Don't they see the irony?
2006-08-05 02:55:18 · 8 answers · asked by the last ninja 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Wow, australopithecine is too long for a Y!Answers question...
Are they dumbing down or what?
2006-08-05 02:59:32 · update #1
Well, they ARE mutually exclusive. One is evidence-based, the other is not. The eyeball is no more proof of a designer than an anthill is proof of ant monarchy. (And please don't point out that an anthill has a queen. You know what I meant.)
"Intelligent Design" is not science. Why? Because all true science is testable, and falsifiable, meaning that you can do experiments to disprove any given assertion. There are no experiments for Intelligent Design, it just is. Also, all true science is not just descriptive, but predictive; it allows you to make quantifiable predictions about future events, based on your knowledge of past events, and some model of the world. You can test Darwin, and you can make predictions based on it. All-encompassing explanations with no way of testing assumptions or predictive capability are at best stories, whose only value is literary, as in other culture's creation myths. Nice for social cohesion, but not science.
Darwin and the Bible are not mutually exclusive, however. It is possible to see the Creation story as an allegory, or "parable" if you like, and to appreciate the power of a god who animated the first single-celled organism with the idea in mind that someday it would evolve into, well, us.
2006-08-05 05:00:24 · answer #1 · answered by keepsondancing 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Great day in the morning BUBBA---Sent me scrambling for my dictionary. For everyone who is afraid to answer here is the definition of the word:
The earliest creatures that can be identified as direct ancestors of modern humans are classified as australopithecines (literally, “southern apes”), of which the first specimen to be described (in 1925) was the skull of a child from a quarry site at Taung (now in Northern Cape province). Subsequently, more australopithecine bones have been found preserved in limestone caves…
Creationists believe in creation. WE believe in God---we believe in INTELLIGENT DESIGN not monkey shines. I suppose some folks would rather be a monkey's uncle. :-) No accounting for taste. :-) I hope you understand that if there is a design in nature there must have been a designer.
2006-08-05 03:07:17 · answer #2 · answered by oph_chad 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This term australopithecine refers to two very closely related hominin genera:
Australopithecus
Paranthropus
When used alone, the term refers to both genera together. Australopithecus is sometimes referred to as the gracile (slender) australopithecines. They appeared earlier in the fossil record and gave rise to Paranthropus, which are often called the robust australopithecines.
No.
2006-08-05 03:03:16 · answer #3 · answered by ellieannah 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, I'm sure the reason that you feel that they think like cavemen is because evolutionists tend to be so self-righteously supercilious in their theorizing. Neither creationism nor evolution is anything more than just that. A theory. There are merits to both and I believe that they are not mutually exclusive. Neither side has yet disproven the other, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
2006-08-05 03:07:37 · answer #4 · answered by LindaLou 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We've given up on Neanderthal? Too close to modern human?
Maybe it's the smaller cerebral cortex?
2006-08-05 02:59:27 · answer #5 · answered by lrad1952 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
great word! clever Q, spelled correctly too. i concur ... ironic as hell. irony tends to get lost on folks who live life literally.
2006-08-05 03:01:46 · answer #6 · answered by Tara 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
See it? They couldn't even spell that word.
They consider the whole thing Piltdown.
2006-08-05 03:00:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why are evolutionists so holier-than thou?
2006-08-05 03:01:30 · answer #8 · answered by bystander1212 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