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 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »
testable and falsifiable? Then it isn’t science!
daesleeper on May 19, 2009 at 2:33 PM
maybe that is why no one wanted to debate you? Just a thought.
upinak on May 19, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Yeah, try telling that to James Ussher. There is no specfic date, but if you take the geneologies presented in the Bible from Adam to Jesus and Add them up, you get about 4000 years. There are a couple gaps, but only enough to allow fora 10,000 year old universe Max.
justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 2:33 PM
LOL!! +1
ProfessorMiao on May 19, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Rush says this is all BS and there is no evidence of transitional species. So there. And they say the GOP is the anti-science party. Thanks Rush, you just set fiscal conservatism back another election cycle.
tommylotto on May 19, 2009 at 2:33 PM
When are dogs going to evolve into cats?
faraway on May 19, 2009 at 2:29 PM
That would ROCK! Fluffy is a slobbering love muffin who can fend for themselves!
upinak on May 19, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Or worse yet something the size of a St Bernard that hacks up hair balls and wakes you by waving its ass in your face.
LincolntheHun on May 19, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Isn’t that such a pesky thing?
What in the heck is up with that, like the dandelion I ate on my lawn here in SW ND can look way different from the one I ate from my lawn in WA state, or even the one I ate in CA?!
Or how ’bout them polar bears, supposedly descended from Grizzlies(?) or is it another large bear? Whateves-why can those dog gone things mate & produce a reproductively viable hybrid?
What gives when you got some species going extinct in the presence of their parent population? What’s up with those polyploidy things?!
Should we still consider discussion here limited to those with a minimum of Bachelor of Science degrees (not social ‘science)?
Or would we just be nullified bcs we are a product of all the liberal academia? Assuming, of course, that all college science departments are liberal (something I have not found to be evident in the geological sciences across at least three states’ colleges).
Badger40 on May 19, 2009 at 2:34 PM
if Macro-Evolution were true and could be proven, then:
1) Ditch the Declaration of Indpendence and the worldview behind it(Creator is only True King that our Rights Derive from). Instead we must then go Humanist, Logically, like the Soviets and it will be Humans(kings) who decide what are our Rights.
2) Ditch the concept of Human Dignity. If we evolved from other Species, then there are absolutely no Logical reason to distinguish the Dignity of the Human Being(Human Rights) from any other Species.
just a couple things, for those who wish to jump on an unproven theory. Unlike Micro-Evolution which is proven Science
jp on May 19, 2009 at 2:35 PM
That was hilarious.
kybowexar on May 19, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Wouldn’t bother me. I am a large dog person anyways. And I love cats. that combo would rock… bu would IAMS make a special large cat breed food.. or would I have to get a moose occationally?
upinak on May 19, 2009 at 2:35 PM
mankai on May 19, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Soon
DarkCurrent on May 19, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Anyway… thanks for the response..forgot to add that to my reply.
What is funny about the link you provided is that they had to add..in parenthesis what the “Yes” “No” meant. Why do you suppose that is?
Itchee Dryback on May 19, 2009 at 2:37 PM
This fossil is a cool find, and all, but not that big of a deal. It is, as you say, “evolutionary.” Now, when someone shows me how mud and minerals spontaneously fashions itself into living RNA and DNA that can then go forth and evolve, and I’ll be impressed. That will be revolutionary.
This? Kinda like like going nuts over the floormat in a Maybach.
Bob Owens on May 19, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Look there are lots of folks – Christians and non-Christians alike – who want to find their pet theory and publish. Does it make it so?
Didn’t for Darwin or Ussher. You have to find where the actual Author of the book got it wrong, not one of His interpreters.
kybowexar on May 19, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Without going back billions of years, can we just keep this real simple?
What species precedes homo erectus?
faraway on May 19, 2009 at 2:37 PM
You referring to this?
http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowFulltext&ArtikelNr=75752&Ausgabe=229862&ProduktNr=224037
Please enlighten me as to how you believe this negates the speciation of humans from ancient primates etc?
