Darwinists rejoice: Missing link found
posted at 12:52 pm on May 19, 2009 by Allahpundit
Well, a missing link, not necessarily the missing link, although insofar as it seems to confirm Darwin’s speculation about transitional species, it’s a huge coup for fans of Uncle Charlie. I love the smell of fossilized monkeys in the morning. Smells like … victory. If anyone needs me, I’ll be at the bar drinking champagne with Charles Johnson.
Dude, what if Richard Dawkins planted it?
Based on previously limited fossil evidence, one big debate had been whether the tarsidae or adapidae group gave rise to monkeys, apes and humans. The latest discovery bolsters the less common position that our ancient ape-like ancestor was an adapid, the believed precursor of lemurs…
The discovery has little bearing on a separate paleontological debate centering on the identity of a common ancestor of chimps and humans, which could have lived about six million years ago and still hasn’t been found. That gap in the evolution story is colloquially referred to as the “missing link” controversy. In reality, though, all gaps in the fossil record are technically “missing links” until filled in, and many scientists say the term is meaningless.
Nonetheless, the latest fossil find is likely to ignite further the debate between evolutionists who draw conclusions based on a limited fossil record, and creationists who don’t believe that humans, monkeys and apes evolved from a common ancestor.
Sky News has the best piece on the fossil’s significance and how it ended up in scientists’ hands — it hung on someone’s wall for more than 20 years — but you’re better off poking around the ultra-slick website that’s been designed for it, especially the section “Who is Ida?” and “The Implications.” Click the image to proceed.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Next »
There’s that elitist snobbery and hateful ignorance I’ve come to expect from atheists.
Kudos for being so stereotypical, jackass.
TMK on May 19, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Buddhists believe in creation. . . but they do not believe that the origin of the species is important (which is closer to my beliefs than evolution).
Where we came from is not as important as where we are and where we are going. Evolution teaches us nothing important in the world now or in the future.
ThackerAgency on May 19, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Umm Wee… it is still a Theory. Not a Scientific Law. There is a difference… and I doubt evolution will ever become a law.
upinak on May 19, 2009 at 1:39 PM
… because it has BONES! And it apparently BREATHED AIR, and ATE THINGS, and POOPED JUST LIKE US!
Sorry. I turned a deaf ear to this stuff when it was argued that birds evolved from the Tyrannosaurus because they “shared” one bone.
Rod on May 19, 2009 at 1:39 PM
I’m not. An. Atheist.
If you’re talking about me.
I apologize for the apparent misstatement. Not my first language, you know. :)
maynila on May 19, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Better not tell him you allow creationists at your website or he’ll break a beer bottle and try to stab you.
frankj on May 19, 2009 at 1:40 PM
We must repeat D–E–V–O
WashJeff on May 19, 2009 at 1:40 PM
BTW SheofTwoMinds, “intelligent design” is just creationism dressed up in the latest pseudo-scientific style. It’s bogus.
starfleet_dude on May 19, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Easy to argue with anyone. Hard to actually win. But in your morally superior mind full of sweeping generalities, you have won, so you can sleep at night.
kirkill on May 19, 2009 at 1:40 PM
ISNT THAT AN XRAY OF helen thomas????
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on May 19, 2009 at 1:32 PM
LOL!!!! I think we’ve figured it out!
DCJeff on May 19, 2009 at 1:40 PM
300 comments already? Evolution gays and abortion!
lorien1973 on May 19, 2009 at 1:41 PM
If you want to fit in with Charles, you’ll need a banstick and a select group of faithful muppets to ooooh and aaaah over your sheer awesomeness.
You-Eh-Vee on May 19, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Before there was Global Warming there was Evolution. Your comment shows the terrible lack of reason in evolution debates in my humble opinion. I’ve always felt that evolution proponents suffered severely from begging the question. They claim man evolved from primates. Their proof…look a bunch of primate bones. Unless I already thought humans evolved from primates, that’s not evidence at all.
