Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
truethat

The Missing Link

400 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

truethat

Recently on here we have been discussing evolution. Someone pointed out to me the other day how much we have accepted this theory into our way of life.

Questioning Evolution causes a person to be treated like an idiot or a Christian Fanatic.

I am an atheist and I don't believe that humans evolved from Apes. That we had a similar ancestor.

One of the reasons for this is that we can't find one. The idea that we are supposed to have evolved from an ancestor that was able to spawn at least two entirely different creatures and yet we can't find ANY proof of their existance is very strange to me.

The frauds that have been perpetuated to "prove" this theory also make me highly suspect of the science community when it comes to this topic. We have found hundreds of dinosaur bones that died out, according to them millions of years ago. Yet we can't find any missing link remains?

Also the dinosaur bones. Recently they cracked open a few of these dinosaur bones and found soft tissue inside. That to me is proof that they aren't 68 million years old.

Scientists will say they can prove things with carbon dating. But SCIENTISTS are the ones who came up with the numbers for carbon dating. Seems pretty obvious to me that a dinosaur bone with soft tissue (found in rock btw) is not millions of years old. That's just stupid in my opinion.

Also if looking at old bones and we find ONE body, that's supposedly the missing link or an early ancestor. Hmmm. ONE body is supposed to convince us of what the entire human race was like at the time?

Look at this baby. Disturbing Image. It is a dead deformed baby.

http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?nid=69722

Now imagine that THIS was the body that they found. Or imagine that they found an adult with a deformity, a facial deformity, a cranial deformity. How would they know?

Unless you find numerous bodies I don't see how any scientist worth their salt would suggest that it represents anything other than itself.

What say you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack'o

I actualy don't believe a whole lot of sience, as you stated; "Scientists will say they can prove things with carbon dating. But SCIENTISTS are the ones who came up with the numbers for carbon dating. Seems pretty obvious to me that a dinosaur bone with soft tissue (found in rock btw) is not millions of years old. That's just stupid in my opinion."

They as well researched the universe and told us the universe came from a big bang?! What the hell is that about... Thats the crasiest theory i ever read about.

Now that baby is one sick baby bro. I defenitly agree with you that they might as well found an old retard telling us it must be an evolution of the ape and early human. That makes me remind about something i thought about some time ago. If evolution exists why are there still apes wich dint evolve, as a mather effect, why havent there been other creatures on earth or at least one kind of animal evolved like us in these 2000+ years we know about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

It's pretty clear that this isn't meant to be a discussion, but anyways...

Questioning Evolution causes a person to be treated like an idiot or a Christian Fanatic.

Not really. Talking about evolution as if you know what it is about while making some horrendously incorrect assumptions about it gets you treated like an idiot or a fanatic, because that is precisely the sort of thing they do.

One of the reasons for this is that we can't find one. The idea that we are supposed to have evolved from an ancestor that was able to spawn at least two entirely different creatures and yet we can't find ANY proof of their existance is very strange to me.

Darwin said the same thing. He was unaware just how difficult it is for anything to survive the passage of time.

Also the dinosaur bones. Recently they cracked open a few of these dinosaur bones and found soft tissue inside. That to me is proof that they aren't 68 million years old.

What a curious thing to say. Why would that be proof that they aren't millions of years old?

Scientists will say they can prove things with carbon dating. But SCIENTISTS are the ones who came up with the numbers for carbon dating. Seems pretty obvious to me that a dinosaur bone with soft tissue (found in rock btw) is not millions of years old. That's just stupid in my opinion.

Unfortunately, your opinion compared to imperical evidence ends up losing. Subjective always loses to objective.

You talk about scientists as if they are all of one mind on anything. A scietists worst enemy is another scientist.

Also if looking at old bones and we find ONE body, that's supposedly the missing link or an early ancestor. Hmmm. ONE body is supposed to convince us of what the entire human race was like at the time?

What?

Look at this baby. Disturbing Image. It is a dead deformed baby.

