Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Missing Link Found?

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia (AP) -- Scientists in northeastern Ethiopia said Saturday that they have discovered the skull of a small human ancestor that could be a missing link between the extinct Homo erectus and modern man.

The hominid cranium -- found in two pieces and believed to be between 250,000 and 500,000 years old -- "comes from a very significant period and is very close to the appearance of the anatomically modern human," said Sileshi Semaw, director of the Gona Paleoanthropological Research Project in Ethiopia.

Archaeologists found the early human cranium five weeks ago at Gawis in Ethiopia's northeastern Afar region, Sileshi said.

Sileshi, an Ethiopian paleoanthropologist based at Indiana University, said most fossil hominids are found in pieces but the near-complete skull -- a rare find -- provided a wealth of information.

For more:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/03/25/missing.link.ap/index.html

This may not be the so-called missing link. But it does point out that every year new finds diminish the places between the knowledge where an invisible purple rhinoceros can hide.

Excellent find DA.

Another nail in the creationist coffin, not that another is needed. It's like a twitching corpse at a nail gun factory as it is.

Mind you I don't care for the term 'missing link' as it simply re-defines itself after every find of a 'new link'.

PS... Yes I said I'd be back, BN.

Great! You do realize that whenever a "missing link" is found, two more missing links must be found on either side of the newly found one!

These paleontologists just don't know when to quit.

True. But if reduces the shadows in which deities can hide.

If a diety was dependent on the creationists being correct you would be right.

Easy.

I also said..."Learn to think straight before you post your value-added interpretation of the facts".

But Rusty chose to SNIP. Mr Morgan has often accused people of not being able to think straight, but it's always left to stand. Let me point out the same. In his headlong rush to rubbish a diety's existence he had lost the ability to stay detached. AND YOU THINK THIS ISN'T WORTH POINTING OUT. And you let this post stand in science when he has an agenda. Move it to origins with the rest of the quackery.

Easy.

If the deity exists and doesn't want to be rubbished it can stop me can't it.

The fact that I am healthy, happy, and doing this leads to only one of three possible conclusions.

1. The deity is not displeased by my actions.
2. The deity does not exist.
3. The deity is mad as hell but powerless.

I can't imagine that any deity needs the likes of this bunch of sinners to complain on its behalf. The hypocrisy of such a point-of-view overwhelms all rational thought processes.

Option 4. The deity hears you, is displeased, but acts with mercy.

Option 5. The deity is mad as hell, but will call you to account eventually.

Option 6. The deity hears you, isn't that offended but is more bothered about your general rejection of it.

It's telling that you think your logic captured it all...and your bias constrains you from recognising other logical options. Whatever, the point was I was calling your thinking on the fact that a deity's existence rests upon creationism being true. As per usual you fail to respond and go of at a tangent. I have pulled you up on your misdirection before, to no effect. I have no problem with you rubbishing any deity you like, line them up and shoot them down...just don't do it by subterfuge or by crooked (or intellectually dishonest) discourse.

Easy.

Option 4: I desire no mercy, I am no hypocrite, and if the deity ever should meet me I would immediately demand it surrender in the Hague to the War Crimes Tribunal for crimes against humanity.

Article 1: Creation of smallpox
Article 2: Creation of malaria
Article 3: Creation of polio
this list is rather long.

Option 5: Possible but there is zero evidence that this has ever been the case. The deity's personal diary demonstrates a complete lack of patience.

Option 6: An deity can not be bothered by rejection ... or it is not a deity by any definition.

But I commend you your creativity. They are, in fact, options I had not included. But as long as we are stretching things lets go all the way:

7. The deity is on vacation.
8. The deity is heavily sedated.

Here's where all of your options fall flat in my estimation.

If one reads the deity's own chronicle of its actions it demonstrates no patience (Ask Eve about that little incident with the snake). It demonstrates no mercy (ask all the newborn children about that nasty flood and the 7 plagues). It shows zero mercy for those who reject it (ask those that wandered 40 years in the desert).

If the deity has changed its behaviour in the last several thousand years I can only assume that it has done so because it recognizes that before that time it acting inappropriately.

Now about smallpox, malaria, polio, and leukemia. Does the deity hear the pain and tears of those afflicted by the disease the deity created? Perhaps it does and we should apply one of your rationals. Certainly not 4 ... suffering is not mercy. 5 ... well in another year or two, when it gets around to it, it will kill them. 6 ... apparently isn't offended by the murder of innocent children either.

And this belongs in a science forum?

Impressively insightful.. Hey Morgan come on post some of the papers and reports you said you have done.. I see you ragging God, as if you have some awe inspiring benovalence that no one else seems to have.. it must be hard on you being up on the mount all by yourself trying to enlighten us idiots.. I see lots of OPINIONS from you.. but not much in the way of facts.. you post rambles on about the failings of God, then you add, And this belongs in a science forum? you tell me its your reply? and remember enlighten us with some of your writings, I really am looking forward to reading them.

God, Religion are both foundations of most peoples faith, to sit around and act like you can change their minds by your words of devine wisdom is silly.. why would you even want to? lol, people dont lose or gain their faith on what one man armed with nothing more than negative opinions.. so knowing this, and most of us do.. maybe you can enlighten me.. and tell me what you are trying to prove? EVER HEARD OF Kurt Godel?? thought not..WAIT.. I know Godels work is PRE personal PC.. there for invalid correct?

Archer asks:
"Hey Morgan come on post some of the papers and reports you said you have done."

No. You want to read them go to the library and spend some time with Chem. Abs. You want a hint to make it easier ... Ok.

Chlormadinone Acetate and Fluocinolone Acetonide

Archer wrote:
"I see you ragging God"

Get real. How can one rag that which does not exist? I am ragging those incapable of applying critical thinking skills to an essentially Boolean problem.

Archer wrote:
"God, Religion are both foundations of most peoples faith, to sit around and act like you can change their minds by your words of devine wisdom is silly."

You are correct. I can not change the mind of those that have been brainwashed. What I can do, however, is demonstrate to those whose minds are still open, that there are adults out here who are not willing to surrender our minds to the borg.

You might be amazed to know that I receive private emails from people at SAGG. Some that post and some that are lurkers. And they make this all worthwhile.