backtop


Print 110 comment(s) - last by Steve1981.. on Sep 23 at 8:42 PM


Scientists have discovered a tiny T-Rex ancestor with identical body proportions, but a body mass approximately 1/90th of that of an adult T-Rex. The newly discovered beast was approximately the size of an adult human.  (Source: Paul Marshall)

The skeleton came form an illegal dig in Mongolia. Professor Sereno, who co-discovered the beast, is shown here examining the skeleton. He and some others believe the dinosaur to be a carnivore, but veteran researcher Jack Horner believes that it is a scavenger.  (Source: Mike Hettwer)
A favorite in the dinosaur world had tiny, but deadly ancestors

The Tyrannosaurus Rex is arguably the most iconic symbol in paleontology and the study of dinosaurs.  Its gaping jaws; massive hind legs; stocky, sweeping tail; and tiny arms form a distinct image that captures the imagination of many, particularly children just becoming interested in the field.  Thus it is a major breakthrough that a species that is either a T. Rex ancestor or closely-related co-descendant has been discovered.

A perennial criticism of evolutionary theory is so-called "missing links" lack of ancestor species, or older species recently diverged from an ancestor.  Researchers have been able to eliminate some of that skepticism with the discovery of a human-sized miniature tyrannosaurid.

The beast was excavated in an illegal dig in Mongolia and sold to a private collector.  That collector had paleontologist Paul Sereno evaluate the remains and then agreed to donate the fossil to science, with the intent that it eventually be returned to China.  Professor Sereno has published a paper on the creature in the journal Science.

The dinosaur brings significant surprises.  Scientists long thought that the T. Rex's giant proportions were the result of a sharp divergence and were not present in earlier tyrannosaurid.  However, the new species, Raptorex kriegsteini shared the same bizarre proportions its descendant, albeit in a much smaller body.  This finding shakes of the traditional assumptions about the T. Rex and its evolution, and show just how much remains to be discovered in the field of paleontology.

Stephen Brusatte, a paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, who co-authored a paper states, "The most interesting and important thing about this new fossil is that it is completely unexpected.  As we learn more and more about dinosaurs and the evolution of life over time, it’s harder and harder to find fossils like this that throw us for a curve."

Scientists determined that the dinosaur was an adolescent by looking at its level of bone fusion.  Certain bones  tended to fuse or merge over the life span of dinosaurs, providing an important indicator of age. Raptorex’s pelvic girdle was completely fused and its scapula and shoulder blade were nearly so, showing that it is a full grown adult.

Thomas Holtz, a paleontologist at the University of Maryland, not involved with the research, lauds the discovery, stating, "To most people in dinosaur paleontology, we’d regard it as significant because it helps us more completely understand the origin of the classic tyrant dinosaurs and how they became what they were.  When Raptorex was around, the ancestors of Triceratops are similarly very small, but the ancestors of Triceratops don’t have their horns or frills yet. They are not down on all fours and so forth.  It’s almost like finding a tiny Triceratops at this stage that is four-on-the-floor with the big horns and the big frills."

The T. Rex is 90 times larger than its recently discovered predecessor in body mass.  The fact that its body design was able to scale so well is incredible and rather unique states Professor Sereno.

While some may hope to see the new beast in a future Jurassic Park sequel, for paleontologists, it's reviving a perennial debate over the T. Rex.  The dinosaur had speed features, which now appear to be vestigial remnants of those of its smaller ancestor.  Were those features meant for hunting?  Some don't believe that.  Jack Horner, a paleontologist at the Museum of the Rockie argues that both beasts were scavengers, stating in an email to Wired.com,  "It is interesting that the authors imply that it was a predator on account of its small size, as though scavenging was only possible for large tyrannosaurids.  I think their evidence clearly supports an hypothesis that tyrannosaurids were small scavengers early on in their evolution."

Professor Holtz disagrees, stating, "No carnivore passes up a free meal, [but Raptorex] was a well built little animal for running fast and catching small dinosaurs."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Missing link? bah...
By retrospooty on 9/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: Missing link? bah...
By roostitup on 9/20/2009 2:51:45 PM , Rating: 5
I'm sorry, but the time line of human evolution from ape to man is not PROVEN or decided on yet and there are many fossils that may or may not be of human descent. We absolutely DO NOT have fossils that cover every step of the way and the scientific community still argue about which fossils go where and if they are actually our ancestors. There are MANY offshoots in human evolution that they are not sure even existed or may be a completely different species of hominid that went extinct. Sure they have a very good idea of how we evolved, but even scientists still argue about the time line of human evolution and which fossils are and are not actually part of our evolutionary history. I don't disagree with you about human evolution and evolution in general, but you really need to take a class on human evolution before spouting this false information.


RE: Missing link? bah...
By retrospooty on 9/20/2009 3:08:54 PM , Rating: 5
I agree with everything you said about evolution, you are 100% correct. The only thing I don't agree with is your assumption that I dont know about it and attitude. The exact specifics are not a part of my post, nor is a timeline and I dont know what made you assume that. My point is that evolution is proven and if a person is looking for a missing link, they are completely ignorant of how evolution works. Read what I said again and try not to be so pedantic this time.

"we have fossils that cover every step of the way from Ape to man."

This is true. I didn't say all of the pieces are put together and agreed upon as proven exactly which line we came from and when... but we DO know that we came from one of them, and others are extinct. We don't even know for sure if Neanderthal was killed off by modern humans, went extinct on their own or if they just interbred with us until they were no longer a distinct race.

There are many splinters and extinct branches and some debate as to exactly which one we descended from.


RE: Missing link? bah...
By cocoviper on 9/20/2009 3:54:37 PM , Rating: 1
It sounds like you're saying 99% of macro-evolutionary theory is known, established, and proven and what is debatable is incredibly minor. This is not the case. The truth is there are far too many issues to bring up here but some of them are:

1- The fact that the third law of thermodynamics (entropy) makes evolution impossible- i.e. that systems naturally tend to progress towards disorder vs. order. If macro-evolution is true every system in nature is becoming increasingly ordered, this is contrary to the rest of the observed universe.

2- Much of macro-evolution's species jumps (i.e. trait changes that create an entirely new species vs. a simple variant both under the same species) is based on mutation. The problem is every single observed mutation has resulted in a destructive result to the organism. Either they become weaker, or sterile, or sick, etc. There has never been an observed example of a constructive mutation. If macro-evolution were the basis for life's progression on Earth there should be an abundance of examples.

3- On missing links, you are misinformed. When Darwin originally postulated his theory he assumed that over time increasing number of missing links i.e. transitional relatives would be found. Unfortunately for macro-evolution the opposite has occurred; the majority of all new species discoveries are by far not transitional, but islands to themselves. That is we are finding more and more unknown species that not only do not fill existing transitional gaps, they instead are off by themselves with new gaps of their own.

I don't doubt you are very intelligent, but the problem is many basic texts on the subject of macro-evolution start with a number of givens (i.e. assumptions that gloss over the above items in addition to others) and without detailed research you would never know this.


RE: Missing link? bah...
By retrospooty on 9/20/2009 4:08:39 PM , Rating: 5
Umm... I am not sure what your point is, but let me just reply to your numbered items.

1. Totally irrelevant and incorrect. evolution down not tend toward disorder. In general the strong survive, in many cases the lucky survive, but entropy in thermodynamics is not in any way relevant to evolution.

