Creationists Say Science and Bible Disprove 'Ardi' Fossil Is Evidence of Evolution (ABC News)

ABC News ^ | October 7, 2009 | RUSSELL GOLDMAN

[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...

[Mudtiger]

“My computer programs are not the DNA. “

True. But the DNA is much more complicated and information rich than any computer program. Where is the credible naturalistic explanation for DNA’s informational origin? What other mechanism other than intervention by an intelligent agent can explain it to date?

[whattajoke]

Where are those thousands or millions of fossils that show many different speicies evolving into other types? You know, like the evolutionists put into school text books in illustration. They simply do not exist. End of story.

Says you. Those "thousands or millions" (more like thousands) of fossils you seek are readily available online, in books, in museums, at universities, in the ground... The problem is that you are "not allowed" to understand them, and continue to yip about "no transitionals" when 100% of them are "transitionals" in one way or another.

Your particular brand of religion does not allow you to understand that however. Which is fine, just stop trying to convince other people of your ignorance.

Are you looking for a "crocoduck" too? Is that your level of education?

[tacticalogic]

Where is the credible naturalistic explanation for DNA’s informational origin? What other mechanism other than intervention by an intelligent agent can explain it to date?

Historically, how many subjects of scientific inquiry cannot be said at some point to not have a credibly naturalistic explanation, and were attributed to the action of some external intelligent agent?

[Non-Sequitur]

Creationists Say Science and Bible Disprove 'Ardi' Fossil Is Evidence of Evolution

Saying that the Bible disproves it is sure to score points with the scientific community. </sarcasm>

[NoGrayZone]

You can “insult” me all you want; however, where are all the millions of the evolutionary fossils? You know, all the “mistakes”, the fossils w/ 5 limbs or 1 eye, or 3 ears, etc?

Where did they all go?? Why on earth do we continue to find fossils already “evolutioned”??? Where are all the “inbetweens”??

[metmom]

Verses from *Psalms* which are songs? Do you read songs and poetry as literal?

And how do those verses say that the universe is geocentric?

BTW, don’t scientists say *sunrise* and *sunset*? Don’t astronomers use the term *celestial shpere* when describing the heavens?

Does that mean that they think the sun moves around the earth and that the earth in in the middle of a dome?

[Non-Sequitur]

However, all evidence thus-far just proves him wrong.

For example?

[NoGrayZone]

"No. Most PhD's ask you don't call them doctor."

Hahahaha. I work in a doctors office and we come across many many phd's and REAL doctors. I must say....the phd's are the ones who INSIST being called doctor!! We call them by their 1st names on purpose, just to see them have a hissy fit!!

One guy got so mad he said "I worked very hard for my degree not to be called doctor. Please, call me doctor! We have great laughs at their expense!

[NoGrayZone]

"For example?"

Every fossil found. They are all formed, already "evolutioned". Where are all the "inbetween" fossils??

[Kozak]

[cerberus]

Don't you realize that you're not a conservative if you don't believe that evolution is a satanist plot, the earth was created 6,00 years ago and that reference to the Bible constitutes scientific proof?

[Non-Sequitur]

Every fossil found. They are all formed, already "evolutioned". Where are all the "inbetween" fossils??

Here

[NoGrayZone]

I skimmed through a lot of your link, however, I focused on the "Why Are There Gaps" part....

"Note that fossils separated by more than about a hundred thousand years cannot show anything about how a species arose. Think about it: there could have been a smooth transition, or the species could have appeared suddenly, but either way, if there aren't enough fossils, we can't tell which way it happened."

Your link speaks a lot of "we found a foot, we found a fin, we found a vertebrae. Perhaps I missed it, but could you please point me to the part where they have actually found an almost complete "transitional" fossil?

From what I have read in the "Gap" explanation, and what I have skimmed through, there are more questions than answers.

Also, how do they explain the "or the species could have appeared suddenly".

[UCANSEE2]

I don't see any reason to believe that "it was created by a programmer", that's all.

I don't either. It has way too few bugs to have been created by a programmer.

[fishtank]

You might have already posted this article:

http://www.icr.org/article/4975/

... seems like the communists don’t have a monopoly on lying about the facts............

[fabian]

But if you understand the function and numeric code in the dna, you know that it is more complex in action than a computer code.

[fabian]

No, we would see clear transitionals that would have put this debate to sleep long ago. They simply do not exist and for you to imagine some to be is just fantasy. They would be clear! You just are lying here but do not even know it yourself.

[whattajoke]

You can “insult” me all you want; however, where are all the millions of the evolutionary fossils? You know, all the “mistakes”, the fossils w/ 5 limbs or 1 eye, or 3 ears, etc?

Huh? Say what? Your biology teacher did you a huge disservice by teaching you that you should expect "fossils with 5 limbs or 1 eye or 3 ears, etc." For he (and now you, apparently) have a very poor understanding of evolution and natural history.

Such grotesque life forms would have been aberrations and by your description, most likely would not have resulted in a viable lineage. Therefore, no species succeeded with such aberrations and as a result, fossils of such creatures would be hard to come by indeed. And, it goes without saying, they'd hardly result in a viable species.

Of course, getting back to the topic of the article... Why does this guy exist at all? Where is he today? By creationist logic, it's not that "it's just an ape," but should be, "Hey! This thing shouldn't exist at all!"

Why on earth do we continue to find fossils already “evolutioned”??? Where are all the “inbetweens”??

Oh dear. You really are looking for "crocoducks" and such. I hate to disappoint you, but evolution doesn't result in macabre wacky animals (platypus notwithstanding.) What defines an "in between" to you? Would snakes with legs (we have them)? Lizards with feathers (them too)? Please explain the tiktaalik from your perspective.

[whattajoke]

Hahahaha. I work in a doctors office and we come across many many phd's and REAL doctors. I must say....the phd's are the ones who INSIST being called doctor!!

I should have clarified - yes, MEDICAL doctors insist upon being called doctor. I'm talking those with PhD's in other sciences.

[whattajoke]

Don't you realize that you're not a conservative if you don't believe that evolution is a satanist plot, the earth was created 6,00 years ago and that reference to the Bible constitutes scientific proof?

So I've been told. About a billion times here. But I steadfastly continue to believe Conservatism should be about telling the truth, darnit. Woe is me.

I find it endlessly fascinating that the creationists never have a problem with all the lies and liars and quote-mining and blatant obfuscation their teachers put forth on a daily basis. Like this one from the other day. No, it's not a lie, per se, but it sure isn't being truthful. Not one creationist had an issue with the fact that the source article never bothers to link the actual video they are bashing. Just a still screen shot and links to other things. Not one creationist had a lightbulb go off to say, "Hm, that's weird. So many creationist articles have lied to me over the years, maybe this one is lying too. or at least twisting or exaggerating to a degree."

It's pathological.