[Aere Thalia]

news.nationalgeographic.com said:

An "apelike" creature that could fit in your hand has long been seen as the strongest evidence that humans and apes originated in Africa.

But now scientists say 50-million-year-old Algeripithecus was nothing like an ape, after all.

Read more...

[NightMoon]

They're possibly looking in the wrong place.

That was so tiny.

[Solid Skeptic]

Now the creationists are gonna come out of the woodwork with their nonsense....

[SQLserver]

Interesting, I've never heard of this species.

[Shaftsbury]

SQLserver, on 31 October 2009 - 10:18 AM, said:

Interesting, I've never heard of this species.

Looks like somebody stretched things a bit:

Quote

Editor's note: This story has been corrected to remove the implication that Algeripithecus is or was considered apelike. The species has instead been seen as an ape ancestor (October 29, 2009).

Goes to show, don't believe everything you first read.

[danielost]

Solid Skeptic, on 30 October 2009 - 05:33 PM, said:

Now the creationists are gonna come out of the woodwork with their nonsense....

after this post we don't need to do we. thanks

[Mattshark]

danielost, on 02 November 2009 - 01:42 AM, said:

after this post we don't need to do we. thanks

Especially with the disclaimer meaning a creationist use of this would be fallacious (not that, that ever stopped creationists before).

[danielost]

Mattshark, on 02 November 2009 - 06:53 AM, said:

Especially with the disclaimer meaning a creationist use of this would be fallacious (not that, that ever stopped creationists before).

it also shows that everyone knows that it means creationist might be right.

[Mattshark]

danielost, on 02 November 2009 - 01:56 PM, said:

it also shows that everyone knows that it means creationist might be right.

What?! No it doesn't at all. That is an unbelievably wrong thing to come out with! It doesn't do that at all. NOTHING supports creationist. Creationism just requires supreme ignorance.

[danielost]

Mattshark, on 02 November 2009 - 08:11 AM, said:

What?! No it doesn't at all. That is an unbelievably wrong thing to come out with! It doesn't do that at all. NOTHING supports creationist. Creationism just requires supreme ignorance.

up until know they were saying man stood up to cool off. now that he came from some other place than africa. why did he stand up.

also what ever the reason is. if there is no god how come no other animals stood up for the same reason.


you have no proof that creationism took place so it is automatically supreme ignorance.


you have no proof that abio-genesis took place so it is automatically gospil

[Mattshark]

danielost, on 02 November 2009 - 02:47 PM, said:

up until know they were saying man stood up to cool off. now that he came from some other place than africa. why did he stand up.

also what ever the reason is. if there is no god how come no other animals stood up for the same reason.

Other animals do, you just chose to be ignorant of that argument. Other animals with varying ecological niches and variations in body plans don't but no one who understands evolution would expect every animal to evolve the same tactic.

Quote

you have no proof that creationism took place so it is automatically supreme ignorance.

There is no evidence and it requires double conjecture

Quote

you have no proof that abio-genesis took place so it is automatically gospil

There is evidence, but again, that doesn't get in the way of creationists does it. And it isn't taken as gospel.

Sure all this has been explained to you before.

This post has been edited by Mattshark: 02 November 2009 - 02:56 PM

[danielost]

Mattshark, on 02 November 2009 - 08:54 AM, said:

Other animals do, you just chose to be ignorant of that argument. Other animals with varying ecological niches and variations in body plans don't but no one who understands evolution would expect every animal to evolve the same tactic.



There is no evidence and it requires double conjecture


There is evidence, but again, that doesn't get in the way of creationists does it. And it isn't taken as gospel.

Sure all this has been explained to you before.

the only evidence of bio-genesis is some scientists took some died cell and brought it back to life. a true test would be to throw a bunch of chemicals into a pool and see what happens. no wait that would just prove intellegent design because we throw the right chemicals in make life as we know it. no you would have to throw a bunch of atoms into a pool and let it bring life forth. but then again where did the atoms come from in the first place. i know the big bang. but what was here before the big bang. not space or time. so to really do this experiment you would have to start with nothing and end up with life without us doing anything to bring it about including throwing anything into a pool to start with.

[Mattshark]

danielost, on 02 November 2009 - 03:12 PM, said:

the only evidence of bio-genesis is some scientists took some died cell and brought it back to life. a true test would be to throw a bunch of chemicals into a pool and see what happens. no wait that would just prove intellegent design because we throw the right chemicals in make life as we know it. no you would have to throw a bunch of atoms into a pool and let it bring life forth. but then again where did the atoms come from in the first place. i know the big bang. but what was here before the big bang. not space or time. so to really do this experiment you would have to start with nothing and end up with life without us doing anything to bring it about including throwing anything into a pool to start with.

Wow, that is a whole lot of wrong.
Naturally forming biochemicals support abiogenesis too. And NO IT WOULD NOT PROVE INTELLIGENT DESIGN, serious any one who says that should be forced to redo high school science because it was clearly wasted upon them...... how many times do you have to be told? I know it is easier not bothering to learn anything, but reiterating your ignorance on these subjects. Intelligent design would be if we deliberately made the DNA and the life, not mixing chemicals to see what may happen.

Wilful ignorance is inexcusable daniel.

[danielost]

Mattshark, on 02 November 2009 - 09:51 AM, said:

Wow, that is a whole lot of wrong.
Naturally forming biochemicals support abiogenesis too. And NO IT WOULD NOT PROVE INTELLIGENT DESIGN, serious any one who says that should be forced to redo high school science because it was clearly wasted upon them...... how many times do you have to be told? I know it is easier not bothering to learn anything, but reiterating your ignorance on these subjects. Intelligent design would be if we deliberately made the DNA and the life, not mixing chemicals to see what may happen.

Wilful ignorance is inexcusable daniel.

you mean that if we mixed the right chemicals together that makes life that wouldn't be intellegent design.


then i am going to start a new thread called what if a planet was alive.

[Mattshark]

danielost, on 02 November 2009 - 06:47 PM, said:

you mean that if we mixed the right chemicals together that makes life that wouldn't be intellegent design.


then i am going to start a new thread called what if a planet was alive.

No it isn't. This has been explained numerous times previously.