I got to thinking.

If scientists discovered the so called "missing link," would they ever release it?  I believe that if it was, it would basically disprove christianity among other religions and lead to rioting, and most likely the downfall of the United States.

Scientists have found many, MANY things out there, including dinosaurs, fossils, rare organisms, what have you.  It seems kind of strange that this one monkey-human can't be found...  We seem to have no trouble digging up dinosaurs that came millions of years before monkeys but no such luck with the missing link.

Do you think society as we know it would crumble if it was released?

Thoughts?

Many "missing links" have been found.

This idea of a single "link" that is missing is a red herring.  That is something invented by people that don't understand biology.  There is no "missing link".

I bow to your superior logic.

:)

carl_the_sniper wrote: And really, if evolution is to believed, than there are links that are not missing.

Everything is a link.  Evolution is perpetually in transition.  Everything is a link between its ancestors and its offspring.

You will be the "link" between your parents and your children (if you have any), simply by being an intermediate genotype.

To separate living things into "links" and "not links" is completely misleading.  Everything is a link.  Transition is gradual.

FROG MAN wrote: to call anything a fact takes faith.

That's a bit of an epistemological statement, perhaps, but I think it is only true if you define "faith" outside of its common usage, and barely even then.

For instance, when I say that it is "fact" that I am typing right now, this requires "faith" that my senses are reliable, that I am not completely insane or asleep, that I even exist, and so forth.

And if that is the standard we will hold "fact" to, then your statement is pretty close to correct.  There are still challenges, however.  How about logical "facts"?  Here is a logical "fact":  Premise 1 is "If A, then B".  Premise 2 is "A".  Therefore, IF premises 1 and 2 are true, then B.  Does that ever require "faith" to be a "fact"?  Even if we do not exist, is that logical "fact" still not true and correct?

I realize that you probably weren't trying to make that strong of a statement, but still...

:)

Linus wrote: Well.. there's one possibility was to why it hasn't been found... It doesnt exist.

There is no "it".

R-E-D  H-E-R-R-I-N-G

As for the theory being all but proven--- they, as far as my knowledge, have yet to explain why certain ones evolved but others did not.

Then your knowledge is incorrect.  Everything is evolving, all the time. 

If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes, where we apparently evolved from?

We did not evolve from apes.  We share a recdent common ancestor with apes.

But even if we HAD evolved from apes (which we did not), the continued existence of apes would be perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory.  It's not like an ancestor species has to disappear after a set time.

FROG MAN wrote: makes sense to me, try it, name a fact, any fact, that you can with out a doubt be 100% sure

Did you see my logical fact?

FROG MAN wrote: Clark Kent wrote: Did you see my logical fact? ya but how can you be sure that A is true?

We don't.  That's not the logical fact.

IF A is true, and IF A always leads to B - assume those two - then B must also be true.

The logical fact is the relationship.  That relationship will continue in all possible universes.

*Stealth* wrote: You still fail to argue your non-existence.

I certainly don't know (to the level of certainty that FM is requiring) that I exist.  I could merely be the figment of god's imagination, for instance.  Cogito ergo sum is a tempting conclusion, but I'm not sure it holds up.

FROG MAN wrote: ya but.... IF?  I guess if you wanna describe a fact as being situational you can make facts about anything IF a house is a chicken, then that house is a chicken

That's all logic is.  Situational.  Yet it works pretty well, because those situational relationships are absolutely CONSTANT.  And that makes them FACTS.

IF FROG MAN is a forumer

and

IF all forumers spend too much time at the computer

then (assuming those two statements are true)

FROG MAN spends too much time at computer.

The universal truth - fact - is the relationship.  If the first two statements are true, then the third (different, unlike your example) statement MUST also be true.  Under all circumstances.

Linus wrote: T-H-A-T-S   T-H-E   P-O-I-N-T Isnt that what I just said?

No.

There is no "it" as in the whole concept of the missing link is silly.  There is no unfound missing link.  There is no single mystery fossil we are looking for.  Evolution is a continuum.  Everything is a link, and nothing is a link.  Anybody who asks about "the missing link" is either asking a very high-level biological/paleontological question, or simply doesn't understand evolution.

