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

Skip to comments.

Creationists Say Science and Bible Disprove 'Ardi' Fossil Is Evidence of Evolution (ABC News)
ABC News ^ | October 7, 2009 | RUSSELL GOLDMAN

Posted on 10/10/2009 9:32:40 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Discovery of 4.4 Million-Year-Old Fossil Does Not Shake Creationists' Faith

By RUSSELL GOLDMAN

Oct. 7, 2009

Sometimes an ape is a 4.4 million-year-old fossil that sheds light on the evolutionary origins of human beings, and sometimes… an ape is just an ape.

In the case of "Ardi," the ape-like fossil recently discovered in Ethiopia and already being celebrated as the oldest found relative of modern human beings, the final determination depends on who is doing the talking.

In one camp are evolutionary scientists who last week published and hailed the discovery of an upright walking ape named Ardipithecus ramidus, or "Ardi" for short, who made Ethiopia her home nearly 5 million years ago.

But despite the excitement from the paleontology community, another group of researchers, many of them with advanced degrees in science, are unimpressed by Ardi, who they believe is just another ape...

(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Kentucky; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: anthropology; ardi; belongsinreligion; catastrophism; catholic; christian; creation; cretinism; evangelical; evolution; godsgravesglyphs; intelligentdesign; judaism; notasciencetopic; paleontology; propellerbeanie; protestant; pseudoscience; science; wasteofbandwidth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181-184 next last
To: tpanther

ding......ding


101 posted on 10/11/2009 4:00:24 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat
“First DNA” , “at least a defined goal.” - It’s called theistic evolution, and my personal views are not far from it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Do you think it reasonable to teach theistic evolution in the schoolroom as a hypothesis for origin of first DNA/life?

102 posted on 10/11/2009 7:12:07 PM PDT by Mudtiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Mudtiger
"Do you think it reasonable to teach theistic evolution in the schoolroom as a hypothesis for origin of first DNA/life?"

Theistic evolution is not a provable hypothesis. It's a belief. It can certainly be an element of philosophy courses, it also deserves a mention in the context of a science course, on the occasion of discussing the very origins of life. But I wouldn't require the students to accept it as a proven fact.

103 posted on 10/11/2009 7:32:09 PM PDT by Behemoth the Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat

“Theistic evolution is not a provable hypothesis. It’s a belief. It can certainly be an element of philosophy courses, it also deserves a mention in the context of a science course, on the occasion of discussing the very origins of life. But I wouldn’t require the students to accept it as a proven fact.”

I do not disagree with any of that. Of course, the ID proponents could claim the same thing.


104 posted on 10/11/2009 7:44:47 PM PDT by Mudtiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Behemoth the Cat; metmom

Go easy on metmom. She said she never believed the moon revolved around the earth then tried over and over along with a couple of her geocentric buddies pretenting to be Eienstien’s to convince me that the moon and son revolved around the earth!


105 posted on 10/11/2009 7:56:56 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: metmom

When did Pharaoh Narmer rule Egypt?


106 posted on 10/11/2009 8:41:42 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

Ahhhh, no proof. Just as I thought.


107 posted on 10/12/2009 1:42:37 AM PDT by NoGrayZone (Where's The Birth Certificate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

Use your common sense pal. Obviously the sun to rule the day and the lesser to rule the night...come on...your almost there....how about the moon.


108 posted on 10/12/2009 4:07:33 AM PDT by dlong66 (common sense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: NoGrayZone
Ahhhh, no proof. Just as I thought.

Proof of what? No one can answer a nonsense question. You're asking nonsense questions.

So, again: you're asking for "inbetween," "in the process of evolution" species. What would one of those look like? How would we know it when we found it?

109 posted on 10/12/2009 10:01:00 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Mudtiger
So there is an explanation (intelligence) for the observed cause (origin of information). We could not say that about an eclipse because we had never seen an intelligent agent cause an eclipse or celestial event. So to prescribe intelligence to a celestial event was to reach for a mechanism that had never been observed. Not so with information.

I still don't understand how the existence of information is supposed to have disproven evolution. Evolution describes a process of modifying the arrangement of the information in response to environmental conditions.

