"Scientists" found the Missing Link

[SPEC]

Actually mate if you read the article right through it tells you a bit more.

The pic on the left is Spec after a night out on th ebooze... and the one on the right is Bug.. well, just Bug actually, no booze involved. Which means thats as good as he's ever gonna look. Isnt that sad.......

I RESEMBLE THAT REMARK
But i think that it's Artie's uncle Chimpanzee
Missing link,god and we walked on the moon...
The checks in the mail...I'll call you ...I promise I won't come in your mouth....
All about the same in my opinion

[Engineer]

LOL.... You don't believe we went to the moon Spec?  Vast NASA wing conspiracy eh?

[SPEC]

Not a chance in HELL
Fooken Space shuttle with all that isulating/ceramic coating...VS. tin foil, and a parachute on the landing capsual... :-[
If we had been there, there would be evidence...seen by all who have a telescope...tracks, moon junk, the flag...
For crying out loud...They can barely maintain the space station...wouldn't it be much easier to put that on the moon with a landing strip for the shuttle?
That's one of my pet peeves...
Scare the shit out of someone and steal them blind...
That's what they did with the cold war and the space race
SCARED FOOKERS WILL DIG REALLY DEEP IN THEIR POCKETS TO FEEL SECURE AGAIN

[Engineer]

Not a chance in HELL
Fooken Space shuttle with all that isulating/ceramic coating...VS. tin foil, and a parachute on the landing capsual... :-[

    Yah the moon lander seems a bit iffy! 

If we had been there, there would be evidence...seen by all who have a telescope...tracks, moon junk, the flag...

Have you ever looked at the moon with a Telescope?  It is 238,800 miles away.  How many power is a good telescope? 100?  I have a rifle with a 20 power scope.  I can see stuff at 1 mile pretty well but 10 miles...  No detail.  If I could see something at 10 miles with 20 power, how much power would it take to see the tracks on the moon at 238,800 miles?  477,000 power.  :P  They don't make them that big my friend.    The lens would have to be a mile across.

For crying out loud...They can barely maintain the space station...wouldn't it be much easier to put that on the moon with a landing strip for the shuttle?

The International space station orbits at roughly 200 miles off the earths surface.  The shuttle does not have to achieve full escape velocity to get there, so it takes much less fuel.  To reach the moon you would need more fuel to reach escape velocity, plus fuel to get you the 238,000 miles to the moon, plus the fuel to land, (there is no atmosphere to glide in on), plus the fuel to get off the moon, and make the trip back to earth.  That is why the lunar rockets kept leaving parts behind, less mass to push at each stage.

That's one of my pet peeves...
Scare the shit out of someone and steal them blind...
That's what they did with the cold war and the space race
SCARED FOOKERS WILL DIG REALLY DEEP IN THEIR POCKETS TO FEEL SECURE AGAIN

With this I must agree! 

[Carlriddle]

Where did all the Apollo missions go then?   Very odd no one has been back in 50 years of space travel.

I need to scare somebody in charge, its time for another raise and this time not in my office chair.

[T8erhead]

"I think that everyone's belief's and opinions come from their experiences.  No two people have  lived the same life so the circumstances that make up my beliefs are going to be different than yours."

This is 100% true.

"So does that make whats right different for everyone?  I dunno, that seems like a slippery slope."

It may be a slippery slope, but I think I can answer it....YES!  To some people, going to church and paying tithing is right.  To others, mutilating their bodies with tattoos, piercings, implants, ceramic plates, or other things is right.  Human sacrifice and canabalism has been right in many civilizations.  Polygamy is right to more historical civilizations than not.  Circumcision of males or females is right to others.  While I can vouch for what I believe to be right, I cannot judge someone else for what they believe.  Only induividuals can decide what is right for them.  They make decisions knowing the society they live in and the possible consequences of their actions.

I could go on but I think you get my point.  And no, I have not studied psycology.  I'm an engineering school drop out with a desire to know.  I like to read about things that interest me, and human behavior is one of those things.  And I think I may go back to school in the fall so I may get more dangerous in the future.

[Engineer]

It may be a slippery slope, but I think I can answer it....YES!  To some people, going to church and paying tithing is right.  To others, mutilating their bodies with tattoos, piercings, implants, ceramic plates, or other things is right.  Human sacrifice and canabalism has been right in many civilizations.  Polygamy is right to more historical civilizations than not.  Circumcision of males or females is right to others.  While I can vouch for what I believe to be right, I cannot judge someone else for what they believe.  Only induividuals can decide what is right for them.  They make decisions knowing the society they live in and the possible consequences of their actions.

I agree!

