Scientists Find 2 Million Old A. Sediba; Creationists Find a 6000 Year Old Dead Ape

Scientists have again embarrassed themselves . . . this time in that fanciful Science Magazine. While creationists (including many of the GOP presidential contenders) have shown that the Earth is only 6000 years old, scientists insist that they have found Australopithecus sediba fossils with the skull, pelvis, hands and feet of the ancient hominin. The fossils with both ape and human characteristics were unearthed three years ago in South Africa.

Palaeoanthropologists are unsure of how to fit A. sediba into the evolutionary chain and some believe it may have evolved into H. erectus. Of course, this depends on a belief in evolution which, with the exception of John Huntsman, is now rejected among our candidates for president on the GOP side. The picture above is a depiction of Huntsman’s standing in polls with GOP voters.

What is interesting is that the article below discusses how the 9-year-old son of one of the scientists discovered the first A. sediba fossil in August 2008 while the two were exploring a collapsed cave system. How cool is that. I am just waiting to see his college application review: “applicants worked as assistant manager at McDonald’s and may have discovered missing evolutionary link for homo erectus.”

Such findings (and such superstitious practices like carbon dating) have been dismissed by creationists in light of passages from in the Bible. This young man may want to skip the application to Bob Jones University or any Texas school offering the graduate degree in “creationist science.”

Source: Scientific American

44 thoughts on “Scientists Find 2 Million Old A. Sediba; Creationists Find a 6000 Year Old Dead Ape

  1. NoWay said:

    “2 million years from now somebody is going to come across Chevrolets from multiple model years and think they are the product of evolution. Who could blame them for their conclusion? They are very likely to find the same basic frame, and even some of the exact same parts.”

    Very possibly true. But then a few years later they’ll stumble upon an original Model T-rex, and their hearts will be atwitter at the fool notion that a Ford could possibly spawn a Chevy.

  2. Gene H.:

    “Whoa! Yes evolution can be observed. It’s observed every day in labs around the world and in the wild.

    Even in your own species, Fruit Fly. Evolution is mainly disputed by people who don’t understand either

    evidence or science. Like Fruit Flies.”

    No, it can’t. First, explain what you are talking about when you say “evolution can be observed”. It’s

    been said that it is easier to nail jello to a tree than it is to get a consistent definition of just what

    evolution is. Some will say evolution is ice melting. So, you can’t dispute that.

    What we’re probably running into again, is a classic evolution bait and switch. On the one hand, you say

    evolution is true, but then point to minute changes WITHIN a kind. Then use a bit of magic and wishful

    thinking, that something can turn into something else over a billion years. So, which are you talking

    about when you say evolution can be observed?

    Otteray Scribe:

    “Gene, maybe FFLP got his science knowledge from comic books.”

    Ad hominem logical fallacy. Just because I don’t subscribe to your belief that man is related to field

    mice, doesn’t mean I’m the one looking in comic books. That’s a classic pot/kettle/black scenario.


    “If you can give me a falsifiable hypothesis that explains the following two pieces of data better than

    evolution, then I’ll admit evolution MIGHT be wrong, otherwise I will ridicule you for the brainless

    religious zealot with zero understanding of science I believe you to be.”

    Typical response. Because someone dares question the foolish adult fairytale also known as evolutionism,

    you have to get personal and use all sorts of ad hominem and straw man arguments. As a reminder, I’m not

    the one who thinks pineapples and porcupines share a common ancestor. That’s coming from your side of the

    fence. I’m arguing that there is ZERO evidence for such a foolish argument, and on the contrary, we see

    elements of design in living things. We don’t see any evidence that something has the propensity to change

    into something else over billions of years. That’s simply a just-so story.

    And your reaction, coming apart like a two-dollar suitcase, just beacuse I tweaked your politically

    protected sacred cow of evolutionism, speaks volumes. Why get so upset when someone questions your theory.

    If you had any confidence in this fairytale, you would welcome skepticism, not start ranting and raving

    like an angry teenager.

    “Question #1:

    Why does human chromosome #2 have two centromeres and a third telomere in the center?”