2. Again, your assumption is totally false. All observed evolutions are not destructive. I will give you two examples. Bacteria becoming immune to penicillin variants. How is that destructive to the bacteria. The strains that are more resistant to penecillin are the ones to survive and breed in higher numbers - over time these resistant bacterias are more prevalent and penicillin is less effective. Bacteria is evolving in a way that is non-destructive to itself. The other is humans - we know that skin color is a direct result of sunlight and the body balancing blocking UV rays that destroy vitamin D in our blood. In short the difference in skin color between Africans and Norwegians is essentially because of vitamin D

3. Again irrelevent, Darwin was 150 years ago - he didnt have the whole picture, much of which has been filled in since his lifetime. Helloooooo


RE: Missing link? bah...
By retrospooty on 9/20/2009 4:12:26 PM , Rating: 4
/edit - #3 I meant to add that Darwin was fully aware that he didnt have the whole picture and he openly and honestly stated that in his origin of species book. Since his death science has filled in many many missing links in many animal families including the human family tree.


RE: Missing link? bah...
By lycium on 9/20/2009 5:07:49 PM , Rating: 5
wow, i'm so glad i read anandtech/dt, after many years of arguing by some of the brightest folks on earth, you guys are gonna sort out the whole evolution debate right here! :D


RE: Missing link? bah...
By Voyager3084 on 9/20/2009 4:28:47 PM , Rating: 3
1. Thermodynamics doesn't make evolution impossible; instead, it's one of the driving forces of evolution.

quote:
Much of macro-evolution's species jumps... is based on mutation


The mutation is driven by entropy manifesting as random errors in dna/rna replication. It happens that mutations that aren't beneficial either abort the fetus or make reproduction difficult. Mutations that are beneficial, however, reproduce and over time are made strong and distinct.

2.
quote:
There has never been an observed example of a constructive mutation


What about antibiotic resistant bacteria? Pretty constructive for them.

3. Look at the variation in humans today alone. If a meteor or nuclear holocaust wipes out humanity, some future sentient species might even consider the full range of humans to be comprised of distinct species. Especially after of eons of decay, erosive forces, etc. I'd argue that we just need a bigger data set to find transitional relatives, and that our abilities to discern features that small aren't sufficiently adequate yet


RE: Missing link? bah...
By William Gaatjes on 9/20/2009 5:24:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Mutations that are beneficial, however, reproduce and over time are made strong and distinct.


That does not have to be the case in every mutation scenario. Every mutation that is not immediately a threat to the health will be carried on. If it is beneficial or not. For example the mutation that protects against malaria but can cause sickle-cell anaemia when both parents have the mutated gene. Another example is cystic fibrosis and cholera. A third example is the CCR5 mutation that as it seems protected people in europe from the plague in the middleages 14 to 19 century. This same mutation also seems to protect against at least some hiv strains.

About the CCR5 gene :

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/previous_seasons/c...

quote:
What about antibiotic resistant bacteria? Pretty constructive for them.


A far more simple organism where a beneficial mutation wins because of sheer numbers and chance. Compare the amount of bacteria that die before a lucky surviver arises.
And even then it may be the case of horizontal gene swapping between different species, creating an entire new one. It has even been researched that a lot of viruses are responsible for horizontal gene swapping. Vertical gene swapping is done by use of reproduction.

Our immune system needs days and even weeks to find a proper antibody for every pathogen out there. Because our immune systems also relies on natures way of chance and numbers. Since man is actively helping the human immune system our chance of surviving diseases has increased significantly. The faster you can mutate, the bigger the chance you can survive. But the faster you mutate, the more energy you need. And for complex organisms there are also dependencies. You cannot just grow an extra pair of arms or legs without also modifying the entire bone and muscle architecture of our bodies. Or you will become seriously disabled if you are that unlucky.

quote:
3. Look at the variation in humans today alone. If a meteor or nuclear holocaust wipes out humanity, some future sentient species might even consider the full range of humans to be comprised of distinct species. Especially after of eons of decay, erosive forces, etc. I'd argue that we just need a bigger data set to find transitional relatives, and that our abilities to discern features that small aren't sufficiently adequate yet


We are all way to similar for such a bold statement.
Especially when looking at bone structures only.

You need the bone structure of a gorilla compared to a human to make such a distinction. But Caucasian or asian or negroid people are all the same. The only difference are cultural differences and feeding habbits.



RE: Missing link? bah...
By William Gaatjes on 9/20/2009 5:32:09 PM , Rating: 2
Forgot to mention that the disease small pocks was possible even more responsible for the pushing of the mutated ccr5 gene :

http://www.wellsphere.com/hiv-aids-article/selecti...


RE: Missing link? bah...
By Keeir on 9/21/2009 3:35:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We are all way to similar for such a bold statement.
Especially when looking at bone structures only.


Sorry, this is simply not true. Every population has distinct mutations/genes that affect bone structure. One of the things that people look at when digging up old english burial sites for example is the feet. Celtic, Saxons, and Romans all have different feet structure (mostly in the shape of the toes). Yes over time these differences disappeared through intermarriage...

Today, a complete set of bones will indicate fairly clearly a person's race. Skull structure alone is usually enough even for quick visual determination.


RE: Missing link? bah...
By William Gaatjes on 9/21/2009 6:40:46 AM , Rating: 2
You are right, i forgot about the mild form of inbreeding that always happens with every population no matter how large and accumulated over time. Isolated populations do indeed get distinctive characteristics. I ones saw a picture of the difference in humans of the continent of Africa from around 1800 - 1900. The features are very distinct, when looking from every wind direction. I always thought that soft tissue changes are more responsible for characteristics. I can imagine however that the diet of an isolated species determines their bone structure as well as do genetic family features.

You really are what you eat...


RE: Missing link? bah...
By headbox on 9/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: Missing link? bah...
By ImSpartacus on 9/21/2009 12:40:38 AM , Rating: 1
The Earth is 7000 years old and it was a purple elephant.


RE: Missing link? bah...
By spwrozek on 9/21/2009 10:36:47 AM , Rating: 3
Where in the bible does it claim the earth is 6,000 years old? You can be religious without being blind to the fact that earth is billions of years old and we are seeing stars (light) that has been traveling for billions(trillions?) of years to get to earth. Your statement is as blatantly idiotic as his are.


RE: Missing link? bah...
By Gzus666 on 9/21/2009 10:52:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where in the bible does it claim the earth is 6,000 years old?


Never directly claims it, it was a time line shown from studies done by theologians and historians. Evidence found through science made them have to back step that insanity, so now everyone pretends the creation story means long periods of time with no real reason other than to try to fit our actual understanding of the world. The book is no more trustworthy than a Dr. Suess book or a book on Bigfoot, all of which have equal evidence (granted I would almost say Bigfoot has more, cause they have eyewitness accounts and foot prints rather than hearsay). I hate how people will accept things in a book without any supporting evidence, even going so far as to use other eyewitness accounts from the same book to prove the book. I think I should write books that prove themselves in the book just to see how that works out.

I'm pretty sure Zeus and the other Roman or Greek gods have plenty of books and stories about them, yet no one believes in the crap anymore, I wonder why...

Insanity knows no bounds and sheepish people are just that, sheepish. I could easily say that fairies cause gravity and there would be little that could be said to the contrary since no one really understands gravity yet, but would that really make you feel better?


RE: Missing link? bah...
By Xietsu on 9/22/2009 3:48:26 AM , Rating: 3
Faith in true, impeccable love, the Word of God, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, purveyor of the principles of the Father, the one true Abba - this - no amount of faith in the self can match. To serve his own self righteous suppositions - proposing scripture to be comparable to short stories for shallow joys, or that it's purpose is to be tailored to man's "understanding of the world" - he speaks only of superficial scorn, faith and trust in himself that espouses not empathy, but ego and all the vile vanity of such. Our species cannot understand the world unless we embrace the Word that is Jesus Christ. Know the meaning of Christ's parable on the widow and her coins and consider an opportunity to deny the sin of conceit for the soothing calm of love.