Here’s what I don’t get: evolution is supposedly about survival of the fittest and arbitrary mutation that turns out to increase a species viability. If the new creature is more viable then not only should we still see them in nature but they should be thriving! So we shouldn’t need to look for extinct precursors, they should still be alive and thriving because they were so much better at survival than their ancestors. But no such example exists for any species whatsoever. People who criticize creation need to realize people believe creation not because they are religious automatons, but because evolution is actually very unreasonable and doesn’t address the most basic objections people have with it.
Goldenavatar on May 19, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Kinky looking fingers or toes.
moonsbreath on May 19, 2009 at 1:42 PM
yeah thats kind of what dawkins said…basically ignore common sense and keep telling yourself ‘its not designed, its not designed’ it evolved!!!!
right4life on May 19, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Not so fast, here is a link to a picture that proves that man is an evolutionary creature.
This was in a museum for months before finally being “discovered”.
Proof that others try to hide.
Here
And wasn’t there a “Piltman” who for the past 40 years was considered the “missing link”, and ended up beng a hoax.
Looks like we will have to wait 40 more years to know the “truth”.
right2bright on May 19, 2009 at 1:42 PM
*Snort* Good one.
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 19, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Ida is Bababooey
ScottMcC on May 19, 2009 at 1:42 PM
You know, I don’t like anyone telling me what to think–whether it’s the Obamabots, OR the Bible thumpers. I spent a childhood with my evangelist relatives trying to shut down my brain and make me think that a text written 5,000 years ago is adequate to explain a vast, complicated, wondrous universe. If there’s a God, he gave us our gray matter (through guided evolution, perchance), in order to question, learn, and marvel.
There are too many miraculous things documented verifiably (many things I perceive to be near-miraculous aren’t generally accounted to be) for me to be an atheist. But I’m not going to bury my head in the Bible and pretend the real world and REAL science don’t exist.
quikstrike98 on May 19, 2009 at 1:43 PM
I am a christian. I believe the biblical account of creation. I wake up every morning and put my Bachelor of Science degree to work. I put on my lab coat and my safety glasses 5-7 days a week. I love science. Ignorant bigots, nope don’t care much for them!
daesleeper on May 19, 2009 at 1:43 PM
I thought one of the other deficiencies are things like the eye. The complexity of the cell.
Time is a bugger, but those are not exactly things to be sloughed off.
However, I do agree (and I am a Christian) that evolution is not completely a far-fetched idea. Organisms do change. I just don’t quite cotton to what people use evolution to explain, codify, or excuse – such as Marxism.
kybowexar on May 19, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Uh, humans don’t raise velociraptors for Thanksgiving dinner now, do we?
Turkey is the fittest because it is delicious!
TMK on May 19, 2009 at 1:43 PM
RAWR! Means I argue with you in Dinosaur.
kirkill on May 19, 2009 at 1:43 PM
…and it will crash and burn like all the other supposed “huge coups”….
Billions and billions and billions and billions of fossils later… they may have one transitional creature who is transitional to something… meanwhile the trillions of other species have none… well, that settles it.
mankai on May 19, 2009 at 1:43 PM
upinak on May 19, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Just shoot me a picture, and I’ll tell you.
There is a huge mass of real material down there, so you’re probably pretty safe.
Of course, I’m the genius who bought a beautiful Parasaurolophus dinosaur egg from China which was mainly reconstructed for about $400 a few years ago.
D’oh!
TexasJew on May 19, 2009 at 1:44 PM
He has a “muppet” it’s name is stranglet.
upinak on May 19, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Certain things, creatures and such could NOT have evolved. There is evidence that disproves creation. Scientific evidence.
We put people in jail all the time based on evidence that proves ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that they committed a crime. Then after a few years, they find one piece of evidence that PROVES they did not commit the crime and we let them go. ONE piece of evidence trumps ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE in our legal system. . .
But not our scientific community.
ThackerAgency on May 19, 2009 at 1:44 PM
and you think ‘real science’ contradicts the bible?? right.
right4life on May 19, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Piltdown man, a hoax that suckered in L Ron Hubbard and gifted Scientology with an interesting if ludicrous creation myth….
Piltdown
sven10077 on May 19, 2009 at 1:44 PM
I’m on board with Evolution but I have to say watching that video, you can’t help but be overwhelmed with the scientists obvious predisposition to this fossil being EXACTLY what he wants it to be. You can almost see him making the pieces fit instead of following where they lead.
