Lucy: More Fraud

[JohnR7]

John, the "TEs" would be the "evos" you are talking about...

Yes, TE's are Evos and there are a lot of them. The polls show at least 46% of the people are TE.

Are you assuming they still believe in Creationism (not your definition, the one for all animals being created in their present form)?

If they believe in God, then they believe in creationism.

 

[Dr.GH]

Posts are being edited to benefit and protect creationists. I see no more reason to post here other than the fact that creationist fanatics have taken over. I will be amused to watch the bannings to come.

If in the future taliban like creationists are allowed to take over the larger political process, it will be burnings and not bannings.

 

[Split Rock]

If they believe in God, then they believe in creationism.

Stop trying to play games with words. Creationism in this context means they accept "special creation" of all life on earth.

 

[JohnR7]

I think pretty much all debates with John would end if he simply used the same dictionary as the rest of us.

When God throws your dictionary in the fire once and for all, then that should resolve everything according to your theory.

 

[JohnR7]

Stop trying to play games with words. Creationism in this context means they accept "special creation" of all life on earth.

Lets take a look at what Francis Collins has to say about it on page 171 of his book: "The Language of God".

Taken at face value the term "creationist" would seem to imply the general perspective of one who argues for the existence of a God who was directly involved in the Creation of the universe. In that broad sense, many deists and nearly all theists, including me, would need to count themselves as a creationist.

Now, if you want to try to deny this, you will need find a expert on the same level as Dr Collins to show us a different approach then this one.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Lets take a look at what Francis Collins has to say about it on page 171 of his book: "The Language of God".

So much for God's dictionary. That wasn't much use to you, now was it?

Now, if you want to try to deny this, you will need find a expert on the same level as Dr Collins to show us a different approach then this one.

Johnny, you know perfectly well what the word "Creationist" means in the context as it is used on this forum. You gain nothing by being willfully obtuse.

 

[Split Rock]

Lets take a look at what Francis Collins has to say about it on page 171 of his book: "The Language of God".



Now, if you want to try to deny this, you will need find a expert on the same level as Dr Collins to show us a different approach then this one.

I don't give a rat's rear-end what your quote-mining from Francis Collins says. Everyone here including you knows how the term "Creationist" is used in this forum.

Did you ever stop to think that you would not need to stoop to sophistry and quote-mining if your views were really the Truth as you claim?

 

[angelocrator]

Still waiting for an explanation why a photo of a plastic gorilla skull is evidenve for "Lucy is a hoax".

 

[Data]

Oh my god. I completely missed this thread.

Let me get this straight - John posts a plastic gorilla skull, claims that it's lucy's skull, then completely ignores any criticism to the contrary, responding with "EVOLUTIONISTS ARE FRAAUDS RAAARGGHH"?

*breaks out the popcorn

 

[Grummpy]

I think this is a better photo.

Grumpy

 

[Grummpy]

http://www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/afarensis/images/afarensis

I think this is a better photo.

Grumpy

 

[angelocrator]

Oh my god. I completely missed this thread.

Let me get this straight - John posts a plastic gorilla skull, claims that it's lucy's skull, then completely ignores any criticism to the contrary, responding with "EVOLUTIONISTS ARE FRAAUDS RAAARGGHH"?

*breaks out the popcorn

His line of reasoning seems to be: even if the skull is not what he claims it to be, it still proves that evolutionists are frauds and fake evidence.

Or something like that.

 

[JohnR7]

Lucy is yet another example of evolutionist fraud and deception.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

Lucy is yet another example of evolutionist fraud and deception.

John, again in your own words:

If your going to come on here and make these claims then you have to back it up with something. This is a science forum, so present your scientific evidence to back up your claim.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Lucy is yet another example of evolutionist fraud and deception.

Because you posted a plastic skull?

 

[JohnR7]

Because you posted a plastic skull?

Lucy is a clear cut case of fraud. We have been over all of this before, so there is no reason to go over it again. But here is a link for anyone that wants to study up on Lucy. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1651429/posts

 

[Nathan Poe]

Lucy is a clear cut case of fraud. We have been over all of this before, so there is no reason to go over it again.

Indeed. You posted a pic of a plastic skull, tried to pass it off as real, and the rest of us got a good laugh.

At least you had the decency to edit the OP to take off the picture. Fortunately, it was quoted enough to still be visible for anyone who wants to revisit your claim.

Comedy platinum.

But here is a link for anyone that wants to study up on Lucy.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1651429/posts

Obviously such a wonderously reliable site need not bother with proper spelling, as I discoverd a few laughable typos in the review of the video they're selling, but out of curiousity, is there where you got the pic of the plastic skull in the first place?

 

[birdan]

Lucy is a clear cut case of fraud. We have been over all of this before, so there is no reason to go over it again. But here is a link for anyone that wants to study up on Lucy. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1651429/posts

Here's a little nugget from the above link that Johnny posted for everyone to "study up" on Lucy:

Lucy's actual remains did not included hands or feet and reconstructions are commonly presented with human or near-human hands and feet despite the fact that other skeletons of the same creature have hands and feet which are clearly those of an ape, with curved fingers for moving about in trees. Mary Leakey in fact had found clear tracks of human footprints in the same strata and location as Lucy's remains and the assumption is that at least one australopithicus MUST have had human feet.

Asked whether a better explanation would be that the tracks were simply produced by humans, Leakey and others replied that was impossible since the tracks were millions of years old.

The obvious explanation of course is that a human made the footprints and "Lucy" was simply that human's pet monkey.

 

[JohnR7]

Here's a little nugget from the above link that Johnny posted for everyone to "study up" on Lucy:

By all means study up on Mary Leakey. She was one of the evolutionists that tried to embellish Lucy to give her an appearance of being human.

Mary Leakey wrote: "It is tempting to see them as a man, a woman and a child,"

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

By all means study up on Mary Leakey. She was one of the evolutionists that tried to embellish Lucy to give her an appearance of being human.

Quote:

Mary Leakey wrote: "It is tempting to see them as a man, a woman and a child,"

As usual John, your quote is out of context and was followed by:

'Whether or not this is so,'' she continues, ''the middle-sized individual was stepping deliberately into the prints left by the largest'' - in the manner (as the photographer Alan Root suggested to her) of the game ''Follow My Leader.'' Evocative and wonderful as they are, the prints are also of crucial significance scientifically, for they settled a dispute that many anthropologists thought never could be settled: here was ''incontrovertible proof'' that early man had walked upright, and far earlier than anyone had thought.

The context being not that they were human but that they walked upright.