Belivers what is your debate agaist this?

Question

Now i belive in god but i would just like to here your debates agaist evoulution to make me have strong faith

NEW YORK (AP) -- Scientists have discovered a remarkably complete skeleton of a 3-year-old female from the ape-man species represented by "Lucy."
The discovery should fuel a contentious debate about whether this species, which walked upright, also climbed and moved through trees easily like an ape.
The remains are 3.3 million years old, making them the oldest known skeleton of such a youthful human ancestor.
"It's pretty unbelievable" to find such a complete fossil from that long ago, said scientist Fred Spoor. "It's a once-in-a-lifetime find."
Spoor, professor of evolutionary anatomy at University College London, describes the fossil in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature with Zeresenay Alemseged of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, and other scientists.
The skeleton was discovered in 2000 in northeastern Ethiopia. Scientists have spent five painstaking years removing the bones from sandstone, and the job will take years more to complete.
Judging by how well it was preserved, the skeleton may have come from a body that was quickly buried by sediment in a flood, the researchers said.
The creature was a member of Australopithecus afarensis, which lived in Africa between about 4 million and 3 million years ago. The most famous afarensis is Lucy, discovered in Ethiopia in 1974, which lived about 100,000 years after the newfound specimen.
Most scientists believe afarensis stood upright and walked on two feet, but they argue about whether it had ape-like agility in trees.
That climbing ability would require anatomical equipment like long arms, and afarensis had arms that dangled down to just above the knees. The question is whether such features indicate climbing ability or just evolutionary baggage.
Spoor said so far, analysis of the new fossil hasn't settled the argument but does seem to indicate some climbing ability.
While the lower body is very human-like, he said, the upper body is ape-like:
• The shoulder blades resemble those of a gorilla rather than a modern human.
• The neck seems short and thick like a great ape's, rather than the more slender version humans have to keep the head stable while running.
• The organ of balance in the inner ear is more ape-like than human.
• The fingers are very curved, which could indicate climbing ability, "but I'm cautious about that," Spoor said. Curved fingers have been noted for afarensis before, but their significance is in dispute.
A big question is what the foot bones will show when their sandstone casing is removed, he said. Will there be a grasping big toe like the opposable thumb of a human hand? Such a chimp-like feature would argue for climbing ability, he said.
Yet, to resolve the debate, scientists may have to find a way to inspect vanishingly small details of such old bones, to get clues to how those bones were used in life, he said.
Bernard Wood of George Washington University, who didn't participate in the discovery, said in an interview that the fossil provides strong evidence of climbing ability. But he also agreed that it won't settle the debate among scientists, which he said "makes the Middle East look like a picnic."
Overall, he wrote in a Nature commentary, the discovery provides "a veritable mine of information about a crucial stage in human evolutionary history."
The fossil revealed just the second hyoid bone to be recovered from any human ancestor. This tiny bone, which attaches to the tongue muscles, is very chimp-like in the new specimen, Spoor said.
While that doesn't directly reveal anything about language, it does suggest that whatever sounds the creature made "would appeal more to a chimpanzee mother than a human mother," Spoor said.
The fossil find includes the complete skull, including an impression of the brain and the lower jaw, all the vertebrae from the neck to just below the torso, all the ribs, both shoulder blades and both collarbones, the right elbow and part of a hand, both knees and much of both shin and thigh bones.
One foot is almost complete, providing the first time scientists have found an afarensis foot with the bones still positioned as they were in life, Spoor said.
The work was funded by the National Geographic Society, the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University, the Leakey Foundation and the Planck institute

Answer 1

There is NO debate. Evolution has been proven by scientists many times in experiments and through evidence like what you cited. Scientists cant agree about the specifics in THIS case (these fossils were just found) but they do agree that evolution occured.

Answer 2

There are no EITHER, ORS, in reality. Only ANDS. Who's to
say the human form began on Earth. And the stories are true in the Bible. Eden was in "Paradise". Heaven is called "Paradise".
Even the theory of evolution says there is a "missing link". Some believe the first humans were created by lesser Gods. Maybe Adam and Eve were the "missing kink"? A genetic/spiritual
mutation by God to make a better human? In Genesis, God
commanded Adam and Eve to REPLENISH the earth. The
prefix (RE) means "to do again".
Man suffers from false pride. Which comes from the ego
overcompensating for all the crap we get dumped on us. There
is too much EGO CHIT! When you consider Creation has been around for billions of our years, and there are many dimensions.
All our stories could be true, as far as some place out there
in Creation. And I personally feel we are really from differnet
planets.

Answer 3

I believe upir article did not comment about the feet... like... clifhanger...

it does raise and interesting point when Lucy was discovered Lucy (who is probably a male) had no feet or hands and the walking was largely conjecture and frankly ... in my view a mistake

THIS THEORY HAD NO FEET TO STAND ON.. and we draw pictures of Lucy as if she has totally human feet in museums? it that science... sheesh!!!

and technically stilll no comment about da feet...

Lucy is
- knucklewalker
- pelvis for tree balancing
- legs more angled in then human but likie trapeeze artist type monkeys appropo for tree dwelling
- most ironic is the laetoli foot prints where a human tratil of about 75 ft long with a child sized trail of foot prints matching step for step as only a child would step for step matching the adult and contemoprary with Lucy... humans and monkey were alive at the same time

In the end Lucy is star witness agaiinst ape to man evolution

The Laetoli footprints were dated by one of the argon methods, but potassium argon and many argon methods are suspect because volcanic material is know since mt st helens to be full of Argon and imediately gives long aged rocks dating miloions of years from the getgo even tho know to be only a few years old... so how was it dated?

Answer 4

Two points:

1. It's not a human (or human-ape or ape-human), it IS an ape.

2. Dating is not a reliable way of finding out how old something is. It's very fickle, and cannot even date back "3 million years." It's as unreliable as dating fossils by rocks, and rocks by fossils (which is also done to date things, by the way).

Answer 5

I read that too on The BBC website. Brilliant.
I saw an article today about some jerk spouting about the earth only being 6000 years old and yes all the dinosaurs went on the ark too! He has even written books about it I kid you not.
As to the dating issue, for anything older than 15,000 years a different radiometric age determination is employed. For example the way uranium decays into lead .

Answer 6

USA Today (March 21, 2001) reported, “Paleontologists have discovered
a new skeleton in the closet of human ancestry that is likely to force
science to revise, if not scrap, current theories of human origins.” Reuters
reported that the discovery left “scientists of human evolution . . . confused,”
saying, “Lucy may not even be a direct human ancestor after all.”

Answer 7

I wouldn't debate this. I would instead offer that the Christian scriptures are not perfect, and not completely inspired by God, and that leaves a lot of room for human error. I don't think humans are capable of understanding the link between creation and evolution. I say it was both... we were created in some form, and evolution occurred.

Answer 8

It doesn't matter.
No serious Christian has ever thought you needed to believe in Genesis to get into Heaven. Calvin's 'the 5 solas' says nothing about creationism. Wesley's 'Christian Perfection' doesn't mention it.
Creationists really need to get over it, it's a distraction from the real center of our faith,
evangelicalism and helping the poor.

Answer 9

I don't debate against this.
I accept that it is possible God used evolution as his means of creation. An that is was recorded the way it was because at that point in time we didn't have the knowledge we have now so we couldn't have understood it then.

I also accept that debating on the semantics of creation is much less importanat than focusing on my relationship with God and encouraging others to have a relationship with him also.

Answer 10

Evolution is merey a theory, aka, a guess.

There is no proof of evolution, there never has been, and there never will be any proof.

When scientists conduct experiments in their labs, they can only GUESS what the conditions were at the 'big bang' because they have no sample of what was actually there.