To everyone bringing up the "Anti-Evolution" article:?

Question

These fossils are 1.5 million years old, so why is it that they are okay to use in an argument against evolution, but not in an argument against the Creation, which states that the Earth is only 6000 years old?

Why are they okay to use as evidence for only your side of the story?

And of course, here's the link (in case you didn't see it the first 100 times it was posted):

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution

Chris: You are the man. That's exactly the line I was hoping someone would post.

Answer 1

You don't expect them to read, like, a whole article, do you? They just see the headline and kneejerk-react.

Answer 2

Everybody in civilization has been inundated with your side of the story. I am becoming less convinced by science every day. Objects that we were told were planets in our solar system are now described as not being planets. Planets in our solar system that we didn't know about are now being discovered. Many problems with carbon dating have been reported. It's all really just a series of good guesses. Science gets it wrong sometimes. Have you ever looked at the statistics of the chances of humans evolving from a single celled organism through random mutation? Mathematically, it would take much longer than even science's oldest approximation of the earth. So why the fanaticism when people hypothesize that maybe the old story is true. Maybe there is a creator that made all kinds of creatures. Some resembled the creator more than others, but they were not related. Who knows if it was 6000 years or millions? Why the anxiety when others say that evolution might be wrong?

Answer 3

I saw today that it was still on the front page on yahoo and was wondering if R&S was still a buzz with the news that evolution has been proved false LOL.

And you are so correct: the info they use in their arguments can be quite selective yes?

Personally, I think they are skipping over this: "Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist...said she expects anti-evolution proponents to seize on the new research, but said it would be a mistake...

" '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.' "

Answer 4

Somehow a lot of people don't manage to get past the headline. It actually lends more credence to evolution. With most other animals you see many species in the same family and genus - some continuing, some dying out - with humans only one. Now it shows for a while at least there were different species (not just races) of humans living alongside each other. Fits the evolutionary model better than just one straight line.

Answer 5

I have read the article...it is interesting, informative and only proves that science in this area is an inexact science.

I was glad to see the article, and I am a creationist, but I am not jumping for joy over this "discovery", feeling it has proved anything.

When dealing with the fossil record we must understand that as technology grows, and more information becomes available, theories will change. We just need to remember that all they are is just theories.

Answer 6

just wanted to post this paragraph

Difference in size between males and females seem to be related to monogamy, the researchers said. Primates that have same-sized males and females, such as gibbons, tend to be more monogamous. Species that are not monogamous, such as gorillas and baboons, have much bigger males.

because i remember someone getting ridiculed on here for mentioning this

Answer 7

The funny thing is....um....IF we descended from Monkeys like the creationists claim that we claim, the existance of two related species at a time sort of says why there are two monkeys....

By the way, the article made me yawn.

Leopards and Tigers evolved from lions that were pretty much identical to todays lions....hellllllllloooooo.

Answer 8

i think in case you're saying something repeatedly and repeatedly returned, it starts to alter into real? Or a minimum of, of their heads. as properly, they have all of it coated. They tell people who all Mormons lie, that all and sundry we desire is to get human beings to connect our church, that's somewhat stupid once you end and picture approximately it, which they under no circumstances do.

Answer 9

From the article, which says everything that needs to be said:

"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."

Answer 10

I love how they miss this bit:

"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."

Answer 11

A muslim believes that Allah (the God of Abraham, Jesus, Muhammad) created the universe. However not 6000 years ago. The exact age of the universe is known to Allah alone.