As noted in the the podcast, this brings into question the origins of bipedalism (woodland rather than open savannah). While this and having to redraw the ‘tree’ proves nothing, it does show that this isn’t all ‘well understood’ and ’set in stone’ as some think.

I never mentioned creationism other than quoting you. So it’s funny to me that the first thing you do is bash it. The bottom line is we will probably never know all the answers while we are on this earth. It’s like trying to explain how a motor works to an ant “impossible”.

The amazing thing to me is if you look back at all of the great civilizations on this earth, Egyptian, Roman etc. They all thought they “figured it out” had all the answers. Well what history has proven is than “man” does not know it all, we have been wrong every other time we have thought we figured out the origin of live and there has probably been thousands!

Yes I believe in God, that we were created to be on this earth for a reason. That life is precious and fragile, that it’s not an accident. But I am not here to preach, all I can do is share what I have experienced in my life. Jesus is real, and when you experience his love it puts everything else into prospective take care

It does however give us a more detailed fossil record of our existence. Individuals I feel do not look at all sides objectively, and thats what science is all about. Objectivity is the key, and the scientist who worked with ARDI knew the importance of this, and welcomed it.

Evolutionists have finally out smarted themselves.. So now scientists do not believe we evolved from apes? Wow, what a schocker! The best part of it all is rather than just admit there wrong, they are trying to down play the whole thing by saying we evolved from ardi. lol

Oh and Todd your the man! ”

Funny yet you, todd, or anyone of our creationist poster has yet to proved any proof to support them. therefore if evolution has some holes in it and you throw the whole idea out in favor of something that is supported by nothing is truly sad.

therefore creationism has no proof, cannot be tested, can only explains thing in faith based terms, than if we investigate it as you do evolution there is absolutely no way to support it.

Unless everything people make up is therefore true cause we believe it, (santa, easter bunny, vampires,werewolfs, dragons, cyclops,zeus, and those natural events like earth quakes, or floods must be from Poseidon and lightning from Zeus.

Again score one for scientic research and furthing the study of evolution and until creationism present PROOF to support it than you have nothing. Again until creationism presents proof to support it you got nothing.

I believe doesn’t cut it, nor the bible

great job for some on here trying to explain reason, theories, and evidences to some that seemed to wish to refuse it in place of something that requires none.

Actually its the opposite.. deduct about 20pts from evolution.

Evolutionists have finally out smarted themselves.. So now scientists do not believe we evolved from apes? Wow, what a schocker! The best part of it all is rather than just admit there wrong, they are trying to down play the whole thing by saying we evolved from ardi. lol

Oh and Todd your the man!

To me there are issues in how this find has been reconstructed. The feet are not in the least typical of bipedalism, and the pelvis appears to have both primitive and more modern features. This is reminding me of Piltdown Man. I am certainly not accusing the researchers of creating a hoax, but I also think building an explanation on such mixed features is premature. Nor does the explanation make sense. Why would an arboreal species need to come down from the trees to mate or collect food, and if such a thing was necessary, why don’t we see changes in the foot reflecting it, such as is seen in Lucy? A sample size of 1 cannot be used to describe a population, much less build an explanation. This is one of the maddening aspects of paleoanthropology, so perhaps it is natural that researchers want to reach beyond the material in front of them to conjure all sorts of speculations. But trumpeting this find as overturning evolutionary theory seems quite premature. I would welcome any reply that addresses my concerns and offers correction, if I’m in error. Thanks!

Dave

While we are at it what about the Neanderthals? They are not mentioned in the bible.

‘Evolution’ is the ‘best’ explanation by a sizeable majority in some disciplines of how humans and animals came about. It is not fact, because its foundation is based on conjectures which cannot be proven. The so-called millions of data which ’support’ ‘evolution’ are subject to various interpretations.

Just to note one or two things:

It is the bible that first mentioned that the whole land-mass of the earth were once joined, and was separated, before science caught up to the idea. It is the bible that first mentioned invisible pillars holding the planets, before science caught up with the idea of gravity. It is the bible that first mentioned that the whole earth is spherical or round before science ‘discovered’ it.

We hear some scientist argue time and time again that the church, in the middle ages, said the earth was flat. I am glad it is the ‘church’, because the church are collection of people, with certain beliefs. But the bible is not the church. It did not say the earth is flat, but round or spherical.

Religion, particularly Christianity provides the best explanation to our existence. Science attempts to explain it for the present, and only in the domain of the physical. But religion explains it, in relation to both the physical and spiritual. I’ll rather take the risk of knowing myself in both domains.

“… but the process which is evolution is verifiable fact.”

The process might be fact, the conclusion you’re drawing from it is not. Please stop shifting the definition of terms mid-thought.

“Science simply is just competition for him.”

Science is not competition for Christians; arguably, we discovered it (cf. M. B. Foster or Stanley Jaki’s work on the history of science). Science is only possible within certain worldviews…. in the West, we kind of take this for granted, as we’re enjoying the underpinnings of Christianity. Now, bad science IS competition for Christians AND all clear thinkers of the world.

“However, your arguments are ages old.”

Spoken like a true Renaissance man. Yea, Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, Copernicus, Descartes, Kant, Galileo, Bacon, Locke, Newton, all idiots. Behold the wonder of modern thinkers like Mark.

“There was a time when your people thought the same about the “theory” that the earth is not the center of the universe. substitute any now universally accepted scientific fact and your people opposed it at some point.”