That said, very cool. Looks like Ida was a cute little bugger =)
Dash on May 19, 2009 at 1:45 PM
This thread contains everything that is wrong with the Republican party.
brandozilla on May 19, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Darwin had a social philosophy that tried to prove it with science…not unlike many who try to prove global warming on weak science.
Science is often just a tool to prove a sociological point…2 + 2 = evolution.
right2bright on May 19, 2009 at 1:45 PM
I wonder if it is the ability to post anonymous comments that has turned this conversation so vicious and hateful?
myrenovations on May 19, 2009 at 1:45 PM
I made the mistake of vocally banning Mr. Johnson’s first and second ban waves…..
sven10077 on May 19, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Sounds interesting, but I’ll wait until the scientific community gets a good look at it – there have been scams before.
And I continue to wonder at people who steadfastly believe that evolution and God cannot co-exist easily and peacefully.
Then again, that’s why I stopped going to LGF and took them off of my RSS feeder – every little thing about evolution was proclaimed as some great victory over religion.
Religious_Zealot on May 19, 2009 at 1:46 PM
LOL, I got banned for saying retard… once. Oh well… not my problem.
upinak on May 19, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Evolution posits that life gradually evolves from one species to another, and it predicts that one ought to be able to find fossilized remnants of the steps between known species. Every “missing link” fossil specimen found corroborates (not verifies, but corroborates) the theory.
From a creationists’ anti-scientific perspective, though, every missing link that is found disproves evolution. If one finds the erstwhile missing link B between A and C, the creationist asks where the missing links are between A and B and between B and C.
hicsuget on May 19, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Lol. That’s a funny t-shirt.
BadgerHawk on May 19, 2009 at 1:47 PM
They do? Can you point me to the creation myth widely believed among modern Buddhists? Also, any material you may be aware of that suggests a contradiction between Buddhism and evolution, if you know of any.
DarkCurrent on May 19, 2009 at 1:47 PM
There are towns all over the “Fertile Crescent” that are much older than 4000 years. The Early Dynastic period in Egypt begins well over 4000 years ago.
And there are lots of other dating techniques that have demonstrated that humans have been around for much more than 4000 years, and that the earth itself is much, much older.
But I suspect that you aren’t really interested in the science of this.
ProfessorMiao on May 19, 2009 at 1:47 PM
What, something other than groupthink? When has debate ruined a group? Iron sharpens iron.
daesleeper on May 19, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Science is the study of things that defy common sense. The idea that matter cannot be destroyed defies common sense. The idea that the sun is the center of the solar system defies common sense.
What could be more boring than to study everything that is confirmed by common sense? What would scientists study then?
“Does a Hammer Hurt When it Drops on Your Foot?”
“Does Dirt turn to Mud when you Add Water?”
The “It goes against common sense” arguement is lousy. It’s SUPPOSED to defy common sense. That is what makes it science.
justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 1:48 PM
This thread contains everything that is wrong with the Republican party.brandozilla on May 19, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Not anymore.
nico on May 19, 2009 at 1:48 PM
To be honest, if that thing doesn’t poop out oil, I really don’t care what it is or was.
moonsbreath on May 19, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Oh now, AP, even an atheist knows what the biblical meaning of “created in God’s image” means. It means 1) spiritual 2) creative 3) rational and 4) moral.
It has nothing to do with monkey heads.
And if drinking champagne with Charles Johnson is your idea of fun, well then, I feel sorry for you.
BigD on May 19, 2009 at 1:48 PM
How can one “prove” that one animal did not evolve? there may be evidence that suggests certain animals came about through particularly novel processes that we don’t fully understand, but thats not “proof”. Proof comes along fleetingly in science, and for good reason…its not the criminal justice system.
And as for your critique, i wonder, how is it we can regularly assume gravity’s effects with surprising accuracy…even if we don’t know exactly what gravity is? you see, there are some ideas that don’t require absolute proof in all circumstances to prove useful to science.
ernesto on May 19, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Sooo… what your saying is that this is my Aunt Ida? Well that’s nice to know I can always use more branches in my family tree.