Badger40 on May 19, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Bryan Preston had a great thread at hotair on the “God of the Genome, is the God of the Bible”
In which he linked an article he wrote, using Space-Time theory and Einsteins theory of relativity to back up Genesis word for word. Short version is that 7 Universe Days could be equal to Millions of Earth Years
jp on May 19, 2009 at 2:38 PM
If Chimpanzees had gone extinct 6 million years ago and we found its fossil today, would the fossil be the “missing link”?
By the way, there is a convenient way for the “evolution as a religion” types to explain this. The highly coincidental and convenient “chimps and humans branched off on the same day” explanation.
Buddahpundit on May 19, 2009 at 2:38 PM
*snorts* did I mention I wuv you! In a sisterly way of course.
upinak on May 19, 2009 at 2:38 PM
The author of the Declaration had a view of God that was consistent with a Creator who operated more by rules than direct intervention. Jefferson didn’t adhere to an idea of God who revealed himself through scripture but rather one that was discernible through the study of nature.
Jefferson wouldn’t have thrown out the Declaration because of Darwin’s theory.
dedalus on May 19, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Why should I find total lack of reading comprehension unsurprising in one with your point of view? I have specifically stated that I cannot count myself atheist, as too many things I observe myself or which are well documented could be considered to be “miraculous”. I refuse however to adhere to your theological orthodoxy to please you. Only people terrified that their firmly held religious beliefs might be upended by this SCIENCE are as pigheaded by you. Oh–you DID hear the Easter Bunny isn’t real too, right? Here’s a hanky.
quikstrike98 on May 19, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Evolution makes sense. There is no reason to refute that it is being directed.
sonofdy on May 19, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Yes. It utlizies statistics and sociology.
If you want an idea of how accurate polling can be, just take a look a the lead up to our last election. I thik the pollsters were off by under %0.5
justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 2:40 PM
maybe that is why no one wanted to debate you? Just a thought.
upinak on May 19, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Owwww!
Need to make sure the sarcasm tag is on.
You might be right or maybe it is more fun to vent, when you argue the immeasurable there is never a winner or loser just different sides. When you get into science facts line up on one side or the other. And no one like to be a loser even in a silly argument like “Did we evolve from monkeys”?
LincolntheHun on May 19, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Evolution will one day be show to be what it is, the most massive ‘scientific’ fraud imaginable. People just don’t think. If life forms were constantly changing (evolving) then the only possible way to find the fossils of two identical creatures would be to find them in the same location. Every fossil that we find should be one in a chain of missing links. The odds of finding two fossils of identical creatures in different locations should be prohibitive. The amount of different forms to go from say a lizard to a snake should be at least in the thousands, yet we find plenty of snakes, plenty of lizards, but almost nothing in between. The currently massive human population of the earth should translate into the equivalent of tens of thousands of years of genetic chances when compared to the paltry number of ‘humanoid’ inhabitants of the past (when all this change recently occurred) yet we see no new people. Evolution is not a function of time but of genetic die rolls, and we are rolling those dice like there’s no tomorrow.
cjk on May 19, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Crap…I missed out on all the fun; I love the ‘Lizard Chasers vs. Sky Gazers’ cage-matches.
Bishop on May 19, 2009 at 2:41 PM
oh then explain the tuatara, which has the fastest rate of ‘micro’ evolution ever seen, and is a living dinosaur..
right4life on May 19, 2009 at 2:41 PM
homo meetus hot chickus?
lorien1973 on May 19, 2009 at 2:41 PM
he he he you said homo and erectus…
/childish mode off as it ever gets…
sonofdy on May 19, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Proof that evolution is not yet quite complete.
UltimateBob on May 19, 2009 at 2:42 PM
All this over a piece of plastic?
Mr. Bingley on May 19, 2009 at 2:42 PM
I assume you mean that if it can’t be tested, and it can’t be falsified, then it is not science.
I’m not going to argue that point, but somebody better tell that to the folks involved with SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence). Either that, or someone tell me how to falsify the hypothesis that extraterrestrial intelligent life exists.
