Oldest "Human" Skeleton Found--Disproves "Missing Link"

For those that are interested, the Discovery channel will be airing a program on "Ardi" this October 11. See the online description for the show here at Discovery.com :

Discovery Ardi Site

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by sisgood

 

we didn't evolve from reptilians. they are seraph (plural seraphim).

according to the bible the seraphim are an angelic race. they were created before humans.
strongs hebrew and greek lexicon says:
Result of search for "seraph":

8314 saraph saw-rawf' from 8313; burning, i.e. (figuratively) poisonous (serpent); specifically, a saraph or symbolical creature (from their copper color):--fiery (serpent), seraph.

source
www.eliyah.com...

it's the serpent race, referred to in the garden of eden texts. people think eve talked to a snake. but he had legs. how do you remove legs from something that doesn't have legs?

may have also been a race of amphibians since the oldest texts refer to the sea serpents, which would suggest a race of bipedal, sentient, water beings. kinda fits in with the stories of enki, ea, dagon, triton, poseidon and so on.



[edit on 3-10-2009 by undo]

That's more likely to be an interpretation of aliens... Remember the whole Lizard Species theory? That humans have connection to reptiliian aliens from some Draconis star system?

Looks like the ancient peeps had exposure to these fellows too; and that's why we have so many representations of serpents in classical and Biblical literature.

Originally posted by jimmyx
there have been a series of "missing links" found...this one is just further back in time than the previous links that were found. ah yes science...guess this kind of puts the kabash on the ole time bible creation thing. that's why religion tried to kill off as many scientists during the dark ages as they could. the church loved their power over people and they didn't want to give it up.

It's true, though. Most religious groups love their power and control over people.

Even though MANY christians then and now may not necessarily agree with the doctrine of the church, Undo , it is still quite clear that the church has power over MOST of Christian society, and with all powerful entities, they would be reluctant to give up that power or share it.

It's a very authoritarian, unilateral sort of society that Christians are living in... Compared to a person who has no religion, he has no "authority" to listen to, or any "conflict" to be part of, or to adhere to a strict set of "rules" in order to be granted access to Heaven.

It's very controlling, and as we're all on ATS, it's ironic how so many of us oppose government control but allow religious control. It's very subtle, how the church exacts power on their followers through "the word of God".

A little research into the history of Christianity and Catholicism would reveal the political infighting in the Monarchs of England in the 1600s, which was what religion was used for: to separate people into camps to defend and rebel...

reply to post by Goathief


That was such a big pack of lies in the excerpt from "The Other Side of Evolution" by Jon Gary Williams that sisgood posted, I didn't even know where to start with it, but you did a great job pointing out the lies and providing good links for sisgood to read, so I hope sisgood reads them!

Well done and star for your post!

Originally posted by mc1km
What I don't understand is why we are having so much trouble finding proof of our "missing links" when we have museums full of dinosaur fossils from 65million years ago.

Why is it so easy to find 65m year old dinosaur bones compared to far more recent fossils of our "ancestors"?

[edit on 3-10-2009 by mc1km]

Probably 'cos there were about several thousand million more dinosaurs in existence across a longer period of time (dinosaurs existed BEFORE 65 million years ago) compared to that one, two or three families of humanids that lived only in certain parts of the world.

Even now, scientists haven't fully catalogued the entire history of dinosaurs... there are also missing fossil families.

In paleontology there's something called dating uncertainty... when there is a larger period of time in which something existed, there are less uncertainties that could arise. Which means a smaller range of places scientists can search and dig. Which is why dinosaur fossils are also easier to find.

A small period of time, MORE uncertainty, and thus it's harder to just narrow down a location (in this BIG world, mind u) where the homonids might have once lived.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Goathief

 

That was such a big pack of lies in the excerpt from "The Other Side of Evolution" by Jon Gary Williams that sisgood posted, I didn't even know where to start with it, but you did a great job pointing out the lies and providing good links for sisgood to read, so I hope sisgood reads them!

Well done and star for your post!

I agree. Good going, Goathief! That was such an eye-opener (yes, I'm lazy when it comes to biological research! :@)

answers.yahoo.com...

So at no point is there ever "half-a-stomach". That concept doesn't make sense unless you start with the fully functioning *human* stomach, and try to work *backwards* by "removing parts". This is the approach of Intelligent Design advocates who call this "irreducible complexity" as an attempt to refute evolution. But it is a bogus argument. *OF COURSE* if you take an extremely complex *living* organ, and try to "remove parts", it will fail! It did not evolve that way (by adding fully functioning parts)! Evolution is the long, slow increase in specialization of different types of *tissue* that cooperate together to perform certain tasks.

