...................Ardi...................................Arni
One is a missing link, the other is missing a spine
Posted on 11/03/2009 9:26:52 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
NO I decesnded form Adam and Eve, Noah and his son Japheth.
Amen to that!
It was supposed to be Ida? What happened with that?
Well, according to some of my in-laws, I’m related to several kinds of slime-mold... ;-P
See? Just like it says in Genesis! The End.
Brian Thomas, M.S.* never fails to entertain. I am anxiously awaiting the posting of a peer-reviewed article by BTMS*.
I heard a rumor that the scientists discovered a small label on Ardi that read “Made in China”.
They also love to be the researcher presenting the most recent big discovery. Limelight equals renewed research grants and maybe even a new car.
When “Man” received the ability to choose right from wrong and obtained his immortal soul our evolution began. IMHO
I agree. He, on rare occasions, actually comes up with a valid critique and then never builds on it - jumping to Genesis instead. It’s like the poor kid had to turn in a paper in the morning and dashed it off as quickly as possible hoping to at least make a C.
Get ready to put on your surprised look...
We have found the missing link... His name is Adam.
That’s false advertising. Ardi’s ancestors were created by God on Day 6 of Creation Week.
LOL!
Just out of curiosity, what do you base this belief of yours on???
Amen to that too!...LOL!!!
One is a missing link, the other is missing a spine
No.
Yes.
[[In his assessment of the significance of Ardipithecus ramidus, bipedality expert C. Owen Lovejoy wrote, “We can no longer rely on homologies with African apes for accounts of our origins and must turn instead to general evolutionary theory.”2 Thus, setting aside evolution-inspired ideology, there is no scientific reason—or observed evidence—to believe that Ardi was an ancestor of mankind. In fact, there is every reason to believe it is solely an extinct primate, as uniquely created as any monkey still alive today.]]
This is a gross fallacy. Lovejoy says in this case to go from specific to general evolutionary theory. The author interprets this to mean to abandon evolutionary theory and completely discount it as unscientific.
[[Based on the Bible’s description of origins, one would predict that all “hominids” should actually be either wholly man or wholly ape. Based on the scientific evidence, Ardipithecus was clearly an ape, and as such fits the Genesis account that each creature group was created as its own kind.]]
A combination of two gross fallacies.
1) Appeal to authority. It’s impossible to obtain legitimate scientific results by using the Bible to interpret scientific theories. The Bible is not a legitimate source of science, any more than a science textbook is a legitimate source of religion.
2) Circular reasoning. Based on the scientific evidence, all hominids are apes. To say that humans are not apes because only apes are apes is fallacious.
If you want to use the authority of the Bible to say that evolution is not a legitimate theory, go right ahead. But attempting to use science to refute it is not going to work, especially if those attempting it don’t understand basic science, as is clearly being demonstrated by this website.
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.