Missing Link Unveiled?

Calabrio

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
8,793
Reaction score
3
Location
Sarasota
Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution
Breaking News
LINK
3:30pm UK, Tuesday May 19, 2009
Alex Watts, Sky News Online
Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey hailed as the missing link in human evolution.


The search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years - but it was presented to the world today at a special news conference in New York.

The discovery of the 95%-complete 'lemur monkey' - dubbed Ida - is described by experts as the "eighth wonder of the world".

They say its impact on the world of palaeontology will be "somewhat like an asteroid falling down to Earth".

Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, and the then radical, outlandish ideas he came up with during his time aboard the Beagle.

Sir David Attenborough said Darwin "would have been thrilled" to have seen the fossil - and says it tells us who we are and where we came from.

"This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of the mammals. This is the one that connects us directly with them," he said.

"Now people can say 'okay we are primates, show us the link'. The link they would have said up to now is missing - well it's no longer missing."

A team of the world's leading fossil experts, led by Professor Jorn Hurum, of Norway's National History Museum, have been secretly researching the 1ft 9in-tall young female monkey for the past two years.

And now it has been transported to New York under high security, and unveiled to the world during the bicentenary of Darwin's birth.

Later this month, it will be exhibited for one day only at the Natural History Museum in London before being returned to Oslo.

Scientists say Ida - squashed to the thickness of a beer mat by the immense passage of time - is the most complete primate fossil ever found.

With her human-like nails instead of claws, and opposable big toes, she is placed at the very root of human evolution when early primates first developed features that would eventually develop into our own.

Another important discovery is the shape of the talus bone in her foot, which humans still have in their feet an incredible 70 million lifetimes later.

Ida was unearthed by an amateur fossil-hunter some 25 years ago in Messel pit, an ancient crater lake near Frankfurt, Germany, famous for its fossils.

She was cleaned and set in polyester resin - and incredibly, was hung on a mystery German collector's wall for 20 years.

Sky News sources say the owner had no idea of the unique fossil's significance, and simply admired it like a cherished Van Gogh or Picasso painting.

But in 2006, Ida came into the hands of private dealer Thomas Perner, who presented her to Prof Hurum at the annual Hamburg Fossil and Mineral Fair in Germany - a centre for the murky world of fossil-trading.

Prof Hurum said when he first saw the blueprint for evolution - the "most beautiful fossil worldwide" - he could not sleep for two days.

A home movie records the dramatic moment. "This is really something that the world has never seen before, this is a unique specimen, totally unique," he says, clearly emotional.

He knew she should be saved for science rather than end up hidden from the world in a wealthy private collector's vault.

But the dealer's asking price was more than $1 million (£660,000) - ten times the amount even the rarest of fossils fetch on the black market.

Eventually, after six months of negotiations, he managed to raise the cash in Norway and brought Ida to Oslo.

Prof Hurum - who last summer dug up the fossil remains of a 50ft marine monster called Predator X from the permafrost on Svalbard, a Norwegian island close to the North Pole - then assembled a "dream team" of experts who worked in secret for two years.

They included palaeontologist Dr Jens Franzen, Dr Holly Smith, of the University of Michigan, and Philip Gingerich, president-elect of the US Paleontological Society.

Researchers could prove the fossil was genuine through X-rays, knowing it is impossible to fake the inner structure of a bone.

Through radiometric dating of Messel's volcanic rocks, they discovered Ida lived 47 million years ago in the Eocene period, when tropical forests stretched right to the poles, and South America was still drifting and had yet to make contact with North America.

During that period, the first whales, horses, bats and monkeys emerged, and the early primates branched into two groups - one group lived on mainly as lemurs, and the second developed into monkeys, apes and humans.

The experts concluded Ida was not simply a lemur but a 'lemur monkey', displaying a mixture of both groups, and therefore putting her at the very branch of the human line.

"When Darwin published his On the Origin of Species in 1859, he said a lot about transitional species...and he said that will never be found, a transitional species, and his whole theory will be wrong, so he would be really happy to live today when we publish Ida," said Prof Hurum.

"This fossil is really a part of our history; this is part of our evolution, deep, deep back into the aeons of time, 47 million years ago.

"It's part of our evolution that's been hidden so far, it's been hidden because all the other specimens are so incomplete.

"They are so broken there's almost nothing to study and now this wonderful fossil appears and it makes the story so much easier to tell, so it's really a dream come true."

