Scientists have discovered an exquisitely preserved ancient primate fossil that they believe forms a crucial "missing link" between our own evolutionary branch of life and the rest of the animal kingdom.

The 47m-year-old primate – named Ida – has been hailed as the fossil equivalent of a "Rosetta Stone" for understanding the critical early stages of primate evolution.

The top-level international research team, who have studied her in secret for the past two years, believe she is the most complete and best preserved primate fossil ever uncovered. The skeleton is 95% complete and thanks to the unique location where she died, it is possible to see individual hairs covering her body and even the make-up of her final meal – a last vegetarian snack.

"This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of all the mammals; with cows and sheep, and elephants and anteaters," said Sir David Attenborough who is narrating a BBC documentary on the find. "The more you look at Ida, the more you can see, as it were, the primate in embryo."

"This will be the one pictured in the textbooks for the next hundred years," said Dr Jørn Hurum, the palaeontologist from Oslo University's Natural History Museum who assembled the scientific team to study the fossil. "It tells a part of our evolution that's been hidden so far. It's been hidden because the only [other] specimens are so incomplete and so broken there's nothing almost to study." The fossil has been formally named Darwinius masillae in honour of Darwin's 200th birthday year.

It has been shipped across the Atlantic for an unveiling ceremony hosted by the mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg today. There is even talk of Ida being the first non-living thing to feature on the front cover of People magazine.

She will then be transported back to Oslo, via a brief stop at the Natural History Museum in London on Tuesday, 26 May, when Attenborough will host a press conference.

Ida was originally discovered by an amateur fossil hunter in the summer of 1983 at Messel pit, a world renowned fossil site near Darmstadt in Germany. He kept it under wraps for over 20 years before deciding to sell it via a German fossil dealer called Thomas Perner. It was Perner who approached Hurum two years ago.

"My heart started beating extremely fast," said Hurum, "I knew that the dealer had a world sensation in his hands. I could not sleep for 2 nights. I was just thinking about how to get this to an official museum so that it could be described and published for science." Hurum would not reveal what the university museum paid for the fossil, but the original asking price was $1m. He did not see the fossil before buying it – just three photographs, representing a huge gamble.

But it appears to have paid off. "You need an icon or two in a museum to drag people in," said Hurum, "this is our Mona Lisa and it will be our Mona Lisa for the next 100 years."

Hurum chose Ida's nickname because the diminutive creature is at the equivalent stage of development as his six-year-old daughter. Hurum said Ida is very excited about her namesake. "She says, 'there are two Idas now, there's me I'm living and then there's the dead one.'"

"It's caught at a really very interesting moment [in the animal's life] when it fortunately has all its baby teeth and is in the process of forming all its permanent teeth," said Dr Holly Smith, an expert in primate development at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who was part of the team. "So you have more information in it than almost any fossil you could think of.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/ida-fossil-missing-link

The devil planted this fossil.

The principles that inform creationists about Ida are some of the same that allow creationists to interpret fossil after fossil hailed as “transitional forms”:

[list]
[li]Nothing about this fossil suggests it is anything other than an extinct, lemur-like creature.  Its appearance is far from chimpanzee, let alone “apeman” or human. [/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]A fossil can never show evolution.   Fossils are unchanging records of dead organisms. Evolution is an alleged process of change in live organisms. Fossils show “evolution” only if one presupposes evolution, then uses that presupposed belief to interpret the fossil. [/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]Similarities can never show evolution.  If two organisms have similar structures, the only thing it proves is that the two have similar structures. One must presuppose evolution to say that the similarities are due to evolution rather than design.  Furthermore, when it comes to “transitional forms,” the slightest similarities often receive great attention while major differences are ignored. [/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]The remarkable preservation is a hallmark of rapid burial.  Team member Jørn Hurum of the University of Oslo said, “This fossil is so complete.  Everything’s there.  It’s unheard of in the primate record at all.  You have to get to human burial to see something that’s this complete.”  Even the contents of Ida’s stomach were preserved.  While the researchers believe Ida sunk to the bottom of a lake and was buried, this preservation is more consistent with a catastrophic flood.  Yet Ida was found with “hundreds of well-preserved specimens.” [/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]If evolution were true, there would be real transitional forms.  Instead, the best “missing links” evolutionists can come up with are strikingly similar to organisms we see today, usually with the exception of minor, controversial, and inferred anatomical differences. [/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]Evolutionists only open up about the lack of fossil missing links once a new one is found.  Sky News reports, “Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution,” while Attenborough commented that the missing link “is no longer missing.” So are they admitting the evidence was missing until now (supposedly)? [/li]
[/list]

So it’s clear what Ida is not. As for our conclusion on what Ida is, we wrote in News to Note:

[B]ecause the fossil is similar to a modern lemur (a small, tailed, tree-climbing primate), it’s unlikely that creationists need any interpretation of the “missing link” other than that it was a small, tailed, probably tree-climbing, and now extinct primate—from a kind created on Day 6 of Creation Week.

Much of the excitement over Ida appears to stem from a well-coordinated public relations effort to promote an upcoming documentary and a new book titled The Link.  The documentary will air on the History Channel in the U.S. (as The Link) on May 25 at 9 p.m. ET/PT.  It will air on BBC One in the UK (as Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor: The Link) on Tuesday May 26th at 9 p.m. Filmmaker Atlantic Productions even launched a website to promote the discovery, revealingthelink.com.

Yet as Hurum commented, “This fossil will probably be pictured in all the textbooks for the next 100 years.” So while the media rush may at first be a bid to promote the documentary and book, the ultimate result is one more trumped-up “missing link” presented to future generations as evidence of evolution.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-link

What happened to all the evidence of the missing links (transitional forms) that Kag, Huxley, M_Nwankwo etc have been claiming to have discovered?

ok bawomolo, the very idea that evolution is against christianity is actually idiotic and he who thinks so doesn't understand christianity and evolution.
christianity is based on faith and reason, u can't have one without the other.

actually to quote a friend

As to Darwin's theory, there are caveat's to it. We are allowed to accept that evolution MAY have been the tool God used for His Creation, but we are not allowed to remove God from the process. The theory of evolution says nothing about creation; it only speaks of how animals change over time. Darwin's theory does not say we come from apes; it says we have a common ancestor.

The book of Genesis was not written to be a biology textbook. It speaks of why and who, but the how is irrelevant in the grand plan of salvation. We must believe that humanity sprang from one set of parents (let's call them Adam and Eve) who were at some point ensouled and then fell from grace at the prompting of Satan. This did not need to take place on the 8th 24-hr period after the universe was created in a garden in Iraq.

plain and simple evolution does not dispell christianity and those who think so are looking for a reason not to believe in God

What is really baffling is when one thinks of animals that have gone extinct like the dinosaurs,dodo,mammoths and co.science has shown they went extinct several millions of years ago.but looking at the bibles genology,the creation of the earth wouldn't be more than 8,000 years ago.we all know thats not true,so why the cover up by bible apologists?

Ah i didnt know there was a thread on this already.

ok bawomolo, the very idea that evolution is against christianity is actually idiotic and he who thinks so doesn't understand christianity and evolution.
christianity is based on faith and reason, u can't have one without the other.

actually to quote a friend

You do realize it took centuries for your beloved Catholic church to accept evolution?

Why did it take so long and how is Christianity based one reason?  How old do you think the earth is?

davidylan:

Ah i didnt know there was a thread on this already.

imma sue you for copywright

@Bawomolo: Please tell me the link (how female came about from male or is it the other was around)? I mean use a specific like being: human, or ape/monkey/etc, or cows, Anglers, longhorn, etc, lion or anything you wish to use.

I wonder why in the cat/feline family, you have big cats; Tigers, Lions, Cougers, Leopard, Cheetahs, Panters, Jaguars and others to even the small domesticated cats?

I just want you to illustrate the posibility of link (change from male to female or female to male gender), before you and people who think like you leap for "joy" on a dead carcass of a specific specie (animal) that really can't be explained that it came out of something less complex and something more complex emerged from it, later.

How is it so difficult for you guys to know that the Creator is capable of creating many things uniquely separate even though something else in creations may look "almost" like or similar to it? For example the internal organs of Pig is very similar to that of humans. While the outer looks of primates may in varied complexity are similar to that of the "primate at the topmost", the human.

What will humans evolved to? Do you know? Maybe something that will have no face or something strange.

What will humans evolved to? Do you know? Maybe something that will have no face or something strange.

wait a million years then ask me this question again.

White people came from black people you know.

I dont have that much time. Moreover, as a creation, I am confirming to you "a thing that claim to evolve", you will not be here much long. I give you 100 years more tops.

If white people came out of black people, I have news for you that my father who was very much lighter (almost Egyptian looking when you see him) must have came from me, since i am darker than him.

Ah, Chitown guy, your idea is very funny. I wonder if the white people are like Tiger to Lion? Or Tree to Frog, in your evolutionary book? They are still people, having the same exact elementary consistency like any people, including their "black" people you said they came out of.

When you can't even try to answer how women came from man, with just gender difference, I wonder what you will say about Chicken and the Egg> Which one came first, remember that the egg needs warmth, and the chicken is the one that can give it, naturally. Or does egg give the chicken something important so that the Chicken can function as Chicken?

I think you got the idea. Now you need to find for me, in short order, that very set of animals where we can see the evolutional progression stages, from say Monkey to People in Chicago. We want to see the evidence; from Inside the womb or outside the womb as one specie moves to become the other ahead of it, ending up to the most complicated; humans, people in Chitown.

By the way when did fertilization replaced that evolutionary phasing up? If fertilization is always in play, I wonder if you see the uselessness of your evolutionary idea?

How you dey, ol boy? Its getting hotter in the windy city, even not as windy as Boston. I think second city is more like it.

@ Tudor

What is really baffling is when one thinks of animals that have gone extinct like the dinosaurs,dodo,mammoths and co.science has shown they went extinct several millions of years ago.but looking at the bibles genology,the creation of the earth wouldn't be more than 8,000 years ago.we all know thats not true,so why the cover up by bible apologists?

Christians don't really deny the existence of large animals at all ever having existed. The confusion rests with the time we say they existed, and what destroyed them versus what the advocates of evolution hold.

Noah's flood happened to have destroyed them since it covered the earth. No life form survived except those that entered the huge ship that Noah built. There is ample evidence to explain the universal flood. Just look at the fossil formations and you will notice that the larger animals were found at the top including the bones of dinosaurs. These large beasts were able to climb up to the highest points in order to escape the flood, while the smaller animals perished.

Some scientists jump to the conclusion that a gigantic meteor or meteors struck the earth, creating a global firestorm which destroyed the dinosaurs etc and formed the K-T Boundary layer. How boring! So it roasted the dinos, but left the elephants and rhinos? I thought scientists were supposed to be smart. As the Bible says so eloquently, ‘Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.’ (Romans 1:22) Other scientists say that a giant meteor hit and did not cause a firestorm, but caused a gigantic tidal wave, possibly 1000 feet high.

Ever heard about the K-T boundary? Its a layer of sediment all over the earth. All the fossils of dinosaurs and other extinct creatures happened to have been found below the sediment layer, and never above. How come? MOre and more scientists are becoming convinced that the Bible is as accurate as it comes.

Remember what Jesus said about those who failed to believe on Him? He said that the rocks would cry out if they failed to be a witness, and indeed they are doing just that. The evidence from the rocks are plainly pointing to the accuracy of God's word without a doubt.

Let me put to you another case. Scientists argue that the foundation rocks took millions if not billions of years to have cooled and solidified. Yet deep in thse rocks can be found microspheres called Polonium halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have a fleeting half life of a little over 3 minutes.

The fact that these halos are found in the foundation rocks of the earth means one thing. They had to have been made instantaneously to prevent the halos from evaporating. If in deed it took the rocks a very long time to solidify, then logically there could have been no trace of such halos in the rocks in the first place, correct?

Lets create an analogy. Let us say we place alka-seltzer in water, what would you expect? An effervescence correct? To trap those bubbles one would have to suddenly freeze the water, correct? The same principle would apply to an instantaneous solidification of the rocks that would have trapped the radioactive halos from escaping.

QED.

Bobbyaf:

@ Tudor

Christians don't really deny the existence of large animals at all ever having existed. The confusion rests with the time we say they existed, and what destroyed them versus what the advocates of evolution hold.

Noah's flood happened to have destroyed them since it covered the earth. No life form survived except those that entered the huge ship that Noah built. There is ample evidence to explain the universal flood. Just look at the fossil formations and you will notice that the larger animals were found at the top including the bones of dinosaurs. These large beasts were able to climb up to the highest points in order to escape the flood, while the smaller animals perished.

Some scientists jump to the conclusion that a gigantic meteor or meteors struck the earth, creating a global firestorm which destroyed the dinosaurs etc and formed the K-T Boundary layer. How boring! So it roasted the dinos, but left the elephants and rhinos? I thought scientists were supposed to be smart. As the Bible says so eloquently, ‘Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.’ (Romans 1:22) Other scientists say that a giant meteor hit and did not cause a firestorm, but caused a gigantic tidal wave, possibly 1000 feet high.

Ever heard about the K-T boundary? Its a layer of sediment all over the earth. All the fossils of dinosaurs and other extinct creatures happened to have been found below the sediment layer, and never above. How come? MOre and more scientists are becoming convinced that the Bible is as accurate as it comes.

Remember what Jesus said about those who failed to believe on Him? He said that the rocks would cry out if they failed to be a witness, and indeed they are doing just that. The evidence from the rocks are plainly pointing to the accuracy of God's word without a doubt.

Let me put to you another case. Scientists argue that the foundation rocks took millions if not billions of years to have cooled and solidified. Yet deep in thse rocks can be found microspheres called Polonium halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have a fleeting half life of a little over 3 minutes.

The fact that these halos are found in the foundation rocks of the earth means one thing. They had to have been made instantaneously to prevent the halos from evaporating. If in deed it took the rocks a very long time to solidify, then logically there could have been no trace of such halos in the rocks in the first place, correct?

Lets create an analogy. Let us say we place alka-seltzer in water, what would you expect? An effervescence correct? To trap those bubbles one would have to suddenly freeze the water, correct? The same principle would apply to an instantaneous solidification of the rocks that would have trapped the radioactive halos from escaping.

QED.

Hello, I have got some questions for you. Here we go;

1) Do you drive a petroleum-based car? Where do you think petroleum comes from and how long does it take to form?

2) Have you heard of artificial diamond? How is it possible to create diamond in the lab and what does one need to know in order to do this?

@ Huxley

Hello, I have got some questions for you. Here we go;

1) Do you drive a petroleum-based car? Where do you think petroleum comes from and how long does it take to form?

Petroleum from what I know is a mixture of hydrocarbons that is sourced from both plants and animals that once existed some time before.

2) Have you heard of artificial diamond? How is it possible to create diamond in the lab and what does one need to know in order to do this?

From what I recall all it takes is high pressure and high temperature, but apart from that I am not too sure about the exact details.

Anyway what are you getting at?

Bobbyaf:

@ Huxley

Petroleum from what I know is a mixture of hydrocarbons that is sourced from both plants and animals that once existed some time before.


From what I recall all it takes is high pressure and high temperature, but apart from that I am not too sure about the exact details.

Anyway what are you getting at?

You are on the right track on both counts, but you have been rather superficial. Why don't you research the formation of petroleum and artificial diamond a bit more. Look into how long it takes to form these substances naturally and put some quantitative estimates of the time.

When you can't even try to answer how women came from man, with just gender difference, I wonder what you will say about Chicken and the Egg> Which one came first, remember that the egg needs warmth, and the chicken is the one that can give it, naturally. Or does egg give the chicken something important so that the Chicken can function as Chicken?

I think you got the idea. Now you need to find for me, in short order, that very set of animals where we can see the evolutional progression stages, from say Monkey to People in Chicago. We want to see the evidence; from Inside the womb or outside the womb as one specie moves to become the other ahead of it, ending up to the most complicated; humans, people in Chitown.

I hope you do realize humans from other parts of the earth migrated to the New World?

What does gender difference have to do with evolution. i guess you can argue Allah created Hermaphrodites.

Allah is great.

There is no case for intelligent design. NONE. While it is true that evolution can not be 100% proven, there is at least tonnes of evidence supporting it, thus making it the more credible option. All we keep getting is these abstract arguments. If what we really seek is truth we have to be honest with ourselves.

If 1000 people have chronic malaria, 500 go to a doctor, another 500 go to a pastor, which group will have more survivors? By how much more?

When your doctor takes your money he sells you a service. When your pastor does he robs you.

@ Huxley

You are on the right track on both counts, but you have been rather superficial. Why don't you research the formation of petroleum and artificial diamond a bit more. Look into how long it takes to form these substances naturally and put some quantitative estimates of the time.

I am not convinced with their version of time needed for petroleum and diamond to be made naturally anyway. Besides, I have already read various versions of the account coming from the evolutionists. I have my own ideas that I have come to accept that I got from a video I watched some time ago.

It was made by Dr. Robert Ventry and it makes for a good view.

There is no case for intelligent design. NONE. While it is true that evolution can not be 100% proven, there is at least tonnes of evidence supporting it, thus making it the more credible option. All we keep getting is these abstract arguments. If what we really seek is truth we have to be honest with ourselves.

If 1000 people have chronic malaria, 500 go to a doctor, another 500 go to a pastor, which group will have more survivors? By how much more?

When your doctor takes your money he sells you a service. When your pastor does he robs you.

If that isn't vague what is? What evidence are you talking about? Carbon dating?  You can't be serious! There is far more evidence for design by a master Designer than you're prepared or able to accept.

Take a look at this 1 hour video and if you have an open mind, and a desire for truth, you will find it.

http://www.halos.com/videos/center-of-the-universe-320x240-273k.htm

haha, i actually meant the invisible man in the sky

@Bawomolo: What branch of evolution is hermaphrodites hanging in? Sorry man, let me rephrase it; what stage in the evolutionary process is hermaphrodite in and what do you think the gender will be, when the process is completed? You think the hermaphrodite can choose a gender at will, since the process will definitely happens as evolution, outside the mother/carrier?

Ol boy, you are giving me too much ammo to argue against evolution, worshipper of Zeus.

To answer your question; yes Allah creates the hermaphrodite, too. Just the same way He creates man separately and woman distinct from the man. The same way tall is created distinct from short. Fat (chunky) differently from slim (wafer, slender). White separately from blacks or darker hues based on family bloodline than any artificial factor.

Hermaphrodite is a human class that should make a woman thank her Lord for allowing her to emergy from mother's womb completely intact as a woman. I know many parents who want to have a son, because of the so many daughters that they have, they complain. But they do not look at the worse case scenerios; giving birth to no male or female, or producing a stillborn or even a gender complex child, like hermaphrodite, or a feminate or others who are not willing to restrict their sexual perversive orientations.

Bobbyaf:

@ Huxley

I am not convinced with their version of time needed for petroleum and diamond to be made naturally anyway. Besides, I have already read various versions of the account coming from the evolutionists. I have my own ideas that I have come to accept that I got from a video I watched some time ago.

It was made by Dr. Robert Ventry and it makes for a good view.

This has got nothing to do with evolution. This is chemical engineering or better still petro-chemical engineering in the case of petroleum, and mineralogy in the case of diamond. The evolutionist have nothing to pontificate about these subjects.

I simply asked you how long it takes for organic matter to become petroleum and you are playing all sorts of gyminastics. Is this not a simple straightforward question? How long does your Dr Ventry says it takes. And could new petroleum resources be discovered based on the science Dr Ventry presents?

@ Huxley

It is not as long as you were told. In other words you have no proof as to how long it takes diamond and petroleum to be manufactured naturally. Scientists who have a bias for evolution will tell you this, but in reality it doesn't take a lot of time for diamonds to be manufactured naturally, or for petroleum to be manufactured as well.

Look at this video for about an hour and you will see that there are a lot of things that we were told that took millions of years, when in truth and in fact took far less of a time.

http://www.halos.com/videos/0004-TheYoungAgeoftheEarthEnglish-214k.htm

~Lady~:

ok bawomolo, the very idea that evolution is against christianity is actually idiotic and he who thinks so doesn't understand christianity and evolution,  . . plain and simple evolution does not dispell christianity and those who think so are looking for a reason not to believe in God

This is the evidence that the Vatican and its adherents don't believe the Bible to be the Word of God.  Do you believe the geneaology of Jesus that Dr. Luke traced back to Adam? (Luke 3:23-38), and that is if you still believe that the creation account and the characters of Adam and Eve are just allegorical.  Do you also believe that the 10 commandments are also allegorical? since God stated that He created the heavens and the earth in 6 days (Exodus 20:11) which confirms the creation account in the book of Genesis.  If you still insist that they are allegorical, is Jesus also a myth or a legend since He is traced back to Adam and to God? 

If you can still claim that all the characters named above are myths, legends and the accounts allegorical then there will be no doubt as to your need to receive Jesus as your Saviour and personal Lord.

Bobbyaf:


http://www.halos.com/videos/center-of-the-universe-320x240-273k.htm

I've seen that video before. Its a bunch of guys throwing a lot of big words around and nothing they say is scientifically accurate. It was made by a religious group. You can hear the bias in the cadence of the commentators right from the first set of statements they utter.  

They actually had the audacity to claim that ALL of mainstream science ignored the "solid" evidence, and instead went with an UNTESTED assumption about space-time expansion. They then eloquently proceed to quote the bible's "obvious" reference to what the "correct" explanation is.

Science searches for answers, they don't claim to have them all. And when they make assumptions, they recognize them as such.

Religion claims to have all the answers. ALL. People quote a book that was compiled 2000 years ago by a non-Christian Roman emperor and his "holy council" as the authority on everything. You are free to believe whatever you want. But just because we disagree with you does not mean we do not believe in "God". We just refuse to narrow "God" down to a book of questionable origin that has emerged from a questionable institution.

I trust science because they make mistakes. It is a human endeavor after all. But they are honest, humble about they ignorance (more-so recently than in the past i'll admit), and relentless in their pursuit. Most scientists, when provided with credible evidence of their mistakes, will acknowledge it and use as motivation to spend more sleepless nights in the lab.

Religious institutions claim infallibility. I can trust no such thing.

@ Krayola

I've seen that video before. Its a bunch of guys throwing a lot of big words around and nothing they say is scientifically accurate. It was made by a religious group. You can hear the bias in the cadence of the commentators right from the first set of statements they utter.

So being religious doesn't allow one to be scientifically qualified and competent to produce evidence for creation?

They actually had the audacity to claim that ALL of mainstream science ignored the "solid" evidence, and instead went with an UNTESTED assumption about space-time expansion. They then eloquently proceed to quote the bible's "obvious" reference to what the "correct" explanation is.

Which is true by virtue of their own confession of not accommodating that the universe has a central point. Now you tell me who is hiding something from the students? If anything there are being audacious before the Creator. Now since you're some bright alleck tell the fora why the galaxies are not expanding. Tell us why our galaxy isn't expanding? The only time the universe expands is when the Creator makes it expands, and in this case our galaxy was the last addition to what was already there before. In their attempt to explain the doppler effect they came up with an expanding set of galaxies which doesn't make sense.

Science searches for answers, they don't claim to have them all. And when they make assumptions, they recognize them as such.

I quite agree with you but this time they have made so much of a blunder that their pride will not allow them to confess their folly. I am yet to see an explosion that brings out order, or design. Wasn't the big bang some sort of explosion that supposedly began the universe? How boring!

Religion claims to have all the answers. ALL. People quote a book that was compiled 2000 years ago by a non-Christian Roman emperor and his "holy council" as the authority on everything.

I wish you'd stop making yourself sound so silly. That Roman must have been a genius. How do you explain that the bible pronounced the earth was round long before any scientists came to that knowledge? How do you explain that modern archeology confirmed that the biblical figures that were once thought to be fictitious were indeed real personages that existed. Even their language and culture were found in unearthed tablets. Where did this Roman acquire such knowledge might I ask? I could go on,

You are free to believe whatever you want. But just because we disagree with you does not mean we do not believe in "God". We just refuse to narrow "God" down to a book of questionable origin that has emerged from a questionable institution.

Take another honest look at the videos again and see if you will come up with the same conclusions. Probably your first view was blurred by your obvious bias.

Bobbyaf:

@ Krayola
 

So being religious doesn't allow one to be scientifically qualified and competent to produce evidence for creation?

That's a "straw-man" argument. I made no such claim. U're refuting something I neither said nor implied. I simply pointed out the FACT that the video was made by a religious group.

But since you bring it up, it would have to be accepted by a larger science community, and tested rigorously for credibility . Anyone that watches that video objectively, and with the necessary background knowledge should know that it is full of baseless claims.

Like I said even with all this testing science can still be wrong,  but it has a more honest and transparent process  than  the bible which was exclusively in the hands of the church before print was invented. (let us not forget that we all know that in this period the church was the most powerful and most corrupt institution on the earth,  things that make you go hhhmmmn? )

Bobbyaf:

Which is true by virtue of their own confession of not accommodating that the universe has a central point. Now you tell me who is hiding something from the students? If anything there are being audacious before the Creator. Now since you're some bright alleck tell the fora why the galaxies are not expanding. Tell us why our galaxy isn't expanding? The only time the universe expands is  when the Creator makes it expands, and in this case our galaxy was the last addition to what was already there before. In their attempt to explain the doppler effect they came up with an expanding set of galaxies which doesn't make sense.

First of all you need to accept that your "creator" is an assumption and not a verifiable fact. You are not willing to do that.  scientists are, about their assumptions.

I'm no science expert, and I don't throw phantom answers at things I cannot honestly explain. But from the little I have read we are held by gravity which keeps us at relatively same distance from others in our gravitational pull. The expansion you talk about takes place on a much larger scale.

Bobbyaf:

I am yet to see an explosion that brings out order, or design. Wasn't the big bang some sort of explosion that supposedly began the universe? How boring! 

I am yet to find any credibility in the claim that an invisible man in the skies ignores millions of starving children and answers  prayers for better paying jobs. Especially when they are offered on special service days/nights, usually as many times a week as possible and of course with collection baskets filled with money. chi-ching $$$$

Bobbyaf:

I wish you'd stop making yourself sound so silly. That Roman must have been a genius.

Genius he was, I wont deny that,  they killed millions across continents in the name of their God, and robbed indigenous people of their resources. They got away with it too, and somehow convinced you that they are on your side. If that isn't genius i don't know what is. Alleluia!!

Appropriating pagan places of worship and calling them churches, while adopting their pagan holy days and giving them names like christmas, and Easter, that was also genius, i'll admit

Bobbyaf:

How do you explain that the bible pronounced the earth was round long before any scientists came to that knowledge? How do you explain that modern archeology confirmed that the biblical figures that were once thought to be fictitious were indeed real personages that existed. Even their language and culture were found in unearthed tablets. Where did this Roman acquire such knowledge might I ask? I could go on,

I won't debunk these claims just yet,  please quote the bible on these, so that i can do a more complete job. I don't want to have to do it twice. thanks 

Bobbyaf:

Take another honest look at the videos again and see if you will come up with the same conclusions. Probably your first view was blurred by your obvious bias. 

In the name of civility and mutual respect, I haven't said what i really think about that video. 


We have such a sincere thirst for the divine in Nigeria that it breaks my heart to see how people's desire for meaning is used to enslave their minds and hold them hostage by so called "Men of God" and their medieval theology

OLAADEGBU:

This is the evidence that the Vatican and its adherents don't believe the Bible to be the Word of God.  Do you believe the geneaology of Jesus that Dr. Luke traced back to Adam? (Luke 3:23-38), and that is if you still believe that the creation account and the characters of Adam and Eve are just allegorical.  Do you also believe that the 10 commandments are also allegorical? since God stated that He created the heavens and the earth in 6 days (Exodus 20:11) which confirms the creation account in the book of Genesis.  If you still insist that they are allegorical, is Jesus also a myth or a legend since He is traced back to Adam and to God? 

If you can still claim that all the characters named above are myths, legends and the accounts allegorical then there will be no doubt as to your need to receive Jesus as your Saviour and personal Lord.

Absolutely, the 10 commandments are allegorical. Why else would God command his people not to cook a baby goat in his mother's milk. Does this sound like a REAL commandment to you?

Em, guys. . . (Bobbyaf, Krayola, ladies and gentlemen of this thread),

Let me throw in this bit. I think that so many times people use expressions that do not address a particular enquiry, which often lead to the mistaken idea that one is superior over the other. This is the case often times when people are employing the fallacy of ad hominem arguments to make deductions or inferences which are far removed from reality.

   - - - - - - - - - -

@Krayola, perhaps you need to reconsider the strain of your arguments. You are operating from what seems to be a very mixed up ideology. For instance, consider these premises in your quotes:
[list]

Krayola:

Science searches for answers, they don't claim to have them all. And when they make assumptions, they recognize them as such.

[/list]
No, 'science' doesn't have the ability to do so - you most probably meant that 'scientists' search for answers (afterall, what did you mean by "they"?). And yes indeed, we have on record so many 'scientists' who claim to have "answers" about the reality of the world we live in, even though those claims are as dogmatic as religious statements.
Also, this:
[list]

Krayola:

Religion claims to have all the answers. ALL.

[/list]
This is where you got it all wrong and merely repeating the same recycled and unjustified dogmatic statement you've heard from naive minds. "Religion" does not claim to have "all" the answers - there are many religions in the world, and most of them (including Christianity) do not claim to have ALL the answers. At least, I know that the Bible does not claim that any man fully understands 'all' matters of spirituality and the reality of our world. Even in atheistic religions, their informed adherents do not make any such claims as you assumed - people just make this unjustified assertion without having carefully investigated the veracity or substance of that idea.

Worldviews should not be confused for science; and the mistake you're making is to use one worldview (atheism) to argue against another worldview (theism) - and that is not science that you're dealing with. To pit "science" against "religion" in the manner that you're doing is NOT science, but rather atheistic philosophy; more so, because by the statement: "Science searches for answers, they don't claim to have them all", you're assuming that there are no qualified theists who pratice science. Now, who are the "they" in your assumption - atheists? Even honest atheists would not make the mistake that you're making. So, please carefully consider the premise of your arguments.

However, I should go one step further to commend your penultimate remark:
[list]

Krayola:

We have such a sincere thirst for the divine in Nigeria that it breaks my heart to see how people's desire for meaning is used to enslave their minds and hold them hostage by so called "Men of God" and their medieval theology

[/list]
It's alright to have a sincere thirst for "the divine", but just what do you mean by that term? Where do you begin to explicate that concept when your strain of argument just does not lead one to believe that statement was genuine? At any rate, one should not be reactive when seeking answers, because often is the case that the gist is lost in the arguments when language is used to becloud meaning.

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

@Bobbyaf,
While I may appreciate much of your arguments, I'd rather have to give just about the same review as I observed in Krayola's. No, I'm not adjudging you or anyone else; but if we're all sincerely seeking answers about reality and meaning, we need to tread softly and appreciate issues on their own merit.

That said, if one is looking at the universe as a system, the obvious question before us is: how do we begin our study? I think that as students of leading enquiries, we should shy away from unjustified statements which are neither scientific nor theistic. An example in yours:
[list]

Bobbyaf:

The only time the universe expands is when the Creator makes it expands, and in this case our galaxy was the last addition to what was already there before.

[/list]
Lol, anyone could just ask the simplest question here - "how do you know?" - and that just about pops your assumptions. Look at it in simple outline:

              ~  'the only time'

              ~  'is when the Creator makes it expands'

              ~  'our galaxy was the last addition'

              ~  'to what was already there before'

Uhm, I don't know any science that could at present tell you "what was already there before" - not to any degree of certainty. And I don't know any religion that would make such a dogmatic statement as that "the only time" such things happen is when the Creator makes it so! Anyone could presume to say these things and feel comfortable about their assumptions; but for the sake of a tidy job in this discourse, neither of these premises is justified as either science or theology!

These are just the basics to consider before drawing any inferences. And I hope these observations would help us carefully weigh whatever we say. Regards.

Hello Pilgrim - how dey bodi di do today?

pilgrim.1:

Em, guys. . . (Bobbyaf, Krayola, ladies and gentlemen of this thread),

Let me throw in this bit. I think that so many times people use expressions that do not address a particular enquiry, which often lead to the mistaken idea that one is superior over the other. This is the case often times when people are employing the fallacy of ad hominem arguments to make deductions or inferences which are far removed from reality.

   - - - - - - - - - -

@Krayola, perhaps you need to reconsider the strain of your arguments. You are operating from what seems to be a very mixed up ideology. For instance, consider these premises in your quotes:
[list][/list]
No, 'science' doesn't have the ability to do so - you most probably meant that 'scientists' search for answers (afterall, what did you mean by "they"?). And yes indeed, we have on record so many 'scientists' who claim to have "answers" about the reality of the world we live in, even though those claims are as dogmatic as religious statements.

Not quite sure what distinction you are making here. Science is the institution or endeavour whose primary purpose is to search for answers about the nature of reality. The scientific institution is peopled by individuals from all walks of life but as long as they follow the dictums of science ( the scientific method, etc, etc), they are doing science and they can be called scientists. ALL GOOD scientist recognise that ALL scientific positions are provisional and anyone who derives a dogmatic position about what he accepts from science and is unwilling to accept a new and better position is SURELY not doing science, but theology.

I know of few cases where scientist have not thrown out their previous old ideas to welcome in a new and better explanation from a new theory. A very good case is the long debate about The steady State Universe Theory espoused by Fred Hoyle and the Expanding Universe model. In spite of all the evidence to refute the Steady state model, Hoyle stuck to his guns about it until very close to his death when the evidence of Cosmic Microwave Background proved too overwhelming to refute. This is very good science and the scientific establishment needs people like Fred Hoyle, and extremely clever man, to force scientist to check, recheck, verify, reverify every single recess of their theory. This is what gives scientists the confidence that they have a sound theory in their hands.

Further it is possible to step outside of science and derive metaphysical or philosophical "doctrines" from the results of science or from a corruption of the results of science. However this is NOT science.

pilgrim.1:

Also, this:
[list][/list]
This is where you got it all wrong and merely repeating the same recycled and unjustified dogmatic statement you've heard from naive minds. "Religion" does not claim to have "all" the answers - there are many religions in the world, and most of them (including Christianity) do not claim to have ALL the answers. At least, I know that the Bible does not claim that any man fully understands 'all' matters of spirituality and the reality of our world. Even in atheistic religions, their informed adherents do not make any such claims as you assumed - people just make this unjustified assertion without having carefully investigated the veracity or substance of that idea.

Worldviews should not be confused for science; and the mistake you're making is to use one worldview (atheism) to argue against another worldview (theism) - and that is not science that you're dealing with. To pit "science" against "religion" in the manner that you're doing is NOT science, but rather atheistic philosophy; more so, because by the statement: "Science searches for answers, they don't claim to have them all", you're assuming that there are no qualified theists who pratice science. Now, who are the "they" in your assumption - atheists? Even honest atheists would not make the mistake that you're making. So, please carefully consider the premise of your arguments.

The mistake that most religions have made, especially the Judeo-Christian, is that they have not confined themselves to the esoteric metaphysical worlds of the supernatural, but have tended to make pontification that could be verified using the scientific process. This is ultimately their undoing. Judeo-Christianity has made claims such as the following which are capable of being verified by science:

1) The origin and structure of the universe

2) The origin of life (and human life) and the diversity of life

3) Myriads of factual claims such as describing a bat as a bird, whale as a fish, rabbit as chewing the cud, etc, etc.

These are primarily scienctific claims and they could be investigated using the scientific method. Now, the question is - what would you do if science finds that the religious narratives of these claims are at variance with the "true" state of reality?

After all said and done, no one will design anything on a whim alone.

Hallo huxley2,

I'm doing very well, thanks. And you?

huxley2:

Not quite sure what distinction you are making here. Science is the institution or endeavour whose primary purpose is to search for answers about the nature of reality. The scientific institution is peopled by individuals from all walks of life but as long as they follow the dictums of science ( the scientific method, etc, etc), they are doing science and they can be called scientists. ALL GOOD scientist recognise that ALL scientific positions are provisional

The distinction is simple enough: science is an endeavour while scientists are its practitioners. The endeavour cannot of itself do anything other than what its practitioners do with it.

huxley2:

and anyone who derives a dogmatic position about what he accepts from science and is unwilling to accept a new and better position is SURELY not doing science, but theology.

I'm not sure that is the case; for some 'scientists' who have demonstrated that they are unwilling to consider new findings (for whatever reasons) are not doing theology. I think you're mixing up ideas here. The example you gave about Fred Hoyle attests to the fact that while he was disinclined to consider other models and theories on his enquiry, he nonetheless was not doing theology (we remember he was an atheist, but later leaned toward the Panspermia of agnotic deism). He simply did not start out as a theologian arguing against other models, and his obstinacy cannot be described as 'theology'.

huxley2:

Further it is possible to step outside of science and derive metaphysical or philosophical "doctrines" from the results of science or from a corruption of the results of science. However this is NOT science.

Glad you know that - and it's not peculiar to scientists with a religious/theistic worldview.

huxley2:

The mistake that most religions have made, especially the Judeo-Christian, is that they have not confined themselves to the esoteric metaphysical worlds of the supernatural, but have tended to make pontification that could be verified using the scientific process.

Religions of themselves have not and do not make such "mistakes" - any religious person could make pontifications, and please always keep in mind that religion covers even atheistic religions as well. That aside, we know that there are dogmatic atheists without a religious leaning who nevertheless do the very same thing that you just described above.

huxley2:

This is ultimately their undoing. Judeo-Christianity has made claims such as the following which are capable of being verified by science:

1) The origin and structure of the universe

2) The origin of life (and human life) and the diversity of life

3) Myriads of factual claims such as describing a bat as a bird, whale as a fish, rabbit as chewing the cud, etc, etc.

I don't think you're actually holding a gist here, my apologies. I may understand that you meant the opposite of your statement above, because you're saying that these things are "capable of being verified" and are regarded as "factual claims". I don't know. However, if that's what you actually meant without editing, then what then is the problem if one makes a statement that is a "factual claim" or one that is "capable of being verified by science"?  All the same, the one issue that I see here is that you're again making the very same mistake I hinted at earlier to Krayola - one should not just make reactive assumptions in the idea that one worldview is superior to another, because it seems that's what you're pointing to in your premise.

huxley2:
These are primarily scienctific claims and they could be investigated using the scientific method. Now, the question is - what would you do if science finds that the religious narratives of these claims are at variance with the "true" state of reality?

First, you would have to understand your own question before making a sweeping assumption. Scroll back: if, as you said, the claims under investigation are regarded by you to be "factual claims", what then is the substance of a "variance" from what is "factual"? This is why I often take a cautious approach when using language that may becloud one's reasoning.

However, a second consideration would be to examine the veracity of one's approach: on what grounds would a an atheistic naturalist assume that his own worldview has all the answers about the "true"  state of reality?

Can you guys keep your arguments simple please!