What's the obsession Creationists have over the recent discovery about Homo habilis/erectus?

Question

It was recently discovered that Homo habilis and Homo erectus may have lived side by side and one point in time, questioning whether Homo erectus actually descended from habilis.

Now, Creationists seem to have jumped on this, claiming it completely refutes evolution theory, or at least the descent of man from primates. Anyone who knows what they're talking about here will know that the new evidence does nothing of the sort and doesn't even relate to evolution (in general), but only the ancestory of man, which was never ever said to be 100% accurate in the first place.

So why are creationists using this like it's some kind of life-saver for creationism, proving once-and-for-all that man didn't evolve from "monkeys"? Are they just ignorant to what the discovery was actually about?

"
It's not that we're ignorant of anything.....
It's just that we stick to what is truth:

The Genesis account of creation"

Yep, that makes 100% sense

Anyone who is interested in this recent discovery and what it ACTUALLY means, try here: http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2007/08/new_fossils_and_our_understand.php

Answer 1

Because they are morons.

They have no grasp of reality, let alone a theory like evolution. So they misinterpret everything. Heck, look at the way they interpret the bible - you would have to be high on something very illegal to get from what the bible says to what they actually believe.

Answer 2

Creationists are the most willfully ignorant people when it comes to biological science. Evolution only states we and apes have similar ancestral roots.

Ah creationists...Anyone remember in that ABC debate with the Rational Response squad a few months back Kirk Cameron held up a picture he created that morphed a crocodile and a duck and asked if evolution were true why don't we have a "crocoduck"... the world simultaneously wept and laughed.

Answer 3

Or perhaps it is this: Transitional Fossils may be not in as high demand as Creationists find necessary, but that does not mean they are not there. Who is to say what abrupt environmental changes caused certain species to evolve? How would you know if this change is what caused the lack of fossils in transitional periods. What creationists always fail to recognize is that EVOLUTION IS FACT. IT IS THE PROCESS TO WHICH ALL ORGANISMS ARE BOUND. DARWIN's THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION IS THE THEORY, SO THE WHAT IS FACT, IT'S THE HOW WE'RE NOT 100% CERTAIN.

Answer 4

Wow. All the atheist, er, I mean evolutionists on the forum sound like a bunch of monkeys or something. They screech "evolution's true, it happen, it did, for real!" Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You're starting to sound hysterical and DESPERATE.
" All the changes to human evolutionary thought should not be considered a weakness in the theory of evolution, [Bill] Kimbel [Arizona State] said. Rather, those are the predictable results of getting more evidence, asking smarter questions and forming better theories, he said.”

Hear the pleading? What about really looking at the evidence? What about acknowledging the LACK of evidence supporting macro evolution? What about that, huh? What about not calling those who don't agree with you idiots, buffoons and the like? What are you so ANGRY about?

Answer 5

Creationists obsess about dumber things than this. They want to believe in their nonsense and see only data that seems to support it, however feeble that support is or how nonsensical it is. At the same time they blind themselves to evidence that disproves their groundless beliefs, however strong and logical it is. It is quite unwise to want to believe anything and to form beliefs without looking at all of the evidence. This new discovery does not refute evolution. There are too many things that support it already. It just means we may need to modify our opinions about human descent. Creationists never want to modify stale myths outmoded a long time. Lao Tzu said the value of a cup is in its emptiness. To gain knowledge, we must constantly add new discoveries and reject disproven ideas.

Answer 6

Because religion never rethinks a position, they expect science to do the same.

They don't understand that a little teak in the way we order the human branch of the evolutionary tree has absolutely no bearing on the big idea. It only means that they have reordered one tiny part.

(And it really wasn't even that if you read it. It just said that one species survived side by side longer than they originally thought.)

Answer 7

I think we all need to go back as far as we can in recorded history. I realize that a lot of people consider these ancient stories myth. But, there is truth in these writings that we have been able to verify. Like Pluto existing and knowing its exact location. Ancient Sumerian texts tell the story of human beginnings and also animal beginnings. Our history begins somewhere between creation and evolution. Creation as in a laboratory. They took an indigenous bipedal ape creature and mixed it's DNA with their (gods/aliens) DNA and created a rough draft first human. It took many experiments to finally get what they wanted. But, between science and nature here we are. Don't be too quick to discount our start in life. Truth truly is stranger than fiction. We have all been programmed to disbelieve and to even ridicule such. Let's give ourselves a break and think for ourselves, not as we have been dictated to think.

Answer 8

It is amazing to me that laymen who push evolution theory so vehemently don't even know what most evolutionary scientists have said about the fossil record....

Even Charles Darwin was honest when he confesses in 'Origin of Species'; " But as by THIS THEORY innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we NOT find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" -Charles Darwin

To the above fact, even the most world renown (evolutionary) biologists agree...." New species almost always appear suddenly in the fossil record with NO intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks in the same region. The fossil record with its abrupt transitions OFFERS NO SUPPORT for gradual change". - Stephen J. Gould (Natural History , June, 1977, p.22)

"The extreme rarity (of transitional forms) in the fossil record persists as the 'trade secret' of palentology. The evolutionary tree (diagarms) that adorn our textbooks is.....NOT the evidence of fossils". - Stephen Gould (Natural History, 1977, vol.86, p.13)

According to Scripture NOTHING evolved but everything was created "AFTER THEIR KIND"....which is directly consistent with the fossil record.

The thing to remember is that evolution is just a theory, a speculation, an unproven assumption....not a proven fact.

Answer 9

They seem to prefer "truth" over FACT. This leaves them blind in their ability to understand that this only changes a few branches on the evolutionary tree, by no means does it "disprove" anything any more than Kirk Cameron's bananna proves creationism.

Answer 10

Perhaps. Maybe they're hoping that they are going to prove the dinosaur fossils were made of plaster next.