Up until now, the most famous fossil primate in the world has been Lucy, a 3.18-million-year-old hominid found in Ethiopia in 1974. She was then our earliest known ancestor, and only 40% complete.

But at 95% complete, Ida was so well preserved in the mud at the bottom of the volcanic lake, there is even evidence of her fur shadow and remains of her last meal.

From this they concluded she was a leaf and fruit eater, and probably lived in the trees around the lake.

The absence of a bacculum (penis bone) confirmed she was female, and her milk teeth put her age at about nine-months-old - in maturity, equivalent to a six-year-old human child.

This was the same age as Prof Hurum's daughter Ida, and he named the fossil after her.

The study is being published and put online today by the Public Library of Science, a leading academic journal with offices in Britain and the US.

Dr Hurum also found Predator X

Co-author of the scientific paper, Prof Gingerich, likens its importance to the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, an ancient Egyptian artifact found in 1799, which allowed us to decipher hieroglyphic writing.

One clue to Ida's fate - and her remarkable preservation as our oldest ancestor - was her badly fractured left wrist.

The team believes this stopped her from climbing and she had to emerge from the trees to drink water from the 250-metre-deep lake.

They think she was overcome by carbon dioxide gas from the crater, and sunk to the bottom where she was preserved in the mud as a time capsule - and a snapshot of evolution.

But amazingly this final piece of Darwin's jigsaw was almost lost to science when German authorities tried to turn Messel into a massive landfill rubbish dump.

Eventually, after campaigning by Dr Franzen, the plans were rejected and the fossil-rich lake was designated a World Heritage Site.

But no doubt there would have been one person happy for the missing link to have remained hidden.

When Darwin famously told the Bishop of Worcester's wife about his theory of evolution, she remarked: "Descended from the apes! My dear, let us hope that it is not true, but if it is, let us pray that it will not become generally known."

Now, it certainly is.

:: Ida's discovery has been made into an Atlantic Productions' documentary, presented by Sir David Attenborough.
 
It will be interesting, that's for sure. Betcha Messel is crawling with paleontologists for the next few years.

Everybody is going to want in on this, and especially people who want to test if it is a hoax or not. If it is, better be a good one because I'm sure there will be plenty of resources devoted to proving that.
 
Emphasis should be put on the 47-million year old part.

I think, without having read the article, that this is a step from primates to a neanderthal part of evolution.

I dont understand why this would be a hoax.
 
Emphasis should be put on the 47-million year old part.

I think, without having read the article, that this is a step from primates to a neanderthal part of evolution.

I dont understand why this would be a hoax.

It may be a hoax, it may be a lot of hype about nothing (that is where my money is), or it may be legitimate. Better minds then ours from both sides of this debate will be pouring over this for years to come. It will be interesting to see what comes of it...
 
Did they find bigfoot too? I hear certain areas are "famous for it."
Ida was unearthed by an amateur fossil-hunter some 25 years ago in Messel pit, an ancient crater lake near Frankfurt, Germany, famous for its fossils.
 
Emphasis should be put on the 47-million year old part.

I think, without having read the article, that this is a step from primates to a neanderthal part of evolution.

I dont understand why this would be a hoax.
It's likely a hoax or else a misinterpreted fossil. All other 'missing links' have turned out to be either one.
 
they never would have annonced it if it was a hoax. they have had the best team assembled to verify it.
"then assembled a "dream team" of experts who worked in secret for two years.

They included palaeontologist Dr Jens Franzen, Dr Holly Smith, of the University of Michigan, and Philip Gingerich, president-elect of the US Paleontological Society."


although it is raising controversy in the field.
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/519/1
 
Media blitz: 'We found missing link'
But critics say fossil frenzy is more about pushing ideology than science
By Drew Zahn

A book, a movie, a press release
, news reports, television specials and an interactive website – all launched today – have converged in a multi-media exclamation, set to shout to the world that the "missing link" in man's evolution has supposedly been found.

"This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of the mammals. This is the one that connects us directly with them," trumpeted Britain's nature television star Sir David Attenborough about today's announcement that "Ida," a lemur-like fossil that has been studied in secret for years, is now being unveiled to the world.

"Now people can say, 'OK, we are primates, show us the link,'" Attenborough said. "The link they would have said up to now is missing – well, it's no longer missing."

