I don't get it. Why all the fuss? A 47 million yr old monkey, big deal. Did anyone doubt we would never find a fossil like this? Now if your were to find a 47 million yr old human, that would have been news. God made us to his image, God is a spirit, a divine consciousness, therefore energy. What could possibly be God's image on us? only our consciousness, the one thing no other animal in the face of the earth has. By all the fuss, seems as if the atheists were doubting evolution, I never did.
grand grand grand aunt?! hahaha these people will believe anything. they bought this animal from someone witch means it could maybe only be 5 years old. idiots.
It so funny that people could just find anything. And than go, "yes, this is the missing link."
It is not there anything that tells us anything for the side for people who believe that man evolved from apes. Where do you go from there to prove who created man?
Science is discovery and not coming to these non-disciplined and crazy bound quick conclusions.Science is definitely not reading into things what might not be there.
Science is mystery not conclusion. Don't be ludicrous with IDA.
Looking at it- as a scientist human would and not a scientist ape, because a scientist ape would come to the conclusion that IDA is human without further studying.
But a scientist human would really not come and disgrace us all- by saying some creature with a tail like some primates have and hands looking like human hands, like some primates have. Like somehow now because it is an aged fossil. How does any scientist come to any deliberation that IDA is from man?
@jojojosmart I agree looks like a lemur. What proof do they have they even found it where they said that they did? They said they could analyze the bone marrow and the food in her stomach, i find that not reasonable for something that is supposedly 47 million years old.
I'm NOT even a Christian by any means, and I still know how ridiculous this Darwinian trash truly is. If you afro-centrics trying to prove that all of humanity came swinging from African jungle trees, are now resorting to such desperate measures as using Lemur remains, then you are truly more pathetic than I gave you credit for. By the way, if the human mind evolved, then why did Minoans and others flush toilets in 2500 BC, and you Darwinists still ran to outhouses less than 100 years ago ?
@EducatedRebellion101 i recommend "the greatest show on earth" by dawkins and many other factual material before maybe hastily jumping into strong opinions. happy reading with your opposable thumbs.
What's so funny about these religious advocates is that they don't even question there own religion. Religion was around for millions of years before Christianity. Does mild brainwashing and book make all of the difference? The most evidence we have of a god is in the impossible accomplishments of the Egyptians. I went to a Christian school K-5 and did not stay brainwashed, It became clear to me that it makes no sense that people ignorant of Jesus existence go to hell. If you believe that.. sigh
@Zephyrhillz You are right, it doesn't make sense for someone ignorant of Jesus to go to hell,Godis perfect only he will know when hisrd is being shared with everyone, before he decides who really decided to go o hell.No one can comprehend the beginning and the end.
@Xgya2000 Which parts of religion are you attributing to myths, which of these has been proven to be false. Many religious documents double as very historical documents of things that have been witnessed. In this respect they are much less like myths then MYTHOLOGICAL ideas such as the big bang and life originating from non=-life in magic soup. Just a thought. When someone tells you its night time and you clearly see that its daytime, this is why the difference occurs.
The creation of light before the sun and stars, if I must name the Bible.
If the qu'ran is involved: a pharaoh that practiced a roman form of torture.
Greek mythos: nothing to be found atop mount Olympus
The Big Bang has evidence. You just need to study it.
Life originating from non-life, abiogenesis, is still in the stage of hypothesis, as it isn't a full-fledged theory yet, but it still has much evidence
Religious books claim they are perfect, so once a single flaw is found...
2. The redemption IS a myth. Wether you like it or not.
3. The Titans are mythology. The Bible mentions them. The Bible therefore is mythos.
4. The speed of light is constant. Time isn't. What caused the Big Bang is not a part of the theory.
5. Life was artificially created in a laboratory. A brand new organism that duplicates and evolves, and with a genetic code containing the names of various scientists that helped created it.
2. Their are lots of sources friendly and hostile that recount the redemption.
3. The Greeks were the most advanced and cultured of their area. Fine arts, Advanced medicine and scientific, language. Does it make practical sense that it is all Myth?
4. Their is more debate about the constant of the speed of light then one would think. Does it make sense that anything has infinite power?
1. Where would light have come from then? Sudden expansion could not create light. We have to start a nuclear fusion for a star to form and start emitting light.
2. There are lots of sources, friendly and hostile, that refute the redemption.
3. The fact they were very advanced doesn't mean they weren't also very lacking. "Lightning comes from God!". Religion is an argument from ignorance. "Don't know how that formed? God did it!"
"So what does this mean for out of africa theory?"
So humans emerged from Africa sometime in the last million years, but you can't conceive of primates moving in and out of Africa at some point in the last 47 million years?
@TaSwavo: No, not really. It is suspected that it is most likely not precisely an ancestor for humans, but it is no doubt closely related to a species that is, and gives great information on what the characteristics of that species were, inasmuch as it would be closely ancestral to Ida. Perhaps pretty soon we'll have a fossil of that one as well; something to look forward to.
What is this "the missing link" you speak of? Some sort of fetish?
Well I don't know anything about that or who Dan Brown is, what I do know is that one day we will be held accountable for what we do now and here. Believe what you want but don't judge me for what I choose to believe.
the press made such a hash of this - makes me angry - PZ Myers wrote a lot of corrective blog posts on Ida but the damage has been done... wish SJ Gould were around to rein in this circus...
So what does this mean for out of africa theory? I have been following stuff like this for most of my life, I watched a doco about how they found a salamander skull in siberia which was older than this. imo humans had to have come from many different parts of the world.. not one place..
@Lastindependentthink: Papa Ida may live in Africa and Ida just got a burr in its saddle for Germany. Lemurs have lives too, you know. Or perhaps the first primate was Danish, and the family was on the way to a new job in SA when they stopped for a swim. With 30 million yrs, I presume that each member of the lineage could have simply fallen over far enough to the south to get them there in the time available. All that we know is that pre-humans seem to have lived in Africa at least 12-15 mya.
You know people, you can be religious and believe in evolution at the same time. The characters Adam and Eve are merely parables, they're not actually real people, but just characters to show that greed is bad (listening Madoff? oops no, you're in jail you scumbag).
In my opinion anyone who denies evolution are blind to reality. You can see evolution everywhere you go.
@judoyodan its a mental disorder to take the religions from people, people who has a religion is not all evil ... the darwinism has destoryed many things, nazism and communisme comes from darwinism... so i like religion better that these things... we are maybe a ape, but we can wirte, we can speak, we can do many good things, let us be happe for that and give religious people some respect too, otherwise we are just animals
@judoyodan thats the facts man. if the world was hot and like science says they would NEVER be there. non-creationist did the tests and agree. but if the world somehow popped into being they would be there. thats science, weve tested and not had our mind made up from the begining, real science
Indeed. Finding a "missing link" does not prove evolution. It only fills gaps in the evolutionary web. There are enough fossils, and DNA evidence to prove man is connected to apes in the evolutionary web. Evolution is already proven.
But I guess this missing link hysteria creates publicity.
i don't remeber who called Ida the final proof of evolution. besides evolution is proven from the genome project, embryology study of various animals and you will come to the natural conclusion that evolution is true. if you don't have the time to study biology, paleontology, embryology then ofcourse you don't have the tools understand evolution. once you don't understand evolution it doesn't matter what you think about evolution
@tociph: The German scientist who bought it from the original owner did a good and proper job in getting it analyzed and described. The problem was that, having made the investment, this was his once-in-a-lifetime chance to cash in on science fame, and he plugged it with all his worth. It is a great find, but it's not quite everything it was plugged to be. Science has a long history of just this kind of thing happening - deplorable, but a minor effect, and a great motivator.
I'll credit MSN for at least showing this was the B.S. I knew it was, was false. Usually, we never see the "retraction" in the media. Just AMAZING how evolutionists jumped on this and IMMEDIATLY called it the final proof of Evolution. And for the 1,000th + time. AGAIN proven false.
@aquaiz please find and post here the Scientist who claimed ida was the final proof of Evolution. i would like you to find that person and post their names here. Thanks.
Today I ate a chicken bone. I think I ate my Great, Great , Great, Great, Great,Great, Aunt. Lol!!!!!!!!!!!!! This stuff is a Lie and stupid! People need to get a life......
Baby birds grow to full grown birds, Bear cubs to adult bears, kittens to cats. Evolution is nothing but a lie. People want it so they don't have to be held accountable to any moral standard. Don't be fooled. If you look at something hard enough, long enough, and tell lies enough times, you will believe it to be true even when it is a lie and there is no no proof. That is a fact. Look at Ida long enough and it will become Barney the purple dinosaur's baby.
Your just ignorant, Evolution is the only logical way of expliaining how we got to where we are today, we don't know everything. It doesn't come in a fucken book like the bible does. Not everything is fucken religion.
@godskidable: Ida will still be there, and recognized for what it is, when your bones have turned to dust. Ida is not a lie; it is a very valuable find. It just isn't what it was hyped to be. That's sorrowful, perhaps, for many of the people involved, but known to everyone within 6 months of its publication. Unlike some other myths that haunt a goodly portion of out population after 2000 years.
@godskidable yup and if you look the inconsistencies, contradictions, etc, of the bible long enough without the bible goggles you will come to the rational conclusion it is not the inspired word of any supreme being.
Ida is A missing link alright, but I think the language of the video is a bit misleading. It's a link way back when primates were first diverging from other mammals, when the common man thinks of a missing link they think of the ape/human link, like Australopithecus...though that link isn't missing either.
The Judaeo-Islamo-Christian religion refuses to apply the same demand for proof of its mythology that it does demand for everything else. These religionists even manage to ignore the atrocious hypocrisy they perpetrate whilst they do it, which is a most accomplished demonstration of wishful thinking. The same desperation allows them to believe in an Angry Magic Sky Daddy & his zombie son despite lacking any evidence for them; they really need to grow up & take responsibility for themselves.
Unfortunately, the pious will never be convinced. In a evolution from 0 to 10, you can find 5 and they will say, 'but there is no transition from 0 to 5 or 5 to 10.' If you find 3, then you have no transition from 0 to 3 or 3 to 5. It's an infinitely expanding tautology where each new transition actually adds a new gap in the record.
Our challenge is not so much finding new transitions (though that's a worthy endeavor), it's educating people away from their idiocy.
Yeah but the number five is actually is number 10. And number 3 is actually number 1. On and on. Like imaginary human evolution, australipithecus is a monkey and neanderthal is actually a human. That means number 3 is 1 and number 7 is 10. You don't have anything which can be considered as number 5 (transitional fossil which have the properties of both species) . Well we don't really want idiots people to educate us.
Go look up whale evolution. We have continual smooth transitions from land mammal to the modern sea mammal. The record is quite good on this one. From1 to 10, it's all there.
And what about all the DNA evidence that supports evolution? The same process that proves that your father fucked his cousin to make you, also proves common ancestry across all species.
Don't be so easy to goat. Ad hominem attacks aside (which we both basically engaged in), why not address the more serious example and argument being made:
Whale evolution and DNA evidence.
Otherwise we're just plugging our ears and calling each other poopy-heads.
"Don't be so easy to goat" The word is Goad. It's meaning is simular to prod. It's old english for spear. It has nothing to do with goat. Perhaps you should mate with a whale. Or maybe you already tried it? Can your children swim?
Did you notice that opposable thumbs are considered an evolutionary advancement? And many primates have this feature on thier hind feet. As do other mammals. But Humans lack this feature on thier feet. So perhaps humans are not advanced? Evolution is for poopy-heads
Very good, you're right about goad. Thank you for clearing me up on that. What's an advantage for one, may not be for another. Opposable thumbs are good for grasping right? Good on feet for tree-dwellers, not so good for walkers. We grasp with our hands and walk with our feet, so why shouldn't we expect opposable thumbs on our hands and not our feet?
You're still dodging the points of whales and DNA.
'Humans lack this feature [thumbs] on thier feet. So perhaps humans are not advanced?'
We have specialized as bipeds, comparably the dexterity of our hands seems to have compensated, however the context within which you use 'advanced' demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the Theory of Evolution.
'Evolution is for poopy-heads' - a religionist idea of intellectual comment?
All peer-reviewed papers present corroborative evidence for the theory, not one has contradictory evidence.
"We have specialized as bipeds, comparably the dexterity of our hands seems to have compensated,"
I am guessing you have found the fossils that demonstrate the Millions and Millions of various stages that humans went through to specialize into walking humans who can not use thier feet to hang onto trees.. You have nice ideas but no evidence...
Secondary education (in Great Britain & Europe anyway) includes Biology as a core subject. Any schoolchild should be able to tell you about Australopithecus (garhi & africanus), or Homo erectus.
'Millions and millions of various stages'
That depends on from what & what one classes as a 'stage': Homo habilis & rudolfensis are considered the same species despite the difference of brain size. All transitional forms.
When a fraud is committed (such as those you mention) it's scientists who expose them e.g. 2 anthropologists & a palaeontologist exposed Piltdown Man.
On the contrary there is no substantiating piece of primary historical evidence to support the existence of Jesus. If you disagree please provide one single piece of primary historical evidence which substantiates the claim that the Biblical character of Jesus the Christ ever existed. PRIMARY evidence, so it has to be contemporaneous & verifiable.
Of course there was never a person known as Jesus the Christ. But please tell me where are all the missing links? There should be as many missing links as other fossils.
I just find it odd you would throw in the false name Jesus Christ as proof that there are real missing links.
Please show me one real missing link complete with DNA proof? The fact that some researchers are honest in exposing frauds does nothing to validate the many false researchers who constantly look for fake links.
I suspect you're being deliberately obtuse. I've supplied several Hominid transitional forms as you requested. You then cited a few frauds implying they were deliberately perpetrated by scientists when in fact they were exposed by scientists.
I'd expect you to return the favour as a matter of common courtesy, & address my request:
Please provide one single piece of primary historical evidence which substantiates the claim that the Biblical character of Jesus the Christ ever existed.
there was never a person named Jesus... It's not even a Jewish name. More like a translation from greek to latin to english and then changed again into modern english. Even the old english didn't use the name Jesus. Don't you study this stuff before you comment? Don't you research the Jewish historical writings? Roman records? Archeological records? I wonder who was buried in the tomb of יעקב? Hmm? Even the talmud states they killed him for being the brother of Yehoshua.
It's funny you said 'old english didn't use the name Jesus. Don't you study this stuff before you comment?' There was no Old English translation of the Bible - Absolutely ALL copies would have been in Latin at that time. Incidentally historians accept the Talmud as historically accurate about as much as they accept the Iliad as historical.
john, don't you study this stuff before you comment? At least you accept that the Bible is fiction in a setting loosely based on historical events.
Oh gee. You really are a retard aren't you. There were many translations of the latin into old english.
Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum, si þin nama gehalgod. To becume þin rice, gewurþe ðin willa, on eorðan swa swa on heofonum. Urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg, and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum. And ne gelæd þu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele. Soþlice.
Well done for copy/pasting the Lord's Prayer. It doesn't refute what I said about there being no Old English Bible, but well done for copy/pasting. You already admitted that there's no primary evidence substantiating the existence of the Christ & that's all that matters as far as my argument goes, because it justifies this:
The Judaeo-Islamo-Christian religion refuses to apply the same requirements of proof for their mythology that they do for anything else.
You are too ignorant to even bother having a discussion. At least learn to use google. Surely no one has the money to own these manuscripts. But they do exist and many copies can be found online. Thanks for showing everyone what a tard you are.
The Greek Gospels and the book of Revelations by Yohanan precedes the talmud by over a hundred years and it has less changes that the talmud and the talmud is considered an accurate source of jewish history. BTW this fossil is NOT a missing link.
Can you give a clear example of how many more fraudulent researchers there are then honest ones? I mean if there are so many more then you should be able to name millions of fraudulent fossils instead of the same 5 or 6 every creationist names.
@JupiterJazzjaa2 Where did you get millions of fossils? I would reccomend you go to talkorigins and click transitional forms. Its a darwinian website. They cant site millions they cant even site 10 lol . Where do you get millions from ? Have you even seen the fossil record?
@yourboycal It seems, either you newer went to talkorigins, or you are extremely dishonest. There are listed thousands and thousand of transitional fossils. What you are saying is simply a LIE!
Please visit the website before calling me a liar good sir . There aare not thousands of transitional fossils . a) thousands simply do not exist b) the ttitle is 29+ Evidence for macroevolution. 29+ compared to thousands good sir . You are the liar. Im on the website right now calling your bluff... Why troll ?
