ANOTHER oldie-but still something fun to discuss! Creationists, what are your thoughts?

Question

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060920-lucys-baby.html
Explain!

Answer 1

National Geographic should be filed under the science category, not religion and spirituallity. There you have it. Off with you now.

Answer 2

First, if you read Genesis, it tells us that there where other people on earth during the time of Adam and Eve. Example; Cain was married, if Adam, Eve, Cain, and Able were the only ones created, when Adam was killed, there should only be 3 people. Where did Cain's wife come from. Also, when God was sending Cain away for his crime, Cain begged God not to because the "others" would surely kill him. Who where the "others"?

Also, please keep in mind, that while the National Geographic has a long and unique history, just because they print something doesn't make it fact. In this case they are simply reporting the "ASSUMPTIONS", not facts, of an anthropologist. While I have no doubt this and other academics are convinced that what they are saying is true, The whole truth is that there is absolutely no way to scientifically prove that these creatures where human or that they were our predecessors and not just another species that had many similarities. Interesting stuff, but hardly complete fact.

Answer 3

I read this article when I got that issue of NG. Really interesting! Thing is, while I'd love to know what creationists/intelligent design proponents think, this is NOT a discussion board. There is no two-way communication going on. There is no ability to thread a discussion. Also, most of these people never have validated email addresses.

And MIKEROW -- please grow up. This was actually from an article in the actual National Geographic and has been covered elsewhere. Are you going to assert that National Geographic is not a reliable resource for information?

(see what I mean? conversation is impossible in this format)

Apparently fundamentalists dismiss all things related to actual science... like radioactivity and half-life and other things that are used to discern the age of very old things. I think the cognitive dissonance is just too much for them to handle.

Answer 4

I think that evolutionists should not be swayed theologically by an article on the internet like this, just as a creationist shouldn't be swayed by an article claiming to find Noah's Ark or seeing the image of Jesus on a coffeeshop bagel.

There's no conclusive proof that this is a prehistoric person and not a primate of some kind. There may be clues, but without actually finding a prehistoric teddy bear in its arms, or seeing the individual in tact with furless skin tissue we can't be sure. Even then, circumstances surrounding the death of the individual animal/person could explain those things (a prehistoric primate playing with a child's doll before being killed, etc.).

Answer 5

Wow! Can you imagine?! Over 3 million years old! Fascinating! I wonder if we are still evolving? In x number of years, will others be calling us a "species" and demonstrating their advances and how primitive we actually were? We did evolve, though - as a matter of fact, I think I'll go eat a banana right now! Hahaha

BTW, Phoenix gave you an excellent response!

And here's an excellent link to FACTS about the age of the earth:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html


ben_yv..? gosh, shut up - don't you know how rude and obnoxious you are?! get a life!

Answer 6

I'm not a creationist, but felt I needed to chime in here. The point of this article is not the age of the creature, but the fact that it is a less developed (evolved) form of humans. This fact does not factor well into the idea that God created humans as they currently are without evolution from earlier organisms.

The age is also important to those who believe the earth is no more than 6-10K yrs. old.

Answer 7

First of all, I don't believe in millions of years ago. It was probably a regular baby that died. It said that the way we find out is by it evolving. Hogwash!! The scientists don't want to believe in creation because then they have to talk about God. They don't want to believe in God. They want to explain it without God and talk about evolution. Scientist want us all to be brainwashed. The baby died from the flood. There were people living on the earth before the flood. Maybe some of the people intermarried. Who knows. Maybe that is why the baby looks like it did.

Answer 8

are you aware that "Lucy" was not even found all together. They found a head one place...feet in another place, a little here and little there, and put it all together to make a monkey looking thing. Her body parts weren't even near eachother. Also, the earth is only about 6,000 years or so. none of this million year stuff. National Geographic has a lot of false information in it.

Answer 9

I see that the "flat Earther" Creationists are doing cartwheels in an effort to twist reality to support their delusional superstitionally derived pile of crap that they seem to think is ultimate truth, even in the face of incontrovertable proof. Same old, same old, time to get a new Timmy.

Answer 10

I predict that creationists will answer as they always do when confronted with such evidence. They will use mind-bending rationalization to comport the evidence to their "theory", exactly opposite the way that the scientific method works.

Example...this is not a pre-human, but a human with a bone disease.

Example...this is a work of Satan.

Example...just another monkey that died in the flood.

Answer 11

I'm not going to argue that once humans were created they evolved, yes there is evidence of that, but show me how humans came about, what made us mammels and formed us, then you may say Evolution is true. Since science can't create life or show true evolution, just dig up fossils of a stage without knowing what came before it, I say Evolution isn't fact, but as it always was, a theory.