As WND reported, Attenborough, who for 50 years has been the face and voice of the BBC's natural history programs popular in both the U.S. and U.K., has been a staunch advocate of evolutionary theory, calling it a historical fact "as certain as the fact that William the Conqueror landed in 1066, except it's more certain."

Attenborough has also been a harsh critic of creationist theory, claiming the Bible is to blame for humanity's destruction of the environment and mocking the idea that an "all-merciful God" created parasitic creatures.

In the unveiling of Ida, however, Attenborough and a handful of scientists behind the announcement are proclaiming the find as the final vindication of Darwin's evolutionist theory.

Professor Jorn Hurum of Norway's National History Museum, who is leading the team of fossil experts, explains on the website announcing Ida's discovery:

"Darwin said a lot about transitional species and how they were missing from the geological record. And he said that if a transitional species is never found, his whole theory will be wrong," Hurum states. "Ida is very comparable to some of the most significant fossils that have been described like Lucy, the Neanderthals, Tyrannosaurus rex, and Archaeopteryx. It's a really important specimen that will become an icon of evolution. So I think Darwin would be really happy about this specimen."

He also added, "This fossil will probably be pictured in all the text books for the next 100 years."

But not so fast, say creationists, who remain skeptical that the marketing blitz over Ida is more about pushing an ideology than advancing science.

"There is a lot of media hype right now, and the claim is that this is a missing link, this is it: the evidence of evolution," said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis.

But Ham pointed to a line in the scientific report on the Ida findings – published today in the online journal Public Library of Science One – that countered the bold claims made by Attenborough and others in the news.

"[The species] could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved [the line leading to humans]," states the report, "but we are not advocating this here."


The British newspaper Guardian also reports that scientific reviewers of the research asked that others "tone down" claims that the fossil was on the human evolutionary line.

"The reviewers said we don't know this is a missing link, and they asked the people who wrote [the newspaper reports] to tone it down," Ham told WND, "and yet we have this media hype claiming this is it, this is the missing link."

As the New York Times reported, the fossil was unveiled at a news conference at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. In addition to the website promoting Ida's significance, television's A&E has produced a two-hour documentary touting the find to be shown on Memorial Day on the History Channel, followed by release on the BBC in Britain and ZDF in Germany.

A&E executives, the Times reports, also brokered a deal for an exclusive Ida appearance tomorrow morning on ABC's "Good Morning America," as well as appearances on the network's "Nightline" and "World News". The documentary's backers also lined up a publisher for a book on the fossil called "The Link," set to be released tomorrow with 110,000 copies already shipped.

The Times of London reports that some scientists have joined in criticism of the media coverage, arguing it is wrong for a discovery to receive such heavy publicity before other researchers can evaluate it.

"It's obviously a lot of media hype to promote an ideology," Ham told WND. "In the wake of a lot of controversies in creation vs. evolution, evolutionists want to be able to announce they have the ultimate proof. … It's obviously a ploy to promote a book and a television special and to indoctrinate the public in evolution by making a lot of statements that are way beyond what the scientists themselves wrote."

Hurum, however, defended the campaign, telling the New York Times, "Any pop band is doing the same thing, any athlete is doing the same. We have to start thinking the same way in science."

Jonathan Wells, author and biologist at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, helped WND take a closer look at the science vs. hype debate.

"I have in front of me the technical paper published about the specimen, a fossil primate that looks a lot like a lemur," Wells told WND. "Some of the people who analyzed this also claim [Ida] is not in the subgroup that includes lemurs, but is in the subgroup from which humans theoretically evolved.

"There are many primatologists who already disagree with that interpretation and see this as a lemur," Wells explained to WND. "That's a controversy within the scientific community that has nothing to do with evolution, simply classification of the specimen."

When WND asked Wells if this creature could have traits of both lemurs and apes, the biologist explained that even a combination of the two groups' anatomy doesn't necessarily mean that evolution used the animal as a "bridge" to cross from one to other. Similarity in animal traits, he explained, even in a theoretical "missing link," doesn't prove evolution.

"In every case, what you've got is a fossil, a dead animal," Wells explained. "The theory of evolution says we have to have come from ancestors, so scientists go out looking, and then they find this particular animal that fits the theory better than other candidates. But there's absolutely no way to know – and many Darwinists acknowledge this – whether in fact any other animals evolved from this one or not, much less humans. So the line of ancestry and descent is completely speculative."

The fossil now known as Ida, a nearly complete skeleton about the size of a raccoon, was given its nickname after Hurum's daughter. His team of scientists believes the female specimen was about 9 months old, in maturity equivalent to a six-year-old human, the age of Hurum's child.