@yourboycal You must be kidding. Go to talkorigins, Push "Search the Archive", type "transitional fossils" and go to "Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ". There are listed thousands of Transitional Vertebrate Fossils. If you interested in human transitional fossils. You can also search for "Fossil Hominids" at Talkorigins or go to Wikipedia and search for "List of human evolution fossils". There are hundreds of hominid fossils in the list. Do a little research before spread your "information".
@yourboycal If you actually did read the Article "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution", you would know that these "29+ Evidences" do not refer to individual fossil founds. I recommend you to read not only the title but also the article itself and make conclusions afterwards.
@VincentMeis Why dont you actually visit the website for these thousands of examples? They dont exist. Who are you kidding ? I've been on that website many many times. YOu see thousands of transitional forms is only the hope train darwinists have. When you actually sit down and see , you will see they have nothing of the sort . Its misrepresenting , and i ask for you not to spread more lies then darwinists already have. I welcome any body to visit talk origins and see for your self =)
@VincentMeis I recomment you would also look further into and you will see there is no thousands of examples as you state. Thisis a blatant lie. and i do not appreciate you sitting there lying through your teeth . The website is open for you to look at please , stop trollling and look at it .
Here is the evidence, the fossil record The fossils are layered like this: In the bottom layer of rock are shell fossils, above that is a layer with shells and fish fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish and amphibians fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian and reptile fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian, reptile fossils and dinosaur fossils. No human fossils are found in any of these layers. No dating methods used Explain.
@gregrutz Really do you want me to go through all of that in this comment box ? trilobites, make their first appearance in the Cambrian (505-540 Ma) while other creatures that live on ocean bottoms, like crabs and lobsters, don't appear until the beginning of the Cretaceous (65-145 Ma). Why is this ? who cares right? relative abundance of trilobites compared to crabs and lobsters??? oh god where do i start =p
@gregrutz The point is they come on and off like a light switch . The fossil record does not help evolution .Species come and go no intermediatery . You dont have to believe me i can show you darwinists them selfs tell us to "forget the fossil record" but why ?? When the fossil record is our window to the past . Would you like the source to verify this ? or shall i not insult your intelligence and you already know?
@yourboycal no intermediatery ??? Most fossils are intermediary, very few live today [living fossils] You sound like you haven't seen all the trasitional fossils, like dinosaurs with feathers. Actually theres 6 intermediate fossils between Ambulocetus and the modern whale. -Dalanistes -Rodhocetus -Takracetus -Gaviocetus -Dorudon -Basilosaurus -Modern whale
Did you not ask for my source ? about dismissing the fossils as evidence for darwinism? I can put bones together too that look alike and call it intermediatery . To get to Dalanistest to a modern whale i assure you good sir there would be far more then 6. If tommorw we found 6 more , what would you say to todays findings ? oopps? should've known better ? there were more?
@gregrutz "Darwinism? that is 150 years out of date. Darwin was wrong about ''slow and gradual'', try and keep up with science. "
Actually darwinism stil exsists today , slow and gradual is not the only thing wrong .
"How many do you need before you accept evolution happened? 12? 24?"
I would expect the transitional forms of other species to be in the fossil record , with over welming evidence not this little bit here little bit there noise . let the data speak for it self.
@yourboycal It is bold face lie my friend. First you said that on Talkorigins were listed less then 10 transitional fossils. After I corrected you, you sad there were 29+. Again, if you actually did read the Article "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution", you would know that these "29+ Evidences" do not refer to individual fossil founds. But you did not. There are other Articles, in which are listed thousands of transitional Vertebrate Fossils but you are to lazy to read something except titles.
@VincentMeis "There are other Articles, in which are listed thousands of transitional Vertebrate Fossils but you are to lazy to read something except titles. "
a) I've already proven there are no thousands of transitional forms listed on that website.
b) when i was there last there were less then 10 listed.
"do not refer to individual fossil founds. But you did not. "
Oh i did know . i sent you to that page to see what little evidence is there . and little forms .
@yourboycal Ya ya, you can delude yourself further. You think you are cleverer then all biologists in the world and know more then they do. But again, knowledge does not come only by reading the titles of articles and books. READ something, before you discuss the topic.
@VincentMeis "You think you are cleverer then all biologists in the world and know more then they do. But again, knowledge does not come only by reading the titles of articles and books. READ something, before you discuss the topic"
Another baseless conclusion you've reached i see , darwinists are known for this . We knot ALOT .. but unsderstand very little a wise man once said . Can you fit that into your ego?
@yourboycal Bla bla bla. You are troll, who makes conclusions only by reading titles. And of course, when you first went to Talkorigins there were less then 10 transitional fossils listed. And after you called this bluff here they realized, they must make some new fossils up. :))))))))
NO you didnt . You said thousands. There are not thousands of transitional forms there good sir. Show me the link ITs very simple. You dont have to troll and dance around . Show me thousands please
@yourboycal I would recommend you go there again and count transitional fossils listed in this article. I understand you are to lazy to read the article itself, so I ask this no more. I am waiting. :)))))
@VincentMeis "I would recommend you go there again "
Thats what i thought ... goood day troll . Try not to spread more misinformation about thousands of transitional forms . I hope you learned a lesson =)
@yourboycal You are brainwashed as all Creationists. You think, you know everything if you have seen the title of an article or a book. I tell you a secret: You should actually read what's within before you make your mind.
@yourboycal try getting you science from a science book. DNA proves evolution now, we don't need all the ''missing links' creationists can't seem to see.
@gregrutz Well fossil record is our window to the past . The fossil record a child can see and understand . Now that record clearly shows species come and go like a light switch off/on. The record clearly shows us its not an evolutionary picture they like us to believe it shows the opposite. Sure they can say fossialization is very rare , no problem well just let time take its course and see the next speciation first hand?
@johnknoefler: I agree with you. They were very much like all the saints reliquaries, cross fragments and St Pat's left fingers, or the Shroud of Turin. Convince us, if you will, that religion has, because of its unique causal link to the divine, never been guilty of abetting fraud. Speak to us of the evidence gathered with which to burn the witches of Salem, or destroy the churches in Maryland in sectarian violence. Show us where we have gone wrong in not killing our heretics, as Xianity has.
@johnknoefler yup, talking snakes, two different genesis stories, light made before the sun, a global flood with no evidence, gospels that contradict each other, languages made because god got so scared he scattered me, on and on, I see how kids grow up stupid like you.
@johnknoefler did you find the evidence that an invisible being made us from dirt and women from ribs? funny how Evolution has millions of pieces of evidence and peer reviewed papers and creation has NONE, not a single ONE. Truly the truth does hurt.
Naaaah, whale evolution doesn't have smooth transition. Pakicetus is only a jaw bone. Read the article about it. Read the note in small words: Terrestial attribute is interely imaginary. All the fossil found is whale. And land mammals. No intermediate. Don't use bad language please. It only makes you more "intelligent".
'the article about it'? as though there were only one which wouldn't necessitate an actual reference? You fucking hack. You waste time and space bitching and moaning about grammar and spelling rather than addressing the actual substance. Plus you don't even reference this singular 'article' you use.
Go to talkorigins(dot)org and type in "cetaceans". The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence by Raymond Sutera is a great article that lays out the evidence, clear and simple.
I HAVE READ YOUR REFERENCE! And it is said that Pakicetus only a skull. With super imagination, evolutionist depict the picture of transitional fossil of Land Mamals to Aquatic mammals from Skull only. Yeah, and the homepage don't show the fossil. They only show, picture/drawing, NOT fossil. Without fossil, all the long explaination, latin names, are nonsense
First of all, it describes in great detail how the skull fragments of Pakicetus DO indicate transition. Second, the whole picture doesn't rest on this one single example. What about Sinonyx, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon and all the morphological, molecular biological, vestigial, embryological, geochemical, paleoenvironmental, paleobiogeographic, and chronological evidence? You're stuck one one incomplete skeleton.
and what the fuck is 'super imagination'? jackass.
@probokator So you admit then, that finding a complete or nearly complete Pakicetus will settle your hash? Just give it some time, then. I'll guarantee results eventually.
Wow interesting, New things are going to be founded all the time. Evolution could or couldn't have occured either way time will tell. New discoveries are leading us in new directions all the time. Just to bad we are picking fun of eachother people just explain what you think and move on. No ones a idiot, just the indivduals who are not respecting each other.