Luke 21
1And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.
2And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.
3And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:
4For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.

Ecclesiastes 10
3Yea also, when he that is a fool walketh by the way, his wisdom faileth him, and he saith to every one that he is a fool.

Psalm 10:4
The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts.

Proverbs 8
12I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.
13The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

Proverbs 13
10 Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom.

Proverbs 26
12Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.

John 9
39And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
40And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
41Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

John 12
40He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

Romans 11
7What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
8(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;
9And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
10Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
11I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
12Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?


RE: Missing link? bah...
By Xietsu on 9/22/2009 4:17:54 AM , Rating: 1
On sheeple (part of Matthew 25), my brother, sadly, you do not decide whether you are one of them. It is a blessing to be a sheep, lest ye be a goat, one rambunctious and unfit for the company of those tempered enough to know the truth that is love and fellowship with it. You will wax exceedingly angry and arrogant, asserting that it is of contradictory nature, to say that the Father would be He who is supposedly "proud", but you conceive only of your own ideas on compassion. When you are willing to trust in yourself or the world over love - Jesus Christ, then you're blinded from the severity of sin and the shame we all know as we kill our brothers and sisters in lavish living.

Should you sell all you have and donate unto charity, yet remain having naught to generate consistency, some would claim therein contrariety would also lay, to desire to love a brother as though thyself. But, all the more do you empower your brothers, to know service amidst Jesus Christ, to consider the strength you had to forgo the shallow nature of luxuries as atonement and fasting for the suffering we endure, being tempted unto the trivialities of worldliness, 'less we be vigilant in running the race set before us.

1 John 4:20
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

Matthew 19
21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

Matthew 25
1Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

2And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.

3They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:

4But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.

5While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.

6And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.

7Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.

8And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.

9But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.

10And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.

11Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.

12But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.

13Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

14For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

15And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.

16Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.

17And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.

18But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.

19After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

20And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents,
saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.

21His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

22He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.

23His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

24Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

25And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

26His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou
knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:

27Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

28Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.

29For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

30And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal


RE: Missing link? bah...
By Xietsu on 9/22/2009 4:29:59 AM , Rating: 2
Also, creationists, take note that it is said a day is to the Lord as though a thousand years (the ambiguity of time being key here - see "as though"). Also take note that there were TWO days in existence, prior to the earth ever even BEING. Suffice to say, we only know that a day consists of light and darkness. Secular sight only considers this through the revolutions of our planet...which is wrong to do on terms of simplifying the age and nature of creation. How Adam and Eve were ejected out of the Garden of Eden is also a mystery. Aside from this, these things are moot minutiae before the Word. I believe Christian and Judaic doctrine blend extremely well with modern science.


RE: Missing link? bah...
By Xietsu on 9/22/2009 4:42:19 AM , Rating: 2
through the revolution of planets*

Anyways, with countless prophecies in the Old Testament predating (archaeologically authenticated) the coming of Christ, and the vast transparency that arises out of man's nature when collated with the explanations of existence and its path, its conventions, we are all living examples on what it is to learn or deny love, except Christ is the control, in regard to the scientific method.

What foreshadows the destruction of liberty is an excess of ego, trust in the self, with the "shining one" (serpent originally being written as Nachash, and Lucifer, in Isaiah and maybe elsewhere, originally, equates to Helel Ben Shakar, "son of the dawn") who claimed "Thou shalt not surely die" when it was proclaimed, by God, that Adam and Eve surely would in the day that they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil."

Connect the dots of course, throughout all of scripture, and the deceit of such an air of hubris is known to be ignorance abided in against the truth of all this - the Word - love - Jesus Christ. =]


RE: Missing link? bah...
By Xietsu on 9/22/2009 5:30:31 AM , Rating: 2
2 Timothy 1
7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

To any cynical, any who doubt accepting faith in the Word, the Son of God, understand that, in such, you come to know the above qualities. I do not claim that I have them, for many concessions I make, but to destroy tasteless luxuries and primitive pursuits for worldly stature, to concern yourself with frugality and humble service to those among you, that is good. Though it may not be perfect in the Way (still regarding what it is to hoard), seek to reach such an end, that you might eventually be bolstered to leave behind worldliness and desire the mercies of God on your path - is that not good? I cannot say I see, but it is said, that scarcely will a rich man enter into heaven, that such is as difficult as putting a camel through the eye of a needle, but that all things are possible with God (Matthew 19, Mark 10, Luke 18).

Think yourself to know culture, and acquaint yourself not with the doctrine and prophecy of the world's greatest religion, such is moot. Those who take pleasure in unrighteousness will be deliberately confused, subject to the spirit of slumber, that they might suffer in the lake of fire.

There will be the beast who is wounded unto death by the sword, who, after being healed, the whole world marvels after. So too will a false prophet also come, being able to call fire from the sky, seeking to deceive those among us that they might worship the image of the beast. So too will there also be the two witnesses known as the two olive trees and two candlesticks who will prophecy for 1,260 days on the mysteries of God, bringing plagues, famine, and killing all who seek to kill them with fire proceeding from their mouth until the anti-christ kills them at the end of the appointed time, where they are to be resurrected 3.5 days later and rise to heaven (Revelation 11-13).

2 Thessalonians 2
3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

5Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

6And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

11For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

12Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee.

13But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind:

14And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.

15And when one of them that sat at meat with him heard these things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.

16Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many:

17And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.

18And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused.

19And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.

20And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.

21So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.

22And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room.

23And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.

24For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper.

25And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them,

26If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

27And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

28For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?

29Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,

30Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.

31Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?

32Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.

33So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

34Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?

35It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; but men cast it out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

The cause of love in God is to always precede all else, as everything you might think worth obtaining could very well be nothing in lieu of the Way. To those who discount the relevancy of my elaboration and explanation, know there were first those who sought to discount Jesus Christ, and for their sake I attempt to observe an offering of prudence.


RE: Missing link? bah...
By Gzus666 on 9/22/2009 10:38:06 PM , Rating: 2
*Yawwwwnn* Yes, no one has ever read those sad, tired verses. Quoting a book won't somehow make me sway to insanity, that is for the weak minded only. Ever notice that as intelligence goes up, religious belief goes down? Interesting indeed...


RE: Missing link? bah...
By Steve1981 on 9/23/2009 9:51:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ever notice that as intelligence goes up, religious belief goes down? Interesting indeed...


Nah. It isn't that religious belief goes down as intelligence goes up. It's that religious belief tends to evolve as intelligence goes up.

As a simple example: Einstein was one of the finest minds the world has ever known. It is certainly true that he didn't hold conventional beliefs of a deity in the sky, heaven and hell, etc. But to deny that he had religious beliefs, regardless of how unconventional they might have been, is patently false.


RE: Missing link? bah...
By Xietsu on 9/23/2009 12:11:36 PM , Rating: 2
To the blind, the message is lost, even when clear. Why is this? Pride. They trust in themselves about the nature of existence and seclude themselves from actually recognizing the absolute relevancy of scripture in all aspects. Mercy to them, for their hearts are closed, and in unrighteousness they relish. To presume that one's self is capable of judging intellect when it is objectively transparent that such assumptions persist past one's potency, it is to expose of ego in subtle elegancy.


RE: Missing link? bah...
By Xietsu on 9/23/2009 12:24:01 PM , Rating: 2
to expose ego*

Aside from that, what is also clear, in arrogance, is that our fellow feels I "intend to sway him". Only a person actually open and receptive can acknowledge the fault of their ways. So it is not that I seek to sway him, but that I present to him the chance to stand where he has been let to sway, through faith in the Word. People consider their own ideas about how impeccable love "ought be", but they forget that what is good is to weaken the self according to the ways of the world, that in you Christ's strength might surface all the more.

