Fossil Find May Tweak Evolution Debate

A primate skeleton claimed to be 47 million years old could further amplify the often contentious debate between evolutionists and creationists.

A prominent paleontologist says the discovery of the ancient primate fossil suggests the creature is the common ancestor of monkeys, apes and humans, reports The Wall Street Journal.

The find bolsters the less-popular stance that humans' ape-like ancestor was a precursor to the lemur - the tarsier, a tiny, bug-eyed primate in Asia, is more commonly thought of as the precursor, the Journal reports.

Dr. Philip Gingerich, the president-elect of the Paleontological Society in the U.S., will discuss the findings next week in an online journal. The fossil will be unveiled next week at New York's Museum of Natural History.

"This discovery brings a forgotten group into focus as a possible ancestor of higher primates," Mr. Gingerich, a professor of paleontology at the University of Michigan, told the Journal.

While the fossil doesn't relate to the more heated debate over whether chimpanzees and humans share a common identity - the fossil is not the so-called "missing link" - the two factions will likely pounce on this new find with evolutionists claiming the skeleton adds to the limited fossil record.

[nic1234567-2009]

I don?t subscribe to the Original sin doctrine as proposed by the YEC. Sin first originated in the heaven, it occurred before the fall of man as taught in Ez.28 and Isa.14. The once cherub over God?s throne became a fallen angel-prince. We don?t know exactly when this happened, he may have rebelled against God shortly after his creation, or it could have been millennia.

Also Adam clearly new of death before the fall. Rather than getting into details of it, I?ll simple provide you with a link to it.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/death.html

I?m leaving this forum now. It was a pleaser debating with you.

I wish you well and God Bless.

[nic1234567-2009]

And I notice you completely ignored the facts I brought up about the Columbine HS killers praising Darwinian evolution and mocking Christians which they did before the massacre. Just as you ignored that Hitler used Darwinian Socialism doctrine for many of his Nazi laws. ---
I choose not to respond to it because I believe that people are responsible for their own actions and choices in life. What the Columbine HS killers did was despicable and I have no intention of minimize their responsibility by invoking the Darwinian made me do it argument.

[nic1234567-2009]

Are the atheists attacking you? Are you standing up for the Bible?
As a matter of fact they have and I do stand up for the bible. But I?m also attack from the other side for example take a look at your own response to my position then tell me you haven?t been attacking it.

[nic1234567-2009]

"Theistic" evolution is merely an attempt to mix Darwinian evolution into the Bible. I've heard all about it before. -- I'm very sorry you feel that way.However thats really not the point. Scientific explanation allows us to see the marvelous way in which God has set up His creation. God can work His will through "natural" processes in ages past and in the present time. The lack of a scientific explanation is certainly a miracle when the Bible says it is; such as the Virgin Birth, or when Jesus turned water into wine. If the Bible is silent on a certain unsolved scientific problem, then the theistic evolutionist has found an interesting puzzle! It might be a divine miracle all right, but this theistic evolutionist does not give Christian witness on the basis of unsolved scientific problems. Not when there's a risen Savior to talk about instead!

[nic1234567-2009]

I forgot, I meant to give you a link to one of the theistic evolution web sites so you have a better understanding of our position.
http://www.theisticevolution.org/

[nic1234567-2009]

Why do you have such a thing against "Creation" ---- What make you think I have anything against Creation? As theistic evolutionists I do believe that God is the creator; we just have a difference as to how he went about it. And yes I?m familiar with JESUS CHRIST references to the CREATION in the bible.
Theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God that God is the creator of the material universe and all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation.
Buy the way if you think you have it bad as creationists try being theistic evolutionists. I?m get act for my belief from both sides. Just go on the web and search for theistic evolution and see what I mean. I try not to let it get to me though.

[nic1234567-2009]

LOL...no I'm not "confusing" anything. But thank you for exposing the myth that evolution is by ADMITTING in your post above that there are "many hypothesis", not just the "primoridal soup" one. --
Actually you are. Evolution says nothing about how life began. Evolution is about change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. It doesn?t even preclude the possibility of an original intelligent designer (GOD). However I personally prefer to think of GOD as the guiding hand behind evolution. And just to be clear I?m not mocking or scoffing at "Creationists" I respect their views even if I don?t agree with them. I?m only asking you to try and think outside the box and try to be a little less confrontational. It tends to turn people of to religion and is counterproductive to your own position.

[nic1234567-2009]

Still waiting on one of you evolutionists to explain how the puddle of seething soup of chemicals simply popped into existence on its own and the foundation that it laid upon. -----
Your confusing evolution with abiogenesis, or origin of life, it is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. There are many hypothesis not just the Primordial soup one. Wikipedia has a good list and some explanation of a number of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

[nic1234567-2009]

I don?t believe that God is a deceiver I was referring to the omphalos argument. You really need to read my complete response. If you buy into that argument you really need reconcile scientific observations with GOD word. There?s actually a modified version of the omphalos argument that goes something like the universe was not just created with apparent age it was created with great age. As a creationist you should really ask your self did God create the universe within time or with time. He is capable of both.

[nic1234567-2009]

Creationist will typically tell you that he universe was created mature, with apparent age. Light from the sun and stars fell on the earth from its beginning. This is sometimes called the omphalos argument.
However this argument is not supportable. For example the appearance of age asks us to accept that light from supernovas came from stars that never actually existed. This makes God into a deceiver, since he created an appearance different from reality. Romans 1:20 says that God is to be "understood from what has been made." The apparent age claim says we cannot trust what has been made.