Updated 11:59 pm.EST, Fri November 20, 2009

Education|Thu, May. 21 2009 08:50 AM EDT

'Missing Link' Still Missing, Say 'Ida' Skeptics

By Eric Young|Christian Post Reporter

A 47-million-year-old fossil is being touted as “groundbreaking discovery” that “fills in a critical gap in human and primate evolution.”

“The fossil’s remarkable state of preservation allows an unprecedented glimpse into early human evolution,” say producers of “The Link,” a documentary set to premiere next Monday that details the discovery and significance of the fossil.

“[I]t represents the moment before anthropoid primates – the group that would later evolve into humans, apes and monkeys – began to split from lemurs and other prosimian primates,” they add.

But many experts say the discovery of the 47 million-year-old cat-sized creature found in Germany is far from the breakthrough that it’s believed to be.

Though they’ve praised the discovery for the level of detail it provided – as it is about 95 percent complete, including even fingertips with nails, gut contents, and hair – experts say the creature is not close to the ancestral line of monkeys, let alone people.

And that goes double for Young Earth Creationists, who believe God created everything as it appears today and did so over the span of six 24-hour days.

They say claims that a “missing link” has been found or a “critical gap” in evolution has been filled only prove one thing – that there still are missing links and critical gaps up to that point and thereafter as such discoveries have skeptics even among the scientific community.

“Evolutionists only open up about the lack of fossil missing links once a new one is found,” notes Answers in Genesis, a self-described apologetics ministry that believes in Young Earth Creationism.

“[T]he 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,” the ministry wrote Tuesday on its website.

“If evolution were true, there would be real transitional forms,” it argued.

The ministry described much of the excitement over the fossil, dubbed “Ida,” as simply the result of a well-coordinated public relations effort to promote the upcoming documentary, “The Link,” and a new book of the same name.

The documentary will air on the History Channel in the United States as “The Link” on May 25 and on BBC One in the United Kingdom as “Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor: The Link” on May 26.

Formally identified as “Darwinius masillae,” in honor of Charles Darwin, the fossil was discovered more than two decades ago in Messel Pit, Germany, and didn’t surface until Jorn Hurum from the University of Oslo’s Natural History Museum uncovered it through a chance encounter with a fossil dealer in Hambur.

“Ida” is the most complete primate fossil that has ever been found and will be on display in the "Extreme Mammals" exhibition at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4
  • Thu May 28, 2009 2:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 6

    We just got the biggest downpour. The radar shows red cells in the middle of rain for 30 miles. Yet, weather.com says we have a 0% chance of rain and it will go up to 5% in the next 15 minutes. So much for science!!!

  • Wed May 27, 2009 11:49 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 8

    talltree,
    "The Bible will never change. It does nothing to further human understanding of anything; it is only an outdated collection of cherry-picked gospels."

    Yes, that's the popular myth. If you like a more accurate description (than given in the DaVinci Code) of how the early church knew whih books to preserve, let me know.

    "It has only ever led to arguments and old, stubborn men telling others their denomination is right."

    Talk about ignoring the evidence! What about the good things the Bible has produced? Hospitals, orphanages, schools, + millions of lives transformed from evil to good?

  • Wed May 27, 2009 4:31 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 5

    Science will always continue to change. It will fuel discussion, acceptance, and intellect. The Bible will never change. It does nothing to further human understanding of anything; it is only an outdated collection of cherry-picked gospels. It has only ever led to arguments and old, stubborn men telling others their denomination is right. People can use the missing link excuse all they want, just give it 50 years.

  • Tue May 26, 2009 8:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking: I've been having the same issue with CP lately . . . there is a button however for the author of a particular post to delete an unwanted post. The button is right next to the flag on any post written by you.

  • Tue May 26, 2009 8:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Believer thanks for the support but no just my own ineptitude. I had trouble getting the posts to work then the same post came up three times so I flagged off the copies.

  • Tue May 26, 2009 8:40 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 6

    viking, is somebody actually flagging you!! I'm shocked since I've never known you to post anything offensive even when it appeared you were being unfairly attacked.

  • Tue May 26, 2009 8:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    johnzon, I could not totally find out the research these men have done but here are the names of two YEC paleontologists associated with AIG; Dr. Marcus Ross, a vertebrate paleontologist, PhD., University of Rhode Island and Dr. Kurt Wise, invertebrate paleontologist, PhD., Harvard University, who I believe either studied under and/or worked with Dr. Stephen Gould.

  • Tue May 26, 2009 6:55 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    LSP you state

    I guess my point is that one's stance on the Darwin debate should not determine whether one is a Christian or is not one.

    I cannot agree with you more.

  • Tue May 26, 2009 6:46 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Michael J-
    you state.
    I'm strongly in favor of the complete eradication of all religions, including Christianity, which by the way is false, extremely false, every belief of that cult is pure nonsense.
    you paint with a broad brush indeed do you really believe that the following are false and pure nonsense.

    'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord', but I say to you, don't use an oath at all...Whatever you have to say let your 'yes' be a plain 'yes' and your 'no' a plain 'no' - anything more than this has a taint of evil."

    Don't criticise people, and you will not be criticised. For you will be judged by the way you criticise others, and the measure you give will be the measure you receive."

    "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and fail to notice the plank in your own? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me get the speck out of your eye', when there is a plank in your own? You fraud! Take the plank out of your own eye first, and then you can see clearly enough to remove your brother's speck of dust."

    "Treat other people exactly as you would like to be treated by them - this is the essence of all true religion.

  • Tue May 26, 2009 6:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Cw78,
    I agree that "the missing link" will never be found. Primarily because it is a concept that scientists/population biologists etc. all reject as an invalid popular idea having no foundation in the Theory of Evolution.
    Secondly your I agree with your faith statements which incidentally have no conflict with the scientific Theory of Evolution.

  • Tue May 26, 2009 6:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    LSP,
    Hi just read your latest post. While we disagree on evolution I am in complete agreement with you regarding the nature of Christianity and on the issue of separation of church and state. I include your brief historical summary in this as well though I believe from reading that some of the founders would also have agreed with what you call the "living" approach. The example of the early church/state union in Mass (i.e. hanging Quakers) was certainly a good warning to the founders of the dangers of which you speak. It amazes me that more Christians do not recognize these dangers today.
    Your comment on the requirement that government sometimes become involved with religious issues in order to implement the free exercise clause is pertinent to my profession. I have had to act several times in school to insure that students religious rights were not suppressed sometimes by other educators and some times by parent/community members with differing religious views and occasionally by students.

  • Tue May 26, 2009 6:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Cheisa,
    Right on.

  • Tue May 26, 2009 5:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Tpique1, I would say that first you need to learn the difference between a definition and an example. You give a definition of natural selection but an example of evolution. But since you give a definition clearly in the first instance and are reasonably intelligent from your posts I can only conclude that you confuse the two intentionally rather than from ignorance. In such case such an intentional error can only be for the purpose of misleading the conversation. hide

  • Tue May 26, 2009 5:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Tpique1, I would say that first you need to learn the difference between a definition and an example. You give a definition of natural selection but an example of evolution. But since you give a definition clearly in the first instance and are reasonably intelligent from your posts I can only conclude that you confuse the two intentionally rather than from ignorance. In such case such an intentional error can only be for the purpose of misleading the conversation. hide

  • Tue May 26, 2009 5:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Tpique1,
    I would say that first you need to learn the difference between a definition and an example. You give a definition of natural selection but an example of evolution. But since you give a definition clearly in the first instance and are reasonably intelligent from your posts I can only conclude that you confuse the two intentionally rather than from ignorance. In such case such an intentional error can only be for the purpose of misleading the conversation.

  • Tue May 26, 2009 2:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Cheisa,

    Are you talking about natural selection or evolution? There is a distinction you know? Natural selection is NOT evolution. Just thought I'd ask for clarification.

    Natural Selection: the process by which individuals possessing a set of traits that confer a survival advantage in a given environment tend to leave more offspring on average that survive to reproduce in the next generation. (In other words small changes over time).

    Evolution is defined as progression from molecules to humans by way of animals (the â

  • Tue May 26, 2009 1:38 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    Evolution is about as controversial as gravity on the list of scientific theories. As a rational person, I can't deny evolution. As a Christian, it's easy for me to see the work of God in it. The two are quite reconcilable in my mind. My faith tells me that God works in mysterious ways and evolution is just one of them.

  • Tue May 26, 2009 12:30 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Another example of macroevolution was discovered recently in standing water outside of a factory that produces nylon. A bacterium was discovered that digests nylon by-product (which did not exists some 60 years ago). This bacteria went through what is called a frame shift mutation, it went from one kind of bacteria that digested carbohydrates to a completely different bacteria.

  • cw78 »
    Mon May 25, 2009 8:45 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 7

    The missing link will never be found. The bible tells us all we need to know. God also doesn't reveal to man everything that He could reveal to us.
    You either believe that he created the world and everything in it, and that His son Jesus is the only way to salvation, or you don't and will suffer the consequences of continuing to live in sin.

  • Mon May 25, 2009 2:36 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    believer: Please define micro-evolution and macro-evolution for us since you don't use the commonly accepted definitions.

    Also, I find interesting that the three author's you cited include a theologian, a chemist and a geological engineer - no biologists, interesting.

  • Sun May 24, 2009 4:26 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    michael-j,

    A few comments:

    First with regards to our evolution discussion, I ordered both books from Amazon yesterday and look forward to starting them.

    As to your issue with Christians, it is very easy to dislike a religion based on its adherents. If you look at the history of the visible church and its actions, it is not good: (the crusades, pograms against Jews, etc). I really think though that these people were not Christians in the first place despite being externally identified as such.

    My big problem with merging church and state is that historically anyone identified with the state was identified as a member of whatever church that state was a part of. But Christianity isn't about status or membership. It's about one's individual belief about where they stand with God based on their personal convictions about who Jesus is and what he did for us.

    That being said, I can honestly say that if a particular person doesn't practice tolerance, compassion, humility, and love to the best of their abilities and keeps on committing consistent acts of hatred or non-tolerance, that person is not a Christian.

    As for the Establishment Clause issue, I have studied this clause extensively in law school (took about 6 semesters of Constitutional law). That being said the issue is whether one wants to follow the historical interpretation of the clause or the "living" approach, which means that the constitution can be interpreted to suit the needs of each generation.

    I tend to believe that church and state should remain separate (the living approach) and side with the way the Supreme Court currently interprets the clause: government cannot endorse NOR HINDER religion. Most atheists cite the first part of this without remembering that remaining completely separate and having nothing to do with religion can sometimes result in hostility towards religion, which this interpretation also rejects. That being said, paradoxically, the government actually must sometimes accommodate religion to follow this interpretation!

    Historically however, the establishment clause was only meant to apply to the federal government ("Congress shall make . . ."). This meant that states could set up their churches, which they did. Only after the 1st Amendment was made applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause was the Establishment Clause interpreted to apply to all governments-state and federal.

    Here's a question: have you ever read the Bible? I mean honestly, with a neutral viewpoint and open mind sat down to read it? (I'd start with Matthew or John in the NIV version). You asked me to do some reading and I agree that I need to educate myself more on evolution. I ask you to so the same with respect to Christianity before you attack it.

  • Sun May 24, 2009 3:18 pm Agree: 11   Disagree: 1

    believer, I was hoping you could enlighten me a bit on the YEC claims. I have looked at some of the creation sites, best I can tell, they make claims of flawed dating methods and earth is only in thousands of years rather than billions of years in age. Their claims fly in the face of the findings of thousands of scientists and the fundamental principals of chemistry and physics. YEC are not creditable.

    Can you name just one YEC paleontologist that has spent years doing the hard work of digging in rocks and sediments to examine the fossil record that show:

    1. Dinosaurs and humans coexisted.

    2. Sedimentary layers indicate a young earth.

  • Sun May 24, 2009 2:30 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 4

    johnzon, not if the deck is stacked against them as it appears it is in many cases, but as far as some of the questions you asked, I honestly don't know, but if you were to go to either the Answers In Genesis or Institute For Creation websites, I'm sure you could find all those answers.

  • Sun May 24, 2009 9:41 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    believer,

    Have any of the "data" contained in the book been submiited to peer reviewed journals such as "The Journal of Paleontology". or "Global Journal of Geological Sciences"? In order for scientific ideas to be advanced, they normally have to go through the peer review process where ideas, experimental results are scrutinized by the scientific community. Revolutionary ideas or discoveries take years to be accepted by the scientific community through publication, again in peer reviewed journals. I know the creationist's camplaint, they cant get their papers published in the aforementioned journals, etc. Well they can if they provide papers that are supported by scintifically obtained data, they will get published.

    Let me ask you, in the books you cite, do they have data that shows dinosaur and human fossils contained in the same strata? If so, and can be supported by scientifically obtained data, they would get published and the authors would become famous.

    I know an argument the YEC make is radiometric dating is flawed and cannot be relied upon. Well, if they can show this is the case, with scientifically obtained experiments and data, then perhaps they have a case. If they can provide such data, they could potentially upset everything we know about quantum physics and be on their way to the Noble Prize. The very principals that describe radioactive decay also make modern technologies such as the internet, MRI's and cell phones possible. Do they have such data in their books. If so, they should push to have papers published in "The Journal of Physics" as one example.

    Can you provide information from the books that support YEC? We can then discuss the details.

    Another question: Can you provide names of university trained paleontoligists that are YEC who are out in the field, doing the digging and the all the hard work necessary to show for example dinosaurs and man coexisted. Can you provide me with names of universtiy trained YEC physicists that have data showing radiometric dating invlid. If you can do this, we can look at what they have to say.

  • Sun May 24, 2009 7:08 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    johnzon, I'm talking about data as presented in books like "The Genesis Flood" by Dr. John Morris, "The Early Earth" by Dr. John C. Whitcomb, and "Refuting Evolution" by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati. As for seeing evolution today, while I'll agree we are seeing evidence of micro-evolution, which a majority of creationists adhere to, we see no living evidence of macro-evolution, unless one sees fruit flies that are still fruit flies as living evidence and frankly that appears to be much more in line with micro-evolution since they are still fruit flies.

  • Sun May 24, 2009 3:32 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    believer

    <<viking/johnzon, so because a majority in the scientific community have decided that ID and creationism are not science, even though many who adhere to these views have the very same credentials and have attended the very same colleges and universities and do provide data that is based on their and others scientific interpretations they are discounted and ignored because they hold to the belief of a higher power taking an active role in many scientific processes?>>

    what??
    What data are you refering to?

    The reason the science community has decided ID & creationsm ae not science is very simple. They ARE NOT science, they are religious beliefs with no basis in fact.

    How is science to show "higher power taking an acitve role in scientific process" ?
    How can it be testable, observable?

  • Sun May 24, 2009 1:43 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    believer

    <<If evolution is true then why do we not see them in our world today?>>

    Who says we dont. I think the problem you are having trouble with is the large numbers of generations required to see evolutionary change. Evolution is like mountain building, takes very long periods of time. Mountain building occurs today, its just that it so slow, you dont see it. One thing is for sure, planet Earth and the animals that occupy it are far different than they were milions of years ago, both the planet and life on it have changed- evolved. Its recorded in the fossil record. Science says Earth is about 3.5 billion years in age, a lot can happen in that period of time.

  • Sun May 24, 2009 1:23 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hey LSP, Thanks for your earlier comments. I didn't consider you to be "over argumentative" with me. In fact, you raise good questions concerning the stickleback, the kind of questions scientist that study these things would ask themselves.

    I think the scientists that study evolution would disagree with your statement that macroevolution has not been demonstrated. There is a lot of evidence for it in the fossil record and genetics . In the case of the stickleback, there have been lot of scientist studying them for a very long time and thru genetics, geology, palentology and biology have accumulated evidence suggesting a degree of macroevolution since the last ice age which apprently had much to do with that evolution in that populations of sticklebacks were isolated which can lead lead to dramatic changes in say morphology and lead to speciation. To me the most striking observation is the loss of hind fins or limb (snakes and some reptiles have undergone this loss too) of some stickleback species. I think what you want is direct observation as a source of absolute confirmation. That rarely occurs in science, just as it doesn't occur is solving crimes. You as a lawyer can appreciate that. How many crimes are solved by circumstantial evidence? How many are convicted for murder by circumstantil evidence. Usually a witness is not present to witness the crime. A case is put together from direct and indirect evidence, some of it left at the crime scene- DNA analysis, etc. Macroevolution and speciation usually take multiple tens of thousands of years minimum to occur after thousands of generations. Thats why we are able to see speciation in fruit flies - thousands of generations.

    One other thing, you seem to draw a black & white distinction between micro and macroevolution, the lines are sometimes blurred.

    Your comment:
    <<Why do you infer that because a present day species has similarities with a past species that it this means that the present species evolved from the past species? >>

    I am not an evolutioary scientist, but the two big drivers to support the speciation are the genetic data and the fact that the different sticklebacks became isolated into new enivronments from the main marine population which lead to adaptation via genetic modifications over time..

    You ask very good questions, thats what scientist do all the time, thats how science works. Scientist, such as evolutionary biologist do not have all the answers, there are wholes that need to be filled in, thats what science does. To me, there is no question evolutionary theory is well supported by facts and data. One can accept evolution and believe in God.

    Question , Do you consider yourself a Creationist.

  • Sat May 23, 2009 11:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 7

    Ifeelfine, I answered you once but someone flagged it, even though it did not violate the terms of use.
    I only flagged the specific attacks on posters on this forum. His general flames at 1:22 and 4:30 are still there for now.

  • Sat May 23, 2009 11:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

    mj, I wonder who that "Christian" is who keeps flagging Mathetes?

  • Sat May 23, 2009 9:31 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    EXCELLENT BOOK = WHY EVOLUTION IS TRUE

    Here's a reader's comment from Amazon:

    66 of 74 people found the following review helpful:
    THE intro book for the evolution-curious, but uninformed!, March 14, 2009
    By Esk
    I was raised in a very conservative Christian environment and taught Young-Earth Creationism (anti-evolution, anti-Big Bang, etc.). I bought into it for a long time. In college, I finally began to investigate some of the claims for myself---reading what was _really_ being said by "the other side", rather than what I was being told was being said.

    The disparity I discovered can hardly be exaggerated: what I had been taught bore essentially zero resemblance to the real thing. Genuine evolutionary theory was virtually unrecognizable in the creationists' caricatures of it. I learned that I had been lied to---intentionally, or not, I do not know---and that the quantity, diversity, and quality of evidence in support of evolution was simply crushing. It wasn't just that it could not be ignored or dismissed as trivial; it was that it was so cohesive and mutually supportive and overwhelmingly convincing that it simply HAD to be accepted as true. (As Gould said, it would be "perverse to withhold provisional assent.")

    This discovery sparked a long (and ongoing) journey of reading books on the topic of evolution---books by authors such as Stephen Jay Gould, Sean Carroll, Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin, Neil Shubin, and others. I was enthralled with the elegant simplicity and beauty and shear explanatory power of the ideas I was learning. They not only made sense, but had tremendous evidentiary support in nature and the lab (as well as mathematical modeling, game theory, use in other disciplines, etc.).

    But, as my journey progressed, and I continued to absorb ever more information and improve my understanding, I began to realize something. As I interfaced with many of those from my upbringing (i.e., those uninformed on evolution), it dawned on me that I hadn't yet found a truly excellent "introductory book" that clearly and accessibly discussed what evolution is (and is not) while relying heavily upon concrete evidentiary examples across many different disciplines. I had read many great books specializing in this or that discipline, or focusing more on the understanding of evolutionary concepts (but with looser reliance upon examples in nature), or whatever. But, I wanted a single, superb book to provide a solid overview of evolution that was inseparably intertwined with many diverse supporting evidentiary examples.

    When a curious friend actually asked, voluntarily, for such a book suggestion, and I could not provide a single title (as opposed to a long list, which is too much to ask of the casually curious), I decided my desire for such a book had transformed into a bona fide need.

    "Why Evolution Is True" is that book.

  • Sat May 23, 2009 9:29 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    "I'm curious as to where it stems from and why you feel that way. Is it tied only to the evolution debate?"

    The evolution deniers (there is no real debate, it's a fact) are part of the reason for my disdain for Christianity. Christians who are dishonest (the Discovery Institute), Christians who love censorship (on this blog and elsewhere), Christians who don't respect our Establishment Clause, Christians who brainwash their children, Christians who yell at Biology teachers. I could go on but I don't have all night.

    I'm strongly in favor of the complete eradication of all religions, including Christianity, which by the way is false, extremely false, every belief of that cult is pure nonsense.

    Read this quick before a cowardly Christian deletes it.

  • Sat May 23, 2009 7:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show ifeelfine, I did not flag all of his name-calling comments, just those that were aimed at specific posters here. There are still some general ones below at 1:22 and 4:30 p.m. It's my hope michael will continue to post here, but in a mature fashion that follows the guidelines of the forum. hide

  • Sat May 23, 2009 7:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    LSP: Well said. God bless.

  • Sat May 23, 2009 7:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mathetes: I've never seen any comment from michael that violated the terms of use . . . what did he say that would have violated them?

  • Sat May 23, 2009 6:35 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    michael-j,

    Yes, the censorship thing is annoying. I am an originalist with respect to freedom of speech, which means I believe for the most part that it should not be infringed upon unless the government has a compelling reason with no other less intrusive way to accomplish that objective.

    On the hand though, I think the concern of the person who flagged you is that children can have access to this site and may read some of the angry comments you have written.

    Personally, I have no issue with anything you have said, though I disagree with your dislike for Christianity. I'm curious as to where it stems from and why you feel that way. Is it tied only to the evolution debate? Was it due to some idiots that called themselves Christian, but probably really weren't if their actions to you were that bad?

    Ultimately proof or lack of proof of God's existence will never be able to be conclusively determined. I accept that which is why I have faith. However, I do understand that God would not violate principles of logic and reasoning, which is why on matters such as common ancestry, whether the earth revolves or not, I go to where the evidence leads.

    Anyhow, message me back anytime.

  • Sat May 23, 2009 6:33 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "Anyhow, just some thoughts."

    And they were excellent thoughts. You have won my complete respect.

  • Sat May 23, 2009 6:26 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    michael-j & ifeelfine72,

    First, Michael, thanks for the books. I'm going on Amazon and am going to purchase them. At this point, I think it is fair to say that I am not as well read on the other side as I should be and I will openly admit this.

    I am going to equate the common ancestry debate with the whole earth revolving around the sun debate that shook the Catholic church back in the 1500's. The Catholic Church quoted scriptural support for the notion that Earth remained motionless.

    However, today, now no one with any intelligent will deny that the Earth rotates around the sun. This however, does not disprove the authenticity of the Bible. It means that those passages that were once taken literally are now taken metaphorically to refer to God's protection, or to God's sameness.

    I accept the Bible as authoritative for a variety of reasons, but one of them (an emotional one at that) is that it just feels right, like coming home to a nice house with a hot pie fresh out of the oven! In this country, we all have the freedom to worship or not worship as we choose, regardless of whether we agree with each other or not.

    I guess my point is that one's stance on the Darwin debate should not determine whether one is a Christian or is not one.

    Anyhow, just some thoughts.

  • Sat May 23, 2009 5:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Wow! A thumbs-down for asking people to be civil? Imagine that... hide

  • Sat May 23, 2009 5:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Flagged as inappropriate. show michael-j, As I said before, you can post anything you want as long as you follow the rules of the forum. It's not censorship to ask you to follow the rules, to cease personal attacks, and discuss in a mature manner. Sorry if you can't see that. hide

  • Sat May 23, 2009 5:21 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show It's for a good reason Christians have a terrible reputation. Nobody loves censorship more than Christians. The cowardly censorship lovers ruin the reputation of all Christians. hide

  • Sat May 23, 2009 5:17 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    "Based on the video, I have to agree with you that I cannot explain these ERVs any other way at this time."

    You are rapidly earning my respect. This is most progress I've ever made with an evolution denier.

  • Sat May 23, 2009 5:15 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    I know it wasn't you but if it happens again I'm out of here.

  • Sat May 23, 2009 5:14 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne (published 2009)

    "The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution" by Sean Carroll (published 2006)

    Carroll's book talks about molecular biology and genetics.

    Coyne's book talks about everything else.

    Both books were written for the non-scientist but Coyne's book is a bit more easier to understand and maybe a bit more of a pleasure to read.

  • Sat May 23, 2009 5:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    michael-j,

    I'm not the one flagging you

  • Sat May 23, 2009 5:05 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    michael-j,

    Thanks for the info, as I said, I'm a lawyer, and my job is to simply sift through the evidence and come up with the most logical conclusion based on that evidence.

    Based on the video, I have to agree with you that I cannot explain these ERVs any other way at this time.

    Awhile back you post several books on Darwin can you repost them again?

  • Sat May 23, 2009 5:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Another thing. Who gave logicshouldprevail's last comment a thumbs down? If you're on my side you're not being helpful.

  • Sat May 23, 2009 5:02 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show The fake scientists of the Christian creationist Discovery Institute are professional liars. Their dishonesty is a proven fact. Do not suppress this fact. How often do they spread lies about science and scientists? Every single day. hide

  • Sat May 23, 2009 5:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show michael-j, You are free to post on this site as long as you follow the guidelines established by the owners. Let's discuss like mature men and there won't be any problems. hide

  • Sat May 23, 2009 5:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    logicshouldprevail, If you want to continue this, you're going to have to explain to your fellow Christians that this is America and we have something called freedom of speech here and we don't tolerate censorship.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links