True love is such that free will exists within the bounds of self righteousness and its rage, to teach of the error of sin against love, to prophecy and allow for mercy by the Lord, Jesus Christ. It is to be as though mad, to press onward and risk shaming yourself and the opportunities allotted you, simply to cherish the shortly lasting, your own impulsion. This I and most do, as sinners against service to one another in the best of ways, trivializing ourselves and life. Mercy to us, for we are all fallen astray, each going his own way, wicked, haughty, hubristic.

May we come to use our minute comprehension of free will for searching out love through the Word day and night, to stand against persecution, both from the self, and the unknowing.


RE: Missing link? bah...
By Xietsu on 9/23/2009 12:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
And what is Christ's strength?

Galatians 5
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Let us bear works as though olives and figs, and not thorns and briars. Faith in the Word exalts as righteousness, seen through the covenant amidst God and Abraham. To trust Christ in hearing how no commandments are greater than Love thy God with all thy heart and soul & love thy brother as though thyself, to then also trust that love is conducted in manners absent aberrant minimalization according to worldly arrogance, is that not to apply & seek faith beyond the shortly lasting?

Though I preach as a hypocrite, having stored up riches in the world, who can discount the testimony of Jesus Christ, lest they trust only in their own baring of false witness, ignoring all the prophecies predating him by hundreds of years? The passages of scripture I cite are a sample as to why people act in this way, why our trials are as they are, and why blessed are they who overcome these obstacles, for our age is that of the Gentiles, and it shall pass.

Luke 21:
22For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
24And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.


RE: Missing link? bah...
By Xietsu on 9/23/2009 6:59:11 PM , Rating: 1
To Steve1981 and those who think his consideration is something of clarity, when it is of disparity:

Spirituality and religion doesn't evolve. To evolve is to diminish the disdain one has for true love, being obstinate toward the pure doctrine divulged through Christ (see James 1:27 below). God, love, unblemished and spotless love, that which is Jesus Christ, Son of the Father, it has always been. Whether peoples' capacity to perceive and receive such passion will evolve, only time can tell. Never bow the knee to the image of the anti-christ (see Romans 11:1-6 below), for there will come forth a man-child, the son of perdition, who the Father hath once given unto Christ, but whom will be lost, that the righteous might come unto the Son, that scripture might be fulfilled. Forget these words and remember not how thou ought be willing to die for Christ and eternal suffering shall be yours.

Genesis 12:
1Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Galatians 3:
24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

James 1:
12Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
13Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

James 1:
21Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.
22But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
23For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
24For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
25But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
26If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.
27Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

John 17:
12While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Decide whether you think you see, but know that only can sight come through Jesus Christ (see: John 9:39-41). Be thou in the book of life, or shall you err and be ready to receive he who will deceive, who will come in his own name, and not Christ's? Review all the quotes I've made to understand what keeps you from the Lord God.

Hearts are closed so that blameless, perfect love might be exalted, that prophecy be fulfilled. The way hearts are closed? Trivial trust in the self over God. Again, are my words not of truth, on "the shining one" AKA Satan, foreshadowing the origin of all contention in the world? That fact cannot be discounted (Proverbs 13:10, quoted above).

John 5:
43I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

John 12:
34The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?
35Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.
36While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.
37But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:
38That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
39Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
40He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
41These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.
42Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:
43For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.
44Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
45And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
46I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
47And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
49For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
50And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

The purpose of Christ has always been to destroy the works of the devil, sin, which, when it is done, results in death (see James 1:15 above). We cannot serve both worldly wealth and God.


RE: Missing link? bah...
By Steve1981 on 9/23/2009 8:42:12 PM , Rating: 2
FWIW...

quote:
Spirituality and religion doesn't evolve.


Personal beliefs certainly do evolve; how people interpret religion evolves. More to the point, this can happen without losing the message.

Case in point: As I noted elsewhere on the thread, I identify myself as a Christian. Do I believe that Christ turned wine into His blood??? Do I believe that priests turn wine into the actual blood of Jesus??? Many have died over such questions, so they must be important, right?

I believe such things are entirely immaterial to the message that Christ brought. The meaning behind the parable of the Good Samaritan is infinitely more important than those questions. That is my evolution.


RE: Missing link? bah...
By DesertCat on 9/20/2009 6:09:13 PM , Rating: 5
The 2nd (yes, 2nd and not 3rd) law of Thermodynamics is such a poor argument against evolution that it boggles the mind. It has to do with a decrease in order within a closed system over time. The Earth isn't even close to a closed system. Every school child can tell you that the fuel that runs the planet is energy from the sun (i.e. photosynthesis, etc.). Thus, outside energy gets added to the earth system and the entropy vs. evolution argument falls to pieces. While the entropy argument may be relevant at the scale of the universe, Earth is in something of a positive energy bubble due to its proximity to the Sun.

But of course the snake oil salesmen that peddle these arguments to well meaning but gullible audiences don't really care about getting their science right. They care about swaying public opinion.


RE: Missing link? bah...
By LRonaldHubbs on 9/20/2009 7:05:47 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
1- The fact that the third law of thermodynamics (entropy) makes evolution impossible- i.e. that systems naturally tend to progress towards disorder vs. order. If macro-evolution is true every system in nature is becoming increasingly ordered, this is contrary to the rest of the observed universe.

This is not a fact, you have it entirely wrong. First of all, you've got the wrong law. The third law of thermodynamics states: "as a system approaches absolute zero, all processes cease and the entropy of the system approaches a minimum value." Unless you want to discuss extremophile bacteria living on an asteroid somewhere in outer space, this is irrelevant to the discussion of evolution. I think you meant to reference the second law of thermodynamics which states that entropy, a measure of randomness, cannot decrease in a isolated system. However, you are still incorrect, as our planet is not a isolated system.

quote:
2- Much of macro-evolution's species jumps (i.e. trait changes that create an entirely new species vs. a simple variant both under the same species) is based on mutation. The problem is every single observed mutation has resulted in a destructive result to the organism. Either they become weaker, or sterile, or sick, etc. There has never been an observed example of a constructive mutation. If macro-evolution were the basis for life's progression on Earth there should be an abundance of examples.

This is flat-out incorrect and defies both evidence and logic. Mutations happen in every single living creature every single day for may reasons, some of which are exposure to chemicals and EMR or just mistakes that occur in bodily process. Many of them get reversed or happen in cells that die off anyway, but some are retained. The problem is, you are looking for major mutations, not small ones, and concluding that major mutations, which frequently appear as deformities, result in death of the subject. Well duh, but major deformities are not what push evolution along, minor mutations compounding of long periods of time are. Either your understanding of this subject is horribly flawed or you are intentionally spreading misinformation.

quote:
3- On missing links, you are misinformed. When Darwin originally postulated his theory he assumed that over time increasing number of missing links i.e. transitional relatives would be found. Unfortunately for macro-evolution the opposite has occurred; the majority of all new species discoveries are by far not transitional, but islands to themselves. That is we are finding more and more unknown species that not only do not fill existing transitional gaps, they instead are off by themselves with new gaps of their own.

You are wrong again. In fact, there are far too many fossils with intermediate features to count - trillions if you include microfossils.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726451.700...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micropaleontology
These fossils show the transitions between major groups, from fish to amphibians, for instance, as well as from one species to another. New discoveries are continually made, from the half-fish, half-amphibian Tiktaalik to an early giraffe with a shorter neck than modern animals.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125681.500...


