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 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-184 next last
To: Mudtiger
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?

How do you include an undefined and unknown possibility?

121 posted on 10/12/2009 6:23:58 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: dlong66
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.

Use your common sense! The moon is NOT a light. It is a cold, dead moon.

122 posted on 10/12/2009 6:29:25 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

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

Are you referring to her post where she gave three links 'to show that the moon didn't revolve around the earth' and EVERYONE of them said it DID revolve around the earth!

One had it is the FIRST sentence!

123 posted on 10/12/2009 6:32:09 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Your defeat is acknowledged.


124 posted on 10/12/2009 6:46:39 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; Mudtiger; metmom

“How do you include an undefined and unknown possibility”?

Ummm by not shutting down debate and suing people to keep quiet...?

For starters.

This is what kills me about evolutionists...THEIR process is open-ended, we’re supposed to just wait around for another ga-jillion years or whatever it takes.

But any and every idea outside of the cult just can’t be so much as considered, for whatever reason. And any reason is good enough.


125 posted on 10/12/2009 7:32:52 PM PDT by tpanther (Science was, is and will forever be a small subset of God's creation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
This is what kills me about evolutionists

You seem right lively for being dead.

126 posted on 10/12/2009 7:49:11 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

“How do you include an undefined and unknown possibility?”

I don’t think we should. Information-from-intelligence is not undefined or unknown. We are all familiar with it. That is why I would include it as a potential cause whenever we observe information.


127 posted on 10/13/2009 5:14:39 AM PDT by Mudtiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Mudtiger
I don’t think we should. Information-from-intelligence is not undefined or unknown. We are all familiar with it. That is why I would include it as a potential cause whenever we observe information.

Information-from-intelligence is a misnomer. You've seen people create information. They utilize their intelligence to do that. They also expend energy in the process. The intelligence is no more a direct cause of the information than the energy was.

What's required is an intelligent entity.

128 posted on 10/13/2009 5:25:01 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
“What’s required is an intelligent entity. “

I don’t really understand your point, I guess. I have used “intelligent agent” and “intelligence” sort of interchangeably. I would agree that an intelligent entity, whatever its form, is necessary. I don’t know why that distinction is important when discussing the origin of information. But still, it is because the entity is intelligent, not because it is human, that it can originate information - at least that is what has been observed.

129 posted on 10/13/2009 5:54:04 AM PDT by Mudtiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Mudtiger
I don’t really understand your point, I guess. I have used “intelligent agent” and “intelligence” sort of interchangeably. I would agree that an intelligent entity, whatever its form, is necessary. I don’t know why that distinction is important when discussing the origin of information. But still, it is because the entity is intelligent, not because it is human, that it can originate information - at least that is what has been observed.

The difference between "intelligence" and "intelligent entity" is that an entity is discrete. It has an identity. When you posit a discrete entity as being a cause, you have to identify it. What are you going to call it?

130 posted on 10/13/2009 6:16:28 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

“The difference between “intelligence” and “intelligent entity” is that an entity is discrete. It has an identity. When you posit a discrete entity as being a cause, you have to identify it. What are you going to call it?”

No, I don’t think I have to call it anything other than an intelligent entity.


131 posted on 10/13/2009 6:23:03 AM PDT by Mudtiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Mudtiger
No, I don’t think I have to call it anything other than an intelligent entity.

Then it seems to be unknown and undefined.

132 posted on 10/13/2009 6:39:49 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

“Then it seems to be unknown and undefined.”

Agreed. But we can assume “it” is there based on our current knowledge of where information comes from. And we can keep looking for it, or for further evidence of it.


133 posted on 10/13/2009 7:30:56 AM PDT by Mudtiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Mudtiger
Agreed. But we can assume “it” is there based on our current knowledge of where information comes from. And we can keep looking for it, or for further evidence of it.

If "it" is there and is indeed the cause, the investigations should eventually lead to it, or produce more evidence that it exists whether you started of specifically looking for it or not.

134 posted on 10/13/2009 8:14:53 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

“If “it” is there and is indeed the cause, the investigations should eventually lead to it, or produce more evidence that it exists whether you started of specifically looking for it or not. “

The fact that “it” is the only known source of information observed to date, together with the lack of any credible naturalistic explanation, is pretty strong evidence, at least to me. Things may change, but my only point in this whole discussion is that we have observed to date where information comes from (intelligent agents and only intelligent agents) and this should be on the table. It is our best “known” explanation anytime we see complex, specific information.

I assume that complex, specific information is what SETI is looking for and assuredly if they find it, we would acknowledge an intelligent source even if we could not define or identify it. Yet this would be considered scientific and would surely be on the table as proof of extraterrestrial intelligence.


135 posted on 10/13/2009 8:52:58 AM PDT by Mudtiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy; GodGunsGuts
Don't need to go to the link: "researchers, many of them with advanced degrees in science" is code for Deluge-Creationists.

You know, it's nice to find such candor.

So many Darwolaters strike this pose that it's all about the science and the facts; that nobody with a degree questions Darwin; that if degreed people made factual cases, why, they would be perfectly open-minded and tickled pink to consider other views, and yada yada yada.

But none of that crap for you. It's your religion, facts are irrelevant, and nothing will change your mind.

Well-done! I hope others follow your example!

136 posted on 10/13/2009 9:00:50 AM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mudtiger
I assume that complex, specific information is what SETI is looking for and assuredly if they find it, we would acknowledge an intelligent source even if we could not define or identify it. Yet this would be considered scientific and would surely be on the table as proof of extraterrestrial intelligence.

Sure. They've posited the existence of extraterrestrial life, and developed a methodology to search for it.

Do you have a methodology to look for the "intelligent agent"?

137 posted on 10/13/2009 9:14:38 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

“Sure. They’ve posited the existence of extraterrestrial life, and developed a methodology to search for it.

Do you have a methodology to look for the “intelligent agent”? “

Yes, I look for complex, specific information. When I find it, I conclude intelligence. Bascally same as SETI.


138 posted on 10/13/2009 9:19:42 AM PDT by Mudtiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Mudtiger
Yes, I look for complex, specific information. When I find it, I conclude intelligence. Bascally same as SETI.

Having concluded intelligence, what do you propose to do with that information?

139 posted on 10/13/2009 9:35:02 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
“Having concluded intelligence, what do you propose to do with that information? “

Accept it as reality. Keep my eyes open for other data that would support or reject my conclusion and adapt and change accordingly. Tell it to others. Be a little humbled that other intelligence exist. Support studies and science that seeks to understand more about how such an intelligence could do such a thing - maybe we can too, then.

The questions are getting a little off-topic. Thanks for the discussion.

140 posted on 10/13/2009 9:49:33 AM PDT by Mudtiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 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