Daggett on May 19, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Hey, it’s not me you have a problem with. I obviously can’t have any scientific argument against theistic evolution. It’s Answers and Genesis or Creation Ministries International you have a beef with.
justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 2:42 PM
children…
faraway on May 19, 2009 at 2:43 PM
That is so true! That is what actually makes evolution seem as much religion as science. Religions do the same thing with scripture that science does with bones…
petunia on May 19, 2009 at 2:43 PM
I’m with you, but most Bible scholars (Hebrew that is) agree that the “day” used was the 24 hour model; however, that is not exactly totally accurate either.
One – God was probably not overly concerned with our getting how long or short it was.
Two – He’s explaining this to folks who He wants to get the idea – not be distracted by details (like now)
Three – This is the same Being for Whom a day is a thousand years and a thousand years is a day, meaning what is Time to God?
So, any argument goes back to asking the Author just what He meant. I’m guessing He’s going to say, “Do you know My Son?” and take it from there.
kybowexar on May 19, 2009 at 2:43 PM
If you experience a homo erectus lasting more than four hours this could be indicative of a dangerous medical condition.
Please see your doctor.
Mr. Bingley on May 19, 2009 at 2:43 PM
2 Peter 3:8 – But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
OhEssYouCowboys on May 19, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Well, it is dangerous to give a wise-guy a straight line.
kybowexar on May 19, 2009 at 2:44 PM
When someone finally discovers that dinosaurs were having the same debate about evo and I.D, then the shiite will really hit the fan.
Bishop on May 19, 2009 at 2:45 PM
But if its hetero erectus, its just a scheduling issue.
sonofdy on May 19, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Umm…..BULL
I’ll let Walter Russell Mead take this one:
jp on May 19, 2009 at 2:46 PM
What this fossil proves evolution? I thought it was already proven.
What link exactly does it fill? I was told we had already found all the links.
Actually, evolution by random mutation and natural selection is mathematically impossible since you cannot get a random mutation that requires the replacement of more than on nucleotide for selective advantage in less than 10^20 reproductive events. Unlike Darwinism, this fact is real observable science. And it negates any atheistic view of evolution.
Sorry atheists, it is just the fact.
dKap on May 19, 2009 at 2:46 PM
What percent of evolutionists, hated religion before they ever heard of Darwin? My guess would be 85% or more.
faraway on May 19, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Uh, I don’t know. You asked where I got my data and I provided it. Do you have an actual agument against the fact that the United States rejects evolution more than virtually every country or are you going to keep being obtuse?
justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 2:46 PM
This is simply untrue. There are numerous species of early hominids or ‘proto-hominids’, some of which were identified more than half a century ago and which no one thinks are ‘fraudulent’. Australopithecines are a good example.
And such a fossil is almost certainly never going to be found, because species are internally variable and because the process of speciation – the formation of new species – is usually very slow.
But there are examples of transitional groupings at higher orders – e.g. the hominids I mentioned above. Humans are the only living hominid species, but hominids are a subset of primates. The earlier hominids as a group are considered to be transitional, if you will, between ancestral apes and the earliest humans. But that is not the same thing as saying that all (or even any of those currently known) are thought to be our direct ancestors.
ProfessorMiao on May 19, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Heh, maybe they had a 3rd theory. One that came together on the common ground of the other two…
Upstater85 on May 19, 2009 at 2:47 PM
It’s Answers In Genesis, Ken Hamm. I don’t think you’ve actually listened to what he has to say. I have, not sure I agree with all he’s got to say, but I do know he’s not a crackpot.
kybowexar on May 19, 2009 at 2:47 PM
I know, act my age
sonofdy on May 19, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Clearly the missing link between T-Rex and the Speaker of the House. Look at those hands – the resemblance is undeniable.
forest on May 19, 2009 at 2:47 PM
I answered you question on Plate techtonics. Did you see it?
upinak on May 19, 2009 at 2:48 PM
If I experience a hetero erectus for more than 4 hours, I’m not calling my doctor. I’m calling every attractive woman whose phone number I can find.