RE: Missing link? bah...
By AnnihilatorX on 9/21/2009 6:52:10 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
1- The fact that the third law of thermodynamics (entropy) makes evolution impossible- i.e. that systems naturally tend to progress towards disorder vs. order. If macro-evolution is true every system in nature is becoming increasingly ordered, this is contrary to the rest of the observed universe.


Entropy applies to law of thermodynamics, and not in general to some systems, e.g. the animal society. It is not to be confused to the Entropy theory in information theory either, which governs compression and encryption of information.

I think you have misinterpreted order and disorder. In most cases where a higher entropy results in order (stability), because highest entropy result in the lowest energy state, a natural progression of most thermal dynamic systems.


RE: Missing link? bah...
By roostitup on 9/21/2009 2:34:20 AM , Rating: 2
At least I didn't come out whining about your attitude and got to the point. If anything you're the one with the attitude.

Evolution, although seemingly proven is actually not. No matter what you say it is still a THEORY. I completely agree with the theory of evolution and see it as being proven in my mind, but in the end it is still not proven to be true and many people still doubt it's accuracy.

By the way, we don't have fossils that cover "every step of the way from Ape to man". We have a few that we believe may be linked, homo erectus being the most obvious. Other fossils could be out there waiting to be found, you cannot say that we have every step of the way. There could have been an explosion of hominid species and we could actually be way off base, you really never know. The information that we have is probably 1% of the story, you can't base this information as being rock solid.


RE: Missing link? bah...
By Gzus666 on 9/21/2009 10:34:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Evolution, although seemingly proven is actually not. No matter what you say it is still a THEORY.


So is gravity, atoms and plate tectonics. Bohr's model is incorrect, we know it is incorrect, yet it is still used and accurate above the quantum level. Pull your head out of your rectum and learn how science works, scientific theory and theory are different things.


RE: Missing link? bah...
By KashGarinn on 9/21/2009 5:58:51 AM , Rating: 2
Well, what they mean by missing link is that in the case of T-rex, before this find, people assumed that the limbs slowly but surely devolved as the T-rex ancestor got bigger and bigger.

- This find clearly shows that isn't the case, the formation of the species happened at an early stage, while the T-rex ancestor was small, the only thing that then developed was its size.

- something we know now, but didn't know before this find.


RE: Missing link? bah...
By Lickalotapus Rex on 9/20/2009 3:52:37 PM , Rating: 1
"Evolution happened... That is a fact..."

Wrong. Scientific theories are never proven. Evidence may or may not support a scientific theory. Evolution does have a lot of supporting evidence though.


RE: Missing link? bah...
By retrospooty on 9/20/2009 4:17:37 PM , Rating: 2
It is correct. Evolution isnt a "theory" - it wass called that in hte 1800's when it was first introduced, but at this point in time it is not officially called a "theory" it is a proven fact.


RE: Missing link? bah...
By meepstone on 9/20/2009 4:42:31 PM , Rating: 2
I'll answer this for both of you. Evolution is a fact, living organisms go through evolution. Did humans evolve from chimps or did we just appear as humans? No one can say for sure 100% either way but the more probable and logical answer is evolution.

Of course this only applies to people who believe in science. if you dont believe this then your delusional as you read this on your computer that magically appeared.


RE: Missing link? bah...
By mircea on 9/20/2009 6:19:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
this only applies to people who believe in science. if you dont believe this then your delusional as you read this on your computer that magically appeared.


You made a very good post, with the exception of that last attempt of sarcasm with the magical computer.

And just to point out again with your own words: people who believe in evolution .

You said science, but that's not true. Belief comes only when you can't observe something happening trough the human senses and can create repetitive tests with identical result. So science doesn't need belief, since you know by observing.
You don't have people debating Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein and their laws, or people having different opinions on the cells of a plant, or the chemical composition of elements, or geological structure...etc.

Evolution on the other hand seems not much different to a religion. You have people (followers) arguing pro or against. You have general acceptance in a group about the general line of belief but much of debate amongst them about particular things. This is true about any religion.

Evolution does happen. If evolution is defined by adaptation, and small changes in organisms. But no evolution has been observed to be so great that it changed something from what it is to something else. No changes to a feline DNA made it a non-feline. Yes we can see Thumbelina a brown mare next to Radar a Belgian draught http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-471121/The... and show the effect of evolution. But in the end each is still just a horse.

Evolution of matter - the big bang, evolution of inorganic to organic - cosmic soup, evolution from species to species - Darwin cannot be placed in a blender and mixed and accepted as proven just because I am white and someone else is black or tall or bold. Each has to be proven in it's own in order to pass from something we believe,accept and formulate in theories to fact.

So evolution is, and will remain a theory unless we will be able to go back in time, or the Revelation of John will come true. Then we'll know, and need belief no more.


RE: Missing link? bah...
By FaaR on 9/20/2009 11:23:52 PM , Rating: 1
You make a mistake comparing the scientific mindset with religious belief.

Even though a scientist who postulates a theory that cannot be proven may believe the theory is correct, this is not the same as a religious belief the theory is correct.

Scientists - at least proper ones anyway ;) - change their beliefs in accordance with evidence and our current understanding of the subject, while religious belief is the fixed dogmatic worship of an unchanging superstition that bears little or no relation to actual reality (for example the bible stating pi = 3, or time stopping so the israelites can commit genocide on another tribe, or jesus raising the dead or a number of other obviously impossible deeds).

Trying to change a religion traditionally brands you as a heretic, in the past or certain parts of the world even today it's liable to get you imprisoned, tortured or even killed.

No scientist would murder you if you tomorrow presented evidence that conclusively falsified string theory for example...


RE: Missing link? bah...
By Jjoshua2 on 9/20/2009 11:30:56 PM , Rating: 2
The Bible never says pi = 3. It just talks about approximate measurements of a bowl. And depending on how you measure the circumference, from the inside, outside, or middle, I have seen guestimates come out as accurate as 3.14.
As for if miracles can exist, quantum physics tells us no reason why there are absolutely impossible and against nature, only that they are exceedingly SUPER improbable. If there is a God it would make sense that he can order his creation to do "miracles".


RE: Missing link? bah...
By FaaR on 9/21/2009 1:36:48 AM , Rating: 3
You know, this just goes further to polarise the scientific method versus the religious, because where scientists use rational thought, the religious try to rationalize any flaw in their ancient scribblings. So yeah, the bible doesn't REALLY say that pi = 3 (even though actually it does), it "approximates". Right. You have an explanation for why we no longer sacrifice bulls and stone fat people to death also perhaps? It's in the bible, hence it ought to be "god's" will. :P

As for ordering "creation" to do miracles... I'd like to know why that doesn't happen these days. Why only during biblical times?

Could it perhaps be that these things really never actually happened, but were concocted or misinterpreted by superstitious and ignorant people?

Where are all the burning bushes and booming voices from the sky, hm? (I deliberately ignore all the supposed "miracles" that require faith to be acknowledged; jesus witnessed in a toasted cheese sandwich and whatnot. That would be circular reasoning.)


RE: Missing link? bah...
By mircea on 9/21/2009 2:26:28 AM , Rating: 3
I never compared science to religion. I compared evolution theory with religion. Like you said, no one will kill me if I would deny the string theory, no one would even care, it's accepted as a theory. But man how close to killing me some evolutionists come just for pointing it's still a theory and not a fact. Isn't this more of a religious reaction than scientific?


RE: Missing link? bah...
By Gzus666 on 9/21/2009 10:37:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I never compared science to religion. I compared evolution theory with religion. Like you said, no one will kill me if I would deny the string theory, no one would even care, it's accepted as a theory.


