If Australopithicus is the "missing link" genetically, does this eliminate the Creationist world view?

Question

IE - that God made man with no intermediate steps aka Genesis 1:24

Answer 1

If you have the starting link and the ending link, it's not hard to figure out what came in the middle. "Missing Link" is just another anti-evolution rally cry like "micro-evolution" the hardcore fundies teach their flock to regurgitate to "disprove" evolution. If the teacher doesn't understand what they're teaching, there's no hope for the students.

Answer 2

Lucy is the best evidence for a missing link in the case for evolution and pitiful bad evidense at that showing the poverty of the argument

Lucy has legs pointed sharply in like a trapeeze walking monkey and a hip ocnfigured to balance in trees, the original fossil had neither hands or feet and they were wronly assumed to look human

Australiapithicus is now known to be a knuckle walker and obviously a tree dweller proving once again that naturalists can hold onto something as dogmoatically or more so than any religious person

Addiitonally in the same rock layer a 75 foot set of two tracks of very human looking tracks except the toes spread due to habitual non wearing of shoes... a larger human like foottprint and parralel for 75 ft matching step for step a smaller as if a child is walking with its parent and the same layer as Lucy

concluseion: people were there along side austaliopithecus (an extict ape) and it was throusands of years ago not millions

if the missing link is sitll missing should Jim Darwin believe in creation? and natures God?

Answer 3

Unfortunately not.

The creationist world view is based on a determined refusal not only to critically evaluate the evidence, but to actually make themselves aware of the evidence in the first place.

Everything known about geology and biology (and particularly genetics and paleontology) complete contradicts the creationism and intelligent design. No further evidence will change these people's mind - the evidence we already have is overwhelming.

The issue of the creationist world view is essentially a political one. These people need to be cut out of the debate, and their power over school boards removed - to permit the uneducated control over education is a dangerous madness.

Answer 4

I was reading an article on the Ancient Egyptians and it stated that no fossil remains quite like present day humans were found.
However, even if humans (as we appear) arrived on the scene suddenly, one creator who is adamant that 'He' alone be worshiped, doesn't really make sense, first of all, since there is evidence of so many other religions that make no mention at all of the Yahweh character-deity. Also, no one has ever been able to show that the other societies didn't have a moral conduct of their own to establish laws. As an example, American Indians were very aware of what the difference was between murder and sacrifice. How do they think these other socities existed if God was not there to tell them what to do?
The Creationists have absolutely no way to prove their religious hypothesis but they apparently think trying to disprove others will prove theirs correct. But, using their excuse that 'It just happened' or 'God works in mysterious ways', you can't disprove that there's not a lion-headed goddess!

Answer 5

A literal interpretation of Genesis was abandoned by religious-scientists like Rev. Adam Sedgwick 50 years before the publication of Origin of Species.

Australopithecine fossils are pretty redundant as far as eliminating the Creationist world view.

Answer 6

Not at all.
a) It will cause a froth among some literalist who insist on a 6 days is 6 days world.
b) It will be a shrug for those who understand the 6 days along the line of a metaphor for a timely, ordered movement which A would confirm.
c) It will be an "alleluia" to those who trust God is great enough to work in such a marvelous manner.

Answer 7

Here's the deal ... "missing link" is interesting scientific note regarding natural decomposition and the fossil record, and another mystery of many science is always gaining new insights about ... Albeit, self labelled Creationists attempt amending it to their "arguments"... Their arguments have been dead to all but the histrionic for quite some time ..:D

Re:Search4Truth..."Piltdown Man" ... nice reference goober ... Is like me bringing you four forged Holy Grail cups .. and saying these forgeries mean 'The Last Supper' never occurred ...

The Last Supper may have never occurred .. but if I incorporate a thousand years of forged relicquaries to my argument .. I am proving I am a dullard .. as have you with "Piltdown Man"

Additionally .. I think the "natural selection" cases you cite are out of context .. derived from mutations as consequence of radiation and other poisonings, eh? .. Nice sophistry though- for a Creationist ... underlying strain of dullardness though ..

Answer 8

No, because a new "missing link" would happen. We have actually found many "missing links" in the past, but regardless of what we find they will always state there is a new missing link.

I am under the impression that unless we had every fossilized creature that ever walked the earth there will still be "missing links".

Answer 9

As a Subgenius, I believe that we (the Subgenius, not the one of those lousy Pink Boys) are descendants of the Yeti.
SubGenii are actually the mutant offspring of a forbidden sexual union that took place millions of years ago between a resident of Atlantis and a human; at that time, humans were little more than a slave race. The resulting offspring was the catalyst that led to the fall of Atlantis. SubGenii often refer to one another as "Yeti" (or yetinsyny), though this origin story is generally not well known outside of the Church itself. The heritage of the Yeti is said to give SubGenius members access to magical powers, an ability to psychically overpower non-yetinsyn and way more hair on their *** than your average half-evolved monkeyboy.

Answer 10

Have you ever read the creationist version of Lucy, its just hilarious. Lets not forget that these people that gave the creationist point of view had not formal qualification in human anthropology in the slightest. Yeh I would like to believe this but since I have only limited knowledge in the subject my view or opinion could be total wrong. I will not speculate as I do not want to mislead....

Answer 11

Is he?

What about the multitudes of links that should be in the fossil record, according to Darwin. That link the fish to the frog to the snake to the armadillo to the possum, to the bear to the monkey to the human etc.