Why can't evolutionists ever admit when they are wrong?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution;_ylt=ApUHVoHIdJdDV0ShYAs14nCs0NUE

This article shows that science is going more and more toward creationism. They have found species that were supposed to have evolved to be living at the same time. I have no doubt that all of our "ancestors" will eventually be found to be living side by side. And this continues to be shown true. It shows that maybe God created more species that have since died out.

All of your science is crumbling away...carbon dating, evolution, Big Bang, abiogenesis....as we learn more about the truth: God created us.

I can't wait to see the excuses...

They tried to make it seem like the theory still stands or that it just "changes" the theory. But it proves that they keep finding evidence and changing the theory. Why? Because maybe the theory is wrong to start with. The more they find out, the more they must change the theory, the more it will look like creationism was right all along.

divadarya: Your theory is the one that says one species can give birth to another. I think that the other "hominid" species were also created, then died off early.

Also, carbon dating wasn't proven wrong in this article. This was done some time ago.

Answer 1

Why can't cretinists notice this same asinine question was asked a few minutes ago?

ADDENDUM

" I have no doubt that all of our "ancestors" will eventually be found to be living side by side."

Like you?

"Also, carbon dating wasn't proven wrong in this article. This was done some time ago."

Umm, no it wasn't. The only thing "proven" was that some practioners don't know how or when to use it. We in aerospace call that "pilot error".

Answer 2

The fact that you even think this shows that you have no idea how evolution works. Please read an introductory textbook and try again.


There have long been debates about whether homo habilis is a direct human ancestor, and this new finding just shows that at least some of them lived later than we thought before. This in no way means man does not share a common ancestor with other apes. Are we descended from h. habilis? We don't know yet, and that's something we're trying to figure out.


Edit: Does anyone else find it HILARIOUS that creationists are using the fact that a 1.4 million year old fossil was found to argue that the world was created 6000 years ago?

Answer 3

"This suggests that our ancestor Homo erectus reproduced with multiple partners.

The Homo habilis jaw was dated at 1.44 million years ago. That is the youngest ever found from a species that scientists originally figured died off somewhere between 1.7 and 2 million years ago, Spoor said. It enabled scientists to say that Homo erectus and Homo habilis lived at the same time.

All the changes to human evolutionary thought should not be considered a weakness in the theory of evolution, Kimbel said. Rather, those are the predictable results of getting more evidence, asking smarter questions and forming better theories, he said. "

Why would you use an article that endorses the Theory of Evolution if you wish to discredit it?

Answer 4

About midway through the article that you referenced...



Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist and co-author of the Leakey work, said she expects anti-evolution proponents to seize on the new research, but said it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory.

"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous self-testing process."



I could not have said it better myself...

Answer 5

Obviously, you didn't read the entire article... the end says:

All the changes to human evolutionary thought should not be considered a weakness in the theory of evolution, Kimbel said. Rather, those are the predictable results of getting more evidence, asking smarter questions and forming better theories, he said.

Answer 6

??This article shows that science is going more and more toward creationism??!!!!!!. :-)

The fact that an evolutionary biologist has discovered some new information about a couple of species of pre-human primates moves us toward creationism???? What are you smoking? This is a very interesting find, one more piece of key information in the overall evolutionary picture, but it doesn't change anything. It only advances our knowledge of evolutionary processes one step further.

Answer 7

there's more scientists called Steve who agree with the theory of evolution than total amount of creationists

And actually the scientist mentioned in the article (along with her husband) is an "evolutionist"

http://www.leakeyfoundation.org/

I think you might also want to read up on carbon dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

I'm sure you know that it's not the only method used to date something

or perhaps not.....

Answer 8

You can read right? Go down to the last pararaph... Maybe you missed it because the words were big...

If science is crumbling, then why are you at a computer? Why are humans living longer? What has theism given humanity that makes it worh defending?

Answer 9

science isnt set in stone. we are always waiting for a new challenge to come along so we can think our way to the bottom of it. its what is called expanding your mind or applying yourself. simply stating "god did it" isnt a good enough excuse. its lazy and for you all that try to not commit the 7 deadly sins should know all about sloth.

Answer 10

in that same article, it says that the jaw in question is 1.5 million years old; how does that debunk carbon dating?

Also, explain to me which of Adam's kids gave birth to Neanderthal man, who could not mate with homo sapiens?

I don't think you read the article.