Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Fossil Fiction


Once again, the religious community (see blog entry on the religion of Humanism) is heralding the latest fossil find as the proverbial “missing link.” Ida, the lemur-like fossil, is described by the Humanist faithful as our ancient, 47 million year-old, ancestor. (See the CNN Article here) Ironically, the fundamentalist atheists deny the term “missing link” until they believe they have discovered one, at which point they rejoice in worship of the fossil.

Despite promulgating Ida as scientific proof of evolution, filling in the gaps of the human evolutionary lineage, there is nothing about the fossil that proves evolution; much less the sequence of events in their imaginary evolutionary chain. The fossil is a dead organism and there is no scientific means to link the species to any other species through lineage. The claims made by the “scientists” are completely devoid of any scientific merit. Instead, the assertions posed are nothing more than scientific interpretation according to the presuppositions of the Humanists involved.

The scientists claim Ida supports the ape-to-human evolutionary tale because it has opposable thumbs and a similar talus bone. However, lemurs in existence today have opposable thumbs. Furthermore, while the talus bone might appear similar to the same bone in humans, there are other differences in the ankle that are not similar to humans. Overall, all the imagined evidences from Ida that Evolutionists uphold as proof of common descent can be explained by the natural variations (e.g. adaptations) within the Lemur kind. One can argue with as much validity that similarities between kinds are due to a common designer – Humanist opposition to this assertion, usually accompanied by flagrant profanity, is rooted in religious faith, not scientific superiority.

By Humanist standards, every fossil found can be used as evidence of molecules-to-man evolution because there is no science involved – just interpretation via predetermined bias. If you ask a Keith Olbermann if Obama is doing well in his job as president you will likely get an affirmative answer. Conversely, if you ask Rush Limbaugh you will get the opposite answer. Both individuals have the same evidence upon which to base their opinions and both men will undoubtedly defend their positions as fact; the difference is derived from their interpretation of the data per their preexisting bias. Humanists have a predetermined bias towards interpreting all data as evidence for their belief in molecules-to-man evolution. Because they ardently believe in their religious doctrine they will refuse to apply alternative interpretations, even if they provide a better explanation and a better fit to the evidence.

Once again, we are being indoctrinated by a biased media and faction of the “scientific” community. The “missing link” remains missing and no amount of just-so storytelling will substitute for real science.

No comments:

Post a Comment