First of all, in order for it to be provable that this fossil was our ancestor, you would have to show intermediate fossils that more and more approximated human form. What we actually have is a fossil which may or may not have ever produced any offspring at all! Where are the fossils showing it had any descendants anywhere? 2nd, there are evolutionists, even, saying it is just a lemur. Don't be fooled friends. It's another scam. "Looks like a transtion to me. Case proved!" is not science.
Since this is credited to be a transitional form we would not have to produce links between this and us. This is the link (if confirmed by science) Second, conditions for the perservation of fossils are not always met and we have dug only so much of the Earth. But I agree. We must put this to the test of science and time. This is just a finding not yet evaluated extensively by the scientific comunity.
Brunn - Mho "Well, ahem! We have only been able to dig up so many fossils - but uh, trust us they're out there!" is a gross excuse. They're out there alright, billions of them of just 1 species alone of nautilus (unchanged in every way) in the Grand Canyon etc.. Tthe phrase "missintg linik"is not scientific. There is no way to show the difference between "missing" and "never existed." You want to be honest and scientific.
Research scientists who rejected evolution & find out why it is neither.
btw, LoricaLady, we dont just rely on fossils and we have them, but sciences from geology, to biochemistry, to comparative anatomy, to genetics, etc, ALL collaborate Evolution. I guess those thousands of scientists are all lying. LOL.
I guess those scientists in Expelled - just a sampling of people who have suffered under the peer pressured orthodoxy of Darwinism - are lying too. I guess scientists like Dr. David Berlinski (not a Christian) and many others in so many fields who have left evolution are all lying too. Evolution is a faith, a faith that "All those scientists could not be lying or wrong!" Science does not take head counts & popularity polls. Appeal to authority is the foundational logical fallacy of Darwinism.
and you just did the same thing. First there are few scientists like I said who do not accept Evolution. There is no crisis. You just ignore the mountains of evidence. You got it right, Science is done via empirical evidence and guess what Evolution has that and more, oh and that Movie not only got bad reviews it has been shown to be Yes lies and miss truths. oh and Berlinski has not done anything to promote ID, where are his research in the field??? He just criticizes Evol.
Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education described Berlinski's arguments as:
"The content of David Berlinski's article does not differ from more traditional creation-science material, . . . . But true to the creation-science genre, his approach consists of constructing strawmen, then knocking them down with misinterpreted, faulty, or nonexistent data as well as carefully se-lected quotations from evolutionary scientists. . . ."
I'm sorry I am not impressed by the comment. I listened to all of his vids. No strawmen. He was right on target. Are you really, reflectively, analytically, listening to
the scientists who have left orthorodox Darwinism behind, or just quoting this person and that person & saying, "They couldn't be wrong or lying." You have a mind of your own. If you will slowly & thoughtfully use it to look and analyze for yourself outside the box, not telling what you might see. All I have time for. Sorry.
Bad spelling i actually have excellent writing skills LOL.
tuffythetiger 5 days ago
I don't get it. Why all the fuss? A 47 million yr old monkey, big deal. Did anyone doubt we would never find a fossil like this? Now if your were to find a 47 million yr old human, that would have been news. God made us to his image, God is a spirit, a divine consciousness, therefore energy. What could possibly be God's image on us? only our consciousness, the one thing no other animal in the face of the earth has. By all the fuss, seems as if the atheists were doubting evolution, I never did.
dejesusluisx 5 months ago
why do people have to always bring religion into everything. just watch the damn video.
xcited4vids 9 months ago
Comment removed
ianman6 10 months ago
messel is a very impressing site...and its only like 40 kilometers from me :)
ptango666 11 months ago
How do they know it's 47 million years old?
dustindpdp 1 year ago
@dustindpdp Stratigraphic location and radiometric dating.
ianman6 10 months ago 2
F.A.I.T.H. = out dated medicine
ETECHJOEs 1 year ago
anything that questions religion has to be good. they creep me out.
spidermanroot 1 year ago
grand grand grand aunt?! hahaha these people will believe anything. they bought this animal from someone witch means it could maybe only be 5 years old. idiots.
samiii192 1 year ago
Ah...looks like James May has given up with Top Gear then...
1madaboutguitar 1 year ago
149 apes in denial didn't like this
Staldren 1 year ago 12
@Staldren Now they are 150.
singinginthebay 9 months ago
It so funny that people could just find anything. And than go, "yes, this is the missing link."
It is not there anything that tells us anything for the side for people who believe that man evolved from apes. Where do you go from there to prove who created man?
Science is discovery and not coming to these non-disciplined and crazy bound quick conclusions.Science is definitely not reading into things what might not be there.
Science is mystery not conclusion. Don't be ludicrous with IDA.
mamaschristmasbunny 1 year ago
Looking at it- as a scientist human would and not a scientist ape, because a scientist ape would come to the conclusion that IDA is human without further studying.
But a scientist human would really not come and disgrace us all- by saying some creature with a tail like some primates have and hands looking like human hands, like some primates have. Like somehow now because it is an aged fossil. How does any scientist come to any deliberation that IDA is from man?
mamaschristmasbunny 1 year ago
looks like a small monkey or lemur to me. No missing link.
jojojosmart 1 year ago
@jojojosmart I agree looks like a lemur. What proof do they have they even found it where they said that they did? They said they could analyze the bone marrow and the food in her stomach, i find that not reasonable for something that is supposedly 47 million years old.
smoothpeople33 1 year ago
@smoothpeople33: Obviously they aren't going to fish organic tissue from bone or stomach; they mean that they will analyze its structures.
puncheex 1 year ago
Bit over-hyped, but still, a nice fossil
tommyk77 1 year ago 2
I'm NOT even a Christian by any means, and I still know how ridiculous this Darwinian trash truly is. If you afro-centrics trying to prove that all of humanity came swinging from African jungle trees, are now resorting to such desperate measures as using Lemur remains, then you are truly more pathetic than I gave you credit for. By the way, if the human mind evolved, then why did Minoans and others flush toilets in 2500 BC, and you Darwinists still ran to outhouses less than 100 years ago ?
EducatedRebellion101 1 year ago
@EducatedRebellion101 i recommend "the greatest show on earth" by dawkins and many other factual material before maybe hastily jumping into strong opinions. happy reading with your opposable thumbs.
henryharston 1 year ago
lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol evolutionist crack me up
bradsam 1 year ago
Fossil of: A Lemur? A Brazillian Sagui?
This is obvious
Igorgitirana 1 year ago
EVILoootion is just that Evil
valu777 1 year ago
3:10 Deeply upsetting... Is it the wright word?
Grey13Human 1 year ago
What's so funny about these religious advocates is that they don't even question there own religion. Religion was around for millions of years before Christianity. Does mild brainwashing and book make all of the difference? The most evidence we have of a god is in the impossible accomplishments of the Egyptians. I went to a Christian school K-5 and did not stay brainwashed, It became clear to me that it makes no sense that people ignorant of Jesus existence go to hell. If you believe that.. sigh
Zephyrhillz 1 year ago 18
@Zephyrhillz You are right, it doesn't make sense for someone ignorant of Jesus to go to hell,Godis perfect only he will know when hisrd is being shared with everyone, before he decides who really decided to go o hell.No one can comprehend the beginning and the end.
tuffythetiger 5 days ago
"darwinius masillae" LMAO!
virtualguitarist 1 year ago
Why do theists spam science videos?
I mean, no one is attacking their faith directly, the myths are proven to be... well, myths!
If the evidence is with science, there has to be a reason. They study it.
Theists try to deny the evidence and this is why they see science as a direct attack
Xgya2000 1 year ago
@Xgya2000 Which parts of religion are you attributing to myths, which of these has been proven to be false. Many religious documents double as very historical documents of things that have been witnessed. In this respect they are much less like myths then MYTHOLOGICAL ideas such as the big bang and life originating from non=-life in magic soup. Just a thought. When someone tells you its night time and you clearly see that its daytime, this is why the difference occurs.
smoothpeople33 1 year ago
@smoothpeople33
The creation of light before the sun and stars, if I must name the Bible.
If the qu'ran is involved: a pharaoh that practiced a roman form of torture.
Greek mythos: nothing to be found atop mount Olympus
The Big Bang has evidence. You just need to study it.
Life originating from non-life, abiogenesis, is still in the stage of hypothesis, as it isn't a full-fledged theory yet, but it still has much evidence
Religious books claim they are perfect, so once a single flaw is found...