110 posted on 10/12/2009 10:04:22 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
“I still don't understand how the existence of information is supposed to have disproven evolution. Evolution describes a process of modifying the arrangement of the information in response to environmental conditions. “

I don't think the presence of information necessarily disproves evolution. The point, which I believe is significant, is that the only source of information, at least the kind of complex and specific information in DNA, has been observed to originate only by an intelligent agent. This cause is routinely observed and accepted, except for DNA.

The point is not to take abiogenesis off the table — let's keep working at it. But why, if there is a cause that explains the observables, that we observe everyday, is it not allowed on the table?

On another point, my understanding is that the current theory of evolution is not just about the rearrangement of information, but rather the increase of information as organisms build ever more complex biological systems. This is the difficulty. But even if possible, it does not explain the origin of the first information in DNA.

111 posted on 10/12/2009 11:11:16 AM PDT by Mudtiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Mudtiger
The point is not to take abiogenesis off the table — let's keep working at it. But why, if there is a cause that explains the observables, that we observe everyday, is it not allowed on the table?

You've submitted that intelligence was the cause. You've observed people creating information. Have you ever observed any intelligent entity other than a person creating information? Are you really "bringing to the table" exactly what you have observed?

I believe the case can be made that intelligence is required to create information, but simply being intelligent does not mean that you must produce information. "Cause" implies that it is a necessary consequence.

112 posted on 10/12/2009 11:41:44 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater; metmom; GodGunsGuts; count-your-change; Agamemnon; CottShop

That’s absolutely hilarious!

“Go easy on metmom”????

Metmom excoriated those that have smeared her, posting scientitifc observations of the moon’s rotation and in typical liberal fashion...they’ve scurried away.

Until now...crickets.

I’m not surprised however you think enough time has elapsed to cover the painful excoriations.

It hasn’t.

LOL!


113 posted on 10/12/2009 12:50:36 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
“You've submitted that intelligence was the cause. You've observed people creating information.”

I meant to submit that intelligence is a possible cause, perhaps the best available explanation, not necessarily the only cause, although it is the only cause we presently know and have observed. How can one eliminate possibilities that haven't been defined or discovered yet?

“Have you ever observed any intelligent entity other than a person creating information? Are you really “bringing to the table” exactly what you have observed? “

No I have never observed anything other than a human creating information. But a human creates information, not because it is human, but because it has sufficient intelligence. So yes, I think I would be bringing to the table something that has been observed - information created by intelligence — doesn't have to be human.

“I believe the case can be made that intelligence is required to create information, but simply being intelligent does not mean that you must produce information. “Cause” implies that it is a necessary consequence. “

OK, intelligence does not have to create information. But it has created and continues to create information and hence is a potential source whenever and wherever information is found, even the only known source at this time. That is why I think it belongs on the table.

114 posted on 10/12/2009 12:59:42 PM PDT by Mudtiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Mudtiger; GodGunsGuts
The point is not to take abiogenesis off the table — let's keep working at it. But why, if there is a cause that explains the observables, that we observe everyday, is it not allowed on the table?

Simple really...evolution is built upon it. Purposeless, randon, unintelligent, undesigned...evos have to keep it off the table. For obvious reasons. They rely on it, just like they do the courts and every other tactic they use.

ANYthing but the actual science to perpetuate the sham.

115 posted on 10/12/2009 1:09:56 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater; tpanther
She said she never believed the moon revolved around the earth then tried over and over along with a couple of her geocentric buddies pretenting to be Eienstien’s to convince me that the moon and son revolved around the earth!

I never tried to convince anyone that the moon and the son [sic] revolved around the earth.

Care to site that lie?

Speaking of Einstein, *Eienstien*, is there something about the term *geocentric* and the phrase *earth revolving around the sun* that you really don't get?

Just what was your state of mind when you posted that incoherent drivel, anyway?

116 posted on 10/12/2009 1:17:14 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
I still don't understand how the existence of information is supposed to have disproven evolution. Evolution describes a process of modifying the arrangement of the information in response to environmental conditions.

Simple, the information has to have come from somewhere.

117 posted on 10/12/2009 1:19:00 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
Simple, the information has to have come from somewhere.

Non-sequitur.

118 posted on 10/12/2009 3:48:26 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Simple, the information has to have come from somewhere.

Non-sequitur.

...does that include your post?

119 posted on 10/12/2009 6:14:52 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

Peddle it somewhere else.


120 posted on 10/12/2009 6:21:53 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 181-184 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