Hey I saw the new Star Trek last night! It was really really cool too! Story making is a great thing!
petunia on May 19, 2009 at 1:49 PM
I’ve wondered that too, as if God were just afraid we’d figure out He is actually just working the controls behind the curtain.
It might be the constant – Believe it you foolish, moronic worshippers of a pretend sky-god. Believe it and come to reason, like us open-minded, brilliant, undiluted wonderful beings of smartness.
That could be why, but I could be wrong.
kybowexar on May 19, 2009 at 1:50 PM
The gates to the ancient city of Dan in Northern Israel. Date to 6000 BC Really freaking cool! The gates were arched too(take that romans!)
daesleeper on May 19, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Microevolution is a tested theory. Macroevolution is still a hypothesis. It is untested.
Daggett on May 19, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Wait! Was it found on Hawaii about 48 years ago, with a questionable Birth Certificate?
kirkill on May 19, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Take a class or read a book…
a two word answer? are you serious?
I’ll give it a shot anyway: “Science good”
brandozilla on May 19, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Cool…they’ve discovered the first known recording of the ‘Thriller’ dance.
James on May 19, 2009 at 1:51 PM
In case this hasn’e been posted:
mankai on May 19, 2009 at 1:52 PM
I doubt there’s much medical research going on in Kansas, so I suppose it is acceptable that you cannot grasp the connection. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/health/05virus.html
hicsuget on May 19, 2009 at 1:52 PM
I prefer to think that god is a narcissist and made us in his image.
lorien1973 on May 19, 2009 at 1:52 PM
No what you are truly interested in is being a snarky, self-righteous jerk.
Look, no actual Bible scholar says the world is only 4000 years old. For one, no one knows how long after Adam was created and Eve went looking to pick fruit. It might have been ten thousand years for all we know. The 4000 years you are sticking is not in the Bible.
But I bet you are not interested in the facts, right?
kybowexar on May 19, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Ok, calling Barack Obama a monkey, check. What other conservative stereo types can you guys prove to be correct?
brandozilla on May 19, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Goldenavatar on May 19, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Try living in Hawaii, and hearing that all the plant and animal life ( that was here way before humans sailed over ) came over by birds or current. Right.
Within a species, evolution does occur…that isn’t debatable. But the idea that a male and a female are both born within the same proximity and at the same relative age, who can’t mate with their neighbors…only with each other, because they are a new species…its absurd. We would see it commonplace today…and yet what we do see, when mating animals like horses and donkeys…we get mules who can’t reproduce mules….And we are mating them on purpose, imagine the math when you factor in random chance.
Conservative Voice on May 19, 2009 at 1:52 PM
The best thing the THEORY of Evolution has done is make it possible for the movie 1 Million Years B.C. featuring Raquel Welch in animal skins. That, plus Jurassic Park and a bunch of fictional programs on the Discovery Channel.
kingsjester on May 19, 2009 at 1:52 PM
good point!
right4life on May 19, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Darwinian evolution is a completely valid way to explain the origin of life.
MedSchoolCatholic on May 19, 2009 at 1:53 PM
See, that’s the problem. There is no one piece of evidence that can prove it (and I’m not saying one way or the other whether this fossil is legitimate. This is a lot like Holocaust deniers demanding the “one piece of evidence” that proves the Holocaust actually happened. The demand is absurd on its face.
Any scientific theory (or historical explanation) is strengthened or weakened by the accumulation of multiple pieces and strands of evidence.
PS My use of the analogy with Holocaust denial is NOT intended to imply that you are a Holocaust denier!!!
ProfessorMiao on May 19, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Same hands as Pelosi in the picture in the next column.
patrick neid on May 19, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Nice monkey….
t.ferg on May 19, 2009 at 1:54 PM
even Coyne admits evolution is useless in science…
right4life on May 19, 2009 at 1:54 PM
No True Scotsman
hicsuget on May 19, 2009 at 1:54 PM
DarkCurrent on May 19, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Buddhists don’t believe the origin of the species is important. . . I have found this story attributed to the Buddha when asked about the theory of the origin of man. Again, my view is that the origin of man is not important to moving forward. I’d rather not know than be wrong:
The point is Buddhists don’t care. Most Christians don’t care. The only population that cares about the origin of the species is atheists. Why do they care? They need an alternative explanation of life without God. Christians only care that we are here and we need to make the best of it.
