A Long-Lost Relative?

elaine · 10-04-09 8:23 pm

Time, Oct. 12: "The oldest hominid skeleton ever discovered offers unexpected clues to what our even more ancient ancestors might have looked like." The recent announcement of a discovery made in 1994 and just released, describes in great detail a female skeleton discovered in Ethiopa dating 4.4 million years ago " a likely human ancestor known as Ardipithecus ramidus which is a million years older than the previous title holder, Lucy, who was also found in the same area. The skeleton is nearly complete, as well as the more than 150,000 plant and animal fossils collected from surrounding sediments of the same time period. Comparing Ardi's remains with that of Lucy (Australopithecus there are some notable differences. "Ardi is not chimplike, according to Tim White, of the University of California, Berkeley, co-leader of the research team that discovered and studies the new fossils. "To understand the biology, the parts you relly want are the skull and teeth, the pelvis, the limbs and the hands and the feet. And we have all of them. "This skeleton flips our understanding of human evolution. I's clear that humans are not merely a slight modification of chimps, despite their genomic similarity." She has certain uniquely human characteristics: bipedalism; she stood 47" tall and weighed about 110 lbs,making her roughly twice as heavy as Lucy. The structure of Ardi's upper pelvis, leg bones, and feet indicates she walked upright on the ground, while still retaining the ability to climb. Her foot had an opposable big toe for grasping tree limbs but lacked the flexibility that apes use to grab and scale tree trunks and vines, nor did it have the arch that allowed Lucy and Homo to walk without lurching side to side. Ardi had a dexterous hand, more maneuverable than a chimp[s, that made her better at catching things on the ground and carrying things while talking on two legs. "It has features that are intermediate between the last common ancestor and australopithecines." That's one for the YEC Creationists, and it will be interesting how they assess and explain this new finding with a young earth.

jag · 10-06-09 9:40 pm

Somehow I do not think we will hear anything new from the YEC's. So far they do not appear to have provided a single piece of scientific evidence to prove their beliefs. The only explanation they seem to have is that God somehow planted false evidence to make the universe and our planet appear a lot older than it is.

bob_2 · 10-06-09 11:54 pm

Try <a href="http://www.globalflood.org" target=_top>www.globalflood.org</a>. Look into Catastrophic Plate Techtonics and the math or calculation that doesn't work naturalistically, God intervened to destroy a wicked generation. Uniformitarianism is the flaw in Evolution and Deep Time. Measure by today's standards and movement and you will be flawed in your assumptions and extrapolations. If anything YEC is getting stronger in it's presentation and proof. Where have you been, JAG?

bob_2 · 10-06-09 11:56 pm

Elaine sources would be nice!!!

