"Lucy" finished and debunked

reply to post by AshleyD


We all know that if I brought big foot itself out and it tongue pashed Adnan Oktar he would tell us that it was just particularly hairy and tall human with really bad kissing technique and deny me my trillionairship and your 100 mil.

reply to post by Horza


No doubt about it. His offer is probably something along the lines of the James Randi psychic challenge or the Zeitgest challenge. Nobody will ever win it. lol And then 8 trillion dollars? Come on. Not even oils sheiks or Bill Gates has that kind of money.

reply to post by AshleyD


The James Randi challenge was perfectly scientific. Unfortunately, not for Randi, that all those who profess to have paranormal abilities are wrong. It's that simple. It's like if I have a challenge that anyone who can demonstrate, mathematically, that 4=5, and no-one wins, that it's not that the challenge is unfair, but that anyone who claims they can show that 4=5 is completely wrong. It's not Randi's fault all the self-proclaimed psychics can't demonstrate their abilities in a controlled environment, is it?

reply to post by dave420


Note to self: Never again attempt to use humor in the presence of evolutionists.

Ah.... (as I relax in my chair and sigh) it's so refreshing to see another evolution stronghold bite the dust yet again. This so called "science" is more wishful feelings and assumptions than anything else. Well... I guess it's back to the drawing board once again.

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 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.

Well... they say what they said, and that's good enough for me because I don't have any stock in evolution.

I once saw a documentary on human evolution some years ago...and i dont remember the species of ape that they considered our "missing link"...but the show stated that because it was the first ape that stood upright and walked on 2 legs, thus freeing our hands for different use, was our missing link....and that ape was far far older than lucy by a few million years

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.

Don't be so daft. An incomplete human evolutionary tree doesn't disprove evolution. We can look at what is there and see morphological development from a to b (just not a to z). We can look at other animals in the fossil record and see their evolutionary passage. We can look at genetics and see that Homo Sapian Sapians and Homo Neanderthalensis were separate species which didn't exist before Erectus (funny that). Hell, we can even force it to happen in the lab and take one species and make two.

Lucy shifting status from common ancestor to ancient cousin species is no loss to evolutionary theory, but it's an imaginary victory for you creationists.

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

Please do explain it to me.
I need help to jump the hurdles of evolutionary faith.

But, Clearskies, it is admirable to see that you will use an Islamic source for your arguments ... Very multi faith of you ...

I didn't know it was muslim, but, that's not the point.
The point is the fossils that show NO adaptations....

reply to post by AshleyD


Note to you: especially when you keep on making ridiculous assertions of reality, to such a degree that your humour is indistinguishable from other aspects of your world-view.

reply to post by dave420


Another worthless post from Super Dave.

Here's the problem I have with Creationism:
One, according to the theory (the fundie Christian, not any of the other ones) all animals on Earth existed at one time together on Earth.
Problem: Food sources, space, mating habits.
Now, apparently, and I'm taking this from Creationists, this can be explained that all animals before the fall ate plants.
Which doesn't work, most of the grass eater we know, to sustain a viable population would have made a dessert if they all existed around the same place at the same time.
matinghabit are a problem because of terrotorial rights and alphas.
Now, according to the Fundiemtalists, their habits are all due to Mankind's Fall.
All because God made us curiouse, inquistive, and free willed.
Then put a tree in front of us with a big "Do not eat!" sign. Adam or Eve wouldn't have needed the snake, they were human. It've happend anyway.
Now, beyond that, there's geology. The layers of limestone that make up part of Florida... (cont'd)

The limesonte layers in Florida, as a personaly observation, are old. They are part of when Florida used to be under water, a very long time ago.
And if you're like me, you're in Awe of the fact that you are kayaking through what used to be open ocean (shallow, but still) so very long ago.
Now, a lot of limestone is layers due to the way it's formed, sediments from sea critters over many years, s'why you cna get some remarkable fossils from it.
However, because of these layers, and because you can gauge how quickly the sediment is laid down, these layers are markedly older than the dates for YE, and because of layering you can see the changes even simple life forms go through over time.
I'm not saying this to convince anyone, of course. Belief doesn't work that way.
Both sides have their reasons for believing.
All I needed from God was a 3x6 note card, and I got it.
(Cont'd)

Books, and history, are meant to be read, interpreted, and on occasion, they get learned from as well.
Facts stick around in the dirst until someone comes along and polishes them. After which they can, and generally do fade again.
Seems to me it's not often argued if animals evolved, it's argued whether or not humans did.
Makes, sense, we are kinda opinionated like that.
What some call flaws, I can I call gaps that need to be filled.
No difference, you say, but one seems to make it false, the other says it needs more polishing.
Er... anyway, enough of my foolishness, be much obliged if a mod could merge these post since my letter count runs out 'cause i talk to much.
Let's just keep this civil from here folks, eh? Most of this stuff was over and done with well before our great grands were a twinkle.
Maybe it's a passion, but no reason to get insultive about it, both sides can speak their points without 'em.

This argument doesn't do anything to disprove evolution, one or the other . . . First, the whole missing link thing is a red herring latched on to by creationists. 99% of all species that every lived are extinct and only a small fraction of those make fossils. Fossils are actually a rareity when something dies, not the norm. So, the lack of fossil evidence does nothing to disprove or prove anything.

The true indicator of evolution, and where our ancestry can be traced back, is in the genome. It's cleary evident and well documented that our last split on the evolutionary chain was with the apes. The exact chromosomes that drifted are even mapped. How and when can't be answered . . . yet. However, at least there is tangible data to back this theory. Something that can be observed, measured, tested. What can creationism bring that doesn't come from a book written by mortals or from faith. . . . Which by definition means believing in something, despite the absence of proof or fact.

Here's a easy to understand article on genetics . . .
More proof of evolution . . . not belief.

reply to post by AshleyD


Hardly. I'm trying to demonstrate to you, politely, that when you have an illogical view of one area of the world (science), and then decide to joke about it, your joke is indistinguishable from your posts when you are being serious. That's it. It was a gentle reminder, that's all.

I'll take 'Super Dave' as a compliment - thanks!

reply to post by dave420


No, Dave. Sorry. It's just more sad attempts from you to insult anyone who does not believe what you do and an attempt to shame other people out of what they believe. Get over it. It would take someone of a higher intelligence caliber than yourself to change my mind on this matter. I believe a creator is behind our existence. Make all the fun of that you want to. It's what I believe. Anyways, I feel kind of silly arguing with a '420-er.'

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.

No rational thinking person is looking for all to follow evolution blindly . . . where creationism is concerned, we (sic) are asking that you don't pervert REAL science by adding creationism to the mix. Creationism is not science and has no scientific merit . . . teach your kids in your home and spread the word at your chuch. Just keep it out of schools and the public sphere until you can test and measure it . . . until that time . . . it's part of religion and we are protected under the constitution to be free of it.

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.

I have no problem with someone debating me on a friendly, intellectual level. I'm talking about the insults that have been flying out of that member's mouth towards any creationist for months in many threads- not necessarily just this particular thread.

[edit on 10/2/2008 by AshleyD]