Sorry, this is an utterly ridiculous statement. Might I suggest, Denis Danielson “Book of the Cosmos” or Lindberg and Numbers’s “God & Nature” to give you a bit of background… or at least read Danielson’s essay “Copernicus and the Tale of the Pale Blue Dot”
http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/ddaniels/docs/bluedot.RTF

I don’t doubt Todd is intelligent. However It’s not a mystery why Todd is the way he is. I think the person who mentioned how athletes perform ridiculous rituals in order to give them a sense of security and control is on to something. To some level we probably all do something similar but on different scales. The best athletes perform some kind of ridiculous ritual. It’s a mind trick to give them a sense of control. The fear of chaos is debilitating for some people, thus they compensate in other ways. Similarly for athletes who perform badly when their routine is interrupted. I like when my wife kisses me before I meet with a client. My mother hugged me everyday to assure I’d be well adjusted. She’s a great mother, but I think it did more for her than it did for me. We’re all flawed.

For the record, my father is a priest. I love him to death. I grew up in a very religious household. However at some point I started critically think and it wasn’t computing for me. I’ve consistently moved away from religion as I grew. I however have no regrets about my upbringing. But I cannot in good faith forward religious teaching to my children.

It’s been interesting reading the correspondences; Not at all what I was hoping to find, but interesting none the less. However let’s try to be civil.

I don’t doubt evolution as a theory. However it is interesting how some species will evolve in a generation or two and some will take a millennium. I mentioned dogs because there are some theories that wolves became domesticated in a generation when they started to interact with humans. I find this fascinating. While it took humans tens of thousands of years to go from hunter gathers to being agrarian. As far as not believing in evolution, well I can’t really debate with people who hold the bible and God up as the other argument. I don’t think Todd is really saying it’s all God’s work, I may be wrong but he(Todd) seems to be asking if there is something else. I can’t imagine anyone with any science knowledge believing that the earth is only 5 or 6 thousand years old. That just does not make any sense.

The spiritual idea is a human construct is it not?
We do not know if an ant or a bee has any concept of this. They do not seem to show any evidence of it so if that’s the case than there is a pretty good chance that there is none. Why is it there for us and not the ant?

Thank you for the civil tone of your post, and for intelligently raising some excellent points.

Well, I don’t pretend to have all the answers to the points you raise—and indeed, I have mused over these kinds of questions too. However, I think science too often cheats itself by refusing to acknowledge that life has a spiritual aspect, as well as a material one. But, at least one branch of study within science (i.e., physics) seem to point to forces that lack a material cause. The spiritual essence is what allows us to differentiate the animate from the inanimate. For example, emotions can be distilled materially down to mere physical components of chemical changes/reactions in the brain. But, what differentiates a chemical reactions in the brain from, say, chemical reactions that produces oxidation? A fire (rapid oxidation) does not manifest a corresponding emotion—but it sure can evoke one from one’s brain. Ok, an awkward comparison perhaps, but one that still hints at the question: what is it that certain “je ne sais quoi” that imparts to us the status of being ALIVE, vis-a-vis a non-living object? It’s obvious to me that it isn’t simply chemical reactions exclusively. To me, the fact that we are able to ask such questions is indicative of something more than a mere random occurrence of nature.

And, even if one chooses to rely on science alone, there are natural laws of science that the theory of evolution cannot overcome. For instance, matter tends to move from a state of order to a state of chaos, not vice-versa as required to bring about complex life forms.

In short, although I do not have all the right answers—or even all the right questions—I do think that any valid approach to discovering the answers must include a holistic approach, which means it isn’t limited to merely one single discipline.

Many may roll their eyes at this—actually, I was quite put-off initially too—but, here is a web page which I think offers an fairly objective, thought-provoking examination of these questions, without ruling out either science or spirit. At least give it a chance and check it out:

http://www.allabouthistory.org/does-god-exist-scientifically-aah-a891.htm

Be well sir!

Yes and No. In general, yes, I “have the idea”; but, on one specific point, I must differ with you. Scientific theories DO indeed “become” something; they either become accepted or rejected.

So Einstein, what’s your excuse for bothering to argue with me? Didn’t you, in fact, just increase your own disappointment—how irrational of you. You failed to recognize and take your own advice. I’d say that’s rather indicative of what you really think it’s worth.

FYI, sound theology and sound science are not in opposition to one another.

No. Very simply put:

A fact is an observation of an event.

-If I drop an object, it falls to the ground.

If we see the even consistently repeated then we have a law.

-Every object I drop falls to the ground.

Next comes the hypothesis, the first guess at “why”.

-There must be an attractive force that acts between masses.

Then you work on it for years, refining your explanation, adding detail. If it holds up against other scientists, if it has more explanatory and predictive power than any other explanation, then you may have yourself a genuine scientific Theory.

Note a couple of things. A theory may not explain everything about a phenomenon; actually it probably won’t. But it will be the BEST explanation we have.

But more central to what I’m getting at here is that a scientific theory does not “become” a fact, or a law. On the ladder of science, a theory – the explanation – is the ultimate goal. It’s the hardest part, and the most useful, and the most satisfying.

So, Todd, scientific theories don’t “become” anything. Obviously there’s a great deal of detail I’ve omitted, but you have the idea.

I’m disappointed that so many of you bother to argue with this guy. Another fact we understand is that it’s futile to reason with an irrational person. He’s proving to be just that. So recognize this fact and leave him be. The premise on which he looks at this topic is way off base. He perceives science as a religion, because in his reality religion is the most important thing that every person must have. Thus how do you expect him to understand something that he perceives as an opposition to his reality. Science simply is just competition for him. If we don’t believe his fairy tales than that means we must be worshiping something and that Darwin is our messiah.

Todd, be merry as luck has it that the day you die they’ll still be people who think as you do. However, your arguments are ages old. There was a time when your people thought the same about the “theory” that the earth is not the center of the universe. substitute any now universally accepted scientific fact and your people opposed it at some point. We’ve been through this before, and in time even your own brainwashed offsprings will laugh at you.