bob_2 · 10-07-09 12:05 am

Now the argument this is from an Apologetic source I know Elaine may argue, but you have to go where the other side is discussed not avoided: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:'Ardi' simply an ape that disproves missing link, creationist organization says Posted on Oct 5, 2009 | by Michael Foust NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--A "prehuman" fossil that some scientists claim gives new insight into human origins likely is nothing more than the remains of an ape and does not support evolutionary theory, scientists at a leading creationist ministry say. Answers in Genesis, the Christian ministry which runs the Creation Museum near Cincinnati, Ohio, posted a 1,600-word analysis of the scientific find on its website Oct. 5, saying that the "Ardi" female fossil -- which is short for Ardipithecus ramidus and which evolutionary scientists say is 4.4 million years old -- poses no more threat to creationist belief than have past fossils. "Given the number and scope of the papers presented this week on Ardi, it will take some time before creationists are confident in our conclusions on Ardi and her kin," Answers in Genesis wrote in its News to Note weekly feature. "Based on our first look, however, 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); the 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. "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." Answers in Genesis, which believes the earth is thousands and not millions of years old, also says the find does away with the "missing link" theory -- a conclusion with which even evolutionary scientists have agreed. The Ardi fossil was first discovered in 1992 in Ethiopia but took 15 years to reconstruct, largely because the remains had been crushed and were so fragile that they would "turn to dust" if touched, National Geographic reported on its website. Scientists removed the fossils "along with their surrounding rock," and then, in a lab, removed the fossil "millimeter by submillimeter." The skull, also crushed, was scanned by computer and digitally put back together, National Geographic said. National Geographic, in fact, was among those who said the Ardi fossil disproved the "missing link," the theory that a part-human, part-chimpanzee creature once existed that linked humans with supposed chimpanzee ancestors. "Instead, the new evidence suggests that the study of chimpanzee anatomy and behavior -- long used to infer the nature of the earliest human ancestors -- is largely irrelevant to understanding our beginnings," National Geographic science writer Jamie Shreeve wrote. "Ardi instead shows an unexpected mix of advanced characteristics and of primitive traits seen in much older apes that were unlike chimps or gorillas." Alan Walker, a paleontologist from Penn State University, told the magazine, "This find is far more important than Lucy [a supposed 3.2- million-year-old fossil discovered in the 1970s]. It shows that the last common ancestor with chimps didn't look like a chimp, or a human, or some funny thing in between." Significantly, though, the scientists behind the findings won't say whether they believe Ardi -- and other fossils like her -- are a direct ancestor to humans. "We will need many more fossil recoveries from the period of 3-5 million years ago to confidently answer that question in the future," the scientists wrote in a briefing document, BBC News reported. The findings were published in a special edition of the journal Science and challenge not only the "missing link" theory but other popular evolutionary theories. For instance, according to the Los Angeles Times, evolutionary researchers previously believed that a human ancestor who lived around the time of Ardi would, "like modern chimps, be a knuckle-walker, using the knuckles for support while moving on all fours." Instead, Ardi "appears to have climbed on all fours on branches, but walked upright on the ground." But Ardi "did not have arched feet like us, indicating that she could not walk or run for long distances," BBC News reported. "I think it's a significant discovery ... and will generate an enormous amount of controversy," Donald Johanson, the scientist who in the 1970s discovered Lucy, told the Times. "I think it's very important to say that this supports the long held idea that we did not evolve from things that look like modern apes." Said Walker of Penn State, "These fossils are much more important than Lucy. The reason is that when Lucy was found, we already knew the major features of Australopithecus from fossils found in the 1940s.... These fossils are of a completely unknown creature, and are much stranger and more primitive than Australopithecus [the species of which Lucy was a member]. Kent State University's C. Owen Lovejoy, a primary author of the Science journal article, said Ardi is "turning evolution on its head" and that "we're going to have to rewrite the textbooks on human origins." Some evolutionary scientists, though, are unconvinced by the theories posited by Lovejoy and other members of the team, particularly the notion that Ardi would have walked upright on the ground. "This is a fascinating skeleton, but based on what they present, the evidence for bipedality is limited at best," Stony Book University's William Jungers told National Geographic. "Divergent big toes are associated with grasping, and this has one of the most divergent big toes you can imagine. Why would an animal fully adapted to support its weight on its forelimbs in the trees elect to walk bipedally on the ground?" Answers in Genesis said creationists should "remember that -- as with many fossils -- the state of preservation is far less perfect than what media images and 'reconstructions' portray." National Geographic reported that the fossil was made up of "badly crushed and distorted bones" that had been, scientists theorized, trampled on in the mud by animals such as hippopotamuses. "We would point out that the scientists haven't actually observed Ardi walking; their assertion is based on their reconstruction of the bones," Answers in Genesis wrote. "... Without having a live 'Ardi' to observe, scientists will only ever be able to come to probabilistic conclusions about its characteristics." --30-- Michael Foust is an assistant editor of Baptist Press. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=31389" target=_top>http://bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=31389</a>

admin · 10-07-09 12:35 am

I'm with Answers in Genesis on this one. While I was interested when I first read about this new find, the fact remains that there have been countless examples of seemingly-important finds in the past that have turned out to be not so important, meaning that the discoveries ended up not supporting what the scientists initially used them to support. The onus is on the scientists and others who are pushing 'Ardi' to prove beyond a doubt that these fossils actually achieve their purported importance. But, come on. It has to take a lot of imagination to turn "badly crushed and distorted bones" into a working skeletal hypothesis. I appreciate William Jungers' opinion. It is crying out with, "Be reasonable, people!" While I'm not against science, I'm all for consideration, reason, and patience, if you catch my drift. Ryan PS - will be moving this thread to the Evolution and Intelligent Design section, where it belongs (Message edited by admin on October 07, 2009)

bob_2 · 10-07-09 2:49 am

Good to see you jumping in to the conversation, Mr. Moderator.