Daggett on May 19, 2009 at 2:48 PM
What an incredibly stupid thing to say.
ProfessorMiao on May 19, 2009 at 2:48 PM
What species precedes homo erectus?
faraway on May 19, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Uhm…just because something is rejected means it is not so? Isn’t that like my saying evolution is bunk, and therefore it is?
So it is sheer numbers on a poll that make it okay?
That’s hilarious. Love the scientific facts on that. Sort of like Global Warming.
kybowexar on May 19, 2009 at 2:49 PM
I disagree, but how does that have any bearing on the truth of evolution. If you are implying that people only accept evolution because they hate religion, you are comitting the genetic fallacy.
justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 2:49 PM
To lorien1973 re your post on May 19, 2009 at 2:29 PM: what you describe is what may be called micro-evolution. The argument is over what may be called Darwinian macro-evolution. Micro-evolution does not establish Darwinian macro-evolution.
What proponents of intelligent design are saying is that intelligent design better explains the data than Darwinian macro-evolution. I suggest spending some time reading what may be considered politically incorrect works such as Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box.” What you may learn is that Darwin’s 19th century “science,” which presumed a simple cell structure, does not work given what we have learned about, for example, the incredible complexity of the cell. True science in the 21st century would seek to go beyond Darwin; the trouble is that Darwinism has become a form of religion irrationally lashing out at critics.
Phil Byler on May 19, 2009 at 2:49 PM
really….
link
right4life on May 19, 2009 at 2:50 PM
micro/macro is a false distinction.
lorien1973 on May 19, 2009 at 2:50 PM
honeycanibuyyou adrinktus
Mr. Bingley on May 19, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Darwin was very religous.
sonofdy on May 19, 2009 at 2:51 PM
The early Church Fathers believed that Genesis 1 was metaphorical, that all of creation was instantaneous, so, unless someone wants to unchurch them… If so however, it is the only metaphorical use of the Hebrew “yom” (day) in the Bible, other than reference to “Abraham’s day”which is still a relatively brief timeframe.
Ussher is pretty much discredited as I recall from (very conservative) seminary days. The point is that the age of the earth is not a matter of orthodoxy for Christians. “God created the heavens and the earth” is, however.
What I wanna know is, where are examples of living creatures today passing beneficial mutations to their offspring?
/crickets…
Akzed on May 19, 2009 at 2:51 PM
You really think so? I wonder if the percentage might be high, but faraway did say guess.
kybowexar on May 19, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Why on earth would you point that out? Allahpundit just convinced himself that his non-beliefs aren’t shallow, and there you go pointing out his absurdly shallow arguments. A few more of those and he won’t be able to keep up his “logic and reason” facade.
TMK on May 19, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Then there’s that.
petunia on May 19, 2009 at 2:52 PM
My Bachelor’s is in social science.
ProfessorMiao on May 19, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Awesome, 1000 comments of morons using stupid and predictable terms that they don’t actually understand… like “irreducible complexity”.
DaveS on May 19, 2009 at 2:53 PM
I WASN’T ARGUING WHETHER OR NOT EVOLUTON IS TRUE. I claimed that the only known country that rejects evolution more than the U.S. is Turkey. Itchee Dumbass tried to call BS on me, and I showed him the data to back up my claim. Obviously the truth of evolution is a different topic.
justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Your flawless reasoning has convinced me.
Daggett on May 19, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Welcome :)
faraway on May 19, 2009 at 2:54 PM
You are such a child :)
petunia on May 19, 2009 at 2:54 PM
A silly, meaningless assertion.
ernesto on May 19, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Common design does not imply common ancestry, except by axiom.
spmat on May 19, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Yeah I did. I agree with you. We don’t know everything about how the world works, but we do know some things and we are learning more.