This denies the existence of anything greater than ourselves.  It defines man as god.  That is your choice to make.  I believe that there is a higher power.  I think that his fingerprints are all over the world around us, if we choose to look.

I could go on but I think you get my point.  And no, I have not studied psycology.  I'm an engineering school drop out with a desire to know.  I like to read about things that interest me, and human behavior is one of those things.  And I think I may go back to school in the fall so I may get more dangerous in the future.

I get your point.

I agree, exploration makes life so much more interesting.



Feel free to rant away......  It's no fun if everything ends with IMO.

[T8erhead]

"This denies the existence of anything greater than ourselves.  It defines man as god." 

I disagree with the above statement.  It doesn't deny the existence of anything.   I do believe in many things greater than myself.  Consciousness(in the astrophysical sense), reality, spirituality, even an entity of power and knowledge that defies explanation.  I don't believe that I look like that entity, but that is another story.

It does however place responsibility on the individual to do what is right.  This is scary stuff for many in our highly litigious society where a drunk driver on trial for killing an innocent bystander, can shrug responsibility to someone else for their indescretion.  "I wasn't drunk I was overserved."  Has been uttered in way too many courtrooms IMO.  The fact that a defense like that can stand up to the scrutiny of a judge leads me to believe that we can't legislate morality, whether it has to do with abortion, alcohol or drugs, abstinance vs. education, creationism vs evolution.  It is up to us.

I don't know where this is going but the fact that the definition of science had to be rewritten in order to include creationism in the curiculum, makes me weary of it as a legitimate "science".  The Kansas School board did just that and if you care to look it up please do so.  By the new defintion, the creation theory of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is as scientific as or even more so than traditional creationism and deserves as much attention in the classroom.  Along side the also "scientific" evolution theory of course. 

I am not against the teaching of creationism, just do it in seminary or theology classes.  Teach kids what the scientific community believes in science.  We don't let the Music teacher come into math class with a musical scale, and let him\her tell the kids that "based on this scale, 2+2=5."  Especially when the music industry has a vested interest in kids dropping out of school to become rock stars.

[SPEC]

I was couch bound for that show...
I watched as much as I could stomach...It's not a lemur and it's not really a monkey either...So is it the missing link....
I dunno and don't care...
It sure was alot of hype, and the fooken show should have been 12 minutes not an hour and a half of repeating the same shit over and over again....
My mother is a head shrinker...Yes I have a mother... She was doing her PHD when I was in hi school...I giggle at most of the debates cuz the human psyche is such a funny thing to me...But I am a fan of Nature or nurture debates

[artie on edge]

I was couch bound for that show...
I watched as much as I could stomach...It's not a lemur and it's not really a monkey either...So is it the missing link....
I dunno and don't care...
It sure was alot of hype, and the fooken show should have been 12 minutes not an hour and a half of repeating the same shit over and over again....
My mother is a head shrinker...Yes I have a mother... She was doing her PHD when I was in hi school...I giggle at most of the debates cuz the human psyche is such a funny thing to me...But I am a fan of Nature or nurture debates

Ok dude I have some home work for ya.

Martin Bryant and Port Arthur, Tasmania. Google that and give me your opinion on nature vs nurture re: his behaviour...pls?

 

[Engineer]

"This denies the existence of anything greater than ourselves.  It defines man as god." 

I disagree with the above statement.  It doesn't deny the existence of anything.   I do believe in many things greater than myself.  Consciousness(in the astrophysical sense), reality, spirituality, even an entity of power and knowledge that defies explanation.  I don't believe that I look like that entity, but that is another story.

It does however place responsibility on the individual to do what is right.  This is scary stuff for many in our highly litigious society where a drunk driver on trial for killing an innocent bystander, can shrug responsibility to someone else for their indescretion.  "I wasn't drunk I was overserved."  Has been uttered in way too many courtrooms IMO.  The fact that a defense like that can stand up to the scrutiny of a judge leads me to believe that we can't legislate morality, whether it has to do with abortion, alcohol or drugs, abstinance vs. education, creationism vs evolution.  It is up to us.

Yep!    I Fubared that statement.  How about this.

It denies responsibility to anyone greater than ourselves.  So in affect we are god and answer only to ourselves.

I don't know where this is going but the fact that the definition of science had to be rewritten in order to include creationism in the curiculum, makes me weary of it as a legitimate "science".  The Kansas School board did just that and if you care to look it up please do so.  By the new defintion, the creation theory of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is as scientific as or even more so than traditional creationism and deserves as much attention in the classroom.  Along side the also "scientific" evolution theory of course. 