don · 10-07-09 3:22 am

The only explanation they seem to have is that God somehow planted false evidence to make the universe and our planet appear a lot older than it is. This is a theological explanation not a scientific one. If I can imagine God creating Adam to look 25 years of age, is that false evidence? The Bible speaks of water being present at the beginning, as well as the rocks, or whatever, under that water. If those rocks "measure" much older, is that "false" evidence? The challenge, for the YEC, to the dating process of those rocks is the fossils contained within. But, when a creationist seeks to align science and the Bible, that very effort is theological rather than scientific. Science cannot account for God any more than it can account for the creation of life without God. .

john8verse32 · 10-07-09 9:28 am

The challenge, for the YEC, to the dating process of those rocks is the fossils contained within it goes way, way beyond that, Don.... the very rocks themselves cry out that creation did not happen in an instant.... limestone? the product of a very long time of deposition of dead bodies, shells, and skeletons, compressed by the deposition of many layers above, cemented together into rock, later raised tectonically to the surface where you find the White Cliffs of Dover, or Golgotha....or the summits of the Matterhorn and Mt Everest.... or the Canadian Rockies in BC (note the layers!!!) <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/6/1971.jpg" alt=""> is that not a problem with the fundy belief that there was no death before sin in the legendary garden? schist...is the product of a long, but natural process.... first you have the earth extrude magma, cool slowly enuf for the crystaline structure to become granite in some mountain... then you need long periods of weathering and erosion for the granite to break down into its component parts... sand and mud....which get washed down into valleys where they accumulate, and after eons of time and the pressure of more overlying layers, become sand stone or mudstone.... if mudstone gets buried deeply enuf, given enuf time, pressure, and some heat from the earth, it pressure cooks (it "metamorphs" is the technical term) into slate, or if more deeply buried and cooked, into shale....both of which show the layered form the result of the deposition of many layers. but buried even deeper and hotter, it melts and is cooked, sometimes stretched and warped into angles....but usually still shows its original layered deposition....into schist...one of the major component bedrocks around the world, proving the rocks themselves were NOT created, but evolved in long term natural processes.... over millions of years as shown by radio dating... ....so, if I don't get booted for saying it, Edited 10/7/09 - admin. I tried to explain it here for any who would listen.... <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=16&post=5824#POST5824" target=_top>http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=16&post=5824#POST5824</a> but apparently there are those who do not want to know the truth for fear it will set them "free", or cause them agita. or cause them to learn that the earth is round, <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/6/1972.gif" alt=""> goes around the sun, not verse visa, does not have corners,is not held up by pillars, not even Jesus can see "all the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain", and there is NO DOME!!!! <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/6/1973.jpg" alt=""> (Message edited by admin on October 07, 2009)

bob · 10-07-09 10:28 am

I say she was caused by amalgamation. Ellen, our most recent prophet has expounded on the subject and now we are finding the results of her vast intellect. It all ties neatly together. Now no one has to make any excuses for what she meant when she wrote: But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere. God purposed to destroy by a flood that powerful, long-lived race that had corrupted their ways before him.

