found). Teeth both apelike and humanlike; one
baby tooth is very chimp-like. (White et al., 1994; Wood 1994)
Australopithecus afarensis (late Pliocene, 3.9 Ma)
Some excellent fossils ("Lucy", etc.) make clear that this was fully
bipedal and definitely a hominid. But it was an extremely ape-like
hominid; only four feet tall, still had an ape-sized brain of just
375-500 cc (finally answering the question of which came first, large
brain or bipedality) and ape-like teeth. This lineage gradually
split into a husky large-toothed lineage and a more slender, smaller-
toothed lineage. The husky lineage (A. robustus, A. boisei)
eventually went extinct.
Australopithecus africanus (later Pliocene, 3.0 Ma)
The more slender lineage. Up to five feet tall, with slightly larger
brain (430-550 cc) and smaller incisors. Teeth gradually became more
and more like Homo teeth. These hominds are almost perfect ape-
human intermediates, and it's now pretty clear that the slender
australopithecines led to the first Homo species.
Homo habilis (latest Pliocene/earliest Pleistocene, 2.5 Ma)
Straddles the boundary between australopithecines and humans, such
that it's sometimes lumped with the australopithecines. About five
feet tall, face still primitive but projects less, molars smaller.
Brain 500-800 cc, overlapping australopithecines at the low end and
and early Homo erectus at the high end. Capable of rudimentary
speech? First clumsy stone tools.
Homo erectus (incl. "Java Man", "Peking Man", "Heidelberg Man";
Pleist., 1.8 Ma)
Looking much more human now with a brain of 775-1225 cc, but still
has thick brow ridges & no chin. Spread out of Africa & across
Europe and Asia. Good tools, first fire.
Archaic Homo sapiens (Pleistocene, 500,000 yrs ago)
These first primitive humans were perfectly intermediate between H.
erectus and modern humans, with a brain of 1200 cc and less robust
skeleton & teeth. Over the next 300,000 years, brain gradually
increased, molars got still smaller, skeleton less muscular. Clearly
arose from H erectus, but there are continuing arguments about
where this happened.
One famous offshoot group, the Neandertals, developed in Europe 125,000
years ago. They are considered to be the same species as us, but a
different subspecies, H. sapiens neandertalensis. They were more
muscular, with a slightly *larger* brain of 1450 cc, a distinctive
brow ridge, and differently shaped throat (possibly limiting their
language?). They are known to have buried their dead.
H. sapiens sapiens (incl. "Cro-magnons"; late Pleist., 40,000 yrs ago)
All modern humans. Average brain size 1350 cc. In Europe, gradually
supplanted the Neanderthals.

Known species-species transitions in primates:
Phillip Gingerich has done a lot of work on early primate transitions.
Here are some of his major findings in plesiadapids, early lemurs,
and early monkeys:
Plesiadapids: Gingerich (summarized in 1976, 1977) found smooth
transitions in plesiadapid primates linking four genera together:
Pronothodectes, Nannodectes, two lineages of Plesiadapis, and
Platychoerops. In summary: Pronothodectes matthewi changed to
become Pro. jepi, which split into Nannodectes intermedius and
Plesiadapis praecursor. N. intermedius was the first member of a
gradually changing lineage that passed through three different
species stages (N. gazini, N. simpsoni, and N. gidleyi). Ples.
praecursor was the first member of a separate, larger lineage that
slowly grew larger (passing through three more species stages), with
every studied character showing continuous gradual change. Gingerich
(1976) noted "Loss of a tooth, a discrete jump from one state to
another, in several instances proceeded continuously by continuous
changes in the frequencies of dimorphism -- the percentage of
specimens retaining the tooth gradually being reduced until it was
lost entirely from the population." The Plesiadapis lineage then
split into two more lineages, each with several species. One of
these lineages shows a gradual transition from Plesiadapis to
Platychoerops,"where the incisors were considerably reorganized
morphologically and functionally in the space of only 2-3 million
years."
Early lemur-like primates: Gingerich (summarized in 1977) traced two
distinct species of lemur-like primates, Pelycodus frugivorus and
P. jarrovii, back in time, and found that they converged on the
earlier Pelycodus abditus "in size, mesostyle development, and
every other character available for study, and there can be little
doubt that each was derived from that species." Further work
(Gingerich, 1980) in the same rich Wyoming fossil sites found
species-to-species transitions for *every step* in the following
lineage: Pelycodus ralstoni (54 Ma) to P. mckennai to P.
trigonodus to P. abditus, which then forked into three branches.
One became a new genus, Copelemur feretutus, and further changed
into C. consortutus. The second branch became P. frugivorus.
The third led to P. jarrovi, which changed into another new genus,
Notharctus robinsoni, which itself split into at least two
branches, N. tenebrosus, and N. pugnax (which then changed to N.
robustior, 48 Ma), and possibly a third, Smilodectes mcgrewi
(which then changed to S. gracilis). Note that this sequence
covers AT LEAST three and possibly four genera, with a timespan of 6
million years.
Early monkey-like primates: Gingerich (1982, also discussed in
Gingerich, 1983) also describes gradual species-species transitions
in a lineage of early Eocene primate: Cantius ralstoni to C.
mckennai to C. trigonodus.
And here are some transitions found by other researchers:
Rose & Bown (1984) analyzed over 600 specimens of primates collected
from a 700-meter-thick sequence representing approximately 4 million
years of the Eocene. They found smooth transitions between
Teilhardina americana and Tetonoides tenuiculus, and also beween
Tetonius homunculus and Pseudotetonius ambiguus. "In both lines
transitions occurred not only continuously (rather than by abrupt
appearance of new morphologies followed by stasis), but also in
mosaic fashion, with greater variation in certain characters
preceding a shift to another character state." The T. homunculus -
P. ambiguus transition shows a dramatic change in dentition (loss of
P2, dramatic shrinkage of P3 with loss of roots, shrinkage of C and
I2, much enlarged I1) that occurs gradually and smoothly during the 4
million years. The authors conclude "...our data suggest that
phyletic gradualism is not only more common than some would admit but
also capable of producing significant adaptive modifications."
Delson (discussed in Gingerich, 1985) has studied transitions in
primates from the Miocene to the present. For instance, in a 1983
paper (see Chaline, 1983), he discussed a possible smooth transition
from Theropithecus darti to T. oswaldi, and discusses
transitions in hominids, concluding that Homo sapiens clearly shows
gradual changes over the last 800,000 years.
Kurten (1968) reports a smooth transition linking Macaca florentina to
M. sylvana


Source
Quote:
You just admitted it wasn't science.

No I didn't. I said my explainations of what you've presented isn't science. And that doesn't mean it isn't based in science, it means it isn't science, in the true sense of the word.
Quote:
You didn't comment on the out of place fossils (#25). I guess that will come later. . . .


I'm still stunned you even presented them. They've been dealt with hundreds of times. I will get to them eventually, though [I hope you understand that I cannot produce full posts atm].


Historical data show a strong correlation between US involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorst attacks against the United States. - CATO Institute, 1998
Perseus wore a magic cap so that the monsters he hunted might not see him. We draw the magic cap down over our own eyes and ears so as to deny that there are any monsters - Karl Marx
Écrasez l'infâme


Clarissimus
Mortal
posted 17 September 2001 09:39 AM EDT (US)     191 / 202       
The reason people uneducated would be taken into account is to show the Bible says nothing that remotely hints at evolution. Theistic evolution is the result of trying to reconcile the Bible with evolution. That was my point.
Maybe you were trying to make a different point and I misunderstood. I am trying to say that nothing in evolution is inherent in the Bible (rather, it is contradictory.)

As far as the "that is you opinion" responses, you need to distinguish between opinion and definition. The traditional definintion of Christianity is that which I have described. If other people want to define it differently, they are redefining my religion (and God's).
If someone else started changing the entire premise of the theory of evolution to fit certain fossil evidence that you think is bogus, would you consider that person an evolutionist? Even if they said they were an evolutionist and you were just being narrow minded?

Now your quote, I didn't pull that out of context, but just to be certain, I'll include the whole paragraph. Maybe you can explain it to me a little better:

Quote:
What it means that languages 5000 years old are only 1/20'th or so the length of language evolution. That is, we are near the end anyway, languages can fully evolve by that point. If you bear in mind that the languages we are most likely to find are the most prolific, which would tend to be from the most advanced societies, it is no surprise at all.
It isn't science, granted. However, that is because it is dealing with a complaint that also isn't science. It is explaination of an event.

I take this to mean that you say that an explanation of an event isn't science. I agree. Science is knowledge based on observation and experimentation. Any explanation of an event surely should not be considered to be science. (Please read between the lines there. I don't think I need to state it.)

Quote:
we have nearly complete fossil records for most groups

Well this one really takes the cake! Please define a "complete" fossil record. Does it show every mutation?
I appreciate your taking the time to type out that rather lengthy fossil record of apes. But there are many more gaps than what you explicitly mentioned. Every time a mutation occurs, we ought to find a fossil recording such mutation.

I don't care how rare you say fossilization is, either. If you don't have evidence, it isn't science. You can't take such a discrete grouping of animals and hypothesize thousands of mutations. (Well, I guess technically you can. . .)In any case, it is speculation, not science.

32. Genetic Distances.
A degree of similarity of life forms can now be measured by examining the sequence of specific proteins. The fewer changes required to convert one protein to another, supposedly the closer the relationship of the animals.
But the results show not a trace of evidence for the traditional evolutionary sequence: simple sea life => fish => amphibians => reptiles => mammals. One study, using cytochrome c, a protein used in energy production, compared 47 different forms of life. Based on their protein, the rattlesnake was more similar to man than to other reptiles. Hundreds of similar contradictions have been found.

33. Genetic Information
The genetic information contained in each cell of a human in roughly equivalent to a library of 4000 books. To accumulate this information randomly, the followed procedure would be followed:
a. Start with a meaningful phrase
b. Retype the phrase, but make some errors and insert some additional letters.
c. Examine the new phrase to see if it is meaningful.
d. If it is, replace the original phrase with it.
e. Return to step "b".
To accumulate 4000 books of meaningful information, this producure would require far more than 1040000offspring.

34. DNA production
To produce DNA, a cell require more than 75 different types of proteins. But these proteins are produced only at the direction of DNA. Apparently, this entire manufacturing system came into existance simultaneously.

35. Handedness: Left and Right
Genetic material, DNA and RNA, is composed of nucleotides. In living things, nucleotides are always "right-handed." Nucleotides rarely form outside of life, but when they do, half are left-handed and half are right-handed.

The amino acids in life are essential all left-handed. But when amino acids are found in nonliving material or synthesized in the lab, half and left-handed and half and right-handed. No known natural process can isolate either variety.

The sugars in living things are almost all right-handed. Natural processes produce half left-handed and half right-handed.

If any living thing took in (or ate) amino acids or sugars that had the wrong handedness, the body could not process it. Such food would be useless.
Consider how advantageous a mutation that switched a plant's handedness would be. "Inverted" trees would proliferate, since they would no longer nourish bacteria, mold, or termites. "Inverted" forest would fill entire continents. Other "inverted" plants and animals would also benefit and would overwhelm the balance of nature. Why don't we see any species with right-handed amino acids or left-handed sugars?
Similary, why aren't there more poisonous plants? Why don't benefical mutations permit their carriers to swamp other species?

eifersucht
Mortal
posted 18 September 2001 04:49 AM EDT (US)     192 / 202       
Quote:
Every time a mutation occurs, we ought to find a fossil recording such mutation.

Absolute rubbish. We know why there aren't fossils for everything. Fossilisation is a rare event, for reasons that are entirely expected when you look at how it occurs.
No reasonable person would sersiously expect every organism to be fossilised.
Quote:
I don't care how rare you say fossilization is, either. If you don't have evidence, it isn't science.

I have stated many times that evolution is not based off the fossil record. It can be supported with it at all, if need be. It just so happens that the fossil record supports it.

That you seem to be obsessed with not only evolution being mainly based on the fossil record, but entirely based off it, is a poor indictment of the state of the education system there.


Historical data show a strong correlation between US involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorst attacks against the United States. - CATO Institute, 1998
Perseus wore a magic cap so that the monsters he hunted might not see him. We draw the magic cap down over our own eyes and ears so as to deny that there are any monsters - Karl Marx
Écrasez l'infâme


Clarissimus
Mortal
posted 18 September 2001 09:48 AM EDT (US)     193 / 202       
Isn't it just a poor indictment of my education?

Okay, so tell me. I'm genuinely curious. How does one support evolution without the fossil record?

WhoAskedU
Mortal
posted 18 September 2001 12:23 PM EDT (US)     194 / 202       
When i read these post, i realize one of the most important facts.

If you critisize (sp?) someone about there beliefs, and then you try and persuade him to come see how you see...what do you expect them to do? Agree? Probably not...even if your belief is right!

Never say there wrong. even if they are. What you do is try and persuade them to see how you see. Trust me, less blood shed will come from an arguement if you scream and yell and curse then an arguement that you talk.

Rules:

1. Never say "your wrong", because your more likely to persuade him to your way of thinking. If you do say "your wrong" all your going to do is raise resentment, and get him to start defending himself, and start yelling at you, which is not good (you can agree with that right?)
2. The point of this arguement is to get the opposing debators to agree with you...you want them to say "yah, thats right." yelling at them and telling them there wrong is NO way to get them to agree with them...

Unfortinatly this is 2 vital rules i have just learned (in the past week), and i could not apply this skill in my other posts, however i can now.

I agree that it was a very unwise remark, even if it is a true remark (which IMO Christianity is not mythology)

I also agree that Jesus is the ONE and ONLY way to get into heaven, of course this is how i was raised (a die-hard christian that believed everything in the bible is true PERIOD, you didnt need an explanation. However, i think that that explanations are need to convert people to Christianity; and i feel that the bible is easily explained).


At my signal unleash HELL.
God Bless America, Land of the Free!!!
•••winner of "2002 AoM Forum's Coolest Name Award"•••
•••••••Another Fabulous Post by WhoAskedU!!•••••••
People just complain about other people's Signatures because
they aren't smart enough to make their own.
Cian McGuire
Member
posted 18 September 2001 01:43 PM EDT (US)     195 / 202       
Quote:
I agree that it was a very unwise remark, even if it is a true remark (which IMO Christianity is not mythology)

How can it be unwise, even if it's true?

Seriously, Christianity is a mythology, just one that is still believed in and practiced today.


In vino veritas
WhoAskedU
Mortal
posted 18 September 2001 01:57 PM EDT (US)     196 / 202       
Quote:
How can it be unwise, even if it's true?

It may be true, but its still unwise because alot of the population is christians; and it would only cause a major up-roar.

because...that is what we feel is true (even if we are right). if we are wrong, we'll still defend (and argue) it which makes his comment unwise... The best comment is a comment that won't start an arguement, and this is not one of those types. It is a comment against a religion and will only start arguements. That is why it is unwise.


At my signal unleash HELL.
God Bless America, Land of the Free!!!
•••winner of "2002 AoM Forum's Coolest Name Award"•••
•••••••Another Fabulous Post by WhoAskedU!!•••••••
People just complain about other people's Signatures because
they aren't smart enough to make their own.
Clarissimus
Mortal
posted 18 September 2001 03:08 PM EDT (US)     197 / 202       
Quote:
Christianity is a mythology, just one that is still believed in and practiced today.

Cian, I'm not going to argue over definitions of words (i.e. "mythology") but please read my post #112. I think it's on page 5 (maybe page 4).

36. Improbabilities
The simplest conceivable form of life should have at least 600 different protein molecules. The probabily that one of these molecules could form by the chance arrangement of amino acids is far less than 1 in 10450.

37. Sybiotic Relationships.
Many different forms of life are dependant on each other. Examples include the fig tree and fig gall wasp, yucca plant and yucca moth, pollen-bearing plants and honeybees, and many parasites and their hosts. Even members of the honeybee family (queens, drones, workers) are interdependant.
If one member evolved first, it could not have survived.

38. Sexual Reproduction
If sexual reproduction is the result of evolution the following must have happened:
a. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet completely compatible reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and intependantly evolved at each stage at about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two systems would make both systems useless.
b. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would need to be compatible.
c. The millions of complex products of the male reproductive system (pollen, sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical, and an electrical compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.
d. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision.
e. The environment of the fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also produced with another sexually capable adult (which also "accidentally" evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.
f. This remarkable string of accidents must have spread throughout millions of species.

39. Immune Systems
Each immune system of animals and plants can recognize invading bacteria, viruses, and toxins. Each system can quickly mobilize just the right defenders to search out and destory these invaders. Each system has a memory and learns from every attack.