Incorrect, string theory's name is a misnomer, as it is currently a hypothesis, not a theory. Please read about things before you blather on about them.


RE: Missing link? bah...
By William Gaatjes on 9/20/2009 6:56:06 PM , Rating: 2
We share a common ancestor. We do not come from apes as apes do not come from us. We are related.

1 Theory i personally think can be true is that when our direct "human" ancestor from which modern humans came, moved to the sea side. I do not completely agree with the aquatic ape theory, but it has some interesting points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesi...

Maybe that a fish and other sealife rich diet like shelfish and shrimps (The omega acids for example)are responsible for the neurological mutations to a modern human. I find it striking that everything that is good for our brain and nervous system is found in abundance in seafood. We have also more motorneurons then for example chimpanzees. This may also have it's origin from a seafood rich diet. When looking at our bodies, the ability to naturally swim and the fact that we are in essence naked. There is also another argument i found interesting :

Chimps as all apes are very good at pulling but bad at pushing. In other words, Apes can contract there arms and legs with a lot of force but not stretch them with a lot of force. We can, and for swimming powerful stretching is far more handy then powerful contracting. We have a more aerodynamic body for swimming when comparing to our ape relatives. We are build for speed and not for pure strength.
Straight legs and arms also come in handy for fast swimming.

http://www.slate.com/id/2212232/

There is a monkey that likes to swim and even uses it to flea fom predators : Proboscis monkey , the swimming star with the giant nose !

http://www.thewebsiteofeverything.com/weblog/pivot...

These monkeys sometimes get pulled to open sea by strong currents. Let's say that a common ancestor who liked to swim as well experienced this as some others did. A new colony started at sea. And time and evolution did the rest :).

Another reason is that living near seawater means there is always water. always water means there is irrigation. Irrigation means plantlife. Seawater can give protection, many landpredators do not like water. Especially salty water might be beneficial.

I would say, seek near places where vulcano's(fertile grounds) and seawater meet. These are the best places for our origin to be found. The continents where alot different millions of years ago as where sealevels mind you...



RE: Missing link? bah...
By William Gaatjes on 9/20/2009 7:20:16 PM , Rating: 2
According to this article, these monkeys can swim for long periods of time and can walk upright like we do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proboscis_Monkey


RE: Missing link? bah...
By myhipsi on 9/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: Missing link? bah...
By meepstone on 9/22/2009 7:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad that analogy doesnt apply to the real world.

There are too many rational people in this world who won't believe in aliens because there is no proof but will irrationally believe in a religion and in a god where there is no proof.

They will shrug off the ancient indians and there sun gods, wind gods, etc because its obviously ignorant to believe in such a thing yet they are doing the same thing and don't think twice about it.

Why a rational person(in daily life) will believe in something so irrational(like religion), and will defend there beliefs. This i can't figure out.


RE: Missing link? bah...
By FaaR on 9/20/2009 11:10:16 PM , Rating: 2
Scientific theories can, and are proven when we reach the ability to do so.

For example, Einsteins laws on relativity have been proven through scientific experiments and astronomical observations.


RE: Missing link? bah...
By gamerk2 on 9/21/2009 8:43:03 AM , Rating: 3
Einstein hasn't been proved yet. Granted, a lot of his assumptions have been proven true, but there are still other theories that explain the same exact resulting set (including one that states mass-energy conversion is impossible, proving E=mc2 is false).


RE: Missing link? bah...
By tapa on 9/21/2009 10:29:47 AM , Rating: 2
Man is an ape actually. We just have a common ancestor with the other great apes.


Missing Link??
By drycrust on 9/20/2009 3:29:43 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The beast was excavated in an illegal dig in Mongolia and sold to a private collector.


Excuse me for saying so, but my understanding of the theory of Evolution is it's age is determined by the strata that the fossil was found in. According to this article the excavation was illegal, thus which strata the fossil was found in is highly questionable. What is the proof this is the age it is believed to be?

quote:
The fact that its body design was able to scale so well is incredible and rather unique


My understanding of large and small animals is the bones and muscles don't scale linearly from being small to being large, so the fact this seems to have scaled linearly sounds a bit suspicious. Maybe it "evolved" from a T.Rex rather than the other way around?

My observation of the fakes in China is some of them are very good. The fact this was an "illegal" dig, and the fact the animal seems to have scaled in a "unique" way raises all sorts of credibility issues.




RE: Missing Link??
By elpresidente2075 on 9/20/2009 5:52:34 PM , Rating: 2
You have very interesting points, all of which I agree with asking. All we can do is hope that through the rigorous discourse of science will these questions be answered.


RE: Missing Link??
By FaaR on 9/20/2009 11:28:31 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps it was a baby/hatchling T-Rex, or a dwarf/mutation.

I can only hope the people who have studied this skeleton are wiser than I am, and have discussed, or perhaps discounted these possibilities. :)


RE: Missing Link??
By AnnihilatorX on 9/21/2009 6:58:06 AM , Rating: 2
Guys, read the post. It is said in the article that the T-Rex is almost an adult one. (Adolescent)


RE: Missing Link??
By acase on 9/21/2009 9:09:14 AM , Rating: 3
True, but why couldn't it just be an adult t-rex with the equivilant of a primordial dwarfism mutation?


RE: Missing Link??
By AnnihilatorX on 9/21/2009 9:17:54 AM , Rating: 2
That's actually what I think is a possibility as well. Without reliable DNA tests, one can only rely on finding as much similarity of anatomical features there are on the fossil to confirm/deny this.


RE: Missing Link??
By gamerk2 on 9/21/2009 11:26:47 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Could be a pygmy. For example, pygmy mamoths are known to have existed up to a few hundred years ago, so its not unprcidented.

Carbon dating will give us an answer. Still, go-between species like these are very rare finds, due mainly to the often rapid pace of mutations found in these species.


RE: Missing Link??
By twhittet on 9/22/2009 1:15:28 AM , Rating: 2
Does carbon dating really work on dinosaurs though? If not - what other dating can be used on the bones themselves?


RE: Missing Link??
By nineball9 on 9/21/2009 3:38:16 PM , Rating: 4
This story was reported by NPR's Science Friday last week (Sept 17, 2009) in a long interview with Paul Sereno. I was lucky to hear the whole program while driving in traffic.

http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/2009...

He answers the strata and dating, dwarfism/pygmy, parallel evolution questions posted in this thread and more in the interview and phone-in question-and-answer session.

In addition, AAAS members can read Sereno's paper online (or one can pay for it).



Fear
By elpresidente2075 on 9/20/2009 5:55:03 PM , Rating: 4
Is it just me, or (given the angle and lighting) does that guy look as though he's cowering in fear from those dinosaur bones?




RE: Fear
By Omega215D on 9/20/2009 6:42:27 PM , Rating: 4
He's groveling at the feet of the remains of his prehistoric overlords.


RE: Fear
By MrPoletski on 9/21/2009 9:31:44 AM , Rating: 5
Say what you like about those dinosaurs, but boy can they organise a mass extinction!


Forget the first gen...
By Indianapolis on 9/20/2009 11:15:38 PM , Rating: 3
I never buy a first gen dinosaur. I usually wait until at least the 3rd or 4th gen to let them get the kinks worked out.




RE: Forget the first gen...
By EasyC on 9/21/2009 12:25:13 PM , Rating: 5
Exactly, and did you know that the US will cut you a check for 4500 if you trade your big T-Rex in for the smaller more efficent T-Rex?


RE: Forget the first gen...
By TomZ on 9/21/2009 2:03:51 PM , Rating: 2
Man, if this post doesn't deserve a "6" then what does?


