Can Creationists Explain This?

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.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/1...

Two scientist can look at the exact same "evidence" and come away with totally different opinions on what the evidence means.

If a scientist has accepted the theory of evolution, they can look at a skeleton of something that appears to be primate like, but unknown to us today, and decide that it is a missing link.

If a scientist does not accept the idea of evolution, he can look at the exact same skeleton, and make just as valid an argument that this is a now extinct primate, and has nothing to do with evolution.

The "evidence" has not changed. Only their interpretation of it.

The fossils currently referred to as "Ida" is solid evidence that such an animal once existed, and now appears to be extinct. Nothing in a single set of bones gives "proof" that it is a missing link.

No, and they do not care.

Their current war against biological science (evolution) is just the tactic they have chosen to attack all science.

The last time Christianity had real political power, that period became historically famous as the Dark Ages when all non-Biblical knowledge of the great ancient civilizations was destroyed and the quest for new knowledge was treated as a crime. Returning to that life is and always has been the dream and goal of Christianity.

Imagine what the world might be like if the Industrial and Scientific Revolutions of the 19th century had occurred in the 9th century. Christianity, alone, is responsible for that lost 1,000 years of human development and technological advancement.

===

edit --

There is no damn missing link - there never has been. It is a common phrase and any scientific meaning it might ever have had ended more than 50 years ago.

There are abundant transitional fossils that evidence the fact (evolution is both fact and scientific theory) of biological evolution.

In fact, scientists in the 19th century were well aware of the fossil record and the time-dependent variability it reflects. They knew it was real and true, Darwin simply (brilliantly) provided a means to explain how it all worked.

It is a known fact that blowing something up generally destroys, not creates. Than the big bang theory came along. It’s a genetic fact that one species of animal can not magically become another species of animal. Incidentally, secular scientists have admitted that evolution has been proven to be mathematically impossible. They have no explanation for this. There is a huge difference between “scientific consensus” and “scientific fact”.

The naturalistic viewpoint clearly has determined that some species within the same class have different socio-developmental traits which implies racism not as an accepted practice but as a scientific reality. The whole theory belittles people and reduces us to an accident. It takes a lot more faith to believe that gibberish than it does to believe that God did it. Furthermore, creationism can not, has not, and will not ever be disproven.

Darwinism created a stage in which the ignorant follow the smart who are to proud to admit their theory makes no sense at all. It’s quite possibly the greatest sham in world history. Darwin’s theories constantly contradict themselves and bring up more questions than they answer. The Bible on the other hand clearly states the story simply and flawlessly. No one has ever, nor will anyone ever be able to disprove it.

There are no contradictions in the Bible. The evolution story on the other hand has more holes in it than a bombed out Swiss cheese factory. You speak boldly without wisdom and your words confirm the lack of intelligence and moral fortitude that your theory represents. Case and point being that you probably don’t understand the “big words” in my answer. I don’t mean to sound demeaning but at the same time you opened the can…

Upon coming across your question you’re clearly spouting off in some sort of ignorant rant without any thought or reasoning behind it. You should not attack what you do not understand. From the looks of things here… Your understanding is limited to what others tell you. You’re like a sheep following wolves with no capability at all of a thought that is your own. You should never create an adversary out of ignorance and attack what you don't understand. It makes you look juvenile. Again, I don’t mean to sound harsh but at the same time this is how you came across.

(Literal) Day 1 Genesis 1:1-5 states that God created the earth. On this first day the earth was a void in space staring at the sun. This was not the earth we know today. No plants and animals, a complete barren ball of water as land had not yet been introduced.

(Literal) Day 2 Genesis 1:6-8 states that God separated the waters above and below. A shield of ice or mist was introduced into the atmosphere. The expanse between the waters was called “sky” and this was the second day. Basically, this is when He made our atmosphere.

(Literal) Day 3 Genesis 1:9-13 states that God created land and divided it from the water. The world looked somewhat “Pangea” like in form, as the continents were all together. God than created all the plant life we see today.

(Literal) Day 4 Genesis 1:14-19 states that God created the stars in the sky and the moon and set the revolution of the earth in motion around the sun. The Earth was not capable of sustaining life before this step.

(Literal) Day 5 Genesis 1:20-23 states that God created the creatures of the sea and the air and he blessed them. Incidentally, this is the first blessing in the Bible.

(Literal) Day 6 Genesis 1:24-31 states that God created all the land animals and than humans and gave us humans dominion over the Earth and told us to take care of it.

(Literal) Day 7 Genesis 2:1-3 states that God rested on the seventh day and made it holy as an example for us to use one day a week as a day of rest.

There was about 2000 years between the great flood when the waters above came and flooded the land and creation. Before the flood, people lived to be several hundred years old and the differing atmospheric conditions allowed for constant growth. As for dinosaurs, there were never any different species than what we see today. For example, if my dog never stopped growing over his 600-year life I’m sure he’d be as big as a house!

During the flood the earth below the waters broke apart creating the continents we have today. The flood also dramatically changed the atmosphere, as there is no longer water above the earth. The new atmosphere accounts for the differing atmospheric changes and climate we see today as before the flood the earth would have been fairly temperate.

After the flood there was 2000 years before God came to Earth in the form of Jesus. It has almost been 2000 years since Jesus came. His return is foretold in Revelation and many prophesies about that return are being fulfilled now.

Dave

Cretinists can't explain anything; it's why GODDIDIT is so attractive to them.

Even a child can remember it and repeat it; heck ... so can a parrot.

AronRa: Scientific method: Make observation; develop or modify a hypothesis to explain observation; make predictions based on hypothesis; perform experiments to test predictions; analyse results; if FAIL, go back and develop another hypothesis; if PASS, submit results to be repeatedly tested in peer review.

Creation ‘science’ method: Assume conclusion; affirm conclusion.

The Scientific Method: Here are the facts.

Now let's draw conclusions from them.

The Creationist Method: Here is the conclusion.

Now let's make up some ‘facts’ to help support it.

Intelligent design is not a scientific matter.

It is a free speculation based on a fiction.

~

There is no "theory of creation".

There is belief in supernatural creation, but there is no "theory", no mechanism, no predictions, no observability, no falsifiability, nothing to give creationism (or intelligent design, or creation science) the label of "theory".

~

God created it...most likely about 47 million years ago...but perhaps we're just REALLY wrong about something in the equation we use to date ancient artifacts/fossils/whatever.

You really need to be specific when you ask questions about "creationists"...we may be a small percentage, but there are some of us that interpret Genesis literally AND believe that Genesis (and the rest of the bible) does NOT address two questions required to pinpoint how long ago God said, "let there be light": (1) how long Adam (and later Eve) lived in the Garden before they were cast out, and (2) what was happening on the rest of this planet while God was concentrating on the human beings he created "in his image" in that garden!

Many commenting here falsely assume that Creationists are devoid of logic and resort simply to coppout answers such as "God did it" (as indicated by the comments above and below me.) Such bias makes me wonder who is really begging the question in such matters.

They also falsely assume that the existence of a so-called "missing link" completely precludes the possibility of creationism. What you forget is that this isn't the first time they've found a "missing link." I recall:

"Neanderthal Man"

"Lucy"

"Turkana Boy"

And my personal favorite was "Nebraska Man," because it turned out to be neither human nor primate, but a pig.

True scientists would not be so quick to jump to absolute conclusions. But true scientists have been proven by history to be extremely rare, as evidenced by their history of retracted "missing links."

You also act as if the existence of macro-evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive, or even the only two logical explanations to the origin of life. Read "Origin of the Species." Darwin spent a good deal of space exposing possible holes in his theory and explaining the conditions necessary to disprove it. Perhaps we need more men like Darwin who are willing to recognize theories as theories, instead of accepting them on blind faith as you are apparently doing.

Yes. Not to explain it away, exactly, but simply to explain it.

It's interesting, and having such a marvelously intact fossil will give immense insight to the particulars of an extinct species. Usually, new discoveries like this are reconstructed from teeth or fragments of bone, so having a complete fossil will be quite refreshing.

From your links:

"From this time period there are very few fossils, and they tend to be an isolated tooth here or maybe a tailbone there," Richmond explained. "So you can't say a whole lot of what that [type of fossil] represents in terms of evolutionary history or biology."

But not this time! this time, an entire fossil, intact, with stomach contents and impressions of soft matter has been found.

More of yours:

"It's hard to think of anything else in in primate evolution that's as complete"

Dr. Holly Smith,

Museum of Anthropology,

University of Michigan

Which of course means that this is one of the best examples, one of the strongest points in the fossil record.

Plus,

"Ida, properly known as Darwinius masillae, has a unique anatomy. The lemur-like skeleton features primate-like characteristics, including grasping hands, opposable thumbs, clawless digits with nails, and relatively short limbs."

So it's like this is a previously undocumented species, although further research may, possibly, revise that opinion.

I suppose I should get to the part where a creationist explains it 'away'. Tricky, of course, since lies are unholy (and therefore I can't use any, for fear of sinning more) and the data so far is essentially accurate. After all, truth is truth, yes? And if I happen to dislike the truth, I'll just have to deal with it, changing my outlook to include what is truth, rather than trying to erase or change the truth. Yes? Of course yes.

On to business.

Again, from your links:

"Trying to reconstruct the earliest parts of the primate evolutionary tree is by its nature very difficult. This is because early primates were more primitive than modern ones. Also, fossil primates, even one as complete as Darwinius, cannot provide us with information about all anatomical soft tissues. It will not be possible to retrieve DNA from Darwinius."

No DNA. Not a serious blow, given how much Ida does have, but it does make all impressions of relationship rather shakey, yes? And with so few fossils of similar completeness, Ida will be (and has been) compared to modern creatures. 'Lemurlike', in the National Geographic article, while the Medical News reports:

"The authors of the report suggest that Darwinius may be a very primitive relative of anthropoids. The tie cannot be established with great confidence at this time. "

They also state:

"Another possibility regarding the evolutionary tree is that Darwinius is not specially linked to any of the lineages that live today."

To put it bluntly, this skeleton's 'family ties' are weak conjecture based on strong physical similarities- it is obviously a primate, or was, in life, but beyond this it is difficult to say.

After all this, it hasn't been explained away- maybe shaken up a little, but nothing serious. So why am I still wasting your time? Should I give up, admit that I can't do it? If so, I wouldn't post this.

Here's the meat: the association of the fossil record with Evolution, as the only method of species arising that doesn't require miracles or outside intervention (past the origin of the first stable, self-reproducing cell, at least- check the probabilities) as a basic theorem, making it more appealing to the scientific community, is not the only viable explanation. At least, if you accept that non-disprovable entities, despite being scientifically inapplicable, are not automatically disproven by virtue of being non-disprovable (a logical fallacy if ever there was one, much like relying on those non-disprovables instead of looking for answers).

I know, I know, you reject Creationism on a wide variety of evidence and consider anyone who accepts it to be a looney for 'settling' with a 'magical' explanation. But I'm here to tell you, as implied earlier, that the truth is the truth- and what's truth, even if I don't like it, I'll accept forever. But what's conjecture, although a fair amount of my own thought lies in that line, can be undone.

What I'm basically driving at, here, is that it is possible to view the fossil record as a record of individual species that have been preserved, without looking at it as an evolutionary 'history' at all. The existence of Ida will likely be the greatest fossil find of this century, but a fossil does not prove descent or speciation.

In summary: Yes. it's simple, using logic, an acceptance of fact, and a differing set of basic assumptions.

Refute me or insult me, as you will- just use proof. That way I can learn.

I'm not exactly a creationist, but here's my explanation.

It's a fossil. It's an excellent specimen. As of right now, it proves that it is an excellent fossil specimen, and that's all.

Your links use words like "purported," "suggested," "could be," "believe," etc., which do not exactly indicate 100 percent certainty about the status of the fossil being the "missing link," in spite of the headlines.

Anything can be explained, whether it is true or not. The argument of faith is what you are trying to challenge, and it is unbeatable no matter what physical evidence is found. Just realize that this is futile and quit wasting your time. Remember, your tools are the scientific facts, and you are arguing with the spiritual and unproven.