Now imagine that THIS was the body that they found. Or imagine that they found an adult with a deformity, a facial deformity, a cranial deformity. How would they know?

Actually, that has already happened. For decades, the neanderthal man was thought to be a badly formed, slumping, sloping foreheaded, dim-witted version of a homo sapien. This was, unfortunately, because the first neanderthal skeleton turned out to be a deformed old man. As more and more neanderthal skeletons were found, the true story became clear, but the damage was done, and even today you still find vestiges of it flying around.

Unless you find numerous bodies I don't see how any scientist worth their salt would suggest that it represents anything other than itself.

What say you.

You are correct. To a scientist, credibility is everything. All it takes is one little slip and your entire career can lie in ruins. It is because of this that scientists are very careful before presenting their case, and very careful to distinguish between theories and speculation.

Unfortunately, the average layman is not quite so picky, and ends up believing a mish-mash of various different theories all glomped together into a nonsensical whole that is then held up as an example of science.

Edited by aquatus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilverCougar

All I can say to Truethat...

Enroll into a college(if you ain't there already.. or still somewhere in highschool).. take the needed courses to become a scientist and actually find out what it's like. It's very easy to sit here and doubt and mock the work that trained scientists do...

You forget, that these theories and such start with one step... and it takes many more to come to conclutions. You don't believe that tissue can make it through 65 million years of fossilization? Well, obviously it can, given the right conditions. These are new finds, which clearly stunned the peleantological world... However, it's very plausible, it would seem. Now it's just a matter of finding out how it was possible.

What are those conditions that make it possible. It's easy to sit there all stogy and say it's not.. but the trick is to actually find out how. I'd rather be the one to find out how.. and not the one that thumbs your nose at science.

But you do have one thing right. While we are primates like the apes... we didn't evolve from apes... Humans, monkeys, lemures, and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Like dogs, cats, mustilids, dolphins, and whales evolved from a common ancestor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lufia

i've always too, wondered why we couldn't find any missing links but managed to find fossils of dinosaurs etc. the effort they put in to proclaiming a fake missing link is also evident.

Edited by lufia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

Well, the primary reason we have never found a "Missing Link", is because there is no such animal.

The term Missing Link does not describe a specific creature that has yet to be found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilverCougar

"Missing link" was a terminology used by people back when paleotology was just in it's infancy... We've grown past that.. so much so that I would hope that useing that term would stop. Aquatis is right, there *is* no "missing link" just verious evolutional steps that brings us back to a common ancestor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat

See the hostility that comes out of questioning evolution? Its right there in all of your posts.

I asked a question. I am not a scientist and as you see I was mocked and called stupid "Enroll in some level of education blah blah blah...." (I am in Graduate School thanks and you?)

And the idea that a layman is not allowed to ask a scientist a question without either being an idiot or wrong.

You all pooh poohed the notion that a piece of soft tissue in rock could last 68 million years and still be pliable. And your answer is "we just have to figure out how!"

How about, we MIGHT BE WRONG to suggest that dinosaurs are that old.

Since SCIENTISTS are the ones that came up with they way we date fossilized bones MAYBE JUST MAYBE they are the ones that made a mistake.

But no of course asking them to explain this just goes to prove what a raving idiot I must be.

In addition, scientists HAVE FAKED evidence many many many many (shall I go on....) times. So this idea that scientists are somehow above doing this is just a waste of breath. Scientists have done this so I don't see any reason why they wouldn't in the future.

My point about this is that this is the accepted theory, and yet there are many holes in this theory. And when a lay person, such as myself asks a logical question

such as

"Why is it that we can find dinosaur bones (btw the name dinosaur deinos terrifying + sauros lizard is yet another mistake made by the science community that we are all just supposed to ignore. Dinosaurs are not lizards. but I digress)

Why is it that we can find hundreds and thousands of dinosaur bones yet we can't find any evidence of this creature that is supposed to link humans to apes? Wouldn't that creature have existed more recently than dinosaurs? Shouldn't there be numerous bits of evidence?