I am not against the teaching of creationism, just do it in seminary or theology classes.  Teach kids what the scientific community believes in science.  We don't let the Music teacher come into math class with a musical scale, and let him\her tell the kids that "based on this scale, 2+2=5."  Especially when the music industry has a vested interest in kids dropping out of school to become rock stars.

My friend, you have been watching to much news.  You obviously don't have first hand knowledge of what the Kansas school board has done.

I have been following the debate for 10 years, and have invested my money in many of the races, and have sat on committees related to the school board decisions.

Creationism has NEVER been put into any science standards as it should not be.  It has never even been suggested.  What is at debate is whether or not evolution should be taught as a fact.  The last go round was mainly over one word.  "Natural"  The Evolutionists want to define science as looking for a natural explanation for the world around us.  This excludes the possibility of anything supernatural.

As we both know, there is no coherent natural explanation for the beginning of the universe, or the beginning of life from non-life.  It really doesn't have anything to do with evolution.  It is more based on teaching the religion of "Naturalism" versus any other possible explanation for the universe we live in.

When the liberals were in charge of the board, they rewrote the science standards to be the most progressively evolutionary of any state in the country.  The standards demanded evolution to be taught as absolute fact and that there should be no critical thinking involved.

At no time were any standards brought before the committee that suggested that Creationism should be taught.  What was suggested was that criticism of evolution should be allowed, and that the kids should be taught to think critically about both sides of the issue.

Now I know that the media reported it as though we were going to throw out all the textbooks and replace them with the Bible, but nothing could be further from the truth.

You wonder why I have a chip on my shoulder, and start this thread critical of the media, and how they spin stories, and tell lies.....  There is the answer.

What is really disappointing is that critical thinkers have bought into the lies.  It is not there fault.  All they have been fed is lies.

If your interested in the Kansas science standards, I will look up some websites that have each of the science standards posted as they changed through the years.  If you read them then compare to what you were told in the media, "Dumming down Kansas" "Setting Kansas back 100 years" "Kansas kids won't be able to get scientific jobs", you will think twice about believing anything you hear or read again.

Rant over.....
Carry on.

[T8erhead]

Well I have studied both the THEORY of evolution, and also the IDEA of creationism.  Not extensively but enough to satisfy my curiosity.  I put emphasis on the caps words, because that is how they have been presented to me.  At no time has anyone ever tried to convince me that evolution is fact.  Not in school, not in that Origin book, not anywhere.  In fact, I can't really recall too many instances when the word evolution, wasn't preceeded by the words "theory of".  Unless it is in a context which we are not currently speaking of.  Like the evolution of the definition of science.  I can read between the lines and see that many people preaching either one indeed conclude them to be fact.  But looking back into the (written) history of man, it is full of ideas and theories that were thought to be true that were indeed not.  Our theories have evolved or been replaced by newer ones that more clearly explain certain natural phenomena.  On the other hand, what evidence short of GOD himself coming down and explaining reality to us could change the creationist stand?

As for news watching, yeah I don't do too much of that.  Haven't had cable for over 10 years so I get to chose between Fox and NBC.  Fox is great to find out who got eliminated from American Idol but beyond that, is gets pretty iffy.  You may here about the new donut shop on the corner and that is the real value.  NBC doesn't make me laugh nearly as hard, so I avoid it.  I tend to go straight for the source (journals & books authored by those involved in the issue), which obviously can have and usually does have bias but not nearly as much as the outlets that feed the spun crap to the masses.  Most people don't have the time or energy to do that so I don't hate on them for taking what they are fed.  Of course I don't have time or energy to go for the source on everything, but the ones I have interest in, I spend time rooting around.  And not just on the side of the debate I currently support.  Which has been known to change.  If you have any suggested reading I am open to it.  I will also be looking into your above statements to get a better idea of your perspective.  It could take a little while cuz I'm a busy boy.

What exactly is your take on the difference between natural explanations to phenomena and logical explanations? 

[Engineer]

What exactly is your take on the difference between natural explanations to phenomena and logical explanations? 

Is that a trick question?  Like the difference between science and religion?   

Seriousely, I will answer, but my ISP just ate my 6 paragraph reply and I don't have time to rewrite right now.  :-\

[trojan]

What's sooooo horrible about the concept that modern man evolved from a common ancestor with apes?

Why do creationists [et al] continue with the implication that what they are doing is science but wont accept the outcomes from scientific method? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

What credible productive reason is there for a regional school board to dictate curriculum?

[SPEC]

What's sooooo horrible about the concept that modern man evolved from a common ancestor with apes?

Why do creationists [et al] continue with the implication that what they are doing is science but wont accept the outcomes from scientific method? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

What credible productive reason is there for a regional school board to dictate curriculum?

cuz theyd loose they're funding?