What if this is a dwarf T-Rex?
By AnnihilatorX on 9/21/2009 6:56:14 AM , Rating: 2
How high of a chance this adult mini-TRex is a full TRex with growth defect like dwarfs in human?

The only way to tell is to check the DNA, which is not well preserved in fossils.




RE: What if this is a dwarf T-Rex?
By acase on 9/21/2009 9:18:01 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
But Scott rejected me, c'est la vie, life is cruel, treats you unfairly, even so, a God there must be, Mini-T, you complete me.


RE: What if this is a dwarf T-Rex?
By EasyC on 9/21/2009 12:22:08 PM , Rating: 3
juuussttt the twoooo of ussss...


There is no theory of evolution...
By tigz1218 on 9/20/2009 10:41:08 PM , Rating: 5
Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.




Makes sense...
By roostitup on 9/20/2009 2:41:36 PM , Rating: 3
It would make sense that T-rex and its ancestors were scavengers. A larger size body would be quite intimidating for smaller and more agile hunting dinosaurs. All T-rex would have to do is show up at a recent kill and chase the smaller dinosaurs away for the meal rather than wasting a lot of energy running down or trying to kill pray. The same could be true for this smaller T-rex ancestor in that if all other dinosaurs within this earlier time are of a smaller size than T-rex is still bigger than most and able to chase away the smaller predators for their kills. It is possible that this put evolutionary pressure on all dinosaurs to become bigger in order to survive. The herbivores evolved to be bigger in order to fight off predators so the predators had to evolve bigger in order to kill the herbivores so T-rex had to evolve to be bigger in order to continue to chase away the predators for their pray. Almost like how evolution works in a forested ecosystem where plant species had to evolve their growth strategy to stay above the canopy to survive.




By mikepers on 9/21/2009 9:29:18 AM , Rating: 2
This may have been mentioned but there are too many unrelated comments to read through them all...

"Scientists determined that the dinosaur was an adolescent by looking at its level of bone fusion."

"Raptorex’s pelvic girdle was completely fused and its scapula and shoulder blade were nearly so, showing that it is a full grown adult ."

Seems like it can't be both of those....




sigh.... why bother
By AlmostExAMD on 9/22/2009 8:29:07 AM , Rating: 2
You can dig up the bones to prove it all time and time again, But they would rather believe a 2000+ year old story book which changes and gets updated to suit given time,give up! Humanity is screwed.
Next thing you know they will be sending their own children off to fight and die,Ohh hang on a minute that's already been happening since "IT" was invented!
About time for some payback,They burned innocents at the stake after all.




Come on..
By StraightCashHomey on 9/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: Come on..
By retrospooty on 9/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: Come on..
By FaaR on 9/20/2009 11:31:51 PM , Rating: 1
I suppose the devil created the sumerians also then, whose civilization we have a written record from stretching back some 7300 years, give or take...

Some egyptologists claim the ancient egyptian civilization is at least 10k years old, but those people may be a bunch of nutcases, I don't really know. :D


RE: Come on..
By Parhel on 9/21/2009 12:23:57 AM , Rating: 2
This discussion has gotten really amusing.

90% of the posts are in some way about how gullible creationists are. Yet, so far, I've seen only one that has any questions about either this article or the discovery it references.

This discovery is extremely suspect, and anyone who failed to notice that is . . . well I'll be kind and just assume they didn't read the article.

A miniature T-Rex discovered in an "illegal dig?" Right off the bat, that sounds like something George Lucas might make up to end the next Indiana Jones movie with, but hey . . . let's not question these so-called scientists while they rewrite major portions of history based on this one single fossil because . . . uh . . . because they're scientists.

Why is this fossil so perfect? So complete? Why is it utterly unique when over 30 full-size T-Rex fossils have been found? What verification was done considering the shady origin? Why does it so closely resemble full size T-Rex in everything else but size despite the supposed 65 million year gap? Even if it is real, how can we verify it's age considering it's origin?

I may be completely wrong, but I'm going to assume this is a fraud.


RE: Come on..
By StraightCashHomey on 9/21/2009 8:12:32 AM , Rating: 3
Just because few people are questioning it on DailyTech doesn't mean that the scientist community isn't scrutinizing the hell out of it before they "rewrite" evolution.


RE: Come on..
By Parhel on 9/21/2009 10:05:36 AM , Rating: 2
All I'm saying is that the last time an "illegally obtained fossil from China" hit the news, it was a major embarrasment and a total fraud. Or do we choose not to remember Archeoraptor?

If it were really encased in rock when they bought it, why not leave it that way until the scientific community at large has had a chance to authenticate it? No, I strongly suspect if a good crime scene type investigation were done here, the conclusion would be that the evidence has been destroyed.


RE: Come on..
By CollegeTechGuy on 9/21/2009 9:05:37 AM , Rating: 2
If you think about it, most of our fossil collections of all dinosaurs came from them all dieing about the same time...Giant meteor death, whatever. That means any other dinosaur that died previously, that could be a key to an evolution was killed by something else, or scavenged by other animals. When animals kill or scavenge, they don't usually leave all the bones laid out nicely together for someone to find later...they get scattered. So it will be EXTREMELY rare to find any dinosaur with all their bones in 1 play that did not die off in the extinction.


RE: Come on..
By Parhel on 9/21/2009 10:08:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So it will be EXTREMELY rare to find any dinosaur with all their bones in 1 play that did not die off in the extinction.


That's very unusual indeed. Only a very few minor bones are missing here, and those are from one leg. The other leg is intact.


RE: Come on..
By MrPoletski on 9/21/2009 9:30:34 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Even if it is real, how can we verify it's age considering it's origin?


Easy, carbon dating. Not only would that accurately (well, in the order of millions of years, accurately) tell you its age, it will also tell you if it's real or not.


RE: Come on..
By Rockinelle on 9/21/2009 8:15:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Easy, carbon dating. Not only would that accurately (well, in the order of millions of years, accurately) tell you its age, it will also tell you if it's real or not.


Easy? You need carbon to use carbon dating. You won't find any carbon in that fossil. If you were dating something with carbon, its only accurate in the thousands of years, not millions.

Legitimizing where the fossil was found is irrelevant because the idea of using the geologic column to date a fossil uses circular reasoning. You can't date a layer without an index fossil and you can't date a fossil without knowing the layer it is in. Even if you overlook this, the premise is that this is a new fossil so how can you ever know what layer you're looking at, unless there is some other index fossil found with it and that isn't reported.


RE: Come on..
By Gzus666 on 9/21/2009 11:02:15 PM , Rating: 2
There are other dating methods besides carbon dating people, read a book.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html

I believe that should be a reasonable article, considering the sources credentials. You can't date things that old with carbon dating as it does not go back that far.


RE: Come on..
By glitchc on 9/22/2009 7:15:17 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think you understand radiometric dating at all. The process measures the radioactive decay of a specific isotope (carbon-14 being one), which has a specific half-life. A very small sample from the fossil itself is sufficient, and no other samples from the surrounding are necessary.

You are correct about there being a maximum measurable time for carbon-14, due to its relatively short half-life, but as the poster above me mentioned, other isotopes with longer half-lives can be utilized.


American Education
By B3an on 9/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: American Education
By mircea on 9/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: American Education
By Maxfli81 on 9/21/2009 3:38:08 AM , Rating: 2
Is that why America is the most advanced nation in the world and became so in a short time? Oh, and many of its founders were people who believed in God and came up with a radical new system of government. So much for close-minded religious folk.

If your statement this "backwards place" is getting worse is true, then the only correlation is that it's because America has became less christian over time.