ProfessorMiao on May 19, 2009 at 2:55 PM
No it isn’t lorien. It’s the natural “evolution” if you will of the theory evolution. The process you are suggesting, slow “micro” evolution over time leading to “macro” evolution is the same as Darwin’s theory. Even Evolutionists would say this is bunk now. The fossil record would be littered with transitional samples and the fact is it’s not. Whatever process led to large scale changes it was not what is termed micro evolution today. Even if Darwin got the answer right he sure as hell had the wrong process.
Rocks on May 19, 2009 at 2:56 PM
It’s funny that an all powerful God is so vulnerable to semantics.
frankj on May 19, 2009 at 2:56 PM
No just merely unprovable. Given the social norms at the time, they would all be christian.
sonofdy on May 19, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Neither! Evolution from a single missing link… Democratis Liberalisticum!
In related news, scientists credit survival of the modern-day missing link with banana DNA…
dominigan on May 19, 2009 at 2:58 PM
I know, petunia.
Someday I’ll
evolvegrow up!Mr. Bingley on May 19, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Huh. I’ve always been under the impression that I grant human beings special rights over other species because I’m a) a human being myself, and b) physiologically capable of engaging in discussions about abstract concerns like “rights” in the first place.
So far no other species has been able to formulate an argument as to why I shouldn’t discriminate against its members on the basis of their rights, though if one were to emerge I’ll freely admit I probably wouldn’t eat it.
The notion that if humans are different from other animals due to biological differences, rather than magical differences, then there are no real differences at all, mystifies me. I don’t usually use the word “illogical” (it’s badly abused–thanks no doubt in large part Mr. Spock–who’s usually scripted to use it to mean irrational rather than illogical), but that actually does appear to be, technically speaking, illogical. The conclusion fails to derive from the premises.
Blacklake on May 19, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Can we all at least agree that the irreducible complexities of this debate are complex?
Bishop on May 19, 2009 at 2:59 PM
unprovable, irrelevant to the discussion…and because of these facts, i find it silly.
ernesto on May 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM
An example of another living hominid is ….?
ProfessorMiao on May 19, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Badger40 on May 19, 2009 at 2:37 PM
First I am impressed.
Second I was able to read the abstract and not the whole article so I am a bit hampered in discussing the article. A Robosonian fission is when a chromosome splits a fusion is when two come together (either a trisomy or a monosomy)
Man in not a horse and vice versa. Humans are very sensitive to mutations more than most animals. There are some major differences (not just gross anatomy) in digestion and reproduction (ruminants carry the fetus differently than do mammals) as well as questions of fitness (does an animal get eaten because it is unlucky or less intelligent?) One of my favorite questions in comparing us and animals was “How would you know if a monkey was stupid?” Further lower animals are more resistant to deleterious mutations than we are (shorter maturation cycle, usually shorter gestation cycle, larger birth number) and so a minor mutation in an animal could be very deleterious to us (Downs or MS or leukemia or Type II diabetes).
Lastly of course there has as of yet ever been a chromosomal abnormality that was not severely deleterious in humans (Fragile X, Downs, Patau, Edwards, Warkany or Klienfelter’s) or monosomys like 22q11.2 deletion syndrome which is really nasty and that is just one arm of a chromosome missing.
Great point however if you have more I am listening.
LincolntheHun on May 19, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Helen Thomas.
bluelightbrigade on May 19, 2009 at 3:02 PM
This is far more interesting and helps explain the sudden explosion in new forms. Evolution can’t produce things without the genetic material which makes it possible unless you’re a Lamarckist. Random mutation never provided much of an explanation given the observed speed of evolution in the fossil record and the extreme diversity in new forms. Oh, and Lamarck was partially right.
None of this, especially a new monkey, disproves God or creation. For one thing, “image” – I was taught years ago in history at college – referred to the human capacity for reason and creation, the Renaissance view of “God’s image”. Only a faith-based fundamentalist atheist could make the claim a fossil disproves God. Starting with proving the negative, an impossibility. Then you’ve got Aquinas and his five arguments which is supported by LeMaitre’s (a priest, BTW) Big Bang. Science keeps finding new turtles below the existing turtles but never why there are turtles in the first place. To put it in the form of a modern scientific question: “Where did the giant eleven-dimensional branes come from?”