It would be like saying that cities could not have "evolved" because if you remove the grocery store, or the trash collector, or the shoemaker, the whole thing doesn't work. It is a bogus argument.

The half-a-stomach notion by creationists is plain silly... WHAT would organisms do with HALF a stomach? It goes against the efficiency of nature.

Our circulatory system is airtight. Our digestive system is divided very efficiently, beginning from the enzyme action of SALIVA down to the storage space of our large intestine.

By saying evolution couldnt have occurred because organisms couldn't have evolved from half a stomach, you're ignoring the fact that organisms might have had ANOTHER way of digesting and obtaining nutrients.

Here's food for thought. How come cows have four stomachs, but humans only have one?

Does that mean that humans will eventually evolve into having four stomachs?

No. Both systems are efficient in their own ways. The problem with so many creationists is that they assume "The Human System" is the MOST PERFECT system, and so everything either had a fully-formed stomach from God, or couldnt have existed.

Think again!

reply to post by KarlG


with nothing but lizards of various sizes here for a very long time, the likelihood that they are from another system seems unlikely. we are probably the ones from out there somewhere and this is the reptilians planet. or rather, WAS the reptilians planet. not sure what it is now.

Just thought I'd point out to the people arguing over the bible aspect, (and I'm an atheist mind you) the bible never gives a date for creation, it is derived from men interpreting the bible (a great work of allusion) literally, and following the generation lineage.

We may find that evolution and its results are based upon the sitmulus. certian things might have to transpire before intelligent life begins to form.... maybe a super nova from a nearby dying star, and radiation?

maybe its a web of evolution that throws everything at a planet and sees what sticks. After all the universe may be FILLED with bacteria.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
We may find that evolution and its results are based upon the sitmulus. certian things might have to transpire before intelligent life begins to form.... maybe a super nova from a nearby dying star, and radiation?

maybe its a web of evolution that throws everything at a planet and sees what sticks. After all the universe may be FILLED with bacteria.

Every planet that harbors life may have the same animals.

We just don't know what the hell, until we get there.

reply to post by St Udio


Yea, that's what i say. They get a skeleton and automatically have a "theory" on why they walked with their arms as well as their legs...as if they were really there.

That's what i don't like about science. A majority of scientists don't know when to say "I don't know" and tackle the problem with no assumptions. Rather they develop a theory first that explains what we see then test it out. HA! Western science at it's best.

Originally posted by king9072

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by DocEmrick
Sounds like the typical structure 20 to 30 years ago.

Male brings home $$$'s, woman eats food bought with man's $$$'s, and so on and so forth.

Good to know we're evolving past this.

God I hate posts like this.

Women worked hard. Not just in the sack, as people like to imply.

I'm glad to have the freedom to work.

But I'll tell you straight up, that going to work is a freakin' picnic compared to all the other things I need to do. Coming back to work was a vacation. And I've got it easy compared to women from the past, who had to work the fields, raise children, make meals from scratch, haul water daily, etc.

[edit on 2009/10/1 by Aeons]

Equality kicks ass, look at all the benefits it's given us!

- Just over 50% divorce rate
- The other 50% of the population is now taxable, where as prior only men were taxed CHA-CHING
- Breakdown of the family structure
- Large portions of generations having no parent in the house
- Children being raised terribly or left to raise themselves
- Heavy declines in population growth (thanks in part to this, but definitely not because of ONLY this)


But seriously, its worth all the great side-effects.

Yeah. Before 50% divorce rate, instead people lived to 25 to 30 years old, women died regularly in child birth, men didn't divorce they merely disappear and left their families abandonned (at about a 50% rate) and the women had no way in society to provide. Children were kicked outside at dawn and didn't come back until the sun went down with nobody supervising them. Mom's leaving their children all the time to work the fields (yes they did), cooking all day, and walking to where water was....

Yep. That's just PARADISE.

I am what you would call "a sexist". Its hard not to be.
That sounds bad because it has negative conotations linked to it. But really it should be obvious to everyone that men and women are different. Both are equally important to our species but certainly not equal in all respects.

One example would be that women do not have the same physical strengths as a man. Fact. Therefore if im trapped in a burning building and a fire fighter is coming in to carry me and kick there way back out, i would much prefer it to be a guy, as there is far more chance the woman would fail.
So should women be firefighters?

Women on the other hand are far better instictively to look after and raise young children.
Would you prefer to hire a random 18 year old guy to watch your kids while youre out, or an 18 year old girl?

All this equality unnecessary and detrimental to society.

Originally posted by cenpuppie
reply to post by St Udio

 

Yea, that's what i say. They get a skeleton and automatically have a "theory" on why they walked with their arms as well as their legs...as if they were really there.

