Posted on 05/23/2009 7:51:04 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Darwin fossil hyper-hype
by Don Batten
23 May 2009
The orchestrated multimedia blitz over this fossil is almost unbelievable. The paleontologists even got Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, to officiate at the public “launch” of Ida (the cute nickname for the fossil), when it was unveiled—like a new sculpture by a famous artist—to the assembled journalists...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
That all depends on what you mean. I am indeed a man. However, the effort to expose and crush derwood’s atheist creation myth is being conducted by both men and women alike.
{ 8^)
No, and they shouldn’t.
Term of affection...yikes!...is there some new law that allows imprisoned darwinists to post to FR?
The concept of evolution was around for thousands of years before Darwin.
{ 8^) What is this? I’m way too close to being a fossil myself to understand the latest shorthand.
Yes, it has. Derwood’s atheist creation myth is but the most modern manifestation of the same.
Tilt your head to the left and look at it again.
Who is Derwood?
Smiley face. And quit your braggin' { 8^D
{ 8^D = big grin
Ahem: not that kind of affection.
oh...o.k....I guess...I thought withe the eight and up arrow maybe it meant “ate up” as in, “you’re ate up!”
Well, ya never know, right?
I’m doing good to see straight ahead and rather close and now I gotta tilt my head and read too?
Not unless you ask.
Ask what? My memory isn’t the best either.
Even using the specially ordered low bar which I use to judge political cartoons, that one isn’t as witty and incisive as the work of Ted Rall
More posts from WWN!
Thanks for helping me keep track of Bat Boy!
I think I will start a website called “Creationism Monthly” or something similar, post some drek on it using quote mining and quoting people who have no science but a lot of agenda and then wait for you to post from it.
Wouldn’t that be fun? I will even have New Age graphics like the ones you post from do.
Thanks for giving me my next project.
And you can add to your little cartoon “I BELIEVE in wind” “I BELIEVE in gravity” “I BELIEVE in astronomy” “I believe the Grand Canyon was formed by a river!” I guess all scientists are just practicing their religion.
When I read the first news reports of Ida, which said it was an ape-human intermediate 47 million years old, my jaw about hit the ground. That would be precisely the kind of fossil that according to Darwinism - shouldn’t exist.
Taxonomy dictates the pattern that we should see in the fossil record. There are lemurs - from which monkeys split - from which apes split - from which humans split.
In the fossil record, we likewise have lemurs appearing first (~ 60 million years ago), then monkeys appear ~45 million years ago, the first apes ~37 million years ago, with the humans splitting off ~5-7 million years ago.
Thus we see the same pattern in the two disparate systems.
Now how can there be an ape-human fossil before there are even apes? Simply, there can’t, at least according to Darwinism. And this would not just be before apes - but before there are even monkeys! There would be complete discordance between the two systems.
We can bring genetics into it as well. If genetics matches the taxonomic and fossil evidence, we should be closest genetically to apes, than to monkeys, than to lemurs - which is what we find. If we had split off 47 million years ago, however, than we should be equidistant genetically with all apes and monkeys. Thus there would be discordance between taxonomy, paleontology, and genetics.
I saw a lot of posts saying that evolutionists were celebrating this find. Actually, the reaction of evolutionists (at least from the half way knowledgeable ones) was more like “WTF?!”. heh
It was the knowledgable Creationists that were celebrating, as such a creature would bring the evolutionary tree down.
There is one thing that Creationists and evolutionists are in full agreement on - science reporting in the general media is absolutely atrocious. I don’t know if whoever wrote the New York Daily News article needs to be fired, but he at least should never be allowed to touch another science news story again.
What Creationists don’t realize, however, is that the media is their best friend. What percentage of the general public is going to use all the confusing and contradictory reports on this fossil as evidence of disarray in the field of evolutionary science in general rather than as just bad reporting? I would bet pretty high, especially if FR is any indication).
Now let’s say the media was actually competent and reported what the fossil is ACTUALLY being described as by some scientists - as an intermediate between lemurs and monkeys. Going by the time-line, at what age SHOULD we find such intermediates? Between 40-50 million years ago. I’m going to withhold judgement as to whether it’s an intermediate until we know more about it, but it’s still anatomically what we would expect, as predicted by evolution, from that time period. Of course, because of the media, few people will be looking at it that way.
'Bout the smiley face. Now cut it out. We're starting to sound like a couple of old coots having multiple senior moments.
I’m not that old but I do remember when the Grand Canyon was just the Big Canyon.
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.