Skip to comments.Ida: the Missing Link at Last? (the Creationist Interpretation)
Posted on 05/20/2009 8:56:16 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
For all the headlines and proclamations, this missing link story includes an amazing amount of hot air...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
2 more missing links.
Just in time to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the publication of his book.
Isn’t that odd?
A dead lemur is exciting. But only if you’re into that kinda thing.
Well, they have got to do something to revive their fortunes! First the Evos are forced to cut down Darwin’s “tree of life”, then their Evo-prediction of the genome being comprised mostly of “junk” DNA went down the tubes, and let’s not forget about how all their phylogenetic trees are failing to predict known “evolutionary” histories...not to mention the fact that there situation only continues to get worse with respect to the fossil record, cosmology, etc, etc. Indeed, I can’t think of a worse time to be a crew member on the HMS Beagle. Man the life boats!
How can a link so far back in time be a ‘link’ to that which is so recent in time?
I must be dumb as I miss the ‘connection’.
it links primates to lemurs. It has no particular relevance to human origins.
The fascination with tarsidae/tarsier can now abate.
i don’t get worked up over 47M year-old lemurs. God knows more about lemurs than they do.
Your not dumb. Now the people who have foolishly pronounced Ida the missing link...they are another question.
Strangely enough, virtually all of the best and most distinguished researchers in the life and biological sciences in the world find a Darwinian evolutionary view the most satisfactory explanation of human origins. By “best” and “most distinguished” I mean those hold faculty positions at the top-tier Universities and that engage in well funded and productive research and supervise doctoral training programs. To the degree that scientists of comparable quality in other fields express a public opinion, near similar unanimity may be observed. The “best” of the “best” come from this population and are those that, for example, are elected to the National Academy of Sciences in the US or the Royal Society in England and win the Nobel Prizes awarded for research accomplishment. I make the latter distinction because Al Gore was given a Peace Prize, confirming that politics can and does single out fools.
The ranks of “Creation Science”, (at best an oxymoron) are populated by an odd lot of otherwise nice people that are in strong majority not sufficiently qualified (and consequently do not) to hold similar positions. Very few “creation scientists” hold even tenure track positions in third tier teaching colleges. The primary distinction of many is that they publish illogical and pseudo-scientific “Cretin Science” pieces in places like AIG which are then linked as if they constitute something other than pseudo-scientific buffoonery. Creation Science is not science and is proof positive of weak faith. It is proof positive of the dictim that "it is often better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt."
If God is on the side of the Creation Science crowd, why couldn't he find a higher caliber of advocate? And once again, if a “great flood” covered all of the earth, where did the water go after wards? If creation science relies on the great flood to account for the fossil record, it needs a plausible answer to this question.
it could be a ‘missing link’, only because they have never found one of these critters before. of course, if people are skepical, they usually have good reason to be, as many anthropologists are skeptical of this find.
Clump, I also do not like liars.
What pisses me off is when leftists win elections due to incompetence.
Until you show me a fish with feet, I am not buying it. Keep trying Darwinists. You will not find a "missing link" because there is none.
Your words, while factual and accurate, will be lost on this thread, and you attacked for even considering opposition to their ‘interpretations’.
pistol, it is just more interesting to poke fun at the evolutionist groupies. getting the creationists riled up by antagonizing them serves no purpose.
Google has it on its logo today - guess that means it’s time to declare that God doesn’t exist and the Bible is a fraud.
All hail the magic lemur!
dude, explain how a dead lemur has much to do with the existence of God. I am sure God Himself is not offended by a dead lemur.
Thanks for the ping!
in case it isn’t clear by now, my campaign platform is:
“I am pro-lemur!”
pro-life pro-woman pro-child pro-lemur!
You just have to learn how to feel 'sciencey.'
Sciencey has nothing to do with science; in fact, real science gets in the way of sciencey feelings, and since the feeling is what is desired, stick with evolution and global warming, and you'll be ok.
Dude, that was sarcasm.
I was observing the lizards in my yard today. They look a lot more like the ‘evidence’ that is being pushed on us than humans do.
My question is, if this creature is our ancient ancestor, why at the same period of time do we have evidence of man’s existence?