And more importantly "Why do you insist on teaching it if you are not sure if it is true?????"

See I remember for years as a child reading books in which scientists depicted Dinosaurs much in the way that a giant lizard would look. They showed its skin being green like a lizards. And now we know they are not lizards.

So really the big question is why do you get angry when people question science. Why do you want to teach something that you are not sure is true?

Best explanation we've got! Has often times meant "We don't know what we're talking about so here's our best guess."

Years ago that's what religion was all about. Seems to me that science is turning into a religion when it comes to evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

See the hostility that comes out of questioning evolution? Its right there in all of your posts.

There was very little hostility just facts. Facts are the enemy of those who dismiss what they don't understand by saying "in my opinion".

Opinion counts for nothing, evidence counts for everything. Come back with evidence to back up your opinion and you will be taken seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat

Yes there was hostility. I am asking QUESTIONS and I'm told to go enroll in college and take courses?

That's the thing I experience with scientists.

Its as if when you ask a question the answer is

"Well I could explain it to you, but since you are so stupid that you had to ask the question in the first place, why bother."

Evidence.

Soft tissue found in dinosaur bones. Please explain to me how it is possible that it survived and is pliable after 68 million years.

To me it is ENTIRELY logical to assume that humans who are the ones who came up with the carbon dating numbers and as humans are prone to make mistakes, MIGHT BE WRONG.

But of course there will never be an answer to this question. Just hostility and anger and how dare I question the mighty scientists who know everything.

Edited by truethat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

Soft tissue found in dinosaur bones. Please explain to me how it is possible that it survived and is pliable after 68 million years.

Please explain wht it can't.

Incidentaly carbon dating can not be usd on objects 68 million years old.

You are right of course, scientists are ignorant and know nothing. This is why we have electricity, the computer you are using, aircraft, modern medicine, etc. The scientific method just doesn't work does it?

It is true that scientist make mistakes, that is the reason why, for a hypothesis to become accepted as theory, it needs to go through review by peers. Scientific metheod is self checking, it is not perfect but it ia a hell of a lot more reliable than those he say "in my opinion" and believe what they think must be the truth.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat

Why can't you simply answer the question? If its soooooooooooooo simple then why not simply answer the question.

Once again Hostility and no answers. Par for the course of asking a scientist to admit he or she might be wrong or that they DON'T KNOW.

How can it not? Well lets see just based on my layperson's knowledge I would suggest that oxygen decomposes the organism and that after a certain amount of time, unless the bone were preserved in some manner it would probably turn to almost rock.

And lets see more exaggeration thrown at me. I never stated scientists were stupid and don't know anything. Nice AVOID.

Because what I did say was that scientists get ANGRY if you question them and don't bother to answer your questions.

Gee kinda like you did.

As for peer review, uh ok so you suggest this as if the PEERS are not able to make mistakes. If you base one theory on another theory on another theory, peers are likely to make mistakes too. Stephen Hawkins recently had to admit he was wrong. He is considered a near demigod in the science community. Now if peer review were based on preconceived notions of what is true, then far from being an open exploration of the truth, you'd get instead a funneling down of only the theories that go along with the accepted theories of the time.

In the past Darwin wasn't fighting with laymen when he brough up Natural Selection, he was fighting with SCIENTISTS who wouldn't admit that they migh be wrong.

This is a tradition in the science community. Scorn and derision for questioning accepted theories.

Now please for the sake of argument explain how soft tissue inside a 68 million year old dinosaur bone would remain soft and pliable.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

Now please for the sake of argument explain how soft tissue inside a 68 million year old dinosaur bone would remain soft and pliable.

I'm not a paleontologist so I don't know. However I don't need to. YOU are the one presenting a new hypothesis so YOU have to show why YOU are right.