The scientific name given to the specimen is Darwinius masillae, named in honor of Charles Darwin, who is being celebrated this year, the 200th anniversary of his birth and 150th anniversary of the publication of his "On the Origin of Species."

The fossil itself, according to Sky News, was actually discovered by an amateur fossil-hunter 25 years ago in Messel Pit, a location near Frankfurt, Germany, famous for its fossils. Ida was then cleaned, set in polyester resin and hung on a wall as part of a collection for 20 years.

Professor Hurum encountered Ida in 2006, in the hands of a private fossil dealer and reportedly knew the almost complete skeleton was a prize. Apparently, so did the dealer, for the asking price was over $1 million – reportedly 10 times what even top fossils fetch on the black market.

Hurum nonetheless raised enough money to purchase Ida and brought it to Norway for study. According to an ABC News report, examination of the fossil went on for two years in secret, before news of the upcoming announcement and media blitz leaked last week.

According to reports, Ida has been dated at 47 million years old, significantly older than Lucy, a partial skeleton believed by some to be a more direct ancestor of modern humans, which has been dated at only 3.18 million years old.

Evolutionist scientists point to several features that make Ida unique and make her a candidate to be a transitional form between lower mammals and the ape line that supposedly gave rise to the evolution of humankind.

According to the Times of London, unlike modern lemurs, Ida lacks a grooming claw and a fused row of teeth on her lower jaw known as a toothcomb. Her opposable thumbs, fingernails instead of claws and talus bone on her foot further resemble apes more than lemurs.

"She is a transitional species showing characteristics from both the non-human (prosimians and lemurs) and human (anthropoids, monkeys, apes and man) evolutionary lines," said the producers of the upcoming TV special about Ida in a statement.

And while several scientists pointed out the term "missing link" is a misnomer, claiming Ida is more likely humanity's "great aunt" as opposed to "great grandmother," evolutionists are no less enthused about her discovery.

"Now, for the first time, an incredibly complete early primate fossil has been discovered which provides us with direct evidence of an intermediate link between the human primate lineage and earlier mammals," states The Link website devoted to publicizing the find. "Ida is an example of a transitional fossil between primitive primates and the prosimian and anthropoid branches, the latter of which eventually led to humans ... She is the earliest, and one of the most significant links, ever found."

Both Wells and Ham, however, told WND the hype and significance attached to this one fossil only points to how intense the debate is becoming between creation and evolution. It is not, they said, as decided in Darwin's favor as David Attenborough has asserted.

"For Attenborough to come out and say, 'We have the missing link; it's no longer missing,' only admits they haven't had missing links before this time," Ham told WND. "If evolution is so decided, why would they get all excited about one fossil that they find now, when they claim they've had proof of evolution for years?"

"When you listen to Darwinists, they claim their theory is as well established as gravity," Wells told WND. "If that were really the case, we wouldn't be getting these startling announcements that we finally found the proof that we need. There wouldn't be any controversy. This would be like someone running up and saying, 'Stop the presses. I just saw another apple fall from the tree; Newton was right!' In the evolutionists' own framework, it's nonsense. It demonstrates their theory is not as well established as they claim."
 
they never would have annonced it if it was a hoax. they have had the best team assembled to verify it.
"then assembled a "dream team" of experts who worked in secret for two years.

They included palaeontologist Dr Jens Franzen, Dr Holly Smith, of the University of Michigan, and Philip Gingerich, president-elect of the US Paleontological Society."


although it is raising controversy in the field.
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/519/1
Right, because all the other hoaxes weren't researched first. :rolleyes:

Have they reached a 'scientific consensus' yet?
 
I do have a serious question here, and it may be presuming things.
Whether a little monkey/cat thing is a "missing link" is besides the point.

Is there a creationist explanation for the age of the fossils?
And would a 47,000,000 million year old fossil be at odds with the creationist view?
 
I do have a serious question here, and it may be presuming things.
Whether a little monkey/cat thing is a "missing link" is besides the point.

Is there a creationist explanation for the age of the fossils?
And would a 47,000,000 million year old fossil be at odds with the creationist view?
Cal, a fossil can never show evolution. Fossils are unchanging records of dead organisms. Evolution is an alleged process of change in live organisms. Fossils show “evolution” only if one presupposes evolution, then uses that presupposed belief to interpret the fossil.