Geological Evidence of Early Man
[snip]The 1849 gold rush to the state of California was the beginning of some of the most unusual reported finds of early man in North America. The gold-bearing gravels in California are recognized as being Tertiary in age, ranging from oldest to youngest Tertiary, depending upon the exact geological setting. At the time these gravels were deposited, volcanic eruptions also laid down lava beds, often tens or scores of feet thick. This occurred a number of times, and together with much erosion since then, have now resulted in table mountains, that is, lava-capped hills where the harder lava has better withstood erosion stresses while surrounding softer material has been swept away. It is under the hard lava beds, in the gold-bearing (auriferous) gravels, where the reported human bones and artifacts were found. Such artifacts were found not just once or twice, but hundreds of times by miners during the span of time from the 1850s through the 1890s while engaged in mining operations. Findings were spread over a wide geographical area.
That there is a large body of evidence, the strength of which it is impossible to deny, which seems to prove that man existed in California previous to the cessation of volcanic activity in the Sierra Nevada, to the epoch of the greatest extension of the glaciers in that region, and to the erosion of the present river canyons and valleys, at a time when the animal and vegetable creations differed entirely from what they now are, and when the topographical features of the State were extremely unlike those exhibited by the present surface.
That man existing even at that very remote epoch, which goes back at least as far as the Pliocene, was still the same as we now find him to be in that region, and the same that he was in the intermediate period after the cessation of volcanic activity, and while the erosion of the present river canyons was going on.
Figure 4: Pestle found in auriferous gravel, El Dorado County, California. University of California, Berkeley designation 1-4204A.
QUICK QUICK QUICK!! Search google.com to find that the double “o” of google has been replaced by this “convincing” ancestor. They have bought this knee-slapping pabulum hook, line and sinker! Can you spell d-e-s-p-e-r-a-t-i-o-n? Bob
these are serious times ... there is no place for sarcasm on FreeRepublic
The conclusion of the evidence that you so rudely thrust at us is not acceptable to the evos here, so they will accuse you of not being ‘sciencey.’
Are you not afraid?
Are pro-lemur pro-letariats supported by Obama? If so, my hand is out and waiting. Bob
I can’t tell if that cartoon was created by a Creationist... or if it was created by an evolutionist who’s making fun of Creationists by showing an over-the-top caricature of how some Creationists view scientists. heh
Actually, I am familiar with what the cartoon is portraying, and while the cartoonist exaggerated a little to make it humorous, that’s pretty much how the Evos do it.
I’m actually more in agreement with the answersingenesis article than I am with many media reports on this find. Much of the media is talking completely out of their arses on this.
THIS story potentially makes sense:
THIS story (and many like it) sounds like utter crapola:
Talk of the size is irrelevant and designed to give the impression to the impressionable of such a differing size with humans that it could not be a human precursor.....40+ million years ago. Make no mention that htis is not SUPPOSED to be the size of a human It's a false argument. Humans have not always been the size we are now either. Human skulls have undergone major changes over millions of years. Homo habilis was quite different than Man of today.
Here's a misdirection...a strawman:
The fossil does not resemble a human skeleton.
Nobody claimed it looked anything like a human....burn the strawman. They are using this as evidence of "a" "link" between early primitive primates that no longer exist....and simians and prosimians that lived later....not with Man.
The fossil was found in two parts by amateur fossil hunters in 1983. It eventually made its way through fossil dealers to the research team.
An irrelevant piece of information. Who cares who found it, when it was found, and that it was in 2 pieces after millions of years and an amateur excavation?
Here's a lie:
Yet lemurs today have opposable thumbs (like all primates).
Not all primates have opposable thumbs, that is a bold-faced lie. Lemurs do as do "most" simians (most, not all).....and "some" prosimians (some, not all). Ida is merely being touted to be an example of the evolutionary bridge between early primates that no longer exist....and later living prosimians and simians, who no longer exist as they did.
Unlike todays lemurs (as far as scientists know), Ida lacks...
That would be relevant if Ida were....a lemur. Ida is not a lemur. Ida is lemur-LIKE.
These are minor differences easily explained by variation within a kind.
Well, THAT's a nice claim to have in your pocket...almost as good as "all evidence is evidence of Creation." Any alterations in physical appearance can now be lumped into this generic nonsense claim. Lemurs having regular teeth.....lemurs having monkey teeth....all easily explained by "variation within a kind".......except that Ida....IS NOT A LEMUR. Ida is something that no longer lives on the Earth.
Of course none of this matters to someone that believes Man walked with T-rex.
The best answer to that is what Paul says about the 'bright people'.. you know those with all the degrees and teach at the prestigious universities and are engaged in well funded productive research and doctoral training programs.
And I quote... Instead, God deliberately chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose those who are powerless to shame those who are powerful.
God chose things despised by the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important, so that no one can ever boast in the presence of God.
i.e. The story of David. A young boy who, with a homemade sling shot, brought down the biggest and meanest foe.
