Hacker News Reader

Comment by yummyfajitas | Hacker News Reader

On the contrary, this only hurts the theory of evolution.

Before, there was only one hole (between the early lemurs and primates). Now there are two holes: the hole between the early lemurs and Ida, and another between Ida and the primates. ;)

View on HN

I understand you were joking but there's a grain of truth in what you're saying. People who don't believe in Evolution are looking for holes in the theory and those holes will always exist. Because no matter how many fossils we do find they can always claim there were ones we didn't find that co-existed with humans. So the anti-evolution crowd will always have all the grounds they need to not believe.

Part of the sick beauty of Creationism is that there's no way to prove it wrong (though I'd argue that's largely because it's based on no real facts in the first place)

There are those who have split the theory in two: micro vs. macro evolution.

http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v1i4f.htm

Some people who have normally shunned the entire concept of the evolution theory in the past have now integrated micro-evolution into their belief systems yet vehemently oppose macro-evolution.

No matter which path you take (creationism vs evolution), I guess it's just turtles all the way down. ;)

No matter which path you take (creationism vs evolution), I guess it's just turtles all the way down.

This is incorrect. With creationism/ID, it is expected that you do not question the nature of the creator/designer beyond what information is provided in texts or by religious/ideological leaders. With evolution, the principles are based on math and chemistry, which is in turn based on physics, which is currently being probed down to the smallest scales possible. (Contrary to what you might have been told, there is a lower limit to physics.)

Contrary to what you might have been told, there is a lower limit to physics.

I agree. But...

There is no limit to the determination of people defending their beliefs against any theory for which science provides evidence.

    Creationista Lisp v1.0

    CL-BELIEVER> (= evidence truth)
    nil

Yeehaa. And their beliefs reside in yesterday's rubbish - and always will until the new order comes.

It's quarks all the way down.

Part of the sick beauty of Creationism is that there's no way to prove it wrong

It's not that you could never prove Creationism wrong, it's that faith is not required to be proven. That's why it is called faith. People who believe in God are going to believe in God, even if you could irrefutably prove beyond any doubt that (a) evolutionary theory is correct and (b) God doesn't exist.

You'd still have failed to prove it in their "heart", or wherever pure, unadulterated illogicality happens to live.

Can you believe in God and evolution at the same time?

Depends on which god you're talking about.

Depends on who you're talking to

I think a lot of people do.

That's a silly question. You can believe whatever you want.

I guess I meant the question to be read in a more Socratic manner, rather it being a genuine question.

Absoluely right. The rubric of "faith" admits of every illogicality because its premise is the very admission of unprovables

The hype about this being "the" missing link strengthens the case that the exception proves the rule--it is almost an admission that the evidence for evolution was lacking.

Incidentally, creationists are also able to use this fossil to bolster their argument for a biblical creation and worldwide flood: http://answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/19/ida-missing-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com