What does this mean for anti-evolutionists?

[alienmastermind]

Missing Link Found? (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090519-missing-link-found.html)

[Suave Peanut]

They would say that it's just a new species and that there is no evidence to prove an evolutionary link.

Except, you know, imagine that dumbed down to a second-grade level and add in some more anger.

[ShivaX]

Its a missing link between lemurs and primates.

I doubt this is going to prove much of anything to them.

[National Kato]

Hmm, it doesn't look like a crocoduck... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Az8k0uzQ6sA&feature=related)

[Johan]

"the closest thing we can get to a direct ancestor."

:d .

[TheEpicOfTyler]

They will continue to deny as we continue to poke holes in every argument they provide. Of course every new transitional fossil closes one hole and opens two more. :p

[BlackPete]

Didn't Captain Picard devolve into a lemur in one episode?

[Ravenlock]

What does this mean for anti-evolutionists?

Well, they're apparently not very happy with Google's attention to it (http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/8lwms/christians_find_todays_google_logo_disgusting_one/). ;)

[Kelegacy]

Well, they're apparently not very happy with Google's attention to it (http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/8lwms/christians_find_todays_google_logo_disgusting_one/). ;)

Hahah.

Ignorance. It's a disease.

[National Kato]

Ignorance. It's a disease.

It's also a virtue. (http://www.amazon.com/Idiot-America-Stupidity-Became-Virtue/dp/0767926145/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I199Y2W0MLXTCH&colid=F7110JVVS2KP) :D

[Chris_D]

I don't think scientific argument will ever change the thinking of anti-evolutionists. It would have to come down from the top, say from the Catholic church. I mean, the Bible was written a long time ago, based on the knowledge and thinking of that time. If it became more of a living document (even something like Wiki) I think it could be more relevant to us today.

The reaction to Googles logo is pretty funny :).

[Hemalin]

Didn't Captain Picard devolve into a lemur in one episode?
Not Picard but the rest of the Enterprise crew (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Genesis_%28episode%29)did devolve.

[Ox]

I don't think scientific argument will ever change the thinking of anti-evolutionists. It would have to come down from the top, say from the Catholic church.
If only we could somehow test this theory empirically...

[Narradisall]

Well, they're apparently not very happy with Google's attention to it (http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/8lwms/christians_find_todays_google_logo_disgusting_one/). ;)

The replies to that were gold.

[Voodoo]

I don't think scientific argument will ever change the thinking of anti-evolutionists. It would have to come down from the top, say from the Catholic church. I mean, the Bible was written a long time ago, based on the knowledge and thinking of that time. If it became more of a living document (even something like Wiki) I think it could be more relevant to us today.

What's the top of the Catholic church have to do with people that are anti-evolutionist and are not Catholic nor Christian? Or is it, simply, Catholics & Christians are the easiest to pick on when a situation like this rises?

Also, no holy person is going to ever change this person's (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mother-flees-with-son-to-elude-treatment-order-1688405.html) mind about evolution. God herself could bitch slap that person and they'd still attest that it is God's will.

[ClannerDelta]

I don't think scientific argument will ever change the thinking of anti-evolutionists. It would have to come down from the top, say from the Catholic church. I mean, the Bible was written a long time ago, based on the knowledge and thinking of that time. If it became more of a living document (even something like Wiki) I think it could be more relevant to us today.

Uh... I think the Pope already said Evolution was fine.

This (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961) seems to say that the Pope sees evolution as just God's way of doing things. That God and Evolution are not mutually exclusive.

[Shrinn]

The problem with saying that evolution and God aren't mutually exclusive is when evolution tries to prove man's origin and disagrees with the bible on that point.

[ClannerDelta]

The problem with saying that evolution and God aren't mutually exclusive is when evolution tries to prove man's origin and disagrees with the bible on that point.

And that's why you should avoid literal interpretations of religious texts in most cases.

[Ox]

Uh... I think the Pope already said Evolution was fine.
This was the point I and Voodoo were trying to make subtly. Evolutionists, for all their talk about evidence, rarely bother to look at the evidence of who does and does not disagree with them.

[Jason]

And this thing couldn't just be another species of monkey that died out instead of "the missing link"?

[Johan]

And this thing couldn't just be another species of monkey that died out instead of "the missing link"?

They already addressed that issue.

"the closest thing we can get to a direct ancestor."

Give 'em a break. They're really trying.

[Hemalin]

And this thing couldn't just be another species of monkey that died out instead of "the missing link"?
It is just a species of primate. It just happens to be from the time period around when the prosimian and anthropoid branches split. This fossil is the earliest transitional link between primitive primates and the anthropoid line.

[Chris_D]

What's the top of the Catholic church have to do with people that are anti-evolutionist and are not Catholic nor Christian? Or is it, simply, Catholics & Christians are the easiest to pick on when a situation like this rises?

Huh, your complaint is weird to me. Basically, I've never heard of an atheist anti-evolutionist. I mean maybe they do exist but I think that someone who believes in creationism must have some kind of belief in a higher power.

I said the pope because I'm sure most people on CoG, in the US, and in my home country, Australia, are Christian (although many may be protestant or another sect). I could also say the same about imams or rabbis.

Anyway, I agree that the bible shouldn't be taken literally, but at the same time there are many who do. Also, I always thought that the teachings of the bible are that the world is 6000 years old (rather than 4 billion years old). So while there will be splinter sects of various churches who couldn't care less about the Pope's directives, still there is an opportunity for him to provide leadership in these kinds of matters.

