It has just been reported that Homo floresiensis, an ape-man hopeful, is only a pygmy with a condition called microcephaly. This condition made the skull of the fossil look abnormally small, prompting researchers in 2004 to evaluate the skeleton as the remains of a “hobbit-like” ape-man. They crafted a new species out of that one skeleton, neglecting to collect further evidence (as usual). I remember watching a PBS show on it, with Darwinists touting it as a great discovery.
This is just another example of the hurriedness of evolutionists to accept a fossil that would prove evolution without checking out the facts completely. You see this in the already debunked Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Lucy, and others. This syndrome is almost identical to the hurriedness of the mainstream media to accept stories that would incriminate Israel, as shown recently in the masterful debunking of the “missile-destroyed ambulance” story by Zombie.
Evolutionists constantly have to retract or say something new that nullifies an old view. Another hypothesis is up and running now that says the Big Bang was just the colliding of a tiny bit of material with another universe existing in another dimension. The supposed age of the earth is constantly changing. I could go on and on with examples. Man’s views are constantly changing when he is not grounded on God’s Word. The Bible is the only solid foundation from which to work from. It is truth, and when you contradict it, you run into problems.
AiG said a year-and-half ago that “Homo floresiensis” was just a human with microcephaly. But as usual, the evolutionary community didn’t listen. But they now admit it, along with what we’ve been saying for years about no real races, and so on. It’s funny to watch sometimes.
About four months ago, Axinar posted a comment on one of my entries giving a whole list of ape-men that supposedly led us on the journey from hydrogen to human. One of the ones he listed was “Homo floresiensis”. GavinO and I had fun with his list, but my initial response has now been proven yet again, that all those are humans, apes, or fakes.
Note: The heads-up on this came from AiG’s great series, News to Note.
UPDATE: The link wasn’t valid for a while. This one should be good.
August 30th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
the estimated age of the earth changes because we acquire more information as a result of scientific work.
i venture to say that there are more scientific theories that are valid than those that are nullified (but even a nullified theory demonstrates how science works - as the research continues, theories that cannot stand the test of scrutiny are nullified - so in a sense, science is self-correcting - the process itself allows for correction, growth, the development of a more and more accurate picture.)
science changes - it , oh dear, a word you won’t care for, EVOLVES - based on the preponderance of evidence we have at the time.
science is not without its flaws, but over all the scientific method is a sound one, that has enabled us to cure polio, develop a wide variety of vaccines against childhood diseases, explore space and the depths of the ocean, create technologies that make our lives safer, easier cleaner, etc. (alas, because we are humans with FREE WILL, we often use these technologies in a counter-productive way - but that is not the fault of science.)
creationism or intelligent design, is not a scientific theory - it is not built upon the scientific method of inquiry or grounded in the preponderance and triangulation of data - info; consequently it has no standing in the material world. however, science isn’t necessarily at odds with the idea, or philosophy that God or a god created the world and humans. But certainly the world and humans weren’t created, literally, as the bible stories inform us.
August 31st, 2006 at 9:12 pm
First of all, you should read some of my other posts in the category Creation vs. Evolution to see the evidence for creation and against evolution.
My point (and your point mostly) is that science always changes, especially evolution. Evolutionists always have to adapt their theory to accommodate some new discovery that usually directly contradicts what they said before. Creationists, on the other hand, do not have to change what the Bible says. Further investigation has always proven that the scientific facts do not contradict the Bible. However, when people try to depart from the Bible, they usually run into problems. Thus, with comparison of the two, it is clear to see which has the truth.
[Science] has enabled us to cure polio, develop a wide variety of vaccines against childhood diseases, explore space and the depths of the ocean, create technologies…
Yes, those are things that operational science in the present has done. (Or rather, the applied science of technology.) However, origins science is a different matter. This type of science takes what we have today, and postulates what happened in the past. It does not follow the scientific method of controlled experiments in the present time. When you look closely at the facts, you’ll find that the evidence supports creation, not evolution.
Origins science (and all science, to a certain extent) is based on faith. You are trusting that the guy in the white coat knows what he’s talking about and is telling the truth. You are trusting that your presuppositions are correct when you interpret a piece of evidence, etc.
Yes, the creation of the world did take place exactly as it says in Gen. 1. Again, read the posts in the category Creation vs. Evolution, (especially the earlier ones) and give me your thoughts, agreements, disagreements, etc.
August 31st, 2006 at 9:59 pm
oh heavens. this is a sad thing. the evidence supports creation? the world was created exactly as it says in genesis? oh dear. you have no ability to think rationally.
there is no sense in discussion with one who cannot think rationally.
farewell.
September 1st, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Thank you.
Just laugh me off without citing a word of evidence or reading my posts to find out some of the grounds for my claims. Now that’s rational.
You tell me why what I believe isn’t rational. Of course it doesn’t make sense inside the evolutionary pardigm, but believe it or not, evolution has not been proven yet as a fact. I do not hold to the evolutionary mindset; I hold to the creationist mindset based on Christianity.
October 18th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Bird:
You say that science sways more toward evolution etc. Yet it is still possible that “God or a god” created them. If it is possible that “God or a god” created humans, why is the Bible automatically ruled out as being an accurate account to creation?
October 19th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Because it is Christianity, and he hates Christianity.
October 19th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
reminds me of star trek…
” illogical! illogical! “