I might add that the evolution theory is just that. A theory. But the 'best and brightest' put forth that it is 'truth'. You even admit it is just their most satisfactory explanation of human origins. To this day, they are still unable to prove the theory of evolution. They have tried and tried. Told everyone that this' ithicus' and that 'ithicus' were the missing links, yet it was voided as proof. Try as they may, in my estimation, they never will. But then again, I don't have a PHD.
At best, it is just another way to diss the Creator and put man in the highest position in the universe. And I find it amusing that they take the greatest pleasure thinking that their ancestors were some sort of bacteria or in this latest case a lemur.
As for all that flood water. Drip for drip, It is still here. Just in different forms... underground reservoirs (fountains of the deep), ice caps, glaciers etc. The pre-flood environment, described in the Bible, was most likely very different than today. The earth does change over the eons but it is a closed system and what was created has remained constant... atom for atom.
Al Gore getting a Peace Prize is very confirming that when you think yourself wise, you are indeed a fool.
I wonder if they get a tingle up their leg, or the hair stands up on the back of their neck when they come on here knowing they sound just like their evo-hero Hissy-fit Matthews, projecting about creationists attacking science.
In the liberal world, up is down, down is up.
Everytime I see the evo cartoon about the creationists standing there with their signs like hillbillies...it reminds me that liberals really do project-alot.
Funny, I wonder how many liberals don’t realize that normal people are onto their charades here?
Wow is right, so many projections crammed into one post!
I wonder if there’s a good cult deprogramming outfit in your area.
If they think this thing proves some part of Evolution, yet blood in dinosaur bones does not prove a young earth, then I’m ready to just right them off as loony and have them taken away to a rubber room. These people would believe anything over God creating universe and this is further proof of it.
The real laugh here is that the avid evos that feel so sciencey, and constantly allege that the creationists “just don’t understand science” have no credentials for the most part (wacka excepted) never having passed the professional engineer exams, nor ever having directed anything in the way of analysis nor research, and are in low level technical jobs. The very epitomy of “scientists.”
And if you don't know that's a flat out lie, you don't belong in these discussions. - You've got a very fitting screen handle for such a rube.
Wow stands for WithOut Wisdom?
And to one that lacks the understanding of that fact, I can only ask "What fellowship hath Light with Darkness?
Translating that down to your language WTF are you doing here?
Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution.
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google ·
· The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·
As to my tendency to “lie”, why don't you pick from the tenured Biology faculty of five or more Tier 1 Universities (e.g., Ivy League, Johns Hopkins, Duke, MIT, UC Universities, UVA, etc) and tell identify a few that are in your camp. Name names, tell us where they are employed, and their academic title. Your willingness and ability to provide such a list and its length, will tell us who is the “liar.” If an when you can actually produce a verifiable list of genuine scientists at places where the faculty actually do research YOU will have some credibility. By the way, if an when you actually know this crowd, you discover many believing and practicing Christians. You just don't find many that believe in the literal truth of a Bronze age fairy tale invented at some unknown point by an uneducated tribesman and passed down through generations of oral tradition, and rewritten by generations of fallible human beings.
Thank you for admitting Creation Scientists are typically not very well qualified as scientists. But I would remind you that they are the ones that call their manifestation of faith “science,” and thereby become accountable by the standards of science. I would pay them no never mind if they kept their babbling in church.
It might behoove you to understand exactly what constitutes a Theory. A Theory can be disproven by failing a valid test, science then requiring its modification or rejection, but never proven. Saying Darwinian evolution has never been proven is saying nothing more than it is a Theory.
As to your dribble about the flood and where the water might be, you might clarify your frame of reference by telling us how old you think the earth is and when the flood happened? It is hard to rebut ignorance without knowing its dimensions. If you want to argue that the age of the earth is several billion years and that Noah’s Flood occured several million years ago(before any evidence of modern man existed)then I suppose illogic will stand out on its own. If you want to deny that geologists actually know what they are doing, then there is no point in discussion.
Mind you, I have no problem with the idea that there was a real, geographically recent (meaning within the last 8,000 years), and geographically constrained, flood which is a basis for the Noah story. But Hollywood’s interpretations of Al Gore’s fantasies aside, a melting of all the remaining ice caps and glaciers will at most raise sea level 30 feet or so.
Until you show me a fish with feet, I am not buying it. [excerpt]Well, ok:
Bob Wills & the Texas Playboys! ~ Ida Red!
(BTW, like your FR page!)