Take a look at your ancestor

Ardi



S/he’s 4.4 million years ago - a million years older than Lucy. The changes how scientists think humans evolved:

Quote:

Rather than humans evolving from an ancient chimplike creature, the new find provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved from some long-ago common ancestor — but each evolved and changed separately along the way.

“This is not that common ancestor, but it's the closest we have ever been able to come,” said Tim White, director of the Human Evolution Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley.

She does kinda look like a teacher I had in high school… not enough hair though…

D

where’d’ya get that photo of me from?!

Of course, that’s if you believe all that stuff.

At least the Bible doesn’t go changing its mind every five minutes. :p

I was sure he looked like my twin Bro…
:laugh:
:)


I had to look twice…
:p




Bill…

[EDIT] Get outta ToWn… :)

Quote: (EZee @ Oct. 01 2009, 6:33 PM)

Of course, that's if you believe all that stuff.

At least the Bible doesn't go changing its mind every five minutes.
:p

You are kidding, right?



I just hate it when some science journalist uses the "missing link" thing for some new discovery...Tim White never said that... :disagree:

Yup…that beer belly proves it. It tastes great!! :) :)

PACO

He’s got Soul :laugh:

No - he’s not kidding.

Science has to change all the time as more information is found. This find is really important because this creative is more like us than it is an ape. Hopefully we will eventually find the earliest hominid which will most likely be 6 - 7 million years old. This is really great stuff - I was so excited when I saw this report yesterday!

Nah, Ezee’s kidding. :)

Discoveries about human origins have been so interesting the last decade or so. Remember the Hobbit? And Neanderthal DNA…

Oh gwass-hoppa… The question is not where we came from, but where are we going?

I still say it looks like Mrs. Schrader from the third grade… :laugh:

D

I might want to keep this picture around for the next time I hear what a hassle it is for a woman to shave her legs.

Neanderthals. I’ve got a fealing we wiped 'em out. I’m with you on this, Mr Soul. I can’t wait for earlyer finds.

Quote:

You are kidding, right?


Are you suggesting that the Bible does change its mind every five minutes Tom?

Quote:

No - he's not kidding.


I'm glad that you know my mind so well Toke.......I just wish I did! :)

Quote:

Science has to change all the time as more information is found.


No, if the scientific method is valid, then why should it change?

However, I assume you mean that the evidence derived from the application of the scientific method gives lead to varying hypotheses?

If that's so, then say so.

See! An example of the typical fuzzy-minded claptrap of the pro-scientific zealots! :laugh:
Quote: (EZee @ Oct. 02 2009, 9:46 PM)

No, if the scientific method is valid, then why should it change?

Wheesht Man! The scientific method is only valid 'til someone finds out it was wrong. Look at cold fusion....that was a winner right? :)

But, it would be interesting to find the pre-cursor to this delightful lady. Put her in a dress and she could run for government in the UK :)
Quote: (Diogesneez @ Oct. 02 2009, 11:46 AM)

Oh gwass-hoppa... The question is not where we came from, but where are we going?

Down the big galactic toilet master? ???

Ezee, I suppose we might not want to go down this road, but “the” Bible not only has changed quite a bit through the centuries, it is still in the process of changing, and by “changing” I’m not just talking about minor changes in ideas about proper interpretation or minor changes based on newly discovered old manuscripts, I’m talking about changes to the actual text - what gets included and what doesn’t. The story here is really fascinating, and I think relevant to Christians as well as scientists - not exactly exclusive categories - as well as those who defend a strong version of scientism against Christian or other religious worldviews…

Also, you know that there is a difference between “the” scientific method (yes, there have been several, and our conception of it has changed), and the results of the use of that method?

Anyway, I respect your right to believe what you want to believe, and I am not making these claims with the intention of being confrontational - just in the spirit of discussion - I’ve spent a bit of time studying these issues, and find them quite interesting, and always like to hear what people think, and why they think it. I suppose Mike knew some discussion of this sort was likely to come up when he posted the picture.

Bruffie, Bruffie, Bruffie - the cold fusion debacle was actually science at its best - some credible scientists made a startling claim, and it was tested and found lacking - exactly what is supposed to happen. Compare it with the discovery of the viral cause of at least some stomach ulcers - again, the method working like it is supposed to.

Can you get me tickets to the Dubai World Championship? :agree:

Quote: (Bruffie @ Oct. 03 2009, 3:55 AM)

Quote: (Diogesneez @ Oct. 02 2009, 11:46 AM)

Oh gwass-hoppa... The question is not where we came from, but where are we going?

Down the big galactic toilet master?
???

What? Where? Whaaa...

Oh gwass-hoppa... has taken the pebbles from my hand... :laugh:

D

Oh no, not one of these threads. Religion <> science. And to say because something doesn’t change makes it good is obvious fallacy. Science MUST change as new information is found… otherwise your doctor would still be drilling holes in your skull to cure you of bad spirits. Science shows that Advil is a much better and effective treatment… and it likely wasn’t a bad spirit. Just a little cold.

To Bruffie et al… the scientific method is always valid in what you describe. The METHOD does not change. The scientific findings may not be consistent, but that is why the method is there. To weed out the crap. And it is not arbitrary. For findings to be valid, they must be reproducible. If they are not reproducible, to the trash heap with them. To argue against the scientific method is essentially denying modern reality. We are living in an existence completely based on the scientific method from cars to computers to medicine to light bulbs to TV to helicopters. All these are the results of science.