    To this day, we still don’t have anything other than speculation, to tie humans to apes. In fact, some

    evolutionists have abandoned such a silly notion in the first place. You are using the logic that follows

    – since jellyfish and clouds are 99% the same, they must have evolved from one another. Wrong – that’s

    SWAG science. Similarities in design points to a common designer. Cats and pigs have 38 chromosomes.

    That means cats evolved from pigs? Or pigs from cats? In addition, evolutionists argument about vestigial

    organs is weak. First, the appendix was a vestigial organ. Now we know it has something to do with the

    immune system. The human tailbone is supposed to be a vesigial. But we know that there are important

    muscles and tendons attached that perform very useful bodily functions. People still argue about the

    alleged leg structures in whales. But those more familiar with whales and whale anatomy knows that the

    structures are actually used in mating. So several strikes for evolutionism. Now you are thinking that

    this is supposed to be proof that we’ve evolved from apes? Quite a stretch, to say the least.

    “Question #2:

    Why was Tiktaalik found in strata 375 million years old?”

    Question: Do the fossils date the strata, or does the strata date the fossils? Here’s what we know about

    the strata. It proves nothing, and it is extremely foolish, to say the least, to use the strata to date

    anything. We observe petrified tree trunks standing vertically in coal mine shafts. Now if we are to

    believe the evolutionists, that tree had to have been upright for billions of years. So the take home

    point is, if you are trusting in the strata to date a skull then you are making a huge assumption to say

    the least. Things have been found in the strata to be a few thousand years old, several feet below

    something that is supposed to be millions of years old.

    “Someone who can’t meet this challenge who is nonetheless compelled to question the veracity of evolution

    can only be a completely illiterate boob who didn’t have the good sense that evolution gave a bacteria.”

    This isn’t a challenge, but more accurately, a revelation that you have built your house on shifting sand,

    thinking you have a firm foundation. You might want to think through things before you run with it. And

    shooting off at the mouth with all these childish insults only makes your side look, well, childish.

    You’re taking healthy skepticism of your belief personally and using emotion rather than rational thinking.

    Martin Fitch:

    “@Slartibartfast: Oh, that one is too easy. I can use the same answer for both — “God put it there.””

    Oops. I forgot. TIME put it there. “billions and billions and billions of years”. Sure, that’s proof.


    “No it’s not. We’ve found lots of transitional fossils byt he way:”

    No, we don’t have any transitional fossils. Some of your evolutionists friends have even come up with

    another theory to explain why we don’t have any transitionals. Such as a “gap theory”. You’ve given yet

    more examples of ‘just-so’ stories. No proof, we just have to believe these are tansitionals because, they

    are transitionals. No… that doesn’t feed the bulldog. Do you have any PROOF that these are indeed

    transitionals? When you find bones of any animal, the only thing you can prove is, it’s dead. Virtually

    99% of fossils found are invertebrates. Incredibly complex, fully formed invertebrates. What is the rest,

    that composes like, 1%? The vertebrates that “scientists” try to use lots of imagination and plaster of

    paris to come up with transitional fossils. To date we STILL have nothing that constitutes a “transitional



    Tell that to the yellow-bellied three-toed skink which is evolving from oviparious reproduction to live


    Some snakes have eggs, and some snakes have snakes. Could this be a defect? A result of pesticides for

    example? Also, take a step back and look… Because something all of the sudden started giving live birth

    instead of eggs, this means we’re related to a field mouse? We’re needing something substantial.

  3. Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming NaNaNa does not constitute an intelligent response. Tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers are available supporting common descent and evolution. Genetics proves evolution; human chromosome 2 is a fusion of ape chromosome 12 and 13 as theorized almost 40 years ago. Evolution has made and continues to make testable predictions like this. If you want to be taken seriously publish some papers making some sort of testable conjecture.

  4. Mespo said:

    “Isn’t that exactly what they (cars) are: products of man-made evolution. In this case, the cars exhibit traits that best suited them for survival.”

    Right as rain. And when far-far-in-the-future auto-ontologists trip over what they surmise is the very earliest parts, they’ll aply dub the car-corpse “MichiganHenryFordicus.

    But there will surely be many who’ll say it’s a Ford of the Lord.

Comments are closed.