I think it's laughable for the media to be making the big deal out of this. It's because a scientist hired a publicity crew, honestly. For those of us who study this subject, this fossil is interesting, but hardly the sensation the media is making it.

I also want to point out that Darwinism, as far as us scientists are concerned, is as good as proven. There's just as much likelihood of the theory of electricity being disproven as there is of the theory of evolution falling apart. The details will be fine tuned from now until infinity, but the basics are set in stone. And for you to claim that the churches will "have" to change their views "if" Darwinism is proven is flat out wrong. There are groups that teach that the Holocaust didn't happen, that the sun revolves around the Earth, and that the Earth is flat.

@Pickwick12@xanga - ...I believe in a literal reading of Genesis 1 and am not planning to change my mind.

Even if confronted with evidence as definitive as those, say, for the atomic theory, you'd willfully ignore them?

@nyclegodesi24@xanga - What does darwinism mean? Is there a difference between the theory of evolution and darwinism?

They're used synonymously.

I'm guessing "Darwinism" was made up to pin Evoltuion toCharles Darwin and to imply that Evolution is cultish or religious-y.

Remember it was only in 1992 that the Roman Catholic Church admitted Galileo was correct. 

The above statement is in total and complete error.  On October 31, 1992, Pope John Paul II issued a declaration acknowledging the errors committed by the Church tribunal that judged the scientific positions of Galileo Galilei.

The tribunal of knuckleheads should have stayed out of an area where they had no business pocking their ignorant noses.

The issue of Galileo has nothing to do with evolution.  In fact, the Catholic Church has no problem with evolution and values science.

While amazed at such a specimen, I also think Ida is ludicrous hype, something anyone would think given all the evidence at hand. It looks like a lemur, not a human, and though much ado has been made about its opposable thumbs, modern lemurs have them, too.

Also, the "missing link" has been criticized by scientists (evolutionists at that) since the news came out:

“On the whole I think the evidence is less than convincing,” said Chris Gilbert, a paleoanthropologist at Yale University. “They make an intriguing argument but I would definitely say that the consensus is not in favor of the hypothesis they're proposing..."

“The PR campaign on this fossil is I think more of a story than the fossil itself,” said anthropologist Matt Cartmill of Duke University in North Carolina. “It’s a very beautiful fossil, but I didn’t see anything in this paper that told me anything decisive that was new.”

Callum Ross, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago in Illinois agrees: “Their claim that this specimen should be classified as haplorhine is unsupportable in light of modern methods of classification.”

“It’s not a missing link, it’s not even a terribly close relative to monkeys, apes and humans, which is the point they’re trying to make,” Dr. Chris Beard, the curator of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, said. He added: "I would be absolutely dumbfounded if it turns out to be a potential ancestor to humans."

Actually the theology of Theistic Evolution completely contradicts the Christian religeon.  There are to many statements of creation within the scripture and "6 days" means 6 days- nothing else. 

There is actually no way for the evolutionists to "prove" that Ida is the "missing link".  They can "say" they have proven it, just like most of them say that evolution is as close to a fact as one can get. 

Like one of the commentors said above, this whole "ida" deal is a bunch of publicity.  Nothing More.

@musterion99@xanga - Adam did not evolve.

The Church position on evolution and man is very interesting.  It holds that Adam did not descend from an animal and that all humans descended from two original human beings, Adam and Eve.

@LoBornlite@xanga - The Church position on evolution and man is
very interesting.  It holds that Adam did not descend from an animal
and that all humans descended from two original human beings, Adam and
Eve.

Why is that interesting? It's what I just said the bible teaches. It would be interesting if it didn't teach that.

@LoBornlite@xanga - Genesis 1:20-21 says that on the 4th day, there were birds flying. They didn't evolve from reptiles. And it says that God created the whales. They didn't evolve from something else. and it says that every winged fowl brought forth after their kind. They didn't evolve and bring forth something that was not their kind. Do you believe that the animals evolved from a common ancestor? What ancestor was it and where does the bible say that?

Also, if we all came from one set of
parents that means that incest was common practice during a major
portion of mankind's history.

At that point, God had not given any law against incest. He said - "Be fruitful and multiply.'

All I'm saying is my own belief.  Take from it what you will, and I urge you not to criticize me for my own belief.

I believe that God did indeed spark life on this Earth, and that all life has Him to thank for its creation.  However, I do not believe that God created each and every species that ever existed at once.  I believe, instead, that God created life and, in His infinite power and wisdom, allowed each life form to grow, adapt, multiply, and evolve according to the environment in which it lived.  I think that the fact that the life that He breathed upon this planet has the capacity for growth and change is a true testament to His power and wisdom than if he created a static planet with static lifeforms.  That sounds more like a, pardon the term, child-God's science fair project.  This planet, however, is nothing short of a masterpiece of art.

@musterion99@xanga - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"?

This is not science.  This is a world view.  The Hebrews, of all ancient people had a world view of a natural order created by a caring God.

All other peoples viewed the world as chaos and deviced religions that reflected that.

"...we can't prove God created the earth."

If we believe in God, which is reasonable, proof that God created the earth is unnecessary.

@AaronInSlovakia@xanga - 

^ Hahahahahahahahahaha.

These threads used to give me headaches. Now I have a much more positive approach- I see them as entertainment.

Hint: If you are under the impression that I'm laughing *with* you, you would be mistaken.