Similarities can never show evolution. If two organisms have similar structures, the only thing it proves is that the two have similar structures. One must presuppose evolution to say that the similarities are due to evolution rather than design. Furthermore, when it comes to “transitional forms,” the slightest similarities often receive great attention while major differences are ignored.

There are dozens of books that show that fossils actually support the creationists.

There are serious problems with carbon dating's reliability. It's really only good at dating things within 50,000 years.

Haven't you heard of the living mollusk that was tested with carbon dating and was found to have been dead for millions of years?

Furthermore, I have yet to find an evolutionist who can explain why we can still find carbon-14 in coal. The half life should have completely eliminated it.
 
I do have a serious question here, and it may be presuming things.
Whether a little monkey/cat thing is a "missing link" is besides the point.

Is there a creationist explanation for the age of the fossils?
And would a 47,000,000 million year old fossil be at odds with the creationist view?

Jews believe the earth is almost 6,000 years old, that's pretty accepted i think. There was a recent article saying that 1 in 6 creationist teachers in school believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/036

The typical answer i've seen to radio carbon dating is that it's false, and there is now way to prove it.

This is the response i've gotten when i present that question (about dinosaurs)
Part 1 - Dr. Kent Hovind - The Age of the Earth
 
Facts about Ida:

The well-preserved fossil (95 percent complete, including fossilized fur and more) is about the size of a raccoon and includes a long tail. It resembles the skeleton of a lemur (a small, tailed, tree-climbing primate). The fossil does not resemble a human skeleton.

The fossil was found in two parts by amateur fossil hunters in 1983. It eventually made its way through fossil dealers to the research team.

Ida has opposable thumbs, which the ABC News article states are “similar to humans’ and unlike those found on other modern mammals” (i.e., implying that opposable thumbs are evidence of evolution). Yet lemurs today have opposable thumbs (like all primates). Likewise, Ida has nails, as do other primates. And the talus bone is described as “the same shape as in humans,” despite the fact that there are other differences in the ankle structure.

Unlike today’s lemurs (as far as scientists know), Ida lacks the “grooming claw” and a “toothcomb” (a fused row of teeth) In fact, its teeth are more similar to a monkey’s. These are minor differences easily explained by variation within a kind.
 
Cal, a fossil can never show evolution. Fossils are unchanging records of dead organisms. Evolution is an alleged process of change in live organisms. Fossils show “evolution” only if one presupposes evolution, then uses that presupposed belief to interpret the fossil.

Similarities can never show evolution. If two organisms have similar structures, the only thing it proves is that the two have similar structures. One must presuppose evolution to say that the similarities are due to evolution rather than design. Furthermore, when it comes to “transitional forms,” the slightest similarities often receive great attention while major differences are ignored.

There are dozens of books that show that fossils actually support the creationists.

There are serious problems with carbon dating's reliability. It's really only good at dating things within 50,000 years.

Haven't you heard of the living mollusk that was tested with carbon dating and was found to have been dead for millions of years?

Furthermore, I have yet to find an evolutionist who can explain why we can still find carbon-14 in coal. The half life should have completely eliminated it.
Fossils are like puzzle pieces. Clearly, they don't show evolution happening, because it is something that happens over millions of years. It's just a form of deduction. Similarity between fossil A and fossil B lead us to a possible conclusion of C. There is no instant gratification when it comes to this.

Nobody, will fight you on that.

Furthermore, when it comes to “transitional forms,” the slightest similarities often receive great attention while major differences are ignored.
You know the old saying. Big things come in little packages. lol.

Big things are a sign of something later down the line, this type of thing is a transitional piece. Transition is a big deal.

Your view on creationism is really confusing to me. Care to give me a simplistic view? Like, how dinosaurs, noahs ark and etc fits into it?
 
Fossils are like puzzle pieces. Clearly, they don't show evolution happening, because it is something that happens over millions of years. It's just a form of deduction. Similarity between fossil A and fossil B lead us to a possible conclusion of C. There is no instant gratification when it comes to this.

Nobody, will fight you on that.
No, it's a form of interpretation after a presupposition has been made. There is no other explanation for a scientist taking two fossils with some similarities and 'deducing' that one evolved into another.


You know the old saying. Big things come in little packages. lol.

Big things are a sign of something later down the line, this type of thing is a transitional piece. Transition is a big deal.
Again, assertion without proof, still based on supposition. Scientists cannot say how or why one species evolved into another, they just assume it. Not scientific at all.