john8verse32 · 10-07-09 12:43 pm

no one has to make any excuses for what she meant when she wrote but, but, wouldn't you rather she had gotton that info from her own imagination? that way we could simply blame her personally for that and those so-far-unverified "tall, majestic people living without sin" (or oxygen) presumably on Jupiter. What if she really was inspired? or what if she simply read the Bible and expanded upon it? kinda filled in the details? is this her likely source? (CEV) Genesis 6:1 More and more people were born, until finally they spread all over the earth. Some of their daughters were so beautiful that... ... supernatural beings came down and married the ones they wanted. 3 Then the LORD said, "I won't let my life-giving breath remain in anyone forever. No one will live for more than one hundred twenty years." 4 The children of the supernatural beings who had married these women became famous heroes and warriors. They were called Nephilim and lived on the earth at that time and even later. 5 The LORD saw how bad the people on earth were and that everything they thought and planned was evil. 6 He was very sorry that he had made them, 7 and he said, "I'll destroy every living creature on earth! I'll wipe out people, animals, birds, and reptiles. I'm sorry I ever made them." maybe thats how the dinos came about too.... and the giants of old whose fossils so far have eluded discovery.

elaine · 10-07-09 1:16 pm

Bob, for the initial info on Ardi, it clearly stated at the beginning of the post "Time, Oct. 12." Much of the things I write I've garnered from a wealth of studies, books, and a multitude of sources. Isn't that what knowledge is all about? Anyone can "cut & paste" but it takes a mind and memory to recall a lifetime of learning. My sources are often my intellect. What are yours if they rely mostly only "cut & paste"?

elaine · 10-07-09 1:22 pm

when a creationist seeks to align science and the Bible, that very effort is theological rather than scientific. Don, that is sound advice. When the Baptist Press or any Christian apologetics immediately argue against scientific discoveries (after all, this finding was not recent, it has been studied for over 4 years by a group of scientists), their haste in arguing against is a bit premature, to say the least. They only have the information we in the public do: from the news and where is there evidence that they have actually examined the skeleton and talked with the paleoanthropologists? Jumping to conclusions too quickly negates any good argument.

don · 10-07-09 2:02 pm

Believing Scientists and Valid Science Dr. Brand from Loma Linda certainly does bonafide science, peer-reviewed, etc. Yet, when he addresses some questions of science, he thinks like a scientist who believes in Creation and the Flood. This being out of step with main stream scientists prompts him to ask different questions. (He investigated ancient footprints and questioned whether they were made underwater, I think.) His study of the idea of "underwater" tracks did not cite the flood, but in his mind, he says, the flood story influenced him. I think this shows the path a believing scientist can follow and maintain both scientific and theological integrity. .

elaine · 10-07-09 4:01 pm

His study of the idea of "underwater" tracks did not cite the flood, but in his mind, he says, the flood story influenced him. Every scientist must have first some hypothesis of his findings; but too many have begun with an effort to "prove" the Bible stories, which is getting it bassackward. While it is virtually impossible not to have some thoughts on findings, what could have been the thoughts of those finding the platypus or Ardi? Did they immediately make deductions, or was there a long and careful study (Ardi) before they went public--four years to be exact? And with many other scientists involved. A scientist if first and foremost devoted to good science; if he is first a Creationist, he is first and foremostly wishing to prove his Creationist agenda.

don · 10-07-09 7:18 pm

if he is first a Creationist, he is first and foremostly wishing to prove his Creationist agenda. What is "first a Creationist?" Why can't a scientist believe in Creation and do valid science, both? Even in the area of fossil science. Bottomley's careful "if our readings are correct" allows a scientist who doubts radiometric dating to enter the field and address matters with his colleagues who have greater faith in its accuracy. I think it would be a great privilege to study Ardi. .

