Discoveries Like This One Force an Uncomfortable Question
From the NY Times:
Little Girl, 3 Million Years Old, Offers New Hints on Evolution
If the fossil Lucy, the most famous woman from out of the deep human past, had a child, it might have looked a lot like the bundle of skull and bones uncovered by scientists digging in the badlands of Ethiopia.
The paleontologists who are announcing the discovery in the journal Nature today said the 3.3-million-year-old fossils were of the earliest well-preserved child ever found in the human lineage. It was estimated to be about 3 years old at death, probably female and a member of the Australopithecus afarensis species, the same as Lucy’s.
I wonder how those who hold on to the idea that the earth is only about 6,000 years old can keep holding on, why it’s so important, and why the thousands and thousands of people with scientific evidence to the contrary are all being intellectually dishonest.
Commenters, please: I’m not going to debate evolution here, just the age of the earth. Stay on point, or I won’t post your response.
Despite being what some would define a “religious person,” and a Christian, I find it easy to reconcile the legitimate age of the Earth with my beliefs. Some people believe that we didn’t land on the moon… I’d imagine they’re in a similar vein. Still, I have no problem with individuals who fundamentally believe this planet is 6,000 years old, so long as they don’t try to blow up the bus I happen to be riding, or the skyscraper I’m doing business in.
Comment by Chucko — September 25, 2006 @ 12:20 pm