Posted on 05/20/2009 12:19:27 PM PDT by Yomin Postelnik
In the latest act of media hyped pseudo-science, aka liberal/conventional science, the discovery of the crushed and flattened fossil of a lemur monkey, that while alive had a shattered left wrist, is being touted as the needed “proof” of Darwinian theory.
For the first time, all scientists interviewed freely admit that the theory of evolution had gaping holes in it. They just claim that all of the answers lie in the packaged, crush fossil that spent the last 20 years hanging on someone’s wall. In other words, they admit that until yesterday, anyone who claimed that there was anything close to conclusive proof of evolutionary was wrong, despite having sold that line for decades. The extent of the absurdity of their new “proof” will be outlined below.
The media, which specializes in hyping the ordinary, went as far as to call this spectacle the possible eighth wonder of the world. These are the same crowd that revels in referring to every new president (regardless of party) as the next possible Lincoln or FDR, every foreign leader the next possible Churchill and every Vice President of the United States…. Well, I guess there are some things that even today’s media cannot hype.
(Excerpt) Read more at americandailyreview.com ...
***that’s my great great aunt.***
Your great great aunt had a tail THAT long?;-)
It's a numbers game - simple mathematics. Trilobites were on the planet for hundreds of millions of years, and probably in much, much greater numbers than man is even today. Human beings have only been in North American for about 12K years, hardly enough time to build any fossile base, but certainly not enough time to build a fossil base as long and as deep as one for you trilobites.
As for the rest of the world, this principle still holds true. Homo sapiens have only been on earth for 50k-60k years. It stands to mathematical reason that other species would outnumber human fossil on a exponential level. Thus, you find a lot more of others than of humans or their evolutionary precursors.
The Religion forum awaits you.
“It’s a numbers game - simple mathematics. Trilobites were on the planet for hundreds of millions of years, and probably in much, much greater numbers than man is even today. Human beings have only been in North American for about 12K years, hardly enough time to build any fossile base, but certainly not enough time to build a fossil base as long and as deep as one for you trilobites.
As for the rest of the world, this principle still holds true. Homo sapiens have only been on earth for 50k-60k years. It stands to mathematical reason that other species would outnumber human fossil on a exponential level. Thus, you find a lot more of others than of humans or their evolutionary precursors.”
This is only true if the number of years you site are accurate and after all isn’t this what the debate is all about. The recent discovery of blood vessels and proteins in an hadrosaur fossil by Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University seems to call into question evolutionists that claim the species to be 80 million years old.
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2725/blood-and-gristle-found-cretaceous-era-duck-billed-dinosaur
I read your linked article, twice. I can't find anything in the article that points to the fossil record being improperly dated.
If anything, it greatly bolsters the evolutionary belief that there is genetic linkage between uniquely distinct species that inhabited the earth at different times. In this case, the DNA material found in the duck-billed dinosaur shares genetic markers with our modern day poultry or amphibians, specifically chickens and frogs.
National Geographic News, May 19, 2009:
“In Ida's case, scientists were able to examine fossil evidence of fur and soft tissue and even picked through the remains of her last meal: fruits, seeds, and leaves.”
I thought something didn't smell right.
The possibility that soft tissue survived 80 million years is preposterous. The finding calls into question the dating of the species as 80 million years. In researching opinion on the viability of tissue surviving 80 million years the most I found that any “scientist” was able to conjecture was that it was unlikely soft tissue could survive any more than 10,000 years. If you can point me to scientific evidence that this tissue can survive 80 million years please do. I’d be glad to read your “little” article on that research.
Would you be so kind as to post your PROOF that life DID crawl out of some primordial ooze, became monkeys and then man? Thanks in advance.
To me the theory of evolution is like me taking my watch apart, putting the components into a paper sack, then shaking it around for 3-4 billion years and expecting it to be all back together, in the right order and functional, telling the correct time.
In fact, she's already put the verbal smackdown on creationists lying and misrepresenting her work, so I'd advise you to quit practicing just that.
“Free” also means you’re “Free” to leave and “Free” to not read what you don’t like and “Free” to not comment.
It seems you’ve missed several opportunities to do all three but, fear not! It’s not too late.
I understand what Dr. Schweitzer believes. The smackdown of her research is with those “scientists”, including Dr. Schweitzer, who date this specie at 80 million years yet cannot explain how soft tissue could survive that long. This brings the dating into serious contention.
“Science is mostly junk”
Well, it is indistinguishable from junk if you don’t understand it.
Granted, it does take time and effort to get to the point of being able to understand difficult things. You have lots of company on this thread, so don’t think you’re being picked on.
Good post. What gets me about this fossil is the way it was presented in such an unscientific way and as if this one fossil ends a great debate when in truth it just begins one. Also it attempts to gloss over the fact that Darwinism and the idea of linear descent of species is bunk. So much of the stuff we were taught in high school concerning “proof” for Darwinian evolution has proved bunk. Whether it be comparative embryonic studies, the lightening creating amino acids, and the neat little pictures of horses and man evolving from one step to another as if by magic.
The History of life is full of many moments of grand synchronicity in the development of everything from the first flowers to the emergence of modern man. I just wish scientists would be upfront about the limits of their knowledge. There is so much we don’t know and the idea that evolution must be maintained as a narrowly defined dogma with the intent of attacking religion and the foundations of man is unnecessary and narrow minded.
There is room for faith in science and science in faith because it takes a lot of faith to believe in something based on a remains that are millions of years old with no soft tissue left to analyze. One can make up grand stories and make assumptions based on physical structure and taxonomic analysis of the remains but it has been recently found that such taxonomic analysis is sometimes very wrong with the advent of new technology using genetic and protein sequence molecular data to create phylogenetic trees animals that were thought related based on taxonomy turn out not to be.
It does no such thing.
It brings our understanding of preservation of natural materials into serious question.
But the dating of the Earth and the fossils in it are determined by other means.
Well, yes, 1; God did create the universe-by defintion, there is only one (”universe” remember?), per Genesis 1 (”the heavens and the earth”).
2; Adding to what is written is a fairly common humnanistic error-to suit the man, not the Creator.
3; Absolutely no “proof” of your “unbidden” claim, refer to 2 above.... Action requires an actor and an object.
Your view requires exceedingly more faith than mine, so you must be the religious fanatic....
I respect your view, while thoroughly rejecting it after much study and effort.
I still contend this brings the dating into serious contention. There also is no doubt that the understanding of preservation of natural materials is your only fall back. In this instance “science’s” current understanding of the preservation of natural materials would have to be off by almost 80 million years. Slight miscalculation don’t you think?
Everyone always screeching about the spotty fossil record who has now suddenly decided to thumb his nose at a newly discovered fossil, raise your hand.
Also, Jesus told you "In my Father's house there are many mansions".
Oh yah, another reason to boycott google.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.