Irreducible complexity and Evolution

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Well unless he is having the computer read this to him, which is possible I beleive you mean "are you reading this at all".

Again, you and your crew are dodging questions ,you can't answer Be honest, and say so.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: peter vlar

Why did human feet need to be attached to her?

What are you talking about? She has Australopithecus Afarensis feet attached to her.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Phantom423

Are you listening at all?
Start from the beginning...
That's how you find answers...
You can work your way backwards to find beginning if you must but until you do you will never have all the answers...

Why don't you just answer the question instead of reverse engineering the subject. But keep going. You're doing fine. You'll lead yourself right to where you'll be banging your head against a wall because you led yourself down the path to real science.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: peter vlar

Why did human feet need to be attached to her?

What are you talking about? She has Australopithecus Afarensis feet attached to her.

That's great. I have to bookmark this.

a reply to: peter vlar

Ahh yeah I know what he's saying. Certain folks think that her feet are "too human like" to allow evolution, thus evolution is wrong etc.

a reply to: Noinden

I'm asking you things you don't even try to answer well acknowledge would be more accurate...Except for introducing your entertaining myths...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Neighbour, I answered your questions. It is not my fault that you are myopic in your faith. I can assume you suffer from selective memory. Because otherwise one can only assume, that you are not being genuine here.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Noinden

I'm asking you things you don't even try to answer well acknowledge would be more accurate...Except for introducing your entertaining myths...

Here's a suggestion:

Make a list of your questions. This way they won't get confused with human feet on Australopithicus and vice versa.

Sorry I'm still cracking up on that one.

a reply to: Phantom423



This is Lucy
Once more... why were human feet added to her?

a reply to: Phantom423

Apparently someone read this "article" from their creationist rag

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Phantom423

This is Lucy
Once more... why were human feet added to her?

I don't know what you're referring to. You have to ask Peter Vlar as he's the paleoanthropologist. Frankly, I don't see any feet, but I may be wrong. It's not my field.

a reply to: Noinden

I don't goto creationist sites or evolutionist sites either...
Stop assuming things like an evolutionist...

a reply to: Phantom423

You are right you don't see any feet there...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

There are no evolutionist sites neighbour. You should call them by the correct names. Scienctific sites. The only folk who call scientists evolutionists, are creationists, trying to manufacture an enemy

I am not assuming things, you've proven this each and every post you make.

I just wanted to show how you guys falsify answers and and ridicule others to portray yourselves as actually knowing things you don't...
Thanks for playing...

a reply to: Noinden

Yet you fully assumed knowing the answer to my question which I asked specifically to prove how you are actually assuming things...

Please give an example of falsification. Thanks

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Phantom423

You are right you don't see any feet there...

I just downloaded the original paper. I think Brian Thomas of the ICR website came away with some very erroneous conclusions.

The paper is really describing a transitional fossil of one of the foot metatarsals. Transitional fossils are not unusual. So I don't see how this particular metatarsal is any different. Again, Peter Vlar is the one to comment on this in detail. But that's what it looks like to me.

Mr. Thomas asks whether human metatarsals could have been found at Hadar. Probably not because Australopithicus predates humans by about 4M years I think.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

And now I have a question for you. Brian Thomas of ICR wrote the paper about Australopithicus at the Hadar site in Africa. That site has been shown by many chemical, geochemical and stratigraphical analyses to be millions of years old. Why isn't Mr. Thomas just rejecting the entire find? I thought you folks believe that the Earth/universe is only 6,000 years old?
How does that work?

a reply to: Phantom423

Who's us folks?
Time to God is not the same as to man...
1000 years is as a day and a day is as 1000 years to him...
Time has no hold over God...
Therefore 7 days to him could just as easily be explained away as billions of years to us...