Evidence of the Missing Link Found?

HUADPE writes to tell us CNN is reporting that scientists in northeastern Ethiopia recently discovered a skull that they think may be evidence of the "missing link" between Homo erectus and modern man. From the article: "The hominid cranium -- found in two pieces and believed to be between 500,000 and 250,000 years old -- 'comes from a very significant period and is very close to the appearance of the anatomically modern human,' said Sileshi Semaw, director of the Gona Paleoanthropological Research Project in Ethiopia."

Comments

Summary of Kent Hovinds video

[pikine]

Here are some of his points, not necessarily in this order.

1. Geological layers and fossil age. He quotes directly from textbooks used at school exhibiting this circular reasoning. As his objective is to eliminate lies from textbooks, I think this point alone fulfills the thesis of his talk.
2. He argues that if geological layers are formed chronically, the same ordering of layers should be widely observable, but only a few sites today show the correct layer order.
3. He argues that geological layers can be formed in a matter of a few years due to relative particle density, similar to the way a stirred glass of mud water quickly settles down to layers. He uses the findings of standing trees that crosses geological layers to support this argument.
4. He argues that the Grand Canyon cannot result from Colorado river cutting the rocks slowly, since the peak of the rocks are much more elevated than the source of the river, and that water does not flow uphills.
5. He uses the Grand Canyon example to show how Evolutionism and Creationism can cause people to interpret natural phenomenon differently. Evolutionists would claim that Grand Canyon is formed over a long period of time even when the conjecture clearly violates laws of physics.
6. Furthermore, he argues that Grand Canyon was formed due to a large body of water breaking through the surrounding land that was what the canyon used to be. The outburst of water body etched the canyon in a short amount of time.
7. He argues that, since some fossilized ancient creatures, onced believed to be extinct, are still found alive today, it is generally not possible to identify the age of geological layers by the fossil it contains.
8. He argues that genetic mutation does not create new information. There are two headed turtles, but the heads are the same. The extra head isn't a new design.
9. He argues that genetic mutation generally loses functionality, resulting in a specie inferior to its ancestor. This is a finding of a US governemnt research.
10. He points out that natural selection does not create new genetic design (which should be obvious).
11. He argues that mutation has limits, and that it cannot create a new kind of specie.
12. He concludes that genetic mutation and natural selection is not the cause of diversity of kinds.
13. He points out the historical background of a few philosophers (including Charles Darwin) who opposed the teaching of the bible and claims that these philosophers have ulterior motive, but I don't remember much from that.

Re:Sure, but it's a big jump, still from H.E to th

[JourneyExpertApe]

How did this ever make it to +4 Insightful? It's more like "inciteful". Is there some sarcasm or cultural reference I'm missing?

I happen to be from "the middle", and I've never believed in or been taught creationism. And besides, we middle dwellers know what would happen if the coasts were isolated from the rest. California's economy would collapse because it produces nothing but bad movies and even worse wine, and the East would become one big ghetto (but the rent would still be $1000/ft^2).