RE: American Education
By vilu on 9/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: American Education
By CollegeTechGuy on 9/21/2009 8:51:43 AM , Rating: 5
You do know that it has only been the last couple hundred years that Science and Religion have been "fighting". And it was the Romans who "set" the date for the birth of Christ that our calendars are based off of.

Aristotle, Ptolemy, Archimedes, Plato, I could go on and on naming many great scientists over history who were religious. Even many of today's scientists are religious, such as Owen Gingerich, whom I've talk to personally. You may not know him, but he was on the panel of scientists who fought to keep Pluto a planet, and he is a believer in the Big Bang...AND he is a Christian! Read his book...God's Univers.

I am not a Christian, in fact I am Agnostic, but I keep my eyes open to both sides. As it is you my good sir, who is blinded by your Science, as there is no one side who holds the entire truth.


RE: American Education
By StraightCashHomey on 9/21/2009 10:11:56 AM , Rating: 1
Can you explain how he believes in the big bang theory AND he's a Christian?

I don't know the rules of being a Christian, but that just seems to contradict.


RE: American Education
By CollegeTechGuy on 9/21/2009 10:26:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Read his book...God's Universe.


RE: American Education
By Steve1981 on 9/21/2009 10:38:34 AM , Rating: 1
Depends on whether or not you accept everything in the Bible as literal fact or not. There are those that are less concerned with the factual accuracy and more concerned with the message.


RE: American Education
By StraightCashHomey on 9/21/2009 11:37:31 AM , Rating: 1
I see.

I know it's another debate, but I wonder at which point you are not considered a Christian due to all of the disagreements you have over all of the "factual accuracies".

Taking out the factual inconveniences of Christianity (or any organized religion for that matter) and adopting all of the convenient ideas seems um.. I don't know.. convenient?


RE: American Education
By Steve1981 on 9/21/2009 12:17:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I know it's another debate, but I wonder at which point you are not considered a Christian due to all of the disagreements you have over all of the "factual accuracies".


Depends on who you ask I suppose. In any event, does it make a difference what other people call you if you believe yourself to live as Christ preached?

quote:
Taking out the factual inconveniences of Christianity (or any organized religion for that matter) and adopting all of the convenient ideas seems um.. I don't know.. convenient?


Probably. But as far as I'm concerned, complete factual accuracy is beside the point. Aesop's Fables don't have value because they are factual accounts of historical events; they have value because of the message behind the stories. So to does the Bible.


RE: American Education
By CollegeTechGuy on 9/21/2009 5:45:12 PM , Rating: 2
That is up to the individual to decide for themselves. As far as "factual" evidence goes, any scientist will tell you that no theory is 100% accurate. Even if you can repeat the outcome 1000 times over, it is still not 100%. Theoretically it is fact, but not actual fact. Science itself has faith in its methods and theories, just like religion, to make these "facts"...fact.

At the same time, many religious scientist don't disagree with what the bible preaches, nor do they disagree with scientific "fact". We, as scientist, can look into space and see the history of our Universe, but only so far. At some point we have no idea what happened. There are many theories, but not of them know what made the "primordial egg" of the universe blow up. So who is to say there wasn't some Creator who snapped his finger...or whatever, and made the universe.

Side note...the term Primordial Egg in reference to the big bang was coined by my College Cosmology class ;)


RE: American Education
By nafhan on 9/21/2009 10:54:12 AM , Rating: 2
Strangely, I remember reading that when the big bang was first postulated, religious people were eager to accept it, because it was an acknowledgement that the universe had a starting point. The commonly held belief prior to that was that the universe had existed forever.


RE: American Education
By MarcLeFou on 9/21/2009 11:43:54 AM , Rating: 2
Dan Brown's Angel & Demons is a really good read into how both religion and science can co-exist.

I can't say I believe in a White Bearded God but I tend to have a belief that there's some kind of higher power guiding the Universe and that its not necessarily Good or Evil but just moving things along. I guess that's more of a New Age way of seeing things.

As for religious books, I see the Bible (and the Qu'Ran and the Torah and etc.) much more as a collection of stories to take a meaning from than as historical facts. Even in the New Testament, Jesus spoke in stories to prove his points. What's so crazy about thinking the whole book itself is just one big collection of stories to illustrate points/morals/ethics to live from ? You're not going too bad off in your life if you follow the general principles of any Holy Book and apply it to your life with a dose of common sense.

If you think about it, the Jews really had it right when they decided not to mix dairy and meats together 5 000 years ago. Must have been a killer mix after a few months with only salt to keep the mix from rotting! Pretty good idea to tell people not to do it. And there must have been some kind of pork sickness back in the days too for it to be banned from multiple religions!

And the "Myth of Creation". Isn't that basically a story that tell you that if you're too curious, it might not always be good for you ? Such as eating a fruit you've never seen in a tree (because it might be, you know, poisonous) ?

These Holy Books are basically the only ways people of their time had to reach their population and could influence them to be kind to one another and not do things that could be harmful to them. I believe that if you take the literal meaning out of it and actually try and think about the intent of the original writers, it makes a lot of sense for the most part.


RE: American Education
By drmo on 9/21/2009 6:28:17 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, it was a Catholic priest who came up with the Big Bang theory. Many of the scientists of the day derided it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre


RE: American Education
By drmo on 9/21/2009 6:31:31 PM , Rating: 2
Also the new NIH director Francis Collins started this site:
http://biologos.org/


RE: American Education
By StraightCashHomey on 9/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: American Education
By gamerk2 on 9/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: American Education
By CollegeTechGuy on 9/21/2009 8:54:55 AM , Rating: 2
Refer to my statement above ^^


RE: American Education
By Breathless on 9/21/2009 9:02:48 AM , Rating: 3
Show me your study's. I call shenanigans.

I've got one for you though.... Liberal Missouri. We all know how great that turned out. Imagine a world wide liberal Missouri. Yes - how great life would be....


RE: American Education
By vilu on 9/21/2009 11:17:13 AM , Rating: 2
I think let's call it George here! A scientist will (sooner or later, and however grudgingly) will accept he/she is wrong. But these 'religious' brains are more ossified than the pre-Cambrian fossils!


RE: American Education
By Maxfli81 on 9/21/2009 7:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
Both scientists and religious folks have to keep their mind open and read about the arguments from both sides. Some of the most closed-minded (and 'ossified') people are scientists who just argue against religion based on a hidden internal volition to not believe in God. They don't even want to look at what the other side is saying because "they are right - and you religious folks are nuts." Their arguments are based on popular distortions and misinformation spouted by atheists and sensationalist media. If you are truly open-minded, read books that are against your view. I have, and have come to my own conclusions after reading the arguments from both sides. That is a true scientific mind.


RE: American Education
By gamerk2 on 9/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: American Education
By Maxfli81 on 9/21/2009 7:06:40 PM , Rating: 2
Just read history to see the outcomes of those who have tried to do that. And what a sad world it would be to have a government or someone tell you that you can't believe something. How would you even enforce that? Instead, put all possible arguments out there (instead of censoring them), debate it, and let people decide. Eliminating one or the other is truly going backwards.


Dummies
By p05esto on 9/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: Dummies
By TomZ on 9/21/2009 2:09:59 PM , Rating: 3
^-- Lame attempt to start a debate about religion.

The bible does have a much more believable explanation of the origin of our species, LOL.


RE: Dummies
By glitchc on 9/22/2009 3:48:10 PM , Rating: 2
"Why read many books when you can read one?"


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007

Related Articles
First Ever Extinct Animal Cloned
February 2, 2009, 8:08 AM
Scientist Discover Strange "Vacuum-Saurus"
November 19, 2007, 1:25 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki