Updated 09:38 pm.EST, Fri November 20, 2009

Education|Tue, Oct. 06 2009 11:57 PM EDT

Creationists: Ardi Poses No 'Threat'

By Eric Young|Christian Post Reporter

While a media outlets around the world are touting a nearly two-decade-old find as the oldest known skeleton of a potential human ancestor, creationists point out that even the team of researchers who unveiled the reconstructed fossil cannot refute the possibility that it might be simply that of an extinct ape.

“Based on our first look … the facts seem solidly behind the idea that Ardi was a quadrupedal ape with relatively little in common with humans (i.e., no more than most apes),” wrote staff members at the apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis, referring to the skeleton by its nickname.

“[T]he key basis for the alleged Ardi–human link (which even the authors are hesitant to confirm) is the idea that it walked upright-an idea that even evolutionists have criticized,” the ministry added. “And we can’t forget that all of these conclusions are inferred from digital reconstructions and fallible reconstructions of bones that were in very bad shape.

“As far as we’re concerned, the evolutionary ‘threat’ to creationists from Ardi is no more than that posed by Ida: viz., none,” they concluded, referring to the 47-million-year-old fossil touted earlier this year as the “missing link” between prosimian primates and anthropoid primates.

Last Thursday, a multinational team of 47 researchers, who have been studying the bones of “Ardi” since they were discovered in the early 1990s, presented them as those belonging to the oldest known “potential human ancestor,” Ardipithecus ramidus.

The skeleton, found in Ethiopia and thought to be 4.4-million years old, includes most of the skull and teeth, as well as the pelvis, hands, and feet – parts that the researchers say reveal an "intermediate" form of upright walking, considered a hallmark of hominids.

“This species … resolves many uncertainties about early human evolution, including the nature of the last common ancestor that we shared with the line leading to living chimpanzees and bonobos," commented team member Tim D. White, director of the Human Evolution Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley.

According to the Institute for Creation Research, however, placing Ardi into human ancestry creates more problems than it solves.

"For example, Ardipithecus' body structure shows no objective or undisputable transition toward uniquely human features," the creationist group stated.

"Speculation and evolutionary guesswork, not scientific observations, are offered to bridge these gaps," it added.

And, as Answers in Genesis noted, Ardi is a partial skeleton put together based on the bone fragments of at least 35 sets of skeletons – many of which were in such bad shape that it took 15 years before the research team could fully analyze and publish its findings on the combined skeleton.

“[A]s a starting point, creationists should remember that - as with many fossils - the state of preservation is far less perfect than what media images and ‘reconstructions’ portray,” the ministry pointed out.

Furthermore, Ardi’s feet had opposable big toes and lacked arches, which suggests that she – or more correctly, they – could not walk or run for long distances and also suggests that she did not walk upright as some believe she may have. Continue »

Pages: 12
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
  • Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:21 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    aquaticape,

    Any thinking person ought to question Ardi's authenticity since it is a partial skeleton put together based on the bone fragments of at least 35 sets of poorly conditioned skeletons. The million-dollar question is that if these skeletons were so poorly conditioned how would they know where they came from the same animal without genetic testing? Reasonable people ought question even the appearance where this information is leading. It is a slight of hand cover-up of previously held false assumptions now sacrificed in order to manufacture just another HOAX. Scientists would do better toward advancing science by focusing more on the solid facts than on the Hocus Pocus of Science-Fiction in Darwinism.

    Doubt Atheism
    www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com

  • Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:15 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Welcome Quati !

    Hang in there and thanks for standing up for the truth.

  • Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:36 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    Beside all the hilarity at a bunch of scientific illiterates flailing around in their own filth trying to make sense of the firehose of brilliant science done on Ardi, there is a more serious point here: The utter obscenity and anti-intellectual christo-fascism being shown here on this site. It really is incredible that there are people in the age of Google who think they can get away with these lies. Look people! You are one search away from enlightenment! Just type "bible inconsistency" into google. Go on, I dare ya! Now, try "evolution by natural selection" and sit back and soak up the warm rays of truth. Don't it feel good?

  • Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:25 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    No Joke I promise, I live quite close to Brian Jones swimming pool (and pooh bridge).

  • Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    dp,

    "Maybe just being forced to listen to the Rolling Stones for days...."

    You don't like the Stones? Are you a communist? "Can't You Hear Me Knocking" just came up on the itunes. Great song.

  • Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:59 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "...and forced to listen to some good ole blue grass twang."

    Up where we live...we hear banjo music....

  • Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:32 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Nah, these people need to be tied up in a room and forced to listen to some good ole blue grass twang. I know it would set my nerves on edge..........to say the least.

  • Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:16 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

    "Australopithecus Johnson"

    That's a cross genus name. People with such unscientific approaches to life should be stoned should they not??? Maybe just being forced to listen to the Rolling Stones for days....

  • Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Okay how about..David Beckham..soccer..the beautiful game. "

    I was actually hoping for someone over here to say "no" and for you to say "yes". What a wag I am....

  • Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:07 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    Or even worse, they might have owned some Phil Collins albums!!

  • Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:07 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    You got off lightly, they could have been picking up sticks on the sabbath, then were would you have been?

  • Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:53 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 4

    A few weeks ago my neighbors who are atheist evolutionists had a baby son and named him Australopithecus Johnson just so they could rub it in the face of God-fearing people in the neighborhood. Luckily, a group got together and stoned the couple and their baby to death as the Bible command since the couple didn't honor the sabbath.

  • Mon Oct 12, 2009 2:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Okay how about..David Beckham..soccer..the beautiful game.

  • Mon Oct 12, 2009 2:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "David Beckham"--football?

  • Mon Oct 12, 2009 2:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hey mathetes, maybe one day David Beckham will "pledge the flag" then you really will be in buisiness...
    LOL

  • Mon Oct 12, 2009 1:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    steveh20: "In my life I remember people making things up."

    In the last few days I've seen people making things up.

  • Mon Oct 12, 2009 1:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Steve,

    Just read your post, and I can't see any reason it was flagged. I agree with both points, and I'm sure I'm one of those who have posted something "I remember" without sourcing it. Still, it's important to give the source and I'm trying to do better.

    Did you see the US moved on with a 3-1 win? Hopefully that was not our last....

  • Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:03 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Every now and again I post this just as a reminder. Only a small part of communication is words. The rest is made up of vocal tone, body language and the like. Here's the problem...this board only deals with words. Don't try to assign to much to them....

    I just assume that Jester is a smart alec (some things are simply obvious from the name...). :)

  • Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:00 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "I notice my post was flagged , I wonder who might have done that?"

    If you figure it out...let me know. Wouldn't it be nice if we could get prozac to come up through the keys so the person could absorb it or something??? I don't EVER recall you (Steve) posting anything that needed to be flagged!

  • Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:56 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Wowie

    Many thanks for the links, its important to be given it considering what I wrote. The page has the same problem though, in that there are no references etc..I did a little Googling and it gets mentioned , but again not any background and the sites appear to have common themes and also just names and a geographical location included, I'm surprised there is no newspaper article etc(at least as far as I know I might be wrong).. That said if they did do that what a bunch on numptys.

    I notice my post was flagged , I wonder who might have done that?

    So, I'm not saying it did not occur but I am saying there not much of what I would call substantial back up more like just word of mouth. Might be wrong though.

    BW

    Steve

  • Sun Oct 11, 2009 9:42 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

    I dont think trib was trying to be mean spirited. I think he was just trying to be funny.

    Now this character, bobxxxxxxx on the other hand is obnoxious and very unpleasant.

    And to you, bobxxxxxxx, perhaps you should give this a little thought -er- a LOT of thought.....
    At the Name of Jesus EBVERY knee wil bow and EVERY tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. That will be including yours, too. Just because you deny His existence does nto mean that He does not exist any more than denying that murder is wrong to the cop that arrests you for commiting it. Ignorance of the Lord is no excuse.

  • Sun Oct 11, 2009 5:38 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 2

    "Does it make you feel superior to know your magic fairy created people to be separate from the rest of nature?"

    Actually, to the uneducated and closed minded, advanced science does seem like magic. This is why people who live in 3rd world countries isolated from technology still dry their fruit in the sun. It takes days. Of course, if you try to tell them it can be done in hours they would think it was magic. So, I do understand why you think a being as advanced as God would appear to be magical to you....

  • Sun Oct 11, 2009 5:26 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Hey Bob...how long does it take to dry fruit?

  • Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:01 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 8

    Flagged as inappropriate. show To read my comments, just click "show". hide

  • Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:59 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 9

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Creationists: Ardi Poses No 'Threat' By Eric Young Christian Post Reporter Eric Young, does evolution make Jeebus cry? Is that what your problem is? Somebody should answer my question. Does evolution make Jeebus cry? Is that what you uneducated hicks are so afraid of? hide

  • Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:57 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 8

    Flagged as inappropriate. show I don't like god-soaked cowards, especially cowards who love censorship. For example the childish Christian who flags my comments. Probably he's too dumb to know that by clicking "show" anyone can still read it. Also, the childish censorship weirdo probably doesn't realize that most people are more likely to read information that some coward tried to censor. hide

  • Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 9

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Christian: "There's no evidence for evolution." Then Mr. Biologist spends several hours politely and patiently explaining some of the millions of pieces of evidence for evolution. Meanwhile the Christian pretends he's listening, always trying to encourage the biologist to keep wasting his time. Finally after several hours, the Christian says "There's no evidence for evolution." And Christians wonder why everyone hates them. hide

  • Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:24 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 9

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Creationists: Ardi Poses No 'Threat' By Eric Young Christian Post Reporter Eric Young, does evolution make Jeebus cry? Is that what your problem is? hide

  • Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:56 am Agree: 10   Disagree: 1

    Hi Steve :o)

    1. I agree.

    2.George and Tina Rollason said God had nothing to do with the birth of their daughter, so they named her Atheist Evolution Rollason.

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=Atheist+Evolution+Rollason&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

  • Sun Oct 11, 2009 2:59 am Agree: 5   Disagree: 2

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Tribrooper 1. The way you speak to Kim is offensive 2. "A couple of years ago I read a story about a young couple who..." I never ceased to be amazed on CP by peoples memories and all the things they remember reading, hearing in the past...Never seem to be able to source them though. In my life I remember people making things up. BW Steve hide

  • Sat Oct 10, 2009 8:04 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    (continued from below)

    At the most, the Day of the Lord will take 3 days to complete

  • Sat Oct 10, 2009 8:02 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    "(there are also scriptures in Daniel, 2Peter and Revelation, as well as terms such as "Day of the Lord" that do not literally mean a 24 hour span of time)."

    How can you be sure the Day of the Lord is not one day? Is it because you are grouping the entire great tribulation into that Day of the Lord judgement? I disagree with that. I know the pretrib rapture is the theory most accepted my Christianity today, but upon careful studying of the Word of God, and with the understanding of Jesus' exact words in Matt 24: 29-31 as well as many other passages, one must conculde that He is coming for His Bride just as He said,(29) "But immediately *after* the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE IT'S LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky and the powers of the heavens wil be shaken. [these events match the 6th seal - Rev 6:12-17, the 7th Trumpet - Rev 11:14-19 and the 7th plague or bowl of His Wrath - Rev 16:1-21]
    vs 30) and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son OF MAN COMING ON THE COUDS OF THE SKYwith power and great glory.
    31)And He wil send forth his angels with a GREAT TRUMPET (II Thes 4: 16 and II Cor 15:51-52 -- the LAST trumpet, which is 7th trumpet of Revelation) and they will gather together the elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

    In order for Jesus to fulfill the fall holy days, (since He fulfilled the spring ones at His first coming) the events need to take place as follows:
    1 - The rapture & resurrection - Rosh ha'Shannah - summer of a given year, The Feast of Trumpets.
    2 - The Day of the Lord judgement of the wicked - Yom Kippur, or Day of Atonement, 9 days after the Feast of Trumpets
    3 - Feast of Tabernacles - fall - three days after the Day of Atonement & will be when the wedding super of the Lord to His Bride takes place.

  • Sat Oct 10, 2009 7:16 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 4

    now Kim, honey,

    You just go on a be an ape if you wish, but the rest of us plain folks will contiue to be descendants of the first man and woman, Adam and Eve, created in the image of God our Father.
    Why are you so eager to be a monkey, anyway? Is your need
    for swinging from trees that strong?? Get a jungle gym for you back yard and have at it, dearie.

  • Sat Oct 10, 2009 7:07 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    A couple of years ago I read a story about a young couple who had a baby daughter (about 6 weeks old or so) named Christina _______(can't remember the middle name). This couple decided they were athiests and legally changed the name of their innocent little girl to "Athiest Evolution". Imagine having to grow up with a name like that. Not to mention being raised by such haters. Really sad. She is probably scared for life.

  • Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:42 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    "my wife and I added another child to our family (a little boy) and as I'm sure you know, they keep you busy - especially when they start to outnumber you!"

    I've got 6....

    It is easier and cheaper to cook for more though!!! Are you getting any sleep yet? Even if you are...you won't when they are teenagers.... :D

    CONGRATS!!!

  • Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:27 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    I have a fruit dryer. It, of course, takes less time to dry fruit than just laying it out in the sun. Fruit dried in the sun takes days. Fruit dried in the dryer takes hours.

    Alocksee...how long does it take fruit to dry?

  • Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:06 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Readers, let the record show: 1. Alockslee has twice accused me of stalking him. Under the article, “Judge Order Prop 8 Proponents…”: • Alockslee » Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:06 am : 1 : 7 Flag mathetes, is there a specific post from me on this thread that is not an opinion that requires additional supporting citations? . . . Finally, if you are speaking about a post from another thread then ask your question on that thread and stop stalking me across this site and focus on discussing each individual article on the appropriate thread. • Alockslee » Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:01 pm : 0 : 1 Flag mathetes during the time your not stalking me how about answering my posts on the following threads 2. Alockslee has now come to this site, singled me out of all the posters here, and asked me to prove something about ID, a topic about which I have not commented during the current discussion. The only logical conclusion is that Alockslee is actually stalking me, probably in retaliation for pointing out his hypocrisy on the other thread. Sorry, Al, I'm tired of playing your games.* I have admonished you with no effect. From now on I'll take Delight's advice and ignore you (Titus 3:10-11). *That is what you yourself called it in your Fri Oct 09, 11:06 post (Judge Orders Prop 8…): “since you just look foolish each time you try to play this game” hide

  • Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:15 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    Thanks Mathetes. Daniel Paul, thanks too . . . my wife and I added another child to our family (a little boy) and as I'm sure you know, they keep you busy - especially when they start to outnumber you! :)

  • GMG »
    Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:57 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    mathetes

    Yep, I've lost track of his many many names too. However, the claptrap he offers is the same-old, same-old and is very easy to spot. If everyone would just ignore him I bet he would finally just go away. He sure is filled with ugliness.

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:06 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 4

    mathetes » Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:58 pm MGT2, You are correct that scholars disagree, and it's good we have that freedom within the body of Christ.
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    In Response: The link below will allow the readers to review the decision from the Federal Court regarding creationism under the newer name of ID or intelligent design.

    Basically the court after listening to testimony from Behe and others found that creationism and especially the repackaged Id as religion and lacking in any science at all.

    Since the best creationists had to offer to prove their position before a Bush appointed judge resulted in getting kicked to the curb. Since mathetes is such a supporter of non science perhaps he can respond to this post supported by the linked case law and and then explain what experts from the creationism side have for scientific evidence to support their position that has been Peer reviewed and accepted by the Academic Community that specifically addresses this topic and provide the citations just as I have done that clearly states that creationism is not science.

    You will also note that the full transcript of the trial which is available on line on many legal sites such as Lexus Nexus, Legal.com as well as others. This transcript covers the testimony of Behe admitting that he lacks not only sufficient scientific data but in addition is severely lacking in any evidence to prove that creationism and ID was anything but religion.

    Waiting on mathetes to post his sources to support his position from verified and recognized scientific sources from secular sources. Please remember that sources that don't meet the same like and kind of that which I offered is not sufficient since the court has ruled any creationist and Id sources are not scientific in any manner.

    TFR


    http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hey Ifeelfine72...where ya been? Good to see you back....

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:49 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    What kind of nut would name the remains the acronym for "Alcohol-Related Disease Impact (ARDI) system" which measures the effect of alcohol on public health???

    What are they trying to say here??? :D

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:44 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Hi MGT and johnzon this post intrigued me in how much common ground was implied by it. The last line tweaked my interest a little with the grouping. While I agree re Sagan, Hawkings, Bondi. I believe that if not technically a clear theist Einstien was adamantly not an atheist and MGT's post could hardly fit anyone better than Einstien. In support I have added some of his own statements on the issue.

    MGT

    << Science as we now understand it, is the result of the quest by theists to understand more about God and the cosmos. The very foundation of science was laid by religious folks, spurred on by their desire to learn more. >>

    Perhaps so, but its not religion itself that has expanded mans knowledge of the universe. BTW, cosmologists such as Einstein, Hawking, Sagan, Bondi were not theists


    Quotes from Eienstien (yes they are out of context due to space and the context is not relevant)

    The most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the source of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms -- this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religion.

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:53 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show ifeelfine, Congratulations! I hope the transition went (or is going) smoothly. Glad to know it was a joy that kept you away and not a sorrow. hide

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    MGT: I mis-spoke, I shouldn't have said the Earth's age crystal clear, I should have said that it should have made it crystal clear the Earth is a heck of a lot older than 6,000 years.

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:02 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    mathetes: I'm doing well, thank you for asking . . . My wife and I added another child to our brood so I've been very busy this summer and fall.

    MGT: I hope I didn't come across as argumentative - I just meant that with a MS in Biology, I would have thought something like ERV's, evolved DNA sequences, etc would have made the Earth's age crystal clear years ago - that's why I was wondering. I couldn't tell if you were a young Earth creationist and received your MS degree from Liberty U but then later decided that couldn't couldn't be rectified with the facts, for example. Or, if like me (or Viking or Francis Collins for that matter), you are a person who understood the facts of evolution but also understood and accepted the saving power of Christ.

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Ifeelfine, Long time, no see. I hope all is well with you. GMG, Thanks for reminding me. I had forgotten all the names he has had (and lost, due to being blocked) over the 18 months I've been posting here: Bob, cccccc, dddddd, eeeeee, proscienceyy, humanape. I know I'm still leaving out a bunch of aliases. hide

  • MGT2 »
    Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:19 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine72 says,

    "I'm just curious because in an earlier post you mentioned that you only this past summer realized the Earth was more than 6,000 years old."

    Here is what I said (copied from the post you mentioned)

    "I think there is an abundance of natural evidence that the earth is more than 6,000 years old and this was crystalized for me on a visit to the caves at Ruby falls in Chatanooga, Tennesse this summer."

    The word I used was crystalized. That should not imply "just...realized" but the result of an ongoing process of observation finally reaching to a an event providing that one, tangible piece of evidence I can point to without any doubt in my mind.

    What I mean is this: Caves and land formations produced by water erosion can be credibly explained by massive force of water over a short period of time, relatively speaking. Even the formation of diamonds have been shown to be possible in shorter time span that the conventional understanding. Rate of decay and the nature of fossil fuels can also be explained in short time spans, geologically. And the discovery of soft tissue such as blood cells in supposedly fossilized prehistoric creatures, something thought to be impossible if they only lived millions of years ago, can be argued for a shorter time span.

    However, with the stalactites I mentioned in that post, I can confidently point to that and say, unless God created those formations miraculously to make it look like they were formed over tens of thousands of years, (because no one has posited a creadible explanation for a shorter time frame) I cannot accept young earth creationism.

    Of course, there are other things such as mitochondrial DNA, but that is another discussion.

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:48 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    MGT: Where did you get your Master's Degree in Biology from? - I'm just curious because in an earlier post you mentioned that you only this past summer realized the Earth was more than 6,000 years old.

    BTW: I completely agree with your assessment of Peter - but like you I am a Christian lay person and have not studied the original text like our friend Mathetes apparently has.

  • MGT2 »
    Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:40 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Johnzon says,

    "...but its not religion itself that has expanded mans knowledge of the universe."

    If your point is, although it is the religious impulse that opened the door to scientific inquiry and laid the foundation and primordial building blocks of science, today, science is no longer directed by religious institutions or people inclined to religious faith (although America's chief scientist changes that paradigm), I agree .

    Religious folks looked to the stars long, long ago. And because they did not have the sophisticated instruments we now use to explore the vast and distant regions of the universe, it does not negate the still efficacious contributions they made, and upon which we are still building. Their desires were just as strong, maybe even stronger than ours because they were not hindered by the denial of the Divine.

    You have to be impressed by their deep intellect. The thought behind the mathematical formulas, the mapping of the stars and naming of the constellations, discovery of the planets, ancient archetecture, language, writing, etc., are all science-based knowledge--the foundation of modern science.

    A houses needs a foundation upon which to stand. Even if the foundation is made from a different material and is laid at different time from the frame, the house will crumble without it.

    You also say, "BTW, cosmologists such as Einstein, Hawking, Sagan, Bondi were not theists."

    It is unreasonable to expect all scientists to be theists, but as cosmologists, those esteemed scientists are hardly the foundation modern science.

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