You claim the scientists are wrong but offer not one single piece of evidence to back up your opinion. As I have said when you can provide evidence that you are right I will take you seriously until then I will listen to those who study and present evidence to back up their claims (i.e. scientists) not those who think that all you need to be right is an opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

On doing a bit of further research it appears that your opinion is based on something which is not strictly true anyway. The soft material was not found in that condition. It had to be extracted from the mineralized fossils by a chemical process:

The researchers dissolved minerals from the fossil by soaking it in a series of slightly alkaline solutions. After a week, much of the remaining material was surprisingly soft and pliable, say the researchers. Many parts of the remains were translucent and fibrous, and they retained their elasticity after repeated cycles of dehydration and rehydration. Schweitzer and her colleagues report their findings in the March 25 Science.

Source: Science News

Dr Schweitzer is not making any grand claims that these soft traces are the degraded remnants of the original material - only that they give that appearance.

Source: BBC News - Science/Nature

So I ask again, how is this evidence that the fossils are not millions of years old?

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat

I see so you were arguing something you didn't really know anything about.

You did a google search and now think you know what you are talking about.

I didn't present a theory or an opinion. I asked a question.

Still no answer.

This is quite typical. Its what is done to anyone who questions a scientific theory on the grounds of common sense. Common sense tells me that when you find a bone with soft tissue in it (and I thought it was obvious that I was not referring to raw meat!) it would raise questions regarding the age of the bone.

To say, well now we need to prove how it could exist rather than questioning the theory, is to me how scientists typically respond to questions.

Again, scorn, hostility and anger and once again......no answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Startraveler
Stephen Hawkins recently had to admit he was wrong. He is considered a near demigod in the science community.

More by the nonscientific community, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

I see so you were arguing something you didn't really know anything about.

I admited I wasn't a paelontologist are you? Why do you have the right to claim scientists are wrong about a subject youdidn't really know anything aboutt but I do not have the right to say you must present evidence?

You did a google search and now think you know what you are talking about.

It's called research, it's the way you learn things.

Again, scorn, hostility and anger and once again......no answer.

The only scorn, hostillity and anger I see is coming from you. You critise scientists while clearly not understanding how science works.

I didn't present a theory or an opinion. I asked a question.

Really? Let's see shall we?

I am an atheist and I don't believe that humans evolved from Apes.

Opinion

One of the reasons for this is that we can't find one. The idea that we are supposed to have evolved from an ancestor that was able to spawn at least two entirely different creatures and yet we can't find ANY proof of their existance is very strange to me.

Opinion

Also the dinosaur bones. Recently they cracked open a few of these dinosaur bones and found soft tissue inside. That to me is proof that they aren't 68 million years old.

Opinion

Unless you find numerous bodies I don't see how any scientist worth their salt would suggest that it represents anything other than itself.

Opinion

Still no answer.

You had your answer, this was NOT soft tissue as such, it had to be extracted from the mineralised fossil and RESEMBLED soft tissue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

This is a tradition in the science community. Scorn and derision for questioning accepted theories.

Only when put forward by people with no evidence just opinions. It is questioning the standard theories that gain scientists a reputation. Why did HawkinG have to admit he was wrong... evidence. I say again evidence is everything opinion is nothing.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat

Not true. Throughout history Scientists have met with derision and scorn if they put forward theories that were "outside the box" Darwin himself had to fight the SCIENCE community. Not the laymen. Richard Owen was a scientist. One of many who scorned Darwin and his evidence. Something modern scientists try to push off on the church. Science fought many of the things that brought us the modern luxuries you spoke of earlier.

Science for example fought that the earth revolved around the sun. Not laymen. Science. If your community is made up of people who fight questions and fight new ideas even WITH PROOF. If they constantly redesign the paradigm of what meets the standard for science, then you will never get free thinkers.

And it was soft tissue. You are making this up as you go along. How can you possibly argue something you don't know anything about??

I ask a valid question. And your answer demonstrates quite clearly the problem I have with science.

You didn't really bother to consider the question. You are so affronted that I dared question science that you resort to insults and drama.

I return to the point of the thread.

Science by its very nature, although it claims otherwise history has shown quite clearly that science's nature is adherence to the status quo and only crossing the parameters with "permission", rejects free thinking.