Xgya2000 1 year ago
@Xgya2000 One thing science cant reconcile is the super natural...i/e creation. 1. the light created is the either of the universe.
2. The redemtion has nothing to do with science and is hardly myth.
3. The titans are leftover from the Nephilim (of the bible).
4. Big bang at least starts with a beginning..all 5 models have major flaws. Is the speed of light constant?
5. To this day all life comes from other life. Testable science.
Religious people make claims as do scientists
smoothpeople33 1 year ago
@smoothpeople33
1. There was no light before stars.
2. The redemption IS a myth. Wether you like it or not.
3. The Titans are mythology. The Bible mentions them. The Bible therefore is mythos.
4. The speed of light is constant. Time isn't. What caused the Big Bang is not a part of the theory.
5. Life was artificially created in a laboratory. A brand new organism that duplicates and evolves, and with a genetic code containing the names of various scientists that helped created it.
Xgya2000 1 year ago
@Xgya2000
1. Based on belief
2. Their are lots of sources friendly and hostile that recount the redemption.
3. The Greeks were the most advanced and cultured of their area. Fine arts, Advanced medicine and scientific, language. Does it make practical sense that it is all Myth?
4. Their is more debate about the constant of the speed of light then one would think. Does it make sense that anything has infinite power?
5. Not enough room for artificial life here.
smoothpeople33 1 year ago
@smoothpeople33
1. Where would light have come from then? Sudden expansion could not create light. We have to start a nuclear fusion for a star to form and start emitting light.
2. There are lots of sources, friendly and hostile, that refute the redemption.
3. The fact they were very advanced doesn't mean they weren't also very lacking. "Lightning comes from God!". Religion is an argument from ignorance. "Don't know how that formed? God did it!"
4. Infinite power means opposite exists.
Xgya2000 1 year ago 2
@Xgya2000
Synthetic life has been created in the laboratory
1. used four bottles of chemicals to write up a million letters of DNA software, and actually got it to boot up in a living organism.
2.The man-made genome was then transplanted into a related bacterium, Mycoplasma capricolum.
The main points is we started with unevolvable chemicals and an ALREADY living bacteria.
smoothpeople33 1 year ago
Archeopteryx, Neandertal and now Ida:Germany has brought to the World some amazing fossils!
wollin20 1 year ago
"So what does this mean for out of africa theory?"
So humans emerged from Africa sometime in the last million years, but you can't conceive of primates moving in and out of Africa at some point in the last 47 million years?
PatchesRips 1 year ago
Comment removed
puncheex 1 year ago
Comment removed
puncheex 1 year ago
Been proven as wrong - scientists accept it is not the missing link now - move on
TaSwavo 1 year ago
@TaSwavo: No, not really. It is suspected that it is most likely not precisely an ancestor for humans, but it is no doubt closely related to a species that is, and gives great information on what the characteristics of that species were, inasmuch as it would be closely ancestral to Ida. Perhaps pretty soon we'll have a fossil of that one as well; something to look forward to.
What is this "the missing link" you speak of? Some sort of fetish?
puncheex 1 year ago
oh, "a missing evolutionary link between two primate families, including the one that eventually produced human beings"
"Scientists are quick to point out that Ida does not neccesarily represent the so called missing link"
Bring on the scholars of the World to study and maybe endorse you guys.. snap to it !
gEARtech2112 1 year ago
@amaxamon
Well I don't know anything about that or who Dan Brown is, what I do know is that one day we will be held accountable for what we do now and here. Believe what you want but don't judge me for what I choose to believe.
RocknRusty 2 years ago
the press made such a hash of this - makes me angry - PZ Myers wrote a lot of corrective blog posts on Ida but the damage has been done... wish SJ Gould were around to rein in this circus...
amaxamon 2 years ago
0:25 sounds like Bruno
0xNecrox0 2 years ago
Apes have been giving birth for centuries how come they haven't given birth to a Human Child?
RocknRusty 2 years ago
@RocknRusty they HAVE, but they are covered up by the Vatican - Dan Brown's writing a novel about it...
amaxamon 2 years ago
your mother did!
xllGustavollx 1 year ago
So what does this mean for out of africa theory? I have been following stuff like this for most of my life, I watched a doco about how they found a salamander skull in siberia which was older than this. imo humans had to have come from many different parts of the world.. not one place..
Lastindependentthink 2 years ago
@Lastindependentthink The out of Afrika is about our most recent evolution.
denblomme 2 years ago
@Lastindependentthink: Papa Ida may live in Africa and Ida just got a burr in its saddle for Germany. Lemurs have lives too, you know. Or perhaps the first primate was Danish, and the family was on the way to a new job in SA when they stopped for a swim. With 30 million yrs, I presume that each member of the lineage could have simply fallen over far enough to the south to get them there in the time available. All that we know is that pre-humans seem to have lived in Africa at least 12-15 mya.
puncheex 1 year ago
You know people, you can be religious and believe in evolution at the same time. The characters Adam and Eve are merely parables, they're not actually real people, but just characters to show that greed is bad (listening Madoff? oops no, you're in jail you scumbag).
In my opinion anyone who denies evolution are blind to reality. You can see evolution everywhere you go.
farhannius 2 years ago 3
LOL
Riste1986 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This has already been proven to be a hoax put out to get "free money" grants.
Its just a lemur!
MrBillTroop73 2 years ago
Christianity should be treated like a mental disorder.
judoyodan 2 years ago 22
@judoyodan it dosent prove anything, if we are from the chimpanz... i doubt this is our forfather :D
dalefantom 1 year ago
@judoyodan its a mental disorder to take the religions from people, people who has a religion is not all evil ... the darwinism has destoryed many things, nazism and communisme comes from darwinism... so i like religion better that these things... we are maybe a ape, but we can wirte, we can speak, we can do many good things, let us be happe for that and give religious people some respect too, otherwise we are just animals
dalefantom 1 year ago
@judoyodan christianitiy is not the BEST religion but it is still 100000000x better and more logical than the "religion" of darwinism / atheism!!!
Touzani38 1 year ago
@Touzani38, thank you for illustrating my point about christians being insane.
Christians should be counseled about their delusion. If they don't respond to that, they should be medicated.
judoyodan 1 year ago
@Touzani38 LOGICAL ? IF YOU DO NOT PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE, THERE IS NO POINT TO EVEN A DEBATE, GET REAL !!
HPGCHEMIST1 3 months ago
@judoyodan I bet 200 years from now that will be the case. Sad that It won't be sooner.
Zephyrhillz 1 year ago 2
@judoyodan look up halos on google and then say the earth came from the big bang
bradsam 1 year ago
@bradsam, nonsense. Do your research.
judoyodan 1 year ago
@judoyodan thats the facts man. if the world was hot and like science says they would NEVER be there. non-creationist did the tests and agree. but if the world somehow popped into being they would be there. thats science, weve tested and not had our mind made up from the begining, real science
bradsam 1 year ago
@bradsam, what you are talking about is the furthest thing from "real science." And as far as you not being predispositioned, that's really funny.
If you are talking about Gentry's "halos", then you need to do more research. That was thoroughly debunked quite some time ago.
If you think the earth is 6000 years old, you are not only immeasurably ignorant, but delusional as well.
judoyodan 1 year ago
@bradsam Complete idiot
kingb8c 1 year ago
Indeed. Finding a "missing link" does not prove evolution. It only fills gaps in the evolutionary web. There are enough fossils, and DNA evidence to prove man is connected to apes in the evolutionary web. Evolution is already proven.
But I guess this missing link hysteria creates publicity.
Seleucus84 2 years ago 3
i don't remeber who called Ida the final proof of evolution. besides evolution is proven from the genome project, embryology study of various animals and you will come to the natural conclusion that evolution is true. if you don't have the time to study biology, paleontology, embryology then ofcourse you don't have the tools understand evolution. once you don't understand evolution it doesn't matter what you think about evolution
tociph 2 years ago
@tociph: The German scientist who bought it from the original owner did a good and proper job in getting it analyzed and described. The problem was that, having made the investment, this was his once-in-a-lifetime chance to cash in on science fame, and he plugged it with all his worth. It is a great find, but it's not quite everything it was plugged to be. Science has a long history of just this kind of thing happening - deplorable, but a minor effect, and a great motivator.
puncheex 1 year ago
I'll credit MSN for at least showing this was the B.S. I knew it was, was false. Usually, we never see the "retraction" in the media. Just AMAZING how evolutionists jumped on this and IMMEDIATLY called it the final proof of Evolution. And for the 1,000th + time. AGAIN proven false.
aquaiz 2 years ago
@aquaiz please find and post here the Scientist who claimed ida was the final proof of Evolution. i would like you to find that person and post their names here. Thanks.
easeconnect 1 year ago
We now know why he could not sleep ... it was a complete hoax.