ThackerAgency on May 19, 2009 at 1:54 PM
You can’t test something that big. It would be like trying to test geothermal dynamics via platetechtinics. You would have to make your own worls to do that… err… wait, I guess making that black hole in Europe is working well.
upinak on May 19, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Huh. So how’s it explain protein?
Akzed on May 19, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Besides that, you did not address my supposition – could the whole “age of the universe” tested by carbon-dating be off because we don’t honestly know how to subtract the original numbers when things got started. I’m not a geologist or a paleontologist, so I honestly don’t know.
kybowexar on May 19, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Maybe Adam looked exactly like God and we are getting further from him all the time. Maybe that is why we only get 6,000 years to be here.
Will man evolve or would it be a new species? In that case…
I actually don’t have a clue what I’m talking about. As you can probably tell.
petunia on May 19, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Right.
Just off the cuff, neither of the “creation of man” stories in Genesis have any scientific evidence backing them up. But honestly, there’s no point debating religious zealots. I’m just glad current law forbids burning at the stake for contradicting you.
quikstrike98 on May 19, 2009 at 1:55 PM
this is interesting…given that many evolutionists fervently deny evolution has anything to do with the origin of life…
right4life on May 19, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Fact: A 1’9″ species of monkey was found.
Interpretation: Certain characteristics on the fossil lead scientists to claim it may be one of the many transition fossils leading to man.
Problem: The interpretation is based on presuppositions. The interpretation is only as valid as the presupposition.
If the presupposition is in error then all that follows is in error.
You can keep arguing particulars all you want but like the “0′s” speech at Notre Dame noted about abortion, there are irreconcilable differences in the area of presuppositions in this debate about science. The actual science provides raw facts your presuppositions determine how you will interpret those facts.
Ridicule and name calling does nothing to change presuppositions. Unfortunately many catch presuppositions the same way they catch colds and never examine the basis for why they believe the way they believe.
chemman on May 19, 2009 at 1:56 PM
hicsuget on May 19, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Why can’t evolutionists cure the common cold? It’s been evolving for centuries, yet evolutionists can’t come up with a cure. I guess they know everything.
ThackerAgency on May 19, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Sure, “a” god might co-exist with the anti-laws-of-science theory, but not the God of Christianity. The absolute central message of the Bible is the undoing of death and decay accomplished by Christ.
Death is the “enemy” which had to be conquered. In evolution, death is good and necessary for the “strong” to survive. In pure Christian (and Biblical) theology, death is the sentence upon creation for sin. It is the cause of the cross, burial and resurrection. Christ’s lack of decay in the tomb is central to Peter’s message on Pentecost and the resurrection (undoing of Adam’s curse) is central to Paul’s message.
Incompatible.
mankai on May 19, 2009 at 1:57 PM
I got my data from a Michigan State University Survey taken in 2006. Here’s a chart that outlines the findings. Of all the countries surveyed, Iceland, Denmark, and Sweden accept common descent the most, and the USA and Turkey are at the bottom two.
justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Bad logic, worse psychology.
Assume evolutionary theory as currently understood is correct.
Assume Person A does not believe that evolutionary theory is correct.
All that is necessary for Person A to have “an interest in Science” is for Person A to find some way to square their rejection of a theory with their embrace of the things that support that theory.
This happens all the time. This insistence on a litmus test for science is silly. People hold contradictory ideas in their heads all the time without a single problem and no one even notices. Why the Charles Johnson set continues to march around like they’ve suddenly found the key to deciphering the presents of eternal and complete rational thought in humans I’ll never know. It’s baffling – but also rather understandable as a limitation of human perception.
It’s ok, though. I understand that not everyone has the time to study cognitive psychology or cares about formal logic. Unlike Charles, I get that my particular pet peeve or field of interest or point of cognitive dissonance is not shared with the whole of humanity.
It’s why I don’t create bizarre intellectual litmus tests and insult everyone who fails as if that justified my decision to act like a great throbbing tool.