Ok, let me phrase it differently. Why are there humans, dogs, apes, spiders, snakes, if we all evolved from the same original organism?

Because we evolved?

I don't understand your question.

FROG MAN wrote: I guess we gotta define existence to really argue about it as well, If i was a computer, that was modeled the exact way, in every way every atom in a human brain was put together, then raised as a human, but still made artificially would I still exist?

I think you will also have to define "I" (or "you") as well...  :)

My point was that there are some universal truths that exist independent of our existence or non-existence, and regardless of how insane we are, and regardless of whether the laws of physics change, and so forth.  There are some constants.  Not many - even 1+1=2 could conceivably be wrong.  But fundamental logical relationships are, I believe, truly universal.

BARREL BREAK wrote: dude, what if... like. we're all just, like, a dream some big interstellar bug is having?

Perhaps a big interstellar bug made of spaghetti?

With meatballs?

FROG MAN wrote: Clark Kent wrote: then (believing those two statements are true)

Ah - but I am making no statement about the truth or untruth of those two statements.

I making a purely conditional statement:  IF [conditions] THEN [result]

And I am claiming that this conditional statement is ALWAYS true, regardless of the truth (or not) of the conditions.  There are a number of these always-true conditional statements, and they all exist as truths independent of the truth of their premises.

*Stealth* wrote: It's a fact that you exist.

You keep declaring this a fact, yet you offer no support for your claim.

I agree that there is good reason to believe that I/you exist, but based on what do you claim it as absolute fact?

*Stealth* wrote: I declare it as fact, that you, (as in your reality, what ever it may be) exists. Do you deny your existence?

Nope.

But that is a very low standard of "fact", as that word is being examined by FROG MAN.

I don't deny Jay Leno's existence either, and I've never even met the man.  Based on my evidence, I would certainly not be willing to declare Leno's existence a FROG MANian "fact".  The same holds for the existence of Pluto (the dog or the quasi-planet), elephants, the internet, and Stephen Colbert.

You are the one claiming people's existence as absolute fact.  It is on you to prove your claim.

*Stealth* wrote: If Frog Man replied, it follows he exists. Substantiating my proclaimed fact. Do you disagree?

I disagree.  There are essentially infinite alternate explanations for the response that do not require FM's existence.

- God did it.

- FSM did it.

- The ghost in the machine did it.

- There is no response - you are imagining it.

- You are in a coma and this is all a dream.

etc.

carl_the_sniper wrote: It all really depends on who's perspective and what limits you set to it.

Absolutely.

*Stealth* wrote: you acknowledge your existence to be true

Not at all.  I acknowledge that I share your belief that I exist.  I am pretty confident (yet not completely certain) in my existence, but a whole lot less confident in your existence.

It's irrelevant of who did it, it could be bigfoot posting as frog man for all I care - who ever is posting as the entity actually exists in order to respond.

And if there was no post?  What if you are actually in a straitjacket right now, and there is no Tippmann forum at all?

Well I am unfortunatly too late to partake in the exciting philosophical debates in this thread, so I will just respond to the original question.

No, I do not beleive there whould be any large scale riots, and it most certainly whould not mean the end of the United States. If you think that the vast majority of christians in this country whould react that way, then I'm sorry but you have us all wrong. Whatever you believe us to be, you must understand we are patriots and we do not want violence ever, it is not what is commanded of us and we whould never allow our country to fall into a state like that.
There whould probably be small scale demonstrations by extremist groups that call themselves christians like the Arian Nations or the Wesboro Baptist church, some maybe whould be violent but they whould be very small. For the most part, life whould go on as usual here.

Ticalxx421 wrote: Okay i just burned a blunt and this is confusing the hell out of me

Yup, sure you did.

carl_the_sniper wrote: reifidom wrote: carl_the_sniper wrote: Ticalxx421 wrote: Okay i just burned a blunt and this is confusing the hell out of meP.S IM BIG FOOT POOP HEADS Man you are so cool! Teach me Looks like you'll have to trade him for masturbatory tips. Damn

try the see through papers mannnnn, ah haa...