Google:
'Eighth wonder' Ida is not related to humans, claim scientists, guardian
hume1947 2 years ago
It's either Ida the Missing Link, or a mutated dog...
OMGITSDRJESUS 2 years ago
watch?v=sRKKguDYYwM
DouglasFresh8181 2 years ago
Interesting...
Virgil0211 2 years ago
i dont want to look,how bout u just tell me what they wrote instead
rhdadrian 2 years ago
Today I ate a chicken bone. I think I ate my Great, Great , Great, Great, Great,Great, Aunt. Lol!!!!!!!!!!!!! This stuff is a Lie and stupid! People need to get a life......
godskidable 2 years ago
Baby birds grow to full grown birds, Bear cubs to adult bears, kittens to cats. Evolution is nothing but a lie. People want it so they don't have to be held accountable to any moral standard. Don't be fooled. If you look at something hard enough, long enough, and tell lies enough times, you will believe it to be true even when it is a lie and there is no no proof. That is a fact. Look at Ida long enough and it will become Barney the purple dinosaur's baby.
godskidable 2 years ago
Your just ignorant, Evolution is the only logical way of expliaining how we got to where we are today, we don't know everything. It doesn't come in a fucken book like the bible does. Not everything is fucken religion.
OMGITSDRJESUS 2 years ago
@godskidable: Ida will still be there, and recognized for what it is, when your bones have turned to dust. Ida is not a lie; it is a very valuable find. It just isn't what it was hyped to be. That's sorrowful, perhaps, for many of the people involved, but known to everyone within 6 months of its publication. Unlike some other myths that haunt a goodly portion of out population after 2000 years.
puncheex 1 year ago
@godskidable yup and if you look the inconsistencies, contradictions, etc, of the bible long enough without the bible goggles you will come to the rational conclusion it is not the inspired word of any supreme being.
easeconnect 1 year ago
the chicken was not your aunt, u moron.
according to evolution the chicken be a ridiculously far far far far away cousin to human.
tociph 2 years ago
And an ape is who's the Moron.????? LOL!!!!! God is Love. He made me.
godskidable 2 years ago
@godskidable haha, u parens maded u dickhead not god. yes i can have u gife u comment what have i knock u complete down.
dickiedik5 2 years ago
Ida is A missing link alright, but I think the language of the video is a bit misleading. It's a link way back when primates were first diverging from other mammals, when the common man thinks of a missing link they think of the ape/human link, like Australopithecus...though that link isn't missing either.
wakeangel2001 2 years ago 3
The Judaeo-Islamo-Christian religion refuses to apply the same demand for proof of its mythology that it does demand for everything else. These religionists even manage to ignore the atrocious hypocrisy they perpetrate whilst they do it, which is a most accomplished demonstration of wishful thinking. The same desperation allows them to believe in an Angry Magic Sky Daddy & his zombie son despite lacking any evidence for them; they really need to grow up & take responsibility for themselves.
catalyst8 2 years ago 3
bwa ha ha ha, IDA is just a lemur. How desperate!!!
probokator 2 years ago
Comment removed
puncheex 1 year ago
@probokator:, Well, just a 47 million year old "lemur". Yeah. Older than your Chevy.
puncheex 1 year ago
Unfortunately, the pious will never be convinced. In a evolution from 0 to 10, you can find 5 and they will say, 'but there is no transition from 0 to 5 or 5 to 10.' If you find 3, then you have no transition from 0 to 3 or 3 to 5. It's an infinitely expanding tautology where each new transition actually adds a new gap in the record.
Our challenge is not so much finding new transitions (though that's a worthy endeavor), it's educating people away from their idiocy.
analubalitious 2 years ago
Yeah but the number five is actually is number 10. And number 3 is actually number 1. On and on. Like imaginary human evolution, australipithecus is a monkey and neanderthal is actually a human. That means number 3 is 1 and number 7 is 10. You don't have anything which can be considered as number 5 (transitional fossil which have the properties of both species) . Well we don't really want idiots people to educate us.
probokator 2 years ago
Go look up whale evolution. We have continual smooth transitions from land mammal to the modern sea mammal. The record is quite good on this one. From1 to 10, it's all there.
And what about all the DNA evidence that supports evolution? The same process that proves that your father fucked his cousin to make you, also proves common ancestry across all species.
analubalitious 2 years ago 2
you're such an idiot. Your father must of mated with a chimp to make you.
johnknoefler 2 years ago
Don't be so easy to goat. Ad hominem attacks aside (which we both basically engaged in), why not address the more serious example and argument being made:
Whale evolution and DNA evidence.
Otherwise we're just plugging our ears and calling each other poopy-heads.
analubalitious 2 years ago
"Don't be so easy to goat" The word is Goad. It's meaning is simular to prod. It's old english for spear. It has nothing to do with goat. Perhaps you should mate with a whale. Or maybe you already tried it? Can your children swim?
Did you notice that opposable thumbs are considered an evolutionary advancement? And many primates have this feature on thier hind feet. As do other mammals. But Humans lack this feature on thier feet. So perhaps humans are not advanced? Evolution is for poopy-heads
johnknoefler 2 years ago
Very good, you're right about goad. Thank you for clearing me up on that. What's an advantage for one, may not be for another. Opposable thumbs are good for grasping right? Good on feet for tree-dwellers, not so good for walkers. We grasp with our hands and walk with our feet, so why shouldn't we expect opposable thumbs on our hands and not our feet?
You're still dodging the points of whales and DNA.
analubalitious 2 years ago
'Humans lack this feature [thumbs] on thier feet. So perhaps humans are not advanced?'
We have specialized as bipeds, comparably the dexterity of our hands seems to have compensated, however the context within which you use 'advanced' demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the Theory of Evolution.
'Evolution is for poopy-heads' - a religionist idea of intellectual comment?
All peer-reviewed papers present corroborative evidence for the theory, not one has contradictory evidence.
catalyst8 2 years ago
"We have specialized as bipeds, comparably the dexterity of our hands seems to have compensated,"
I am guessing you have found the fossils that demonstrate the Millions and Millions of various stages that humans went through to specialize into walking humans who can not use thier feet to hang onto trees.. You have nice ideas but no evidence...
johnknoefler 2 years ago
'You have nice ideas but no evidence'
Secondary education (in Great Britain & Europe anyway) includes Biology as a core subject. Any schoolchild should be able to tell you about Australopithecus (garhi & africanus), or Homo erectus.
'Millions and millions of various stages'
That depends on from what & what one classes as a 'stage': Homo habilis & rudolfensis are considered the same species despite the difference of brain size. All transitional forms.
Still not one peer review of contradiction...
catalyst8 2 years ago 4
Yes I love the missing links:
Nebraska Man
flipperpithecus
Archaeorapto: This one really is an ewesome missing link. Two fossils of two animals are joined to make a new animal. A great missing link....
Should I mention the famous Piltdown missing link? Of course they put this junk in kids books. Then the kids grow up stupid like you.
johnknoefler 2 years ago
When a fraud is committed (such as those you mention) it's scientists who expose them e.g. 2 anthropologists & a palaeontologist exposed Piltdown Man.
On the contrary there is no substantiating piece of primary historical evidence to support the existence of Jesus. If you disagree please provide one single piece of primary historical evidence which substantiates the claim that the Biblical character of Jesus the Christ ever existed. PRIMARY evidence, so it has to be contemporaneous & verifiable.
catalyst8 2 years ago 2
Of course there was never a person known as Jesus the Christ. But please tell me where are all the missing links? There should be as many missing links as other fossils.
I just find it odd you would throw in the false name Jesus Christ as proof that there are real missing links.
Please show me one real missing link complete with DNA proof? The fact that some researchers are honest in exposing frauds does nothing to validate the many false researchers who constantly look for fake links.
johnknoefler 2 years ago
I suspect you're being deliberately obtuse. I've supplied several Hominid transitional forms as you requested. You then cited a few frauds implying they were deliberately perpetrated by scientists when in fact they were exposed by scientists.
I'd expect you to return the favour as a matter of common courtesy, & address my request:
Please provide one single piece of primary historical evidence which substantiates the claim that the Biblical character of Jesus the Christ ever existed.
catalyst8 2 years ago 2
there was never a person named Jesus... It's not even a Jewish name. More like a translation from greek to latin to english and then changed again into modern english. Even the old english didn't use the name Jesus. Don't you study this stuff before you comment? Don't you research the Jewish historical writings? Roman records? Archeological records? I wonder who was buried in the tomb of יעקב? Hmm? Even the talmud states they killed him for being the brother of Yehoshua.
johnknoefler 2 years ago
It's funny you said 'old english didn't use the name Jesus. Don't you study this stuff before you comment?' There was no Old English translation of the Bible - Absolutely ALL copies would have been in Latin at that time. Incidentally historians accept the Talmud as historically accurate about as much as they accept the Iliad as historical.
john, don't you study this stuff before you comment? At least you accept that the Bible is fiction in a setting loosely based on historical events.
catalyst8 2 years ago
Oh gee. You really are a retard aren't you. There were many translations of the latin into old english.
Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum, si þin nama gehalgod. To becume þin rice, gewurþe ðin willa, on eorðan swa swa on heofonum. Urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg, and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum. And ne gelæd þu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele. Soþlice.
johnknoefler 2 years ago
Well done for copy/pasting the Lord's Prayer. It doesn't refute what I said about there being no Old English Bible, but well done for copy/pasting. You already admitted that there's no primary evidence substantiating the existence of the Christ & that's all that matters as far as my argument goes, because it justifies this:
The Judaeo-Islamo-Christian religion refuses to apply the same requirements of proof for their mythology that they do for anything else.
That is the epitome of hypocrisy.
catalyst8 2 years ago
You are too ignorant to even bother having a discussion. At least learn to use google. Surely no one has the money to own these manuscripts. But they do exist and many copies can be found online. Thanks for showing everyone what a tard you are.
johnknoefler 2 years ago
The Greek Gospels and the book of Revelations by Yohanan precedes the talmud by over a hundred years and it has less changes that the talmud and the talmud is considered an accurate source of jewish history. BTW this fossil is NOT a missing link.
johnknoefler 2 years ago
Can you give a clear example of how many more fraudulent researchers there are then honest ones? I mean if there are so many more then you should be able to name millions of fraudulent fossils instead of the same 5 or 6 every creationist names.
JupiterJazzjaa2 2 years ago 10
@JupiterJazzjaa2 Where did you get millions of fossils? I would reccomend you go to talkorigins and click transitional forms. Its a darwinian website. They cant site millions they cant even site 10 lol . Where do you get millions from ? Have you even seen the fossil record?
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal It seems, either you newer went to talkorigins, or you are extremely dishonest. There are listed thousands and thousand of transitional fossils. What you are saying is simply a LIE!
VincentMeis 1 year ago
@VincentMeis
Please visit the website before calling me a liar good sir . There aare not thousands of transitional fossils . a) thousands simply do not exist b) the ttitle is 29+ Evidence for macroevolution. 29+ compared to thousands good sir . You are the liar. Im on the website right now calling your bluff... Why troll ?
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal You must be kidding. Go to talkorigins, Push "Search the Archive", type "transitional fossils" and go to "Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ". There are listed thousands of Transitional Vertebrate Fossils. If you interested in human transitional fossils. You can also search for "Fossil Hominids" at Talkorigins or go to Wikipedia and search for "List of human evolution fossils". There are hundreds of hominid fossils in the list. Do a little research before spread your "information".
VincentMeis 1 year ago
@yourboycal If you actually did read the Article "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution", you would know that these "29+ Evidences" do not refer to individual fossil founds. I recommend you to read not only the title but also the article itself and make conclusions afterwards.
VincentMeis 1 year ago
@VincentMeis Why dont you actually visit the website for these thousands of examples? They dont exist. Who are you kidding ? I've been on that website many many times. YOu see thousands of transitional forms is only the hope train darwinists have. When you actually sit down and see , you will see they have nothing of the sort . Its misrepresenting , and i ask for you not to spread more lies then darwinists already have. I welcome any body to visit talk origins and see for your self =)
yourboycal 1 year ago
@VincentMeis I recomment you would also look further into and you will see there is no thousands of examples as you state. Thisis a blatant lie. and i do not appreciate you sitting there lying through your teeth . The website is open for you to look at please , stop trollling and look at it .
yourboycal 1 year ago
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Really do you want me to go through all of that in this comment box ? trilobites, make their first appearance in the Cambrian (505-540 Ma) while other creatures that live on ocean bottoms, like crabs and lobsters, don't appear until the beginning of the Cretaceous (65-145 Ma). Why is this ? who cares right? relative abundance of trilobites compared to crabs and lobsters??? oh god where do i start =p
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal You could start by making a point, you are rambling.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz a.k.a i dont like/understand your answer i'll call it rambling?
yourboycal 1 year ago
Comment removed
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz The point is they come on and off like a light switch . The fossil record does not help evolution .Species come and go no intermediatery . You dont have to believe me i can show you darwinists them selfs tell us to "forget the fossil record" but why ?? When the fossil record is our window to the past . Would you like the source to verify this ? or shall i not insult your intelligence and you already know?
yourboycal 1 year ago
gregrutz 1 year ago
Did you not ask for my source ? about dismissing the fossils as evidence for darwinism? I can put bones together too that look alike and call it intermediatery . To get to Dalanistest to a modern whale i assure you good sir there would be far more then 6. If tommorw we found 6 more , what would you say to todays findings ? oopps? should've known better ? there were more?
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal Darwinism? that is 150 years out of date. Darwin was wrong about ''slow and gradual'', try and keep up with science.
There are more than 6 intermediates between dalanistest and modern whales. How many do you need before you accept evolution happened? 12? 24?
Thay all fit. Not one bunny fossils has been found with the dinosaur fossils.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz "Darwinism? that is 150 years out of date. Darwin was wrong about ''slow and gradual'', try and keep up with science. "
Actually darwinism stil exsists today , slow and gradual is not the only thing wrong .
"How many do you need before you accept evolution happened? 12? 24?"
I would expect the transitional forms of other species to be in the fossil record , with over welming evidence not this little bit here little bit there noise . let the data speak for it self.
yourboycal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yourboycal '' would expect the transitional forms of other species to be in the fossil record ''
They are there, just because you can't find them does not prove anything except you are lazy.
Are dinosaurs with feathers a transitional fossil? Say Yes.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@yourboycal You don't understand evolution and have never looked at a fossil.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@yourboycal It is bold face lie my friend. First you said that on Talkorigins were listed less then 10 transitional fossils. After I corrected you, you sad there were 29+. Again, if you actually did read the Article "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution", you would know that these "29+ Evidences" do not refer to individual fossil founds. But you did not. There are other Articles, in which are listed thousands of transitional Vertebrate Fossils but you are to lazy to read something except titles.
VincentMeis 1 year ago
@VincentMeis "There are other Articles, in which are listed thousands of transitional Vertebrate Fossils but you are to lazy to read something except titles. "
a) I've already proven there are no thousands of transitional forms listed on that website.
b) when i was there last there were less then 10 listed.
"do not refer to individual fossil founds. But you did not. "
Oh i did know . i sent you to that page to see what little evidence is there . and little forms .
yourboycal 1 year ago
@VincentMeis "After I corrected you, you sad there were 29+. Again"
Actually read my comment again that was quoted from the page but ty for the second mistake.
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal Ya ya, you can delude yourself further. You think you are cleverer then all biologists in the world and know more then they do. But again, knowledge does not come only by reading the titles of articles and books. READ something, before you discuss the topic.
VincentMeis 1 year ago
@VincentMeis "You think you are cleverer then all biologists in the world and know more then they do. But again, knowledge does not come only by reading the titles of articles and books. READ something, before you discuss the topic"
Another baseless conclusion you've reached i see , darwinists are known for this . We knot ALOT .. but unsderstand very little a wise man once said . Can you fit that into your ego?