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 19, 2009 at 1:57 PM
right4life on May 19, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Hypothetically, if evolution was proved (let’s say you time travel to witness it through the years), would any of you then stop believing in Jesus?
frankj on May 19, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Evolution simply explains creationism.
Having confused the hell out of the narrow minded atheists, out!!!
sonofdy on May 19, 2009 at 1:57 PM
I know this is like shouting into a hurricane, but…
…the “problem” with evolution is that there are those who use it (improperly, I might add) as some kind of bludgeon against religion. Evolution in no way, shape or form disproves ANYTHING about Judeo-Christian faith.
…the “problem” with Creationism is that some faithful have so bought into the “evolution disproves God” meme that they have thrown out science altogether and say silly things like “Noah had dinosaur eggs on the ark” and “carbon dating is inaccurate.” They have also done something that is fairly rare in the entire history of Judeo-Christian theology – they have taken the Genesis account as a literal, historical fact (instead of the allegory/parable as it was always understood as).
If we could only disengage the “problems” of misunderstanding people on each side seem to have…
…then we could get back to the point where science and religion co-existed peacefully (in fact, much of early scientific endeavor was meant to PROVE God’s existence).
I now return you to your regularly scheduled shouting match. :(
Religious_Zealot on May 19, 2009 at 1:58 PM
God woke up one morning and thought, “Man, I’m so sexy, I want to make a race of people who look just like me. And then they’ll worship me. Man, that’ll be awesome.”
And, of course, the first thing man wanted was a girl with boobies.
lorien1973 on May 19, 2009 at 1:58 PM
*presence. I need a proofreader. : /
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 19, 2009 at 1:58 PM
frankj – proof denies faith.
sonofdy on May 19, 2009 at 1:58 PM
There will never be a “Law” of evolution, because that’s not how it works.
So, for example, some laws: Law of Gravity, Conservation of Mass, Thermodynamics, Laws of motion.
Some theories: Quantum Theory, Theory of Relativity, and, yes, the Theory of Evolution.
strictnein on May 19, 2009 at 1:59 PM
POI – Gosh, I hope nobody is using “carbon dating” for anything more than “thousands” of years. If so, he/she is immediately disqualified from this discussion.
mankai on May 19, 2009 at 1:59 PM
yawn…
right4life on May 19, 2009 at 1:59 PM
What this “proves” is that a species of primate – lived, died and was fossilized. Just like we find with turtles, frogs, bats and all sorts of other “modern” species.
Of course, this is really all about promoting a particular worldview and making a lot of money through an overly-hyped media blitz. Go look at the slickly produced website and other peripherals that have been produced. All that’s missing is the “Ida” plush toys and Happy Meal tie-ins.
The Zoo Keeper on May 19, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Because it can’t be reproduced… and it have never been observed… you know, “science.”
mankai on May 19, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Faith is the proof. “The evidence of things not seen.”
petunia on May 19, 2009 at 2:01 PM
so you’re saying a denial of evolution leads to a society that leads the world in science, inventions, etc..
right4life on May 19, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Proof of what? Faith of what?
frankj on May 19, 2009 at 2:01 PM
That liberals constantly called George W. Bush a monkey?
kirkill on May 19, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Thus proving God was the founding member of the male sexist pig club.
Or
He has a hell of a sense of humor.
sonofdy on May 19, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Look I’m a Christian first and foremost. I believe God created everything, how he created it is another story. Do I believe he created a magical primordial soup and had one cell evolve into every living thing, umm no. God is a bit more efficient than that I would presume.
saltydogg14 on May 19, 2009 at 2:02 PM
I agree that it’s too big to test. The only way to test it is to subject some form of life to hypothesized environmental conditions over millions of years and observe what happens.
But since when do we get to redefine the scientific method just because a given task is too hard? Why is it permissible to graduate it to a theory just because “we think it merits the term theory?”
So I prefer to call it what it is – a hypothesis.
Daggett on May 19, 2009 at 2:02 PM
LOL … This is as funny as it is sad. Sort of like the people that believe the hoax of global warming.
tarpon on May 19, 2009 at 2:03 PM
I don’t have time to debate, but this is one of the main reasons many Christians think evolution is bunk. There are a ton of scandals involved specifically with the missing link.
Esthier on May 19, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Next »