elaine · 10-07-09 9:59 pm

Yes, a Creationist can surely be a scientist. What does the term "creationist" mean? Does it mean a certain theory about origins? Science has the search for truth wherever it may lead. The different field: molecular biology, geology, paleology and the others do not indicate any theory, but only the variation of science which they pursue. As for radiometric dating, I have accesse 8 pages "Can we Really Believe the Dating Systems?" which is an excellent overview and explanation of how this dating is performed. I am not a scientist, but after reading the entire paper, it is most difficult to refute this dating system. One can question it, but unless there is familiarity with the system and how it is performed and the repeated success with over 40 different radiometric date methods including scores of tree ring and ice cores; all the different dating methods agree. Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over 60 years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined. Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years. Some Common Misconceptions Regarding Radiometric Dating Methods 1. Radiometric dating is based on index fossils whose dates were assigned long before radioactivity was discovered. This is not at all true. Radiometric dating is based on the half-lives of the radioactive isotopes. They are not calibrated by fossils. 2. No one has measured the decay rates directly; we only know them from inference. Decay rates have been directly measured over the last 40-100 years. 3. If the half-lives are billions of years, it is impossible to determine them from measuring over just a few years or decades. The radiometric clocks shows than an accurate determination of the half-life is easily achieved by direct counting of decays over a decade or shorter. This is because all decay curves have exactly the same shape, differing only in the half-life, and trillions of decays can be counted in one year even using only a fraction of a gram of material with a half-life of a billion years. 4. The decay rates are poorly known, so the dates are inaccurate. Most of the decay rates used for dating rocks are known to within two percent. Whether a rock is 100 million years or 102 million years old does not make a great deal of difference. 5. A small error in the half-lives leads to a very large error in the date. Since exponents are used in the dating equations, it is possible for people to think this might be true, but it is not. If a half-life is off by 2%, it will only lead to a 2% error in the date. 6. Decay rates can be affected by the physical surroundings. This is not true in the context of dating rocks. Radioactive atoms usde for dating have been subjected to extremes of heat, cold, pressure, vacuum, acceleration, and strong chemical reactions far beyond anything experienced by rocks, without any significant change. 7. A small change in the nuclear forces probably accelerated nuclear clocks during the first day of creation a few thousand years ago, causing the spuriously old radiometric dates of rocks. Rocks are dated from the time of their formation. For it to have any bearing on the radiometric dates of rocks, such a change of nuclear forces must have occurred after the Earth (and the rocks) were formed. To make the kind of difference suggested by young-Earth proponents, the half-lives must be shortened from several billion yeard down to several thousand years--a factor of at least a million. But to shorten half-lives by factors of a million would cause large physical changes. As one small example, recall that the Earth is heated substantially by radioactive decay. If that decay is speeded up by a factor of a million or so, the tremendous heat pulse would easily melt the whole Earth, including the rocks in question! There are 13 more misconceptions on this radiometric dating. It would be a good suggestion to read all of this before questioning the validity of this dating system.

bob_2 · 10-08-09 1:41 am

Are these your thoughts or will be privileged to receive the source. As usual you don't give a link for us to check any bias?

don · 10-08-09 2:39 am

Missing Links (to Sources) Further Reading: Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective Dr. Roger C. Wiens <a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html#page" target=_top>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html#page</a> 23 .

don · 10-08-09 6:31 am

Reading List For the record, here is a reading list on "Ardi". Newsmaker Source<blockquote>Science Magazine's Articles, (The Newsmaker) <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/ardipithecus/" target=_top>http://www.sciencemag.org/ardipithecus/</a></blockquote> Creationist Response<blockquote>Meet “Ardi” (Answers in Genesis' Response) <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/10/03/news-to-note-10032009" target=_top>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/10/0 3/news-to-note-10032009</a></blockquote> The Media Reports<blockquote>Time Magazine <a href="http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0%2C8599%2C1927200%2C00.html" target=_top>http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,192 7200,00.html</a> BBC <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8285180.stm" target=_top>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8285180.stm</a></blockquote> Earlier reports about Ardi, (Discovered, 1994)<blockquote><a href="http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/ardipithecusramidus.htm" target=_top>http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/ardipithecusramidus .htm</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus" target=_top>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus</a> <a href="http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/Aramidus.html" target=_top>http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/Aramid us.html</a></blockquote>

elaine · 10-08-09 10:08 am

The article on radiometric dating, after printing and reading (some time later) indicated no link at bottom of page as usually occurs. However, simply do a Google searach on radiometric dating and there is an abundance of info. Sometimes, if information is desired, the search is depending on the individual==rather than hand-fed. When I want to get info, I simply Google until I get a responsible article, seldom Wikipedia.