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal Bla bla bla. You are troll, who makes conclusions only by reading titles. And of course, when you first went to Talkorigins there were less then 10 transitional fossils listed. And after you called this bluff here they realized, they must make some new fossils up. :))))))))
VincentMeis 1 year ago
@VincentMeis "Bla bla bla. You are troll"
Could you please link me to the thousands and thousands of transitional forms ? Im still waiting for the love of monkeys =p
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal I already did it. Go to talkorigins and READ the article (NOT the title!!!): "Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ".
VincentMeis 1 year ago
@VincentMeis "I already did it"
NO you didnt . You said thousands. There are not thousands of transitional forms there good sir. Show me the link ITs very simple. You dont have to troll and dance around . Show me thousands please
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal I would recommend you go there again and count transitional fossils listed in this article. I understand you are to lazy to read the article itself, so I ask this no more. I am waiting. :)))))
VincentMeis 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VincentMeis "I would recommend you go there again "
Thats what i thought ... goood day troll . Try not to spread more misinformation about thousands of transitional forms . I hope you learned a lesson =)
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal You are brainwashed as all Creationists. You think, you know everything if you have seen the title of an article or a book. I tell you a secret: You should actually read what's within before you make your mind.
VincentMeis 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VincentMeis "You are brainwashed as all Creationists. You think, you know everything if you have seen the title of an article or a book"
Actually no . You just assume were all creationists because we dont fully accept the darwinian fairy tale. Normal mistake it happens i forgive you <3
"I tell you a secret: You should actually read what's within before you make your mind"
I would suggest the same before judging anyone who doesnt agree with you hippocrate.
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal try getting you science from a science book. DNA proves evolution now, we don't need all the ''missing links' creationists can't seem to see.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Well fossil record is our window to the past . The fossil record a child can see and understand . Now that record clearly shows species come and go like a light switch off/on. The record clearly shows us its not an evolutionary picture they like us to believe it shows the opposite. Sure they can say fossialization is very rare , no problem well just let time take its course and see the next speciation first hand?
yourboycal 1 year ago
@yourboycal
We have. Speciation has been documented in nature and in the lab.
.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@yourboycal All fossils are transitional fossils. 99% of all species are extinct.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@johnknoefler: I agree with you. They were very much like all the saints reliquaries, cross fragments and St Pat's left fingers, or the Shroud of Turin. Convince us, if you will, that religion has, because of its unique causal link to the divine, never been guilty of abetting fraud. Speak to us of the evidence gathered with which to burn the witches of Salem, or destroy the churches in Maryland in sectarian violence. Show us where we have gone wrong in not killing our heretics, as Xianity has.
puncheex 1 year ago
@johnknoefler yup, talking snakes, two different genesis stories, light made before the sun, a global flood with no evidence, gospels that contradict each other, languages made because god got so scared he scattered me, on and on, I see how kids grow up stupid like you.
easeconnect 1 year ago
@johnknoefler did you find the evidence that an invisible being made us from dirt and women from ribs? funny how Evolution has millions of pieces of evidence and peer reviewed papers and creation has NONE, not a single ONE. Truly the truth does hurt.
easeconnect 1 year ago
Naaaah, whale evolution doesn't have smooth transition. Pakicetus is only a jaw bone. Read the article about it. Read the note in small words: Terrestial attribute is interely imaginary. All the fossil found is whale. And land mammals. No intermediate. Don't use bad language please. It only makes you more "intelligent".
probokator 2 years ago
'the article about it'? as though there were only one which wouldn't necessitate an actual reference? You fucking hack. You waste time and space bitching and moaning about grammar and spelling rather than addressing the actual substance. Plus you don't even reference this singular 'article' you use.
Go to talkorigins(dot)org and type in "cetaceans". The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence by Raymond Sutera is a great article that lays out the evidence, clear and simple.
analubalitious 2 years ago
I HAVE READ YOUR REFERENCE! And it is said that Pakicetus only a skull. With super imagination, evolutionist depict the picture of transitional fossil of Land Mamals to Aquatic mammals from Skull only. Yeah, and the homepage don't show the fossil. They only show, picture/drawing, NOT fossil. Without fossil, all the long explaination, latin names, are nonsense
probokator 2 years ago
First of all, it describes in great detail how the skull fragments of Pakicetus DO indicate transition. Second, the whole picture doesn't rest on this one single example. What about Sinonyx, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon and all the morphological, molecular biological, vestigial, embryological, geochemical, paleoenvironmental, paleobiogeographic, and chronological evidence? You're stuck one one incomplete skeleton.
and what the fuck is 'super imagination'? jackass.
analubalitious 2 years ago 2
@probokator So you admit then, that finding a complete or nearly complete Pakicetus will settle your hash? Just give it some time, then. I'll guarantee results eventually.
puncheex 1 year ago
@probokator: "Son, fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life."
puncheex 1 year ago
idiots educating the naive?
johnknoefler 2 years ago
Darwin was a grate man!
hes name will forever be grate!
Ryagful 2 years ago 3
a grate man? what morons you guys are.
johnknoefler 2 years ago
Great video. Thanks!
Obhund 2 years ago 2
Wow interesting, New things are going to be founded all the time. Evolution could or couldn't have occured either way time will tell. New discoveries are leading us in new directions all the time. Just to bad we are picking fun of eachother people just explain what you think and move on. No ones a idiot, just the indivduals who are not respecting each other.
jengen19 2 years ago
"the link untill now was missing" no it was not we have more links lol
Masterzec 2 years ago
First of all, in order for it to be provable that this fossil was our ancestor, you would have to show intermediate fossils that more and more approximated human form. What we actually have is a fossil which may or may not have ever produced any offspring at all! Where are the fossils showing it had any descendants anywhere? 2nd, there are evolutionists, even, saying it is just a lemur. Don't be fooled friends. It's another scam. "Looks like a transtion to me. Case proved!" is not science.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
Since this is credited to be a transitional form we would not have to produce links between this and us. This is the link (if confirmed by science) Second, conditions for the perservation of fossils are not always met and we have dug only so much of the Earth. But I agree. We must put this to the test of science and time. This is just a finding not yet evaluated extensively by the scientific comunity.
BrunnhildeDieWalkure 2 years ago
Brunn - Mho "Well, ahem! We have only been able to dig up so many fossils - but uh, trust us they're out there!" is a gross excuse. They're out there alright, billions of them of just 1 species alone of nautilus (unchanged in every way) in the Grand Canyon etc.. Tthe phrase "missintg linik"is not scientific. There is no way to show the difference between "missing" and "never existed." You want to be honest and scientific.
Research scientists who rejected evolution & find out why it is neither.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
btw, LoricaLady, we dont just rely on fossils and we have them, but sciences from geology, to biochemistry, to comparative anatomy, to genetics, etc, ALL collaborate Evolution. I guess those thousands of scientists are all lying. LOL.
easeconnect 2 years ago
I guess those scientists in Expelled - just a sampling of people who have suffered under the peer pressured orthodoxy of Darwinism - are lying too. I guess scientists like Dr. David Berlinski (not a Christian) and many others in so many fields who have left evolution are all lying too. Evolution is a faith, a faith that "All those scientists could not be lying or wrong!" Science does not take head counts & popularity polls. Appeal to authority is the foundational logical fallacy of Darwinism.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
and you just did the same thing. First there are few scientists like I said who do not accept Evolution. There is no crisis. You just ignore the mountains of evidence. You got it right, Science is done via empirical evidence and guess what Evolution has that and more, oh and that Movie not only got bad reviews it has been shown to be Yes lies and miss truths. oh and Berlinski has not done anything to promote ID, where are his research in the field??? He just criticizes Evol.
easeconnect 2 years ago
Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education described Berlinski's arguments as:
"The content of David Berlinski's article does not differ from more traditional creation-science material, . . . . But true to the creation-science genre, his approach consists of constructing strawmen, then knocking them down with misinterpreted, faulty, or nonexistent data as well as carefully se-lected quotations from evolutionary scientists. . . ."
easeconnect 2 years ago
I'm sorry I am not impressed by the comment. I listened to all of his vids. No strawmen. He was right on target. Are you really, reflectively, analytically, listening to
the scientists who have left orthorodox Darwinism behind, or just quoting this person and that person & saying, "They couldn't be wrong or lying." You have a mind of your own. If you will slowly & thoughtfully use it to look and analyze for yourself outside the box, not telling what you might see. All I have time for. Sorry.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
Sorry I really really am. I have a graduate degree in science, done res