It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Siblin
Only for the uninformed, Fromabove. Good Wolf was correct in saying that we already strongly suspect that the species Australopithecus afarensis was NOT a direct ancestor, although early observations (from the 1970's) did have us thinking that she was for a while. Lucy remains important to human evolution, however, due to the possibility of full-time bipedalism. Lucy has some features that suggest that she still spent time in trees, but her pelvic bone is very indicitive of upright walking. Even partial bipedalism is significant, though, considering she lived over three million years ago. You don't dismiss cousins just because you were expecting a grandfather...not when it is your chance to further understand your family tree.
Originally posted by Fromabove
Well... they say what they said, and that's good enough for me because I don't have any stock in evolution.
Originally posted by Horza
So many fallacious and lines of argument that are even contradicted by other Creationists ... I don't even know where to begin ... so I won't
But, Clearskies, it is admirable to see that you will use an Islamic source for your arguments ... Very multi faith of you ...
Originally posted by solomons path
What I find funny is that creationists think by anyone debating them on the merits of their argument . . . it means that we are trying to change your views or beliefs . . . People are free to believe what they want, however; that belief doesn't make something true. It's seems odd that such fervent followers see dissention as something they should question their faith over.