If the many instructions were not pre-programmed into each system when it first appeared, the first of thousands of invaders would destory it. This would nullify any rare genetic improvements that might have accumulated.

40. Living Technology
Most complex phenomena known to science are found in living systems: the miniature and reliable sonar systems of dolphins and whales, the frequency-modulated radar and discrimination system of bats, the aerodynamic capabilities and efficiency of the hummingbird, the control systems, internal ballistics, and combustion chamber of the bombardier beetle, the precise and redundant navigation systems of many birds and fish, and the self-repair capabilities of all life forms. Each component of these complex systems could not have evolved without placing the organism at a selective disadvantage.

Many bacteria propel themselves with a type of minature motor. Speeds of up to 15 body-lenghts per second are achieved. These extremely efficient, reversable motors rotate up to 100,000 rotations per minute. Having rotors and stators, they are similar in many respects to electrical motors. Since the bacteria can stop, start, and change directions and speeds, they probably have sophisticated sensors, switches, and control mechanisms. All of this is highly minaturized. Eight million of these bacterial motors would fit in the cross-sectional area of an average human hair.

Evolution teaches that bacteria were among the first organisms to evolve, and therefore, they are simple.

41. The Validity of Thought
If life is ulimately the result of random processes or chance, then so is thought. Your thought -- what you are thinking right now -- would be the consequence of a long series of accidents. Therefore your thoughts would have no validity, including the thought that life the result of chance, natural, processes.
By destroying the validity of ideas, evolution undercuts itself, since it, too, is an idea.

We have all heard it said that humans only use a small fraction of their mental capabilities. If this is true, how did those capabilities evolve? How would natural selection favor them if they were never used?

Cian McGuire
Member
posted 18 September 2001 05:16 PM EDT (US)     198 / 202       
Who:

Quote:
The best comment is a comment that won't start an arguement, and this is not one of those types.

Unsurprisingly, I completely disagree with this- why should you censor yourself so that middle America doesn't get offended?

Quote:
is a comment against a religion and will only start arguements.

It is not "against religion". It isn't condoning Christianity for this. Hell, as mentioned before, Shelley is a Christian, why would he be insulting himself?

Clarissimus

Quote:
Cian, I'm not going to argue over definitions of words (i.e. "mythology") but please read my post #112. I think it's on page 5 (maybe page 4).

You just have to remember, the number of replies/page is variable, fortunately I'm on 50/page so with that post number, it is easy to find .

Quote:
Regardless of whether or not you consider Christianity or any modern religion to be a myth, there are a couple of very good reasons ES will not use it in AoM.

Nobody is debating this, although I would have liked to have seen the Hebrews as a civ...

Quote:
No one follows those religions any longer.

It doesn't matter if it is practiced or not, Christianity, and all religions which base themselves on faith are mythologies.

Quote:
Secondly, the monotheistic nature of Christianity/Judaism lends to problems with the game format.

True, but monotheism does not preclude it as a mythology.


In vino veritas
TheKaje
Mortal
posted 19 September 2001 01:27 AM EDT (US)     199 / 202       
/me runs in much too late to make any difference.

Way to go, Mr. Shelley. The world is much too up-tight and politically-correct for my taste. If you were offended by that comment, you are insecure in YOUR beliefs, and I question how much faith you really have.

/me scampers off.

Cian McGuire
Member
posted 19 September 2001 01:39 AM EDT (US)     200 / 202       
Bah, what the hell.

200.


In vino veritas
Zakthegreat
Mortal
posted 14 October 2001 05:04 PM EDT (US)     201 / 202       
This is the bigest one ever

0 0 0
1st place in Norse Mythology Quiz (BrandNewCar's)(the hardest one of the 3)
Owner of 3D Studio Max
Loyal to Ensemble Studios
I am Loki
U.S.A., AOM, ES, HG RULE!!!!
Clarissimus
Mortal
posted 14 October 2001 07:31 PM EDT (US)     202 / 202       
Wow, somebody topped this old thing.

The debate kind of died when eifersucht left. But it still goes on in the magical of Outside Discussions

« Previous Page  1 ··· 5 6 7  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Mythology Heaven | HeavenGames