Your view on creationism is really confusing to me. Care to give me a simplistic view? Like, how dinosaurs, noahs ark and etc fits into it?
Not really. I don't see how it could be confusing to you since I haven't explained it in long form to you.

Why don't you try reading Genesis first.
 
Fossils are like puzzle pieces. Clearly, they don't show evolution happening, because it is something that happens over millions of years. It's just a form of deduction. Similarity between fossil A and fossil B lead us to a possible conclusion of C. There is no instant gratification when it comes to this.

The thing is, when does it stop being logical inference with these fossils and start being speculation masquerading as logical inference?
 
No, it's a form of interpretation after a presupposition has been made. There is no other explanation for a scientist taking two fossils with some similarities and 'deducing' that one evolved into another.
It's pretty accepted that most scientists are evolutionists, yes.

Again, assertion without proof, still based on supposition. Scientists cannot say how or why one species evolved into another, they just assume it. Not scientific at all.
Yes they can? It's really, really simple actually.

YouTube - Richard Dawkins on the Evolution of Wings

Over millions of years, upon reproducing, there is bound to be genetic deformities (people with 6 fingers, down syndrome, of the hundreds).
Eventually, keep in mind this is over a period of millions of years, there are mutations that actually help the animal: opposable thumb , saber tooth tigers long teeth, a change in the animals color, etc. These are called traits. Traits are pretty prevalent today, the saying "Skips a generation" is where it comes from. The animal that develops the best trait to suit it's environment, survives.

Cross breeding is another example, that's how we, Homo sapiens, came to be.

Not really. I don't see how it could be confusing to you since I haven't explained it in long form to you.

Why don't you try reading Genesis first.
Genesis is the only part of the bible i've read all the way through.

Though, I don't want to have to read a book every time i ask a question about the Muslim religion, like, where Allah came from. I don't want to read on Buddhism when i want to know how old Buddha lived to. That would take a lot of time to answer a simple question. I'm here to discuss opinions. If i did though, i would surely be educated.

I was just asking how you take into account of what i said above, specifically dinosaurs and noahs ark. You seem to be pretty educated on the bible, and you seem pretty devout to it. I've asked this question to people before and the answer i get is "Don't take the bible literally. Use it as a guide to find Jesus", or something close to those lines.

I dont think you are in that category, which is why i'm asking.

The thing is, when does it stop being logical inference with these fossils and start being speculation masquerading as logical inference?
It's hard to say... I guess an accepted way is like this.
Animal 1 has trait A.
Animal 2 has trait B.
Animal 3 has both traits, or a diluted mix.
 
well mr wiggles, here is the dinosaur page of fosstens most referred to sight.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/dinosaurs

Well, i guess i got my answer

The history of God’s creation (told in Genesis 1 and 2) tells us that all the land-dwelling creatures were made on Day 6 of Creation Week—the same day God made Adam and Eve. Therefore, it is clear that dinosaurs (being land animals) were made with man.
Makes me pose another question... what did the animals eat after the flood? Bah.
 
Well, i guess i got my answer


Makes me pose another question... what did the animals eat after the flood? Bah.
Which demonstrates why I didn't answer your question - you didn't ask it in good faith.

If you read the account in Genesis (which neither of you have), the earth had replenished itself enough by the time they left the ark. How else does a dove return with a branch from a tree?

Let me ask you a question - what makes the corn grow?
 
Which demonstrates why I didn't answer your question - you didn't ask it in good faith.

If you read the account in Genesis (which neither of you have), the earth had replenished itself enough by the time they left the ark. How else does a dove return with a branch from a tree?

Let me ask you a question - what makes the corn grow?
Further off topic:
Sunlight, water, nutrients in the soil.

Both, sunlight and water in excess could also kill it. Nutrients in the soil would be washed away.

The people and animals on the ark repopulated the earth? Are we all a product of incest?
 
Further off topic:
Sunlight, water, nutrients in the soil.

Both, sunlight and water in excess could also kill it. Nutrients in the soil would be washed away.

The people and animals on the ark repopulated the earth? Are we all a product of incest?
You didn't answer my question, so why should I answer yours?
 
You didn't answer my question, so why should I answer yours?

Thats a good position to take. But i did, when i said
Sunlight, water, nutrients in the soil.
IDK about the last one, but that's how i grow my plants here.

I guess the obvious one i was missing was the corn seed.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top