elaine · 10-08-09 10:12 am

I prefer a non-biased view of any subject. Once a link is from "Answers in Genesis, or similar, it can always be identified as a biased article. I want an unbiased scientific view; just as you would prefer a physician who is not limited to hydrotherapy for every condition, but is abreast of the latest good treatment. To return to the Bible for all the answers on science is to turn one's back on all the amazing scientific discoveries that have been learned in the past several millennia. Why would anyone do that in all fields, or only some? The Bible is NOT a scientific textbook, but for some it appears to be the "last word" in science. Do those who refer to the Bible for their scientific information also treat skin diseases according to Leviticus? Why not?

don · 10-08-09 12:12 pm

"Answers in Genesis, or similar, it can always be identified as a biased article Actually, all "scientific articles" are biased on the "large assumptions". There are very few, if any, "scientists" who challenge these "large assumptions" (such as the assumptions surrounding the study of Ardi). So, even though "Answers in Genesis" is biased, if they offer a valid "scientific" point then it is useful to the discussion. We can certainly expect AIG to mix up theology and science more than "secular" scientists. This does not negate all their ideas. The peer-reviewed scientific journal articles certainly are important and tend to be objective and unbiased once the "large assumptions" are ignored. A biased source is better than no source in the examining of ideas and criticism. .

john8verse32 · 10-08-09 3:42 pm

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/about" target=_top>http://www.answersingenesis.org/about</a> Our Message Find out more about the Answers in Genesis website. Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview, and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, and its bedfellow, a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe). AiG teaches that “facts” don’t speak for themselves, but must be interpreted. That is, there aren’t separate sets of “evidences” for evolution and creation—we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. The Bible—the “history book of the universe”—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood, the “evidence” confirms the biblical account. For an elaboration of AiG’s presuppositional thrust check out our Get Answers section—for example, learn how the Bible offers the best explanation of the world’s geology, anthropology, and astronomy. end quote and here is a snip of their foundational beliefs, their staement of faith: <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith" target=_top>http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith</a> quote: The following are held by members of the Board of Answers in Genesis to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture. Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ. The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of creation. The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time. The gap theory has no basis in Scripture. The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into secular and religious, is rejected. By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. end quote. so just because scientists cant find the dome yet, does not mean that it is not there, or that Genesis is wrong... and just because there are bristlecone trees older than the flood, and a tree ring history older than their stated age of the earth, does not mean that their interpretation of the Bible is wrong.... everybody else must be wrong.

elaine · 10-08-09 6:29 pm

Scientific articles are "biased" toward the scientific view; and as such, are peer reviewed and any new scientific "discovery" is immediately checked and rechecked simply to find discrepancies and false reports. That cannot be said for a site that calls itself "Answers in Genesis" as it is immediately telling all readers that it is based on one origins record: that found in Genesis in the Hebrew Bible. All other origin stories (and all cultures have their own) are ignored. It is, as John says, defined as apologetics by its name. Bias? Of course. It is biased toward the Genesis record found in the first book of the Bible. Scientists may prefer to believe in God as Creator, and even believe in the description in Genesis, but that DOES not make it scientific. There is no such animal as "Scientific (Bible) Creationism." It is a belief, not scientific understanding. Science is ever-changing, not static, and changes constantly with new information. Genesis IS static, it cannot be changed, it was recorded at least 3,000 years ago, and is not amenable to change.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 10-04-09 8:23 pm

A Long-Lost Relative?

#2 10-06-09 9:40 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#3 10-06-09 11:54 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#4 10-06-09 11:56 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#5 10-07-09 12:05 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#6 10-07-09 12:35 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#7 10-07-09 2:49 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#8 10-07-09 3:22 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#9 10-07-09 9:28 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#10 10-07-09 10:28 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#11 10-07-09 12:43 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#12 10-07-09 1:16 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#13 10-07-09 1:22 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#14 10-07-09 2:02 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#15 10-07-09 4:01 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#16 10-07-09 7:18 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#17 10-07-09 9:59 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#18 10-08-09 1:41 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#19 10-08-09 2:39 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#20 10-08-09 6:31 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#21 10-08-09 10:08 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#22 10-08-09 10:12 am

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#23 10-08-09 12:12 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#24 10-08-09 3:42 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

#25 10-08-09 6:29 pm

Re: A Long-Lost Relative?

Board footer