Science is pushing the evolution theory in regards to the origins of man with no evidence. It is insisting that it be taught to school children at a young age in an effort to brain wash people to believe something without proof.

Smells like religion to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

Let's see, I see an armadillo killed on the side of the road one day and other than a little blood it looks OK, two days later it's a bloated stinking mess of spoiled goo. Come back several weeks later and it's this leather-hard piece of matter, but a piece of bone 65 million years old has material that can still be made pliable?

I think common sense says this is ridiculous! I think the majority of us have seen enough matter decay to have serious questions about this one.

But of course, I don't know what I'm talking about since I don't have a post graduate degree in dinosaur bone collecting.

You are right, true, unfortunately they are so busy looking down their nose at us they don't even realize they are being hostile and providing no answers

Edited by IamsSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilverCougar

Let's see, I see an armadillo killed on the side of the road one day and other than a little blood it looks OK, two days later it's a bloated stinking mess of spoiled goo. Come back several weeks later and it's this leather-hard piece of matter, but a piece of bone 65 million years old has material that can still be made pliable?

I think common sense says this is ridiculous! I think the majority of us have seen enough matter decay to have serious questions about this one.

But of course, I don't know what I'm talking about since I don't have a post graduate degree in dinosaur bone collecting.

You are right, true, unfortunately they are so busy looking down their nose at us they don't even realize they are being hostile and providing no answers

See, you're not getting the fact that said armadillo is being subjected to decay. That's why it won't last. However, with what they're finding, these bodies are preserved, or fossilized, through certain ways. Parts are turn to minerals... thus fossils. And now it seems that if the bones are preserved just right.. soft tissues are able to be preserved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat

l do believe that to some degree but 65 MILLION years? Come on?

Here's the article for those who are interested with pictures. BTW the scientist who they interviewed didn't say anything about having to treat the bones. She said they could "squeeze it out" so I'm not sure what that means.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

I return to the point of the thread

Science by its very nature, although it claims otherwise history has shown quite clearly that science's nature is adherence to the status quo and only crossing the parameters with "permission", rejects free thinking.

What was the profession of Darwin? Oh yes, he was a scientist. What happened? The evidence became so overwhelming that science accepted Darwin and the status quo was over turned. That is the way science works.

And it was soft tissue. You are making this up as you go along. How can you possibly argue something you don't know anything about??

I presented evidence which were quotes from articles on this discovery based on the paper written by the discoverer of this "soft material and links to those articles. You just state your opinion. I anm getting vary bored of saying this so I'll try one more time... where is the evidence to back up your opinions.

EDIT I started this reply before truethat provided his link.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GreyWeather

See, you're not getting the fact that said armadillo is being subjected to decay. That's why it won't last. However, with what they're finding, these bodies are preserved, or fossilized, through certain ways. Parts are turn to minerals... thus fossils. And now it seems that if the bones are preserved just right.. soft tissues are able to be preserved.

Exactly, IAMS fossilization happens when... actually in this case I think you'd understand better if I made an example. I'll try and keep it simple as I'm shattered.

When an animal die's near a river, and that river then floods, the river deposits silt and sand over the animal, this process is continuous and eventually forms a sedimentary rock. The animal matter than transforms into mineral and hardens leaving either an imprint in the rock or leaving the form of it's bone.

The fossils are not the actual bone, the "bone" we find of dinosaurs are mineral. This armadillo you found was not in the right environment to become a fossil. fossils are kinda hard to produce, hence we do not find dinosaur remains all over the place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

l do believe that to some degree but 65 MILLION years? Come on?

Again why? For you to be right it would not just have to be the paleontologists that were wrong but the geologists too. Much of the dating of fossils is done by understanding the geological processes that lay down the rock and soil strata.

You do not believe in these scientific theories, that is your right, but you present no evidence as to why you are right and the worlds scientific community are wrong. Then you get angry when people ask you to back up your claims. I do not understand you at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.