That's what i don't like about science. A majority of scientists don't know when to say "I don't know" and tackle the problem with no assumptions. Rather they develop a theory first that explains what we see then test it out. HA! Western science at it's best.

That's what science is, you observe things and come up with a theory to explain what you observed and then run tests and experiments to try to prove your theory. All the while you are constantly expanding upon your theory as you gather more evidence. Nobody can instantly know the truth, you have to find it.

Originally posted by alpha-erectus
I am what you would call "a sexist". Its hard not to be.
That sounds bad because it has negative conotations linked to it. But really it should be obvious to everyone that men and women are different. Both are equally important to our species but certainly not equal in all respects.

One example would be that women do not have the same physical strengths as a man. Fact. Therefore if im trapped in a burning building and a fire fighter is coming in to carry me and kick there way back out, i would much prefer it to be a guy, as there is far more chance the woman would fail.
So should women be firefighters?

Women on the other hand are far better instictively to look after and raise young children.
Would you prefer to hire a random 18 year old guy to watch your kids while youre out, or an 18 year old girl?

All this equality unnecessary and detrimental to society.

Ye olde - "my arms are bigger so I'm more equal" thing.
You should consider becoming a Muslim.

I was under this terrible burden of thinking I was a person just trapped in a woman's body.

At no point did i take mans side over womans. I gave two arguments, one for each. The main purpose of which was to show that there are differences and that 'equality' in the modern sense is not realistic.
You havnt given any sort of rebutal so ill assume you cannot deny the point and are shrugging it off with jokes about me becomming a muslim.

I do think thats funny by the way. Dont get me wrong.

Yep, and every culture that has ever believed what you are stating has just coincidentally said that they honour women while subjugating them. With of course telling people that everyone has their "place."

And of course, doing men great favours by associating being compassionate with that horrible "being womanly" thing.

Gods, youve got a real problem with being female havnt you. Its not that big a deal i promise you. Have you been oppressed in some way? Or have you been offered everything a man can have and then complain about having extra burdens when you take it on?

Just because you want the same job as your husband doesnt then mean he will take on your old responsibilites. If you really want to go out there and have a 'career' then be prepared to be burdened.
There is no need for society to shift for you because it has always worked fine the way it is.
Unnecessary change is often pointless.

What can I say. My uterus requires that I maintain myself in a happy system of victimhood to make you feel superior. It makes you feel better about your place in the World.

So the fact that you cannot change, and I can, and do "your" job and "my" job....you think that somehow shows that YOU are "more equal" than I.

Interesting. I'm smarter, more adaptable, and can carry every human burden and STILL maintain my ability to be a person. You're annoyed with this because you don't or cannot cope with even the little tiny bit you have, and cannot adapt and you think this makes you more fit.

Interesting.

Adapt or die. Ardi proves the point.



[edit on 2009/10/14 by Aeons]

Originally posted by cenpuppie

That's what i don't like about science. A majority of scientists don't know when to say "I don't know" and tackle the problem with no assumptions. Rather they develop a theory first that explains what we see then test it out. HA! Western science at it's best.

That's what I don't like about science bashers. They don't understand what science is, what it is about, how it works. Your complaint is completely baseless in every way.

In fact scientists behave in exactly the manner you seem to be wanting them to. Why would anybody bother to "develop a theory first that explains what we see then test it out" about something they already know about? The very act of developing a "theory" and testing it out is a statement that they don't know.

When something new comes along, that doesn't square with existing thought, the first thing they say is "I don't know". That is the first requirement for investigating it in the first place. And if they need money to fund the investigation they have to convince someone that not only do they not know but that the answer is worth looking for.

Now, the very fact that they are investigating means that they must be approaching it with no assumptions. If they already assumed the answer, they wouldn't 'not know', and they wouldn't need to investigate. The fact that they have a problem that doesn't fit existing "theory" means that they have found something that violates their assumptions and needs to be resolved.

Finally, the old chestnut. Scientists don't "develop a theory first that explains what we see then test it out". First more data is collected, and the existing data is validated to ensure the problem isn't an error. Then various hypotheses are developed that might explain various aspects of the problem and tested; useful hypotheses are kept, useless ones discarded, new ones evaluated. Eventually, a picture develops that explains the problem phenomenon. If it is complete enough, and tested enough, and important enough, it may be elevated to the status of "Scientific Theory".

Theory comes last in science, not first. It is only in the everyday world of blogs, TV commentators, and conspiracy discussion forums that theories are advanced before rigorous testing, validation, and review.

HA! Western science at it's best.

Indeed. Doing its job, explaining the wonderful world around us, and advancing human knowledge by asking questions, seeking answers, and above all, Denying Ignorance.