[Johan]

I always thought that the teachings of the bible are that the world is 6000 years old (rather than 4 billion years old)

People should probably leave the theological comments to those who actually have read the texts, and studied the varying interpretations, in question...or, if you have, you might perhaps re-read the portions pertaining to the above.

There is nothing in the Bible that says the world is 6,000 years old. There are genealogies, but they aren't complete, and there is hardly universal agreement within Christendom as to the age of the Earth based upon the Bible. That's really just silly.

Also, this is interesting. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html)

[J Arcane]

ITT: People who think the Protestant world gives a flying fuck about what the Pope says.

[Chris_D]

ITT: People who think the Protestant world gives a flying fuck about what the Pope says.

Never said that.


There is nothing in the Bible that says the world is 6,000 years old. There are genealogies, but they aren't complete, and there is hardly universal agreement within Christendom as to the age of the Earth based upon the Bible. That's really just silly.

It's just something I've seen expressed many times in the media by spokespeople for Christianity, usually in relation to a discussion of creationism versus evolution. Anyway, you're right, I have no interest in debating aspects of the bible. As a text it doesn't interest me particularly.

[Voodoo]

Huh, your complaint is weird to me. Basically, I've never heard of an atheist anti-evolutionist. I mean maybe they do exist but I think that someone who believes in creationism must have some kind of belief in a higher power.

I said the pope because I'm sure most people on CoG, in the US, and in my home country, Australia, are Christian (although many may be protestant or another sect). I could also say the same about imams or rabbis.

Anyway, I agree that the bible shouldn't be taken literally, but at the same time there are many who do. Also, I always thought that the teachings of the bible are that the world is 6000 years old (rather than 4 billion years old). So while there will be splinter sects of various churches who couldn't care less about the Pope's directives, still there is an opportunity for him to provide leadership in these kinds of matters.

An atheist anti-evolutionist? I don't recall presenting such a person, though I don't doubt at least 1 exists in this very complex world. Every single person I have met through this fairly short life has been an uniquely complex individual.

My point, and my only point, is that you made a decision to call down Catholics in particular. You may or may not be aware but there are many religions in the world beyond the Abrahamic ones that have a creationism style of belief system. I'd go so far as to say that there is probably a religion with a single member that believes that the entire universe was created by a baby frog named Lazzaloqu.

Regardless, there are those like myself, that believe that creationism, mutation and evolution can coexist without the necessity of a God or gods.

Now, regarding the Pope taking a leadership role. I would agree with what many others have said in that the Catholic church has recently been much more receptive to scientific findings. This isn't a case though that the Pope could wake up tomorrow and announce to the entire world that... well... that whole Genesis part... forget about it. Religions, especially one as large as the Catholics, can not make giants steps like this.

[ClannerDelta]

...there is probably a religion with a single member that believes that the entire universe was created by a baby frog named Lazzaloqu.

There is now.

[Chris_D]

I wasn't intending to call out Catholics in particular, and certainly not in a negative way. Sorry if it came across like that.

Like it or not, the Pope is the most reknowned religious figure in the world. Only the Dalai Lama comes close and that is more for historical reasons than religious ones. Even when the Pope visits non predominantly Catholic countries people are always very interested in what he has to say.

I agree with the point about not flipping the interpretation of the bible overnight. And progress is being made.

[J Arcane]

I wasn't intending to call out Catholics in particular, and certainly not in a negative way. Sorry if it came across like that.

Like it or not, the Pope is the most reknowned religious figure in the world. Only the Dalai Lama comes close and that is more for historical reasons than religious ones. Even when the Pope visits non predominantly Catholic countries people are always very interested in what he has to say.

I agree with the point about not flipping the interpretation of the bible overnight. And progress is being made.
And the point of my flippant response is that the Pope, and the Catholic Church in general, have already made the statements requested, and they matter not one bloody whit because the Christian Creationist movement is largely driven by Evangelical Protestants.

Also, I doubt they had much influence on the Hindus or the Muslims either.

[mister slim]

Hinduism and Islam are both fairly open to evolution, as their version of creation is fairly poetic and doesn't have much that can be construed as setting a specific date of creation. There are some sects of both that don't believe in evolution, but outside of specific cases like Turkey this hasn't really hardened into a war between evolution and religion in the way fundamentalist Christians see it.

[Vector]

This was the point I and Voodoo were trying to make subtly. Evolutionists, for all their talk about evidence, rarely bother to look at the evidence of who does and does not disagree with them.

Way to stereotype the millions of people who subscribe to the theory of evolution because of a couple of guys in a video game forum!!

You win this thread! ;)

[Chris_D]

I dunno if he was referring to me but my major was Computer Science. Neither Evolution nor Creationism were available as electives. So I guess if he defines an evolutionist as anyone who believes in the theory of evolution as taught in my school science classes, well then yes that would be me. If he means an evolutionist as a scientist who actively studies evolution or has deeply researched the topic.. well that sure as hell ain't me.

Hmm, maybe his point was too subtle for me to get.

[mister slim]

At least you're not being called an Evilutionist.

[muddi900]

Religion has never had any problem with Evolution it self. It was natural selection. But with time, everything has turned to crap.

[alienmastermind]

I think South Park said it well, actually: 'Maybe evolution isn't the answer to 'why' but 'how'.'

The means rather than the motive.

[Vector]

Religion has never had any problem with Evolution it self. It was natural selection. But with time, everything has turned to crap.

That's not even remotely true. You're making a blanket statement in regards to every religion. I knew a girl in HS whose religious beliefs precluded any acceptance of the theory of evolution. When asked about dinosaur bones, etc she said they were put here on earth by God to test man (or something along those lines).

Some do and some don't.