Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Crushed Lemur Monkey is an Insult to the Evolution Hoax
American Daily Review ^ | 05/20/09 | Yomin Postelnik

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creationism; evolution; hoax; lemur
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181-190 next last
To: ken21

***that’s my great great aunt.***

Your great great aunt had a tail THAT long?;-)


101 posted on 05/20/2009 2:52:58 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Poser
"Is there a non-fossilizing gene or are the fossils just more ancient than man?

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.

102 posted on 05/20/2009 3:02:17 PM PDT by Big_Monkey (Flubama - bringing disease everywhere he goes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: gscc
That’s your opinion and you are entitled to it. Donate another 50 bucks and maybe they will name the new category after you.

The Religion forum awaits you.

103 posted on 05/20/2009 3:02:44 PM PDT by Tax Government
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Big_Monkey

“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


104 posted on 05/20/2009 3:18:12 PM PDT by gscc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: gscc
"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.

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.

105 posted on 05/20/2009 4:23:04 PM PDT by Big_Monkey (Flubama - bringing disease everywhere he goes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Yomin Postelnik
Not only a skeleton but, wait! There's more!

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.

106 posted on 05/20/2009 4:55:56 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Big_Monkey

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.


107 posted on 05/20/2009 4:56:51 PM PDT by gscc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Tax Government

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.


108 posted on 05/20/2009 5:03:37 PM PDT by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: gscc
Why do't you start with Dr. Schweitzer? She certainly doesn't question the fact that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.

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.

109 posted on 05/20/2009 5:06:20 PM PDT by GunRunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day

“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.


110 posted on 05/20/2009 5:17:23 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner

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.


111 posted on 05/20/2009 5:18:48 PM PDT by gscc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: HwyChile

“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.


112 posted on 05/20/2009 5:27:14 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Yomin Postelnik
Anyone visit Google today? They are celebrating this discovery in their logo just to stick it to people of faith.
113 posted on 05/20/2009 5:30:04 PM PDT by Shqipo ((A new tagline is currently under construction))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yomin Postelnik

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.


114 posted on 05/20/2009 5:31:19 PM PDT by Maelstorm (Those that have nothing to hide welcome debate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gscc
This brings the dating into serious contention.

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.

115 posted on 05/20/2009 6:35:58 PM PDT by GunRunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

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.


116 posted on 05/20/2009 6:38:42 PM PDT by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret) "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner

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?


117 posted on 05/20/2009 6:44:12 PM PDT by gscc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: SlowBoat407

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.


118 posted on 05/20/2009 6:50:19 PM PDT by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior
You have added to Scripture by interpreting "the heavens" as meaning only one universe.

Also, Jesus told you "In my Father's house there are many mansions".

119 posted on 05/20/2009 7:00:31 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Shqipo

Oh yah, another reason to boycott google.


120 posted on 05/20/2009 7:10:43 PM PDT by Yomin Postelnik (Support real Republicans: Marco Rubio, Allen West and reelect Tom Coburn in 2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181-190 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson