The Issue:Scientists hailed Tuesday a 47-million-year-old fossil of an ancient "small cat"-sized primate as a possible common ancestor of monkeys, humans and other primates.
Scientists say the fossil, dubbed "Ida," is a transitional species, living around the time the primate lineage split into two groups: A line that would eventually produce humans and monkeys, and another that would give rise to primates such as lemurs.
The fossil was formally named Darwinius masillae, in honor of the anniversary of Charles Darwin's 200th birthday.
"This is the most complete primate fossil before human burial," said Dr. Jorn Hurum, of the Natural History Museum at the University of Oslo, who led the study of the fossil, a young female primate.
"And it's not a few million years old; it's 47 million years old," Hurum said, speaking at a news conference at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.
The fossil was discovered in 1983 in the Messel Pit, Germany, near Frankfurt, and had been until recently in private collections, according to an article published Tuesday in the scientific journal PLoS ONE, a publication of the Public Library of Science. Read the report from PLoS ONE -CNN
My Issue:
Ok, with a whole lot of imagination I can see how mankind might resemble some species. But that’s with a whole lot of imagination. On the other side of the coin, I do admit that most individuals behavior does resemble some animalistic tendencies … after all, human’s are one step above the animals. However, to say that I’m a descendant of some species, hm!, having a hard time with this one.
Now I wasn’t there when so call time began. Some say it began sum fifty million years ago. The widely accepted time frame is some six or seven thousand years ago. Honestly, I don’t think anyone really knows. The only recorded information as to when time began is what we read in the opening statement of the Bible … “In the beginning …”. Gen 1:1. Other than that, who knows!
What I find funny about evolutionists is that every time some fossil are discovered and if it walked on, not all fours, but upright they assume that it’s our missing or lost link … that we must be a direct descendant. I’m sorry, but my brain simply cannot accept this concept, let alone its theory.
When I look around this world it’s difficult for me to even imagine that all I see in it simply appeared as a result of some big bang theory or that I evolved from tadpoles. Life as we know it is way to complex and I don’t see myself as some bi-product of man’s theory of evolution. The only sane and acceptable answer for me is creation. All that is about our world and known universe was created by God … it’s the only sensible and logical answer that makes any kind of sense. Why? Because man’s theory of evolution is inconsistent with itself … its theory continually evolves. Creation, on the other hand, is consistent … it hasn’t changed since the beginning of time.
Though I welcome “Ida” into our limited knowledge of the past, I have to decline the idea that she is my ancestor. Sorry! It just doesn’t fit. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1 NIV). Once the heavens and earth was formed, God painted it with all that is life. Yes, the original creation is lost and “Ida” is but a glimpse of what was, but even though it’s only a glimpse, it still reveals to us today that it was God that brought all that we are into being.
Hi Philip. Satan here. Just thought I'd tempt your faith with some irreligious (read: scientifically based)counterpunches.
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty hard for anyone to take you seriously when you can't spell worth beans, or manipulate grammar appropriately. But leaving that aside, you have a few factual errors: 1. most scientists believe the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and the Universe some 14 Billion years old.(those are billion with a 'B') I never heard anyone in recent years claim it was "sum [sic] fifty million years old". 2. The theory of evolution does indeed itself "evolve" if by that you mean it is contiually refined to incorporate advances in the various fields that contribute to it, such as molecular biology, chemistry, geology, and the rest. But here's something you missed: the Bible itself, not to mention the various interpretations of it, has evolved considerably, so much so that no one really knows what was "supposed to be in it" as opposed to what that pagan idolator Constantine induced the Council of Nicaea to "approve" as the word of God.
Check out your biblical history if you've got any guts.
Fianlly, a little quote that is not particularly scientific, but infinitely amusing:
"God's only excuse is that He does not exist"
-Stendhal.
To Anonymous above, thank you for your insight and for pointing out my "errors".
ReplyDeleteAs for tempting my faith, not a chance! As for censuring my grammar, well, it may not be to your standards, but that's ok. I don't claim to be a professional writer.
In reference to your comment, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. You have your's and I have mine. As long as we all agree to disagree then life is good.
As for opening your comment to me using the name of Satan, ROFLMAO!, I tend to believe in you less for even giving yourself such a title. If you don't believe in God, then how can you believe you're Satan or even be Satan. Because if there is no God then Satan can't even exist.
LOL ...Way to go on your response Philip and Satan? If you're going to point out grammatical erros? You need to learn how to spell "Finally"...As for the big bang theory? All well and good but tell me, where did the "big bang" come from? Did it just suddenly "show up"? You can't get something from nothing.. Even if you don't believe in God, SOMETHING or SOMEONE had to cause the "big bang" if you buy into that theory. As I said.. You can't get something from nothing.. Just doesn't happen. As for scientists telling us how old the world is, how do they even calculate 45 BILLION years ago? WHAT kind of scale do they come to this number with?.. I find it laughable..
ReplyDelete