Beagle on May 19, 2009 at 3:03 PM
But I thought Darwinism was already proven? Or were you guys just lying before?
2Brave2Bscared on May 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Huh. Well I guess if we’re morons, the argument’s over and you win. Thanks for pointing that out.
Akzed on May 19, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Oh, don’t mind right4life. He always posts the same handful of links whenever evolution comes up. He probably didn’t even read your initial post. I wouldn’t reccomened gettin into a discussion with him though. After he gets thrashed, he has a strange habit of accusing his opponent of being the chld of Satan and always makes the claim that you think that you are “a legend in your own mind.”
It’s actually pretty predictable and tiring.
justfinethanks on May 19, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Evolution will one day be show to be what it is, the most massive ’scientific’ fraud imaginable. People just don’t think. If life forms were constantly changing (evolving) then the only possible way to find the fossils of two identical creatures would be to find them in the same location. Every fossil that we find should be one in a chain of missing links. The odds of finding two fossils of identical creatures in different locations should be prohibitive. The amount of different forms to go from say a lizard to a snake should be at least in the thousands, yet we find plenty of snakes, plenty of lizards, but almost nothing in between. The currently massive human population of the earth should translate into the equivalent of tens of thousands of years of genetic chances when compared to the paltry number of ‘humanoid’ inhabitants of the past (when all this change recently occurred) yet we see no new people. Evolution is not a function of time but of genetic die rolls, and we are rolling those dice like there’s no tomorrow.
cjk on May 19, 2009 at 3:11 PM
This is the Evolutionists version of seeing Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich (it’s just GOTTA be there!).
mankai on May 19, 2009 at 3:12 PM
Just bury me deep enough
So the chickens won’t
Scratch me up
And I’ll be happy
Yeah I’ll be happy
hillbillyjim on May 19, 2009 at 3:13 PM
For trillions of species… we should have quadrillions of “positive genetic accidents” and transitions… yet we have precious few (let’s call it zero).
mankai on May 19, 2009 at 3:14 PM
All great apes are hominids.
DarkCurrent on May 19, 2009 at 3:15 PM
I will agree if you are wearing a propeller hat and blowing a kazoo.
Seriously, at the time it was the norm to hold yourself as a christian in public simply for socialy acceptablitiy. So all of them will claim to be christian as a matter of form.
sonofdy on May 19, 2009 at 3:15 PM
Piltdown Man comes to mind. Plus diagrams of little horses turning into big ones, monkeys gradually becoming men, you know.
Akzed on May 19, 2009 at 3:15 PM
The quote from Mead addresses some of the source material for the Declaration, but not Jefferson’s notion of the Creator, which was at issue. Jefferson held that Christian values were the highest, but he was Unitarian in his views and didn’t consider Jesus a god. His view of the creator would have allowed for Darwin. What he would have made of the science I don’t know, but he would have applied reason, not belief, to its scrutiny.
dedalus on May 19, 2009 at 3:21 PM
No, it really isn’t. Most living creatures experience micro evolution, but that, in and of itself, speaks nothing about whether or not those creatures or their descendants can experience macro evolution. In fact, much of what is micro evolution would not be considered a trait you could pass down to your children.
They simply are not the same, at all.
So? Not everyone believes God created the world “new”. Adam and Eve were likely in their 30s. God didn’t create babies, unable to fend for themselves.
Many believes that the Earth is old, as old as it needed to be in order to sustain life. A new Earth would kill every living creature. Taking the Bible word for word, there’s nothing that goes against the idea that the Earth is older than 12000 years.
It’s actually ignorant to claim so.
I don’t necessarily agree with the first one, but the second one certainly makes sense. If the “lower” animals truly are no different from us, then it would stand to reason that we would have different laws. Their lack of intellect shouldn’t stop us, as we do not treat the mentally ill/impaired any different.
Since when are those considered hard science?
And if you want a more balanced approach, check the results from 2004.
Esthier on May 19, 2009 at 3:28 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »