REALLY!!! THESE are the people who produced the flat earth society....have to force things to fit to fit their preconceived view...not science...only science fiction.
They had to "force" it to fit and change the natural ape skeleton to fit into their view...could anyone imagine a Christian doing this in science and would not have been legitmately ridiculed....of course this can happen in the name of "modern science"...love to have my kids educated by these idiots..which is why they are not!!!
Does no one understand? The bone was clearly damaged before fossilization, giving the false impression of having ape hips. The knee was more human, meaning the animal would have extreme difficulty walking on all fours like an ape. So who's right? Evolutionists who actually went out and found this creature, or the creationists who misinterpreted the finding?
@wasdare32 Don't forget the curvature of the spine, the shape of the sacrum, and the shape of the talus, all show a habitual biped. A great resource is the University of Texas Austin anthropology site. Search "elucy" and you'll see what I mean.
@earlysda Pay attention, the fossils were NOT cut up. It was a cast that was cut apart and examined and put back together as you might fix a dropped piece of pottery. The curves of the bone indicated how everything fit back together. Basic anatomy fail.
@earlysda Normally I'd be more polite and patient, but as our previous discussions have proven that you are nothing more than an illiterate dumbass, I'll not hold back.The curves of the bone itself show how the blade of inominate was constructed. As found the shape matched neither genus Pan or Homo, so the shape was wrong. The parts of the cast showed how it all fit back together. Additionally, the rest of the parts found showed bipedalism. Learn the basics before you talk.
@earlysda Stuff it halfwit. I actually have a cast of the entire pelvis and can see exactly what was done and where. Unless you can say as much, or provide references (which I can also do) you're simply talking out your ass. A familiar case for creationists.
@NorthForkFisherman Failed theory believers usually resort to profanity about 3/4 thru the life cycle of their theory, just after the stage they realize it is failed, and are groping about wildly.
The next step in failed theories is to call on the strong arm of the state to uphold their decrees and dogmas. That, of course, has been going on a while with evolutionary believers, and we can expect it to get worse, until a theory blowing away this theory comes along :)
@earlysda Oh, I've gotten nowhere near profane as you are simply not worth the effort. What I have clearly demonstrated is all you have is your bullshit opinion and nothing more. Now, unless you have proof in one way or another, we're done. Do you have proof or no?
Open your eyes and your mind, and you will see that "faith by consensus", which is what evolutionists believe, is not the truth.
Evolutionists have not one iota of evidence for origins, and yet that is the most important part of the discussion. Look around you, everything works like God said it does. Nothing works like evolutionists say it does.
@earlysda The phrase in question is: "Citation needed". So again, all you have is opinion? Which does not matter. And the subject here is AL 288-1. Stay on that or bugger off. Tell you what, never mind. Just keep yammering away, saying nothing. You do my work for me.
@earlysda Threats? Bwahahaha. Nah, I just let you run your mouth and reveal how clueless you are. All you've done is give opinion. And again, no one cares what you think, dumbass. It's what can you prove? How about the sacrum? Have you even bothered to look at that? I'll bet not. Creatards all avoid talking about AL 288-1s' sacrum.
@NorthForkFisherman You did threaten me. You are similar to a bulldog who goes into a neighbor's yard, sits down, and chases off all that neighbor's friends who come for a visit.
Evolutionists have the evidence in front of them (including broken bones), and yet they choose to believe their own "pie-in-the-sky" theories. Or should i say magical god of "time"?
YOU are the evidence for creation, whether you like it or not :)
@earlysda And another violation of the 9th, unless you are threatened by the truth. I have not threatened you. I have revealed that you are a gibbering halfwit who has no real information, just their BS opinion. Keep talking, empty head. Keep talking.
@earlysda You think "bugger off' is a threat? Damn, you are dense. I know you are ESL, but that's borderline with being mentally disabled. Oh, wait. You're a creationist. That explains so much. So do you actually have any factual information, or do you think that your meaningless opinion suddenly has worth?
@earlysda Now as far as factual information, I think that it's time for some more. Do you remember what I said earlier about the sacrum and how creationists avoid talking about it? That's because the sacrum of AL 288-1 is short and triangular, evolved for bearing and distributing the weight of a body out to the hips of a bipedal creature.
@JMcH He did not alter them he returned it to their natural position. Also you are forgetting that lucy is not the only Australopithecus afarensis found. After her discovery many other specimens have been found that confirm her species did walk up right.
@AWEF321 - There is absolutely no proof in the other fossils that what Lovejoy did to the bones truly "returned it to their natural position"[sic]. And honestly, why is it this bone that was allegedly deformed? Why can't it be the other bones that evolutionists claim show signs of bipedalism (and no, they have not confirmed anything -- why do evolutionists lie so much?) which are deformed? Maybe we should take a power saw to those bones and restore them to their natural position.
@AWEF321 - There is absolutely no proof in the other fossils that what Lovejoy did to the bones truly "returned it to their natural position"[sic]. And honestly, why is it this bone that was allegedly deformed? Why can't it be the other bones that evolutionists claim show signs of bipedalism (and no, they have not confirmed anything -- why do evolutionists lie so much?) which are deformed? Maybe we should take a power saw to those bones and restore them to their natural position.
"Complete Fourth Metatarsal and Arches in the Foot of Australopithecus afarensis" by Carol V. Ward, William H. Kimbel, and Donald C. Johanson.
This paper shows that the fourth metatarsal of Au afarensis from Hadar demonstrates "that the A. afarensis foot was functionally like that of modern humans and support the hypothesis that this species was a committed terrestrial biped."
@NorthForkFisherman Sure no problem...If you can use a power grinder to make the fossil fit into your world view. It was sarcasm if u didn't get it.. "lucy's hips looked chimp like...so she could not have made the tracks she was credited with...all was not lost though"...A power saw and some adjusting. a little plaster, some glue, and there you go...perfect human shaped hips. That is science
@smoothpeople33 First off I'd like to salute your dedication at violating the 9th Commandment in spirit if not deed. You work very hard at only hearing part of the story, don't you? Seems you missed that part where they said that it didn't match either genus Pan or Homo? Oh, that's right, this is the creationist edited version, rather than the full Nova program. Little wonder. Would you really like an education about AL 288-1? Bipedalism was shown first in AL 129-1, not Lucy. Your turn.
@NorthForkFisherman first, I read AL-288-1, its nothing new..just lucy. AL 129-1 is probably a monkey bone, maybe 2 different monkeys bones. This would never hold in a court of law. I dont care which world view u begin with, this has nothing to do with that. This just has to do with bad science and a lot of faith.
Second, if monkeys, apes, or any other animal could walk on 2 legs, no SOLID record is left and it dosent prove they descended into any relatives at all. Just an extinct monkey.
@smoothpeople33 Suvery says - WRONG. You seem to think this is the only Au afarensis in existence? More australopithecines are found every year and all of them, ALL OF THEM, directly support the original interpretation of bidedalism. For those that are interested, the University of Texas Austin maintains the elucy site where you can directly compare AL 288-1 to samples of both human and chimpanzee bones. The sacrum is very telling - almost a human sacurm. Funny thing that, neh?
@smoothpeople33 "Any other animal"? Might want to rephrase that? Ever hear of birds? The ostrich, moa, emu, cassowary, all go about on two legs and yes, they have left traces as well as their current existence. Be careful about making blanket statements about things you really don't understand.
@NorthForkFisherman You missed the point. Im not speaking of birds im speaking of the tracks that "Lucy" supposedly made. I know you must be aware that there have been feet found on other specimens even though lucy didn't have feet and only 40% of the fossil. Since the curve of the feet have been shown to not be human like at all and clearly aren't responsible for the Laetoli footprints. A 6 year old could look at the prints dont fit match. Just a lot of media deception.
@smoothpeople33 Then speak to specific examples and don't make such sweeping generalities lest you be called on it, neh? And AL 288-1 did have enough of the feet to get a general idea of what they looked like, human-like with a slight splaying of the big toe as confirmed by later finds in South Africa as well as at the First Family site. Hell, Au. afarensis even had a arch. Like I've told others before-go to the elucy site and compare the bones directly.
BereanBeacon1...I don't think creationist needs any more proofs of intelligent designs...the proofs will be unfolding pretty soon (by the fullfillment of the coming prophecies of the book of Revelation) In fact, prophecies are being fullfilled through out history already...like the fall of the Roman empire to the dark ages to the rise of the Western powers. When the full force of God's wrath on the unrighteous unfolds right in front of our eyes "EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW, EVERY TOUGUE WILL CONFESS"
@mr22kingkong22 Amen. I reply to the hearts of stone that if they go through the Great Tribulation, not to take the mark or worship the beast even thought he will believe in evolution.
Apollyon Rising 2012
h t t p://w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=uyQGy12FU5c
Evolutionist can't have it any other way...if they are wrong ...the only option is intelligent design. That is why they would lie, accuse, exaggerate, ...do whatever it takes to make their theories look valid. When you give into intelligent design, you have to find out who, then obey...exactly what they are trying to avoid.
@mr22kingkong22 Evolutionists are very gifted, when it comes to writing volumes of literature in an attempt to explain the failures of their science fiction. As you know, we are very interested in real science, but when evolutionists do present real science, they use the bait and switch technique as a sleazy salesmen, to slip in science fiction.
@s209004284 Sure, who told you that, your mom during home school?
The DNA code and ERVs would not be the way they are unless evolution happened.
ERVs are lingering remnants of failed viral infection, which occurred in an ancestor's sex cell and got propagated in its offspring. The viral insertion site is completely random and finding one in the same location in two individuals indicates they each had that same ancestor. Humans and chimps have 98,000 ERV locations in common. Hmmmm?
Many evolutionists hold the misconception that creation never presents evidence, but evolution presents plenty.
Creation and evolution have *exactly* the same evidence and operational science at their disposal. What is different is the interpretation, based on that evidence or science.
There is plenty of evidence that can be used to argue for creation, but evolutionists simply reject it. Evidence is not the problem, people’s thinking or worldview, making them reject creation, is.
Dr. Patton's PhD. is in Christian Education, not science. Like so many other creationists, his doctorate comes from an unaccredited university or, like dr. Patton's, is in an unrelated discipline. He is not qualified. Like many others, I'm still waiting for you to look at any number of sites (start at Wikipedia if you like) where Richard Dawkins' 33 peer reviewed papers are listed. You refuse to acknowledge this and this is a theme of creationism--ignoring everything that you can't dismiss.
@gregrutz Religion is often described as belief in things unseen in nature, evolution certainly describes events that are not possibly observed or tested. The evidence is shotty at best and yet millions of people put their faith in such evidence. There is more evidence for a worldwide flood than there is of macro evolution.
@TruthSeekingOne Geologists went looking for evidence of a global flood over 200 years ago. They did not find any.
They found distinct layers of different kinds of rock with different fossil in them. Floods don't do that. They discovered it must have taken millions of years to make what we see. They knew the earth was Millions of years old before radiometric dating was invented and showed it was Billions of years old.
Evolution has bee observed in nature and in the lab.
@gregrutz Your answer to the question is this "Not knowing does not prove anything."
It isn't "not knowing" to say that polonium halos can only be formed quickly therefor the granite cannot be millions of years old, it simply gives evidence for a young earth and that is KNOWING something, it is just another knife in the evolution theory (there are many).
Shells on mountains give evidence of young earth flood, fossils give evidence, diversity gives evidence, but you choose to ignore it.
@TruthSeekingOne Gentry's logic is flawed, the halos prove nothing.
''Shells on mountains give evidence of young earth flood'' WRONG
There are no shell ON mountains, the whole top of the mountain is an OLD Sea Bed. Thousands of feet of limestone laid down over millions of years and raised up by plate tectonics which was proven in the 50's.
Another sheeple who has never studied geology and just listens to preachers lie.
Fossils prove evolution happens. Diversity came from Evolution.
I think you are probably just copy paste happy and have no idea what you are talking about.
You'll believe in evidence that had a chainsaw taken to it, and you expect me to trust anything you say about evidence for evolution? Evolutionists are desperate for evidence since 99.9% of it has been proven either a fraud or not real evidence for much of anything except usually points to a global flood.
I think you are probably just copy paste happy and have no idea what you are talking about.
You'll believe in evidence that had a chainsaw taken to it, and you expect me to trust anything you say about evidence for evolution? Evolutionists are desperate for evidence since 99.9% of it has been proven either a fraud or not real evidence for much of anything except usually points to a global flood.
@gregrutz The farming date you mentioned, what dating method verified that, I am betting it has a large range for error and also any dates pre-flood would be far harder to verify because the earth went through many many changes which make accurate dating per-flood nearly impossible.
None of the dating methods "agree" with one another they are all millions of years apart repeatedly, if they were accurate I would expect a much smaller degree of error for them.
@TruthSeekingOne The dating methods do agree, that is one way they know they work. Same samples to different labs and different layers, the results are alway the same, the older layers are always the deeper layers.
BTW There is no evidence for a global flood, None. And all the evidence shows an old earth. There are trees older than 6000 years.
@gregrutz 99.9% of it has been proven either a fraud or not real evidence for much of anything'' Wrong DNA markers would only be the way they are if evolution was true.
@Ozzyman200 And what ever they do have, when fully examined in context, reveals that natural processes created it. Creationism is the end of imagination and learning. Heresy is a cradle, orthodoxy, a coffin.
@gregrutz What do you mean all those dating methods? Carbon Dating puts dinosaurs as only thousands of years old, not millions, although carbon dating has its flaws, at least it is more accurate than the others and makes more sense than the million year crap they come up with.
Wonder why they are finding soft tissue in dino bones these days?
@TruthSeekingOne They don't use Carbon 14 dating on Fossils, there is no cabon in them, they are rocks. And the method only works for less than 60,000 years. Enough to prove there was no global flood. Dinosaurs stopped making fossils 65 million years ago.jAnd they didn't find any 'soft tissue'' They soaked the rocks for weeks in strong acid to get the ''fresh'' tissue.
@TruthSeekingOne To learn something about the age of the earth, watch >> watch?v=w5369-OobM4
And you might brush up on your math too. 4,545 Million = 4.5 Billion
The age is from radiometric dating but they don't use Carbon 14 because there is no carbon in rocks or fossils, which are rocks. They use it to date the Egyptians to 6000 BC.
@gregrutz Haha excuse me, I initially read your comment to say 4.545 not 4,545 - thought it was a decimal!
At any rate, I already know the majority of scientists rely on these dating methods because they seem to work, but further investigation into the issues brought up by creationists reveal much of the evidence to support these methods are just based on assumptions and instead of basing my faiths on assumptions of ever-changing science, I would rather place my faith in God.
I read science all the time, like how about the science books that show Ernst Haeckel's fraudulent drawings and give them as evidence for the evolution lie?
How about those vestigial structures they give for evidence? A complete lie in each case the books present.
I know you comment and dislike every creation video you can find, I see your comment on the granite proves the earth is young, you are a joke dude let me explain why.
@Ozzyman200 Did you watch the same video, this video? They showed a clip from NOVA which supports evolution, and it shows their own dishonesty, not Christians. That's in your face proof, by the very people you believe. How deluded can you be, to deny such non-science?
Watch the video again carefully. Again, it presents no evidence. Merely claiming something is not evidence. Scientists have presented so much, books, nature, museums full of it. The video claims all sorts of things, as you did. Very well, we've presented our evidence, now your turn.
@Albertanator Actually, this was creationist BS at it's most henious. The sad part is seeing all the rubes sitting there and swallowing it down with out understanding that they were being lied to. It's pathetic, really.
This implies, falsely, that Lovejoy reassembled the pelvis fraudulently.
There was no fraud. He was perfectly open about what he'd done, showed his work in detail, left the original fossil as it was found (he did the work on a plaster cast), and all the experts in the field checked it. None disagreed.
The pelvis was broken, the bones had moved, and it had fused in an impossible position. Lovejoy restored it. Nothing more.
A afarensis was an obligate biped, like you and me.
@puffin02 You'll note that creationists never talk about any other Au. afarensis specimens, or that they never look at the rest of the defining features that confirm bipedalism here. The 1st cervical vertebra, the 5th lumbar, the configuration of the femur head and neck, the valgus angle of the knee, the sacrum, and the talus. All these bones show that AL 288-1 was a biped. From creationists? Not word one. Amazing what happens when you look at all the facts.
Scientists have presented mountains of evidence for evolution. Creationists never dare present any . Well, if they have any, why not present it? Well? Waiting.
@Ozzyman200 All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK, CLUCK. We are still waiting for Dr. Dawkins to submit a science paper for peer review.
Wow you're ignorant. You already spouted that nonsense on my page where it was resoundingly defeated. All you seem to have is cowardly anonymous attacks.
"We are still waiting for Dr. Dawkins to submit a science paper for peer review."
As you've already been told he has submitted many many papers, starting in 1968. Your lying won't make them disappear. Do some research.
Come on, put your money where your mouth is and give some evidence. Scientsist have. Why don't creationists?
@Ozzyman200 ONLY PRO-E people are ever allowed in science review..everyone else is kicked out...not to note the recently found dino dna...like that coudl exist for millions of years...typical propoganda like in North Korea..that is about as free as our science cirriculum is. State controlled BS!
So you think there's an enormous conspiracy in science to cover up the truth. Wow. Ok, demonstrate this. Scientists have produced mountains of evidence, creationists have yet to show any.
@BereanBeacon1 Regarding the 'Life Science Prize' challenge
Let's say you contracted a rare and deadly infection and there are only two medications which could possibly cure it. They completely counteract each other if you take both.
1: Has been developed by a team of epidemiologists and submitted to a wide array of epidemiologists for further testing.
2: Has been developed by a kinesiologist and submitted only to the local circuit court judge for approval.
Dawkins, R. (1968). "The ontogeny of a pecking preference in domestic chicks". Z Tierpsychol 25 (2): 170–86. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1968.tb00011.x. PMID 5684149.
Dawkins, R. (1969). "Bees Are Easily Distracted". Science 165 (3895): 751. doi:10.1126/science.165.3895.751. PMID 17742255.
Dawkins, R. (1971). "Selective neurone death as a possible memory mechanism". Nature 229: 118–119. doi:10.1038/229118a0.
Dawkins, R. (1976). "Growing points in ethology". In Bateson, P.P.G. and Hinde, R.A.. Hierarchical organization: A candidate principle for ethology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dawkins, R.; Carlisle, T.R. (1976). "Parental investment, mate desertion and a fallacy". Nature 262: 131–133. doi:10.1038/262131a0.
@BereanBeacon1 And that's just hitting the first few items in wikipedia alone in 2 minutes. Two damn minutes to find that many papers from that far back, and I've not even bothered to look all the way up to today. I guess it's just too damn bad you can't actually be bothered to look past your own preconceptions. It's OK. The average life expectancy in the US is 77.9 years. We can wait. And knowledge will endure. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.
@Zxceelxuz All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK
@BereanBeacon1 I'm not sure if that was an attempt to insult me, or to actually say something. Kind of funny a quick Google search of the 10,000 dollar "life science prize" brings me back to several youtube videos of you attempting to insult people who don't believe in the bible.
@BereanBeacon1 Now that's pretty sad when you are reduced to cut-and-paste on your own videos there BB. And again with Pascal's Wager? Sad. Really sad. So, like I asked Clayton, you got anything worth asking or listening to? C'mon, this channel is supposed to be about "education", right? Well, educate! Say something and give some damn references so we, the public, can look and ask real questions. Or does that scare you?
"the perfect fit was an illusion" ...REALLY? Who is having the illusion??? The original which showed a perfect fit showing it to be a monkey or the "need" in the name of science to "change" it to fit a view...I may not be a rocket scientiest but I can recognize BS when I see it....I am not 6 day creationist.....but this is an insult to any objective intelligence. Don't TELL me this is science....this is fraud and should be called so..where are the other evolutionists say this???
@Clayton19651 Ah duckling, it seems you keep missing the point. Doesn't it? I've already shown you that damage was quite extensive. Like I've said, you seem to be working from a less than complete understanding of what the facts are. Let's start easy, in the belief that you're not just trying to troll the issue, do you have any upper-level education on anatomy? That's a really basic question.
@Clayton19651 Evolutionists support fraud if they don't get caught. And when caught they will remove the bogus material from school textbooks and bring it back at a later date. Haeckel's tale is an example of returning from the dead. This was asked of a professor in a recent meeting and the questioner was nearly stoned.
Here is the issue that is chosen to be ignored: Dr. Lovejoy had a predisposed view that these remains had to be human and darnit...he made them FIT his view...you can all name call but this site showed the fraud some evolutionists...perhaps even in goood conscience have no problem with...I do because if falsifies science by fraud...to make something the natural bones fit perfect but that showed a monkey...now they changed it to fit their belief...this is NOT science.
Now here's the important thing to notice: Creationists NEVER say anything about the sacrum. Or the lumbar vertebra. The sacurm is short and wide to carry more weight (not long and narrow as in P. troglodytes) and the lumbar vertebra? Well, the mating faces of the column are offset producing the characteristic curve of a bipedal hominid. And then there's the fact that this os coxae is but one of many we have from Australeopithecines. Simply put: Game, set, match.
This is not science but a distortion of scientific truth...when it naturally shows something different we alter it to fit a view...that IS NOT SCIENCE>>>it is scientific blasphemy if that existed.
@Clayton19651 Is it your job to judge what scientist should or should not do ? The scientific community will take care of your concerns, if they are valid.
@tallliza Actually it is the purview of the lay community to question everything laid before it. An academic community that refuses to recognize the reasonable questions and concerns of the public is just as bad as a theological community that says "we have all the answers so you can stop thinking". It's this fine balance that educational institutions must address at all times. The majority of the people have very little care about science until it affects them directly. Oversight is a must.
The bones were fitted into their natural positions, because when found they were not in them, but had been crushed together. This was done from a cast. The original fossil remains untouched so that other researchers can try reconstructing it, if they disagree. That's the truth, and no scientist has ever tried to hide it. Lovejoy said plainly what he did and how.
Nobody with any chops in anatomy has disagreed with Lovejoy. Anyone who wants to, can try their own reconstruction. Go ahead and try.
@puffin02 Really you would accept a creationist doing the same thing?? or you do have hypocricy in your heart??? Dr. Lovejoy had a problem with the hips NOT showing to be human-like so HE ALTERED them...how blind can you be....this should go down in history with the Piltdown man and the Nebraska man only now the frauds are being done openly with the OK from the alleged learned evolutionists in our society...if I had kids I would definitely teach them at home....
@Clayton19651 I'd accept what a consensus of experts thought, not what some ignoramus of a spit-flecked preacher said. Piltdown Man - debunked by scientists in 1954. It had never been completely accepted. Nebraska Man is a creationist fraud. No scientist ever accepted it, not even back in the nineteenth century. It appeared as one article in a sensational magazine, and was debunked as soon as it got into an expert's hands.
@Clayton19651 he did not have a problem with the hips not being human like. He had a problem with them not being anatomically possible. He did not alter them he returned it to their natural position. Also you are forgetting that lucy is not the only Australopithecus afarensis found. After her discovery many other specimens have been found that confirm her species did walk up right.
PBS SHOWED THIS...all the ney sayers should argue AGAINST Dr. Lovejoy...not with THOSE who exposed it unless of course truth is NOT YOUR PURSUIT>>(which I know it is not based on previous blogs I have seen) this is the same blindness that allows other evils in society ..long as that promote THEIR theme its ok..if not you don't get a job or even allowed into the science journals....CENSORSHIP and BIGOTS!!
DR. Lovejoy did not expose anything. All you saw was a 30 second clip that was cut off when he was about to dive into it. It is called quote mining. You preachers showed just enough info and cut it off when they felt that they had what they needed. Why dont you watch the whole doc? Then you can atleast make in informed statement about it.
Nobody took a chainsaw to the 'Lucy' fossil. That's a crude lie. I thought "Christians" weren't supposed to lie. Didn't Jesus say something about liars, and who their father was?
The pelvic bones had been crushed together and fused into an impossible anatomical arrangement. So a plaster cast was made of the original, and this was then cut into the separate pieces of natural bone without any change of shape from the original, and reassembled like a 3-d jigsaw.
@puffin02 They only showed the PBS broadcast and exposed it ...argue with Dr. Lovejoy would would a scientist change it to make it fit their view and then turn around and call it science...really...would YOU really be willing to ignore it if the opposite was shown....alleged creationists altering things to fit their view....or are YOU just being biased....hmmmm??????
Wow, you are a busy little beaver. Look, another video i have seen you trolling around on. Funny, are you not the one that called us losers for commenting on a video everyday. It was only one video though. You go fishing on many everyday. Fucking scum bag!
He altered it...this is sick...science should always condemn this type of diatripe...if there is other info I have no been shown I do want to see it but NEVER should ANY paleontolgist alter ANYTHING ever. This hurts evolutionists and credibiltiy and will give others justification for attacks. Have problems with evolution-E per se but I allow all ideas in..but this is sad...again if this is not true...PBS hosted this issue..but I want to be informed...but still no one ShOULD EVER alter anytng
@Clayton19651 That is why we have issued this challenge.
All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK
@BereanBeacon1 Instead of continually challenging the people that understand biology to a contest held in a forum specifically not designed for science, why not challenge the creationists to take their evidences into the actual scientific arena?
Do you think creationists are too scared to try real science in the forum where real science is done? Because what you're doing now is comparable to issuing a biker build-off challenge and holding it in an emergency room.
@TheScienceFoundation Please respond to me why Dr. Lovejoy would alter bones to make it fit his theory and still call it science. Would you accept this if creationists did the same thing??? or is there a double standard?
@Clayton19651 I've heard the 'chainsaw to the pelvis' rumor a lot, but never seen anyone give any actual legitimate source of it, just other creationists making the same claim.
@TheScienceFoundation Please explain the PBS segment that aired with Dr. Lovejoy that openly showed him altering the remake bones to fit and why is this science?????You folks should stand up against Dr. Lovejoy doing this...I am not hearing anything on your part...this site only showed (with commentary) but the PBS broadcast....please explaint the justification of anyone in science being allowed to do this? for any aspect of science?
Agter he altered it...this is sick...science should always condemn this type of diatripe...if there is other info I have no been shown I do want to see it but NEVER should ANY paleontolgist alter ANYTHING ever. This hurts evolutionists and credibiltiy and will give others justification for attacks.
This is not only sad...or even only desperate...this is sick and and an insult to all science....this should not only be challenged but rejected by evolutionists...this falls into the Piltdown man and Nebraska man frauds...I am not a 6 day creationists...or belive in a short time frame of the universe...but this is not really laughable...it is showing where we allow science to gutter into for a particular species at the time.
PBS showed it biased view...can anyone imagine a creationists altering bones to "fit" their view???? ANd NO dicussions or ranting about misrepresentation??? I want Science not Science fiction...this is scarey if this is occuring...and openly and not condemned by evolutionary biologists.....ThIS IS NOT SCIENCE??? what am I not seeing??
Ah BB, is that really the best you can do? Can you actually provide a reasoned viewpoint and discussion of the fossil from your own learning, or will you just simply cut and paste what you find on creationist websites? It seems the all you do lately is cut and paste your own "Life Science Prize" BS. You used to be more of a challenge.
@BereanBeacon1 Like I said, used to be. The science used in the reconstruction is clear, concise, and best of all, reproducible. Perhaps you have specific issues that I can address? Consider this before you begin: forensic anthropology can rebulid a face from a shattered skull to enable a visual identification that can be confirmed with DNA testing in so many cases. How much easier to rebuild a generic specimen that can represent an entire species?
@Clayton19651 Nor have I said you are sir. Misinformed perhaps, but not dumb. Now I'm assuming that you are referring to the portion starting @ 02:43? That's the reconstruction they are using there, and if you note, it shows the normal human flaring. The fossil os coxae as found had a major deformation of the PSIS bending it through 90 degrees anteriolaterally. This deformation is what made it look superfically like genus Pan. All fossils show some deformation.
@BereanBeacon1 Interesting exposure...never saw anything like this before...posted it on other blogs (get lots of crude hate mails...very vulgar language from athiests)...I stated in other blogs if God used macro-e I don't care but the more I am seeing with their position the less I am convinced it is accurate. Still Christ is my Savior, the most important of all issues. Adonei be with you. No Name under heaven where we MUST be saved.
How does a country with some of the greatest scientists and greatest universities have one of the worst public education systems and turn out someone the dumbest people on the industrialized earth? Seriously creationists are some of the dumbest people I talk to, so blinded by faith.
@urantivirus Creationists are very interested in real science, not science fiction.
All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK
@BereanBeacon1 Instead of continually challenging the people that understand biology to a contest held in a forum specifically not designed for science, why not challenge the creationists to take their evidences into the actual scientific arena?
Do you think creationists are too scared to try real science in the forum where real science is done? Because what you're doing now is comparable to issuing a biker build-off challenge and holding it in an emergency room.
@BereanBeacon1 Instead of continually challenging the people that understand biology to a contest held in a forum specifically not designed for science, why not challenge the creationists to take their evidences into the actual scientific arena?
Do you think creationists are too scared to try real science in the forum where real science is done? Because what you're doing now is comparable to issuing a biker build-off challenge and holding it in an emergency room.
@Jackskellington123 All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK, CLUCK.
@sarevor Yes it is embarssing......to creationists. The lack of objectivity on the YEC side borders on the criminal. Except it's not against the law to be a fool. The science and analysis of this fossil are right on the mark. Based on the collection of this find and all the rest of the Australopithecines, the curve and shaping is accurate. It's like finding a broken pot. The curves and edges show how it fits together. Just that simple.
Creationists... well they are so wrapped up in god, and the theory of adam and eve, that they cant see the information that is infront of them. The conditions that the fossil were in, involved that the fossil itself had been compacted and pushed beneath the earth, due to animals or movement in the tectonic plates, the compacting on the fossil could have caused the breakage. Remember, this fossil has been burried for thousands of years, the possibility of breakage or fusion is extemely high.
That is only part of science, the rest is peer review by real scientists not people like yourselves. Its carbon dated and dated by a number of processes. It is then classified which is complicated with not enough space to explain it to you. Go to Richard Dawkins for further study. Lucy is in our linage.
I don't see the problem with this vid. He has the pieces, makes the copy of the puzzle and paste them all together to get the original bones. The power saw is used to create the copy, not to change the shape of the bones!! Are you really stupid or you just laugh for nothing?
They don't work on the bones directly if they are not sure about the conclusions... You don't destroy the original sample if you have only one! You create a copy, moron!
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: I am not ignoring Magick's post because of any brilliance in his replies or inability to answer. In fact I have very carefully avoided reading his posts. Magick is on my list of "pray for but do not read comments" due to a history of verbal abuse.
And I'm just so damn tired about hearing about the hip. Yeesh. All fossils are distorted in one way or another. In AL 288-1 the PSIS was bent thru 90 degrees, which is a total distortion for either H. sap or Pan. A cast was made, cut part with squared corners and reassembled like a broken cup. And it was the curves and shape of the parts that dictate the fit. Man, talk about projecting. I should really quiz Patton about Paluxy Man, or is that Baugh. No matter, cut from the same cloth.
Two other problems with Lucy. The supposed human-like knee cap was found about a mile from the rest of the fossil, and we just know they belonged together because....?? Also, there is no evidence whatsoever that Lucy ever reproduced any thing different from herself in any way, so how could she be evidence for evolution toward humans?
@Lorica: More disinformation. Let's set this right. What you are talking about is the AL 129-1a/b knee. It's afarensis all right, but does not belong to AL 288-1. It was found a year eariler and there would be duplication of bones in Lucy. There is none. Additionally, as Au. afarensis as a species is peristant in time (3.2-2.8 mya) and in location (all the rift valley) it's clear that she was part of a population.
@Lorica: More apelike traits are found in a eariler species called anameisis, more human traits are found in a later species called africanus. Each one showing a combination of traits trending toward more human dentition, more upright gait, less time in the trees, less sexual dimorphism until the split with the robustus. The gracile species continued on into becoming the first of genus Homo. The Afar Valley and Africa as a whole gives up more details of our real genesis everyday.
REALLY!!! THESE are the people who produced the flat earth society....have to force things to fit to fit their preconceived view...not science...only science fiction.
1927Norma 2 months ago
They had to "force" it to fit and change the natural ape skeleton to fit into their view...could anyone imagine a Christian doing this in science and would not have been legitmately ridiculed....of course this can happen in the name of "modern science"...love to have my kids educated by these idiots..which is why they are not!!!
1927Norma 2 months ago
What a shock they needed to distort to fit "their" idea of how we came about...this is typical BS but rarely shown....
1927Norma 2 months ago
Does no one understand? The bone was clearly damaged before fossilization, giving the false impression of having ape hips. The knee was more human, meaning the animal would have extreme difficulty walking on all fours like an ape. So who's right? Evolutionists who actually went out and found this creature, or the creationists who misinterpreted the finding?
wasdare32 4 months ago 4
@wasdare32 Don't forget the curvature of the spine, the shape of the sacrum, and the shape of the talus, all show a habitual biped. A great resource is the University of Texas Austin anthropology site. Search "elucy" and you'll see what I mean.
NorthForkFisherman 3 months ago
@NorthForkFisherman lol
earlysda 2 weeks ago
@earlysda Ever the insightful commentary? Thanks for continuing to prove you've not got the slightest idea about which you speak.
NorthForkFisherman 2 weeks ago
@NorthForkFisherman Like cutting up the fossils to fit a failed theory is "enlightened"?
earlysda 2 weeks ago
@earlysda Pay attention, the fossils were NOT cut up. It was a cast that was cut apart and examined and put back together as you might fix a dropped piece of pottery. The curves of the bone indicated how everything fit back together. Basic anatomy fail.
NorthForkFisherman 2 weeks ago
@NorthForkFisherman Yes, cutting the "fossils" up and putting them back together any old way to fit your theory is as you say - a basic anatomy fail.
earlysda 2 weeks ago
@earlysda Normally I'd be more polite and patient, but as our previous discussions have proven that you are nothing more than an illiterate dumbass, I'll not hold back.The curves of the bone itself show how the blade of inominate was constructed. As found the shape matched neither genus Pan or Homo, so the shape was wrong. The parts of the cast showed how it all fit back together. Additionally, the rest of the parts found showed bipedalism. Learn the basics before you talk.
NorthForkFisherman 2 weeks ago
@NorthForkFisherman He made the curves.
Please look better next time, and please dispense with the profanity.
earlysda 2 weeks ago
@earlysda Stuff it halfwit. I actually have a cast of the entire pelvis and can see exactly what was done and where. Unless you can say as much, or provide references (which I can also do) you're simply talking out your ass. A familiar case for creationists.
NorthForkFisherman 2 weeks ago
@NorthForkFisherman Failed theory believers usually resort to profanity about 3/4 thru the life cycle of their theory, just after the stage they realize it is failed, and are groping about wildly.
The next step in failed theories is to call on the strong arm of the state to uphold their decrees and dogmas. That, of course, has been going on a while with evolutionary believers, and we can expect it to get worse, until a theory blowing away this theory comes along :)
earlysda 2 weeks ago
@earlysda Oh, I've gotten nowhere near profane as you are simply not worth the effort. What I have clearly demonstrated is all you have is your bullshit opinion and nothing more. Now, unless you have proof in one way or another, we're done. Do you have proof or no?
NorthForkFisherman 2 weeks ago
@NorthForkFisherman Everything is the proof.
Open your eyes and your mind, and you will see that "faith by consensus", which is what evolutionists believe, is not the truth.
Evolutionists have not one iota of evidence for origins, and yet that is the most important part of the discussion. Look around you, everything works like God said it does. Nothing works like evolutionists say it does.
earlysda 2 weeks ago
@earlysda The phrase in question is: "Citation needed". So again, all you have is opinion? Which does not matter. And the subject here is AL 288-1. Stay on that or bugger off. Tell you what, never mind. Just keep yammering away, saying nothing. You do my work for me.
NorthForkFisherman 2 weeks ago
@NorthForkFisherman The video showed how desperate the scientific consensus is.
Common fodder for failed theories - if you don't like the evidence, make up your own, lol.
Keep on threatening me. That's always a good way to show how correct your position is.
earlysda 2 weeks ago
@earlysda Threats? Bwahahaha. Nah, I just let you run your mouth and reveal how clueless you are. All you've done is give opinion. And again, no one cares what you think, dumbass. It's what can you prove? How about the sacrum? Have you even bothered to look at that? I'll bet not. Creatards all avoid talking about AL 288-1s' sacrum.
NorthForkFisherman 2 weeks ago
@NorthForkFisherman You did threaten me. You are similar to a bulldog who goes into a neighbor's yard, sits down, and chases off all that neighbor's friends who come for a visit.
Evolutionists have the evidence in front of them (including broken bones), and yet they choose to believe their own "pie-in-the-sky" theories. Or should i say magical god of "time"?
YOU are the evidence for creation, whether you like it or not :)
earlysda 2 weeks ago
@earlysda And another violation of the 9th, unless you are threatened by the truth. I have not threatened you. I have revealed that you are a gibbering halfwit who has no real information, just their BS opinion. Keep talking, empty head. Keep talking.
NorthForkFisherman 2 weeks ago
@NorthForkFisherman You are the one who wrote "bugger off". If you have forgotten that threat, then i forgive you :)
earlysda 2 weeks ago
@earlysda You think "bugger off' is a threat? Damn, you are dense. I know you are ESL, but that's borderline with being mentally disabled. Oh, wait. You're a creationist. That explains so much. So do you actually have any factual information, or do you think that your meaningless opinion suddenly has worth?
NorthForkFisherman 2 weeks ago
@earlysda Now as far as factual information, I think that it's time for some more. Do you remember what I said earlier about the sacrum and how creationists avoid talking about it? That's because the sacrum of AL 288-1 is short and triangular, evolved for bearing and distributing the weight of a body out to the hips of a bipedal creature.
NorthForkFisherman 2 weeks ago
3:27 - 3:30 - "The perfect fit was an illusion..."
4:10 - 4:13 - "...it all fit together perfectly."
So the natural perfect fit was an illusion, but taking a power saw to it to make it fit together how you want it to fit together is not. Brilliant!
JMcH 5 months ago
@JMcH He did not alter them he returned it to their natural position. Also you are forgetting that lucy is not the only Australopithecus afarensis found. After her discovery many other specimens have been found that confirm her species did walk up right.
AWEF321 5 months ago
@AWEF321 - There is absolutely no proof in the other fossils that what Lovejoy did to the bones truly "returned it to their natural position"[sic]. And honestly, why is it this bone that was allegedly deformed? Why can't it be the other bones that evolutionists claim show signs of bipedalism (and no, they have not confirmed anything -- why do evolutionists lie so much?) which are deformed? Maybe we should take a power saw to those bones and restore them to their natural position.
JMcH 5 months ago
@AWEF321 - There is absolutely no proof in the other fossils that what Lovejoy did to the bones truly "returned it to their natural position"[sic]. And honestly, why is it this bone that was allegedly deformed? Why can't it be the other bones that evolutionists claim show signs of bipedalism (and no, they have not confirmed anything -- why do evolutionists lie so much?) which are deformed? Maybe we should take a power saw to those bones and restore them to their natural position.
JMcH 5 months ago
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOOOOLL.. XD
Ahhh yeah you know I used to be a monkey? mhhm.. no wonder I love bananas.. yum ;D
xic4loca 5 months ago
"Curve of the foot", my foot.
Science 11 February 2011:
Vol. 331 no. 6018 pp. 750-753
"Complete Fourth Metatarsal and Arches in the Foot of Australopithecus afarensis" by Carol V. Ward, William H. Kimbel, and Donald C. Johanson.
This paper shows that the fourth metatarsal of Au afarensis from Hadar demonstrates "that the A. afarensis foot was functionally like that of modern humans and support the hypothesis that this species was a committed terrestrial biped."
puffin51 6 months ago 2
ha,ha,ha....the real science starts at 3:17
smoothpeople33 7 months ago
@smoothpeople33 Does it now? Care to explain your point?
NorthForkFisherman 7 months ago
@NorthForkFisherman Sure no problem...If you can use a power grinder to make the fossil fit into your world view. It was sarcasm if u didn't get it.. "lucy's hips looked chimp like...so she could not have made the tracks she was credited with...all was not lost though"...A power saw and some adjusting. a little plaster, some glue, and there you go...perfect human shaped hips. That is science
smoothpeople33 7 months ago
@smoothpeople33 First off I'd like to salute your dedication at violating the 9th Commandment in spirit if not deed. You work very hard at only hearing part of the story, don't you? Seems you missed that part where they said that it didn't match either genus Pan or Homo? Oh, that's right, this is the creationist edited version, rather than the full Nova program. Little wonder. Would you really like an education about AL 288-1? Bipedalism was shown first in AL 129-1, not Lucy. Your turn.
NorthForkFisherman 7 months ago
@NorthForkFisherman first, I read AL-288-1, its nothing new..just lucy. AL 129-1 is probably a monkey bone, maybe 2 different monkeys bones. This would never hold in a court of law. I dont care which world view u begin with, this has nothing to do with that. This just has to do with bad science and a lot of faith.
Second, if monkeys, apes, or any other animal could walk on 2 legs, no SOLID record is left and it dosent prove they descended into any relatives at all. Just an extinct monkey.
smoothpeople33 7 months ago
@smoothpeople33 Suvery says - WRONG. You seem to think this is the only Au afarensis in existence? More australopithecines are found every year and all of them, ALL OF THEM, directly support the original interpretation of bidedalism. For those that are interested, the University of Texas Austin maintains the elucy site where you can directly compare AL 288-1 to samples of both human and chimpanzee bones. The sacrum is very telling - almost a human sacurm. Funny thing that, neh?
NorthForkFisherman 7 months ago
@smoothpeople33 "Any other animal"? Might want to rephrase that? Ever hear of birds? The ostrich, moa, emu, cassowary, all go about on two legs and yes, they have left traces as well as their current existence. Be careful about making blanket statements about things you really don't understand.
NorthForkFisherman 6 months ago
@NorthForkFisherman You missed the point. Im not speaking of birds im speaking of the tracks that "Lucy" supposedly made. I know you must be aware that there have been feet found on other specimens even though lucy didn't have feet and only 40% of the fossil. Since the curve of the feet have been shown to not be human like at all and clearly aren't responsible for the Laetoli footprints. A 6 year old could look at the prints dont fit match. Just a lot of media deception.
smoothpeople33 6 months ago
@smoothpeople33 Then speak to specific examples and don't make such sweeping generalities lest you be called on it, neh? And AL 288-1 did have enough of the feet to get a general idea of what they looked like, human-like with a slight splaying of the big toe as confirmed by later finds in South Africa as well as at the First Family site. Hell, Au. afarensis even had a arch. Like I've told others before-go to the elucy site and compare the bones directly.
NorthForkFisherman 6 months ago
BereanBeacon1...I don't think creationist needs any more proofs of intelligent designs...the proofs will be unfolding pretty soon (by the fullfillment of the coming prophecies of the book of Revelation) In fact, prophecies are being fullfilled through out history already...like the fall of the Roman empire to the dark ages to the rise of the Western powers. When the full force of God's wrath on the unrighteous unfolds right in front of our eyes "EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW, EVERY TOUGUE WILL CONFESS"
mr22kingkong22 7 months ago
@mr22kingkong22 Amen. I reply to the hearts of stone that if they go through the Great Tribulation, not to take the mark or worship the beast even thought he will believe in evolution.
Apollyon Rising 2012
h t t p://w w wDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=uyQGy12FU5c
BereanBeacon1 7 months ago
Evolutionist can't have it any other way...if they are wrong ...the only option is intelligent design. That is why they would lie, accuse, exaggerate, ...do whatever it takes to make their theories look valid. When you give into intelligent design, you have to find out who, then obey...exactly what they are trying to avoid.
mr22kingkong22 7 months ago
@mr22kingkong22 Evolutionists are very gifted, when it comes to writing volumes of literature in an attempt to explain the failures of their science fiction. As you know, we are very interested in real science, but when evolutionists do present real science, they use the bait and switch technique as a sleazy salesmen, to slip in science fiction.
BereanBeacon1 7 months ago
@s209004284 Sure, who told you that, your mom during home school?
The DNA code and ERVs would not be the way they are unless evolution happened.
ERVs are lingering remnants of failed viral infection, which occurred in an ancestor's sex cell and got propagated in its offspring. The viral insertion site is completely random and finding one in the same location in two individuals indicates they each had that same ancestor. Humans and chimps have 98,000 ERV locations in common. Hmmmm?
gregrutz 8 months ago
Many evolutionists hold the misconception that creation never presents evidence, but evolution presents plenty.
Creation and evolution have *exactly* the same evidence and operational science at their disposal. What is different is the interpretation, based on that evidence or science.
There is plenty of evidence that can be used to argue for creation, but evolutionists simply reject it. Evidence is not the problem, people’s thinking or worldview, making them reject creation, is.
petermoel 9 months ago
Dr. Patton's PhD. is in Christian Education, not science. Like so many other creationists, his doctorate comes from an unaccredited university or, like dr. Patton's, is in an unrelated discipline. He is not qualified. Like many others, I'm still waiting for you to look at any number of sites (start at Wikipedia if you like) where Richard Dawkins' 33 peer reviewed papers are listed. You refuse to acknowledge this and this is a theme of creationism--ignoring everything that you can't dismiss.
trilingual 9 months ago
Search watch?v=eEm1oRkUcKk for the true story of Lucy.
gregrutz 9 months ago
Haha just fix that evidence if it doesn't conform to the religious evolution theory!
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne Just say the flood dun everthing and don't learn science.
Some people who are religious don't even know what religious is. Science does not use voodoo, magic or the supernatural.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz Religion is often described as belief in things unseen in nature, evolution certainly describes events that are not possibly observed or tested. The evidence is shotty at best and yet millions of people put their faith in such evidence. There is more evidence for a worldwide flood than there is of macro evolution.
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne Geologists went looking for evidence of a global flood over 200 years ago. They did not find any.
They found distinct layers of different kinds of rock with different fossil in them. Floods don't do that. They discovered it must have taken millions of years to make what we see. They knew the earth was Millions of years old before radiometric dating was invented and showed it was Billions of years old.
Evolution has bee observed in nature and in the lab.
Home schooled?
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz Your answer to the question is this "Not knowing does not prove anything."
It isn't "not knowing" to say that polonium halos can only be formed quickly therefor the granite cannot be millions of years old, it simply gives evidence for a young earth and that is KNOWING something, it is just another knife in the evolution theory (there are many).
Shells on mountains give evidence of young earth flood, fossils give evidence, diversity gives evidence, but you choose to ignore it.
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne Gentry's logic is flawed, the halos prove nothing.
''Shells on mountains give evidence of young earth flood'' WRONG
There are no shell ON mountains, the whole top of the mountain is an OLD Sea Bed. Thousands of feet of limestone laid down over millions of years and raised up by plate tectonics which was proven in the 50's.
Another sheeple who has never studied geology and just listens to preachers lie.
Fossils prove evolution happens. Diversity came from Evolution.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne Actually evolution has been observed in labs and reproduced decades ago.
Emergence of Nylon Oligomer Degradation Enzymes in
Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through Experimental Evolution
IRFAN D. PRIJAMBADA, SEIJI NEGORO,* TETSUYA YOMO, AND ITARU URABE
Department of Biotechnology, Faculty of Engineering, Osaka University, 2-1 Yamada-oka, Suita, Osaka 565, Japan
Received 7 November 1994/Accepted 8 February 1995
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz What makes that evolution?
I think you are probably just copy paste happy and have no idea what you are talking about.
You'll believe in evidence that had a chainsaw taken to it, and you expect me to trust anything you say about evidence for evolution? Evolutionists are desperate for evidence since 99.9% of it has been proven either a fraud or not real evidence for much of anything except usually points to a global flood.
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@gregrutz What makes that evolution?
I think you are probably just copy paste happy and have no idea what you are talking about.
You'll believe in evidence that had a chainsaw taken to it, and you expect me to trust anything you say about evidence for evolution? Evolutionists are desperate for evidence since 99.9% of it has been proven either a fraud or not real evidence for much of anything except usually points to a global flood.
Why is there carbon-14 in coal?
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne Why is there carbon-14 in coal?
The same reason it is found in diamonds, natural radiation in the ground. The farther away the coal is from the U, the less C14 there is.
Why doesn't Carbon 14 Dating work? Our tree ring dating? Or any radiometric dating method?
Or any method, they ALL agree with each other and they all say the earth is millions of years old.
Egyptian were farming in 6000BC
Lucy's neck shows she walked upright
Piltdown man was the only fraud, name an other
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz The farming date you mentioned, what dating method verified that, I am betting it has a large range for error and also any dates pre-flood would be far harder to verify because the earth went through many many changes which make accurate dating per-flood nearly impossible.
None of the dating methods "agree" with one another they are all millions of years apart repeatedly, if they were accurate I would expect a much smaller degree of error for them.
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne The dating methods do agree, that is one way they know they work. Same samples to different labs and different layers, the results are alway the same, the older layers are always the deeper layers.
BTW There is no evidence for a global flood, None. And all the evidence shows an old earth. There are trees older than 6000 years.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz 99.9% of it has been proven either a fraud or not real evidence for much of anything'' Wrong DNA markers would only be the way they are if evolution was true.
gregrutz 9 months ago
Creationists never dare produce any evidence. Could it be they have none?
Ozzyman200 11 months ago 4
@Ozzyman200 And what ever they do have, when fully examined in context, reveals that natural processes created it. Creationism is the end of imagination and learning. Heresy is a cradle, orthodoxy, a coffin.
NorthForkFisherman 11 months ago 6
@Ozzyman200 No, they keep finding evidence but it does not match the bible so it must be wrong. Like all those dating methods that are all wrong.
gregrutz 10 months ago 2
@gregrutz What do you mean all those dating methods? Carbon Dating puts dinosaurs as only thousands of years old, not millions, although carbon dating has its flaws, at least it is more accurate than the others and makes more sense than the million year crap they come up with.
Wonder why they are finding soft tissue in dino bones these days?
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne They don't use Carbon 14 dating on Fossils, there is no cabon in them, they are rocks. And the method only works for less than 60,000 years. Enough to prove there was no global flood. Dinosaurs stopped making fossils 65 million years ago.jAnd they didn't find any 'soft tissue'' They soaked the rocks for weeks in strong acid to get the ''fresh'' tissue.
The earth is 4,545 Million years old.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz They don't *often* use carbon 14 dating on fossils because they don't like the results they get, do more research on that one.
I'm glad you don't believe the earth is over 4 billion year old, but 4 million is still way too old and cannot be proven with good science.
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne To learn something about the age of the earth, watch >> watch?v=w5369-OobM4
And you might brush up on your math too. 4,545 Million = 4.5 Billion
The age is from radiometric dating but they don't use Carbon 14 because there is no carbon in rocks or fossils, which are rocks. They use it to date the Egyptians to 6000 BC.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz Haha excuse me, I initially read your comment to say 4.545 not 4,545 - thought it was a decimal!
At any rate, I already know the majority of scientists rely on these dating methods because they seem to work, but further investigation into the issues brought up by creationists reveal much of the evidence to support these methods are just based on assumptions and instead of basing my faiths on assumptions of ever-changing science, I would rather place my faith in God.
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@TruthSeekingOne God has nothing to do with the fact that dating methods work. Tree rings go back unbroken 10,000 years, no flood.
Read a science book.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz 10,000 years that is all?
I read science all the time, like how about the science books that show Ernst Haeckel's fraudulent drawings and give them as evidence for the evolution lie?
How about those vestigial structures they give for evidence? A complete lie in each case the books present.
I know you comment and dislike every creation video you can find, I see your comment on the granite proves the earth is young, you are a joke dude let me explain why.
TruthSeekingOne 9 months ago
@Ozzyman200 Did you watch the same video, this video? They showed a clip from NOVA which supports evolution, and it shows their own dishonesty, not Christians. That's in your face proof, by the very people you believe. How deluded can you be, to deny such non-science?
vbirdieb 5 months ago
@vbirdieb
Watch the video again carefully. Again, it presents no evidence. Merely claiming something is not evidence. Scientists have presented so much, books, nature, museums full of it. The video claims all sorts of things, as you did. Very well, we've presented our evidence, now your turn.
Ozzyman200 5 months ago 2
Ha ha ...evolutionists are hilarious.....and so dishonest! Ha ha ...
Albertanator 11 months ago
@Albertanator Yawn. You got something to say worth listening to, our just your studied opinion there dear? Facts are what drive the future, not myth.
NorthForkFisherman 11 months ago
@NorthForkFisherman Exactly...hence why Darwin's theory is bunk!! Still you have to admit this was really funny....lol....
Albertanator 11 months ago
@Albertanator Actually, this was creationist BS at it's most henious. The sad part is seeing all the rubes sitting there and swallowing it down with out understanding that they were being lied to. It's pathetic, really.
NorthForkFisherman 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What do those Dawkins papers have to do with evolutionism?
The Net is a place where you blow hot air. Wise readers can see who has the talk and the walk to go with it.
Cluck, cluck, chicken evolutionists.
theinsectmanofwv 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To win the Life Science Prize, all you need is science. All evolutionists have is chicken hot air on the Net. Cluck, cluck, boys.
theinsectmanofwv 1 year ago
This implies, falsely, that Lovejoy reassembled the pelvis fraudulently.
There was no fraud. He was perfectly open about what he'd done, showed his work in detail, left the original fossil as it was found (he did the work on a plaster cast), and all the experts in the field checked it. None disagreed.
The pelvis was broken, the bones had moved, and it had fused in an impossible position. Lovejoy restored it. Nothing more.
A afarensis was an obligate biped, like you and me.
puffin02 1 year ago
@puffin02 You'll note that creationists never talk about any other Au. afarensis specimens, or that they never look at the rest of the defining features that confirm bipedalism here. The 1st cervical vertebra, the 5th lumbar, the configuration of the femur head and neck, the valgus angle of the knee, the sacrum, and the talus. All these bones show that AL 288-1 was a biped. From creationists? Not word one. Amazing what happens when you look at all the facts.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
Scientists have presented mountains of evidence for evolution. Creationists never dare present any . Well, if they have any, why not present it? Well? Waiting.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ozzyman200 All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK, CLUCK. We are still waiting for Dr. Dawkins to submit a science paper for peer review.
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1
Wow you're ignorant. You already spouted that nonsense on my page where it was resoundingly defeated. All you seem to have is cowardly anonymous attacks.
"We are still waiting for Dr. Dawkins to submit a science paper for peer review."
As you've already been told he has submitted many many papers, starting in 1968. Your lying won't make them disappear. Do some research.
Come on, put your money where your mouth is and give some evidence. Scientsist have. Why don't creationists?
Ozzyman200 1 year ago 19
@Ozzyman200 ONLY PRO-E people are ever allowed in science review..everyone else is kicked out...not to note the recently found dino dna...like that coudl exist for millions of years...typical propoganda like in North Korea..that is about as free as our science cirriculum is. State controlled BS!
1927Norma 2 months ago
@1927Norma
So you think there's an enormous conspiracy in science to cover up the truth. Wow. Ok, demonstrate this. Scientists have produced mountains of evidence, creationists have yet to show any.
Ozzyman200 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BereanBeacon1 Regarding the 'Life Science Prize' challenge
Let's say you contracted a rare and deadly infection and there are only two medications which could possibly cure it. They completely counteract each other if you take both.
1: Has been developed by a team of epidemiologists and submitted to a wide array of epidemiologists for further testing.
2: Has been developed by a kinesiologist and submitted only to the local circuit court judge for approval.
Which would you take?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 Papers like these, you mean?: 1960s
Dawkins, R. (1968). "The ontogeny of a pecking preference in domestic chicks". Z Tierpsychol 25 (2): 170–86. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1968.tb00011.x. PMID 5684149.
Dawkins, R. (1969). "Bees Are Easily Distracted". Science 165 (3895): 751. doi:10.1126/science.165.3895.751. PMID 17742255.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 Or these:[edit] 1970s
Dawkins, R. (1971). "Selective neurone death as a possible memory mechanism". Nature 229: 118–119. doi:10.1038/229118a0.
Dawkins, R. (1976). "Growing points in ethology". In Bateson, P.P.G. and Hinde, R.A.. Hierarchical organization: A candidate principle for ethology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dawkins, R.; Carlisle, T.R. (1976). "Parental investment, mate desertion and a fallacy". Nature 262: 131–133. doi:10.1038/262131a0.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 And that's just hitting the first few items in wikipedia alone in 2 minutes. Two damn minutes to find that many papers from that far back, and I've not even bothered to look all the way up to today. I guess it's just too damn bad you can't actually be bothered to look past your own preconceptions. It's OK. The average life expectancy in the US is 77.9 years. We can wait. And knowledge will endure. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200 Maybe we don't shove our proof down others throats. Believe what we want, and we may believe what we want. How about some peace?
iongodeo 3 months ago
@iongodeo
Believe what you want, no one's stopping you. The truth matters.
Ozzyman200 3 months ago
@Ozzyman200 The evidence is all around you, and you.
Did you even watch the video?
earlysda 2 weeks ago
@earlysda
Watch it yourself, then come back and try to say there's evidence.
Ozzyman200 2 weeks ago
@Ozzyman200 Everything that is, is evidence for a creator. Everything.
earlysda 2 weeks ago
@earlysda
Creationists forever claim that, but they never dare back up this claim with evidence despite being given 1000s of years to do so.
Ozzyman200 2 weeks ago
Ah, nothing like creationist quote mining in an attempt to prove themselves right.
Wake up, your bible is fake.
Zxceelxuz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Zxceelxuz All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 I'm not sure if that was an attempt to insult me, or to actually say something. Kind of funny a quick Google search of the 10,000 dollar "life science prize" brings me back to several youtube videos of you attempting to insult people who don't believe in the bible.
Zxceelxuz 1 year ago 4
@BereanBeacon1 Now that's pretty sad when you are reduced to cut-and-paste on your own videos there BB. And again with Pascal's Wager? Sad. Really sad. So, like I asked Clayton, you got anything worth asking or listening to? C'mon, this channel is supposed to be about "education", right? Well, educate! Say something and give some damn references so we, the public, can look and ask real questions. Or does that scare you?
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago 6
Lucy was an ape????? NO F**KING WAY!!!!!!
Guess what you stupid fool.....HUMANS ARE ALSO APES.
Creationists = morons
ThieleM 1 year ago 4
"the perfect fit was an illusion" ...REALLY? Who is having the illusion??? The original which showed a perfect fit showing it to be a monkey or the "need" in the name of science to "change" it to fit a view...I may not be a rocket scientiest but I can recognize BS when I see it....I am not 6 day creationist.....but this is an insult to any objective intelligence. Don't TELL me this is science....this is fraud and should be called so..where are the other evolutionists say this???
Clayton19651 1 year ago
@Clayton19651 Ah duckling, it seems you keep missing the point. Doesn't it? I've already shown you that damage was quite extensive. Like I've said, you seem to be working from a less than complete understanding of what the facts are. Let's start easy, in the belief that you're not just trying to troll the issue, do you have any upper-level education on anatomy? That's a really basic question.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@Clayton19651 Evolutionists support fraud if they don't get caught. And when caught they will remove the bogus material from school textbooks and bring it back at a later date. Haeckel's tale is an example of returning from the dead. This was asked of a professor in a recent meeting and the questioner was nearly stoned.
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 Evolutionists support fraud if they don't get caught...
If you don`t have evidence for such a claim, you better shut up.
tallliza 1 year ago 2
@tallliza He does neither, he just keeps talking.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago 2
Here is the issue that is chosen to be ignored: Dr. Lovejoy had a predisposed view that these remains had to be human and darnit...he made them FIT his view...you can all name call but this site showed the fraud some evolutionists...perhaps even in goood conscience have no problem with...I do because if falsifies science by fraud...to make something the natural bones fit perfect but that showed a monkey...now they changed it to fit their belief...this is NOT science.
Clayton19651 1 year ago
I love the laughing. The sound of stupidity!
thestunnedninja 1 year ago
Now here's the important thing to notice: Creationists NEVER say anything about the sacrum. Or the lumbar vertebra. The sacurm is short and wide to carry more weight (not long and narrow as in P. troglodytes) and the lumbar vertebra? Well, the mating faces of the column are offset producing the characteristic curve of a bipedal hominid. And then there's the fact that this os coxae is but one of many we have from Australeopithecines. Simply put: Game, set, match.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
This is not science but a distortion of scientific truth...when it naturally shows something different we alter it to fit a view...that IS NOT SCIENCE>>>it is scientific blasphemy if that existed.
Clayton19651 1 year ago
@Clayton19651 Is it your job to judge what scientist should or should not do ? The scientific community will take care of your concerns, if they are valid.
tallliza 1 year ago
@tallliza Actually it is the purview of the lay community to question everything laid before it. An academic community that refuses to recognize the reasonable questions and concerns of the public is just as bad as a theological community that says "we have all the answers so you can stop thinking". It's this fine balance that educational institutions must address at all times. The majority of the people have very little care about science until it affects them directly. Oversight is a must.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
The bones were fitted into their natural positions, because when found they were not in them, but had been crushed together. This was done from a cast. The original fossil remains untouched so that other researchers can try reconstructing it, if they disagree. That's the truth, and no scientist has ever tried to hide it. Lovejoy said plainly what he did and how.
Nobody with any chops in anatomy has disagreed with Lovejoy. Anyone who wants to, can try their own reconstruction. Go ahead and try.
puffin02 1 year ago
@puffin02 Really you would accept a creationist doing the same thing?? or you do have hypocricy in your heart??? Dr. Lovejoy had a problem with the hips NOT showing to be human-like so HE ALTERED them...how blind can you be....this should go down in history with the Piltdown man and the Nebraska man only now the frauds are being done openly with the OK from the alleged learned evolutionists in our society...if I had kids I would definitely teach them at home....
Clayton19651 1 year ago
@Clayton19651 Thank god, you don`t have kids. At least he did something right.
tallliza 1 year ago
@tallliza I was only meaning I don't have kids in the education level today that I need to protect them any longer. Wrong assumption on your part..
Clayton19651 1 year ago
@tallliza My context was about raising kids in this present destructive climate....I never said I never had kids and/or how I raised them.
Clayton19651 1 year ago
@Clayton19651 I'd accept what a consensus of experts thought, not what some ignoramus of a spit-flecked preacher said. Piltdown Man - debunked by scientists in 1954. It had never been completely accepted. Nebraska Man is a creationist fraud. No scientist ever accepted it, not even back in the nineteenth century. It appeared as one article in a sensational magazine, and was debunked as soon as it got into an expert's hands.
Is that the best you can do?
puffin02 1 year ago
@puffin02
Yes it is. This bum only brings this type of thing to the table!
thestunnedninja 1 year ago
@Clayton19651 he did not have a problem with the hips not being human like. He had a problem with them not being anatomically possible. He did not alter them he returned it to their natural position. Also you are forgetting that lucy is not the only Australopithecus afarensis found. After her discovery many other specimens have been found that confirm her species did walk up right.
AWEF321 6 months ago
PBS SHOWED THIS...all the ney sayers should argue AGAINST Dr. Lovejoy...not with THOSE who exposed it unless of course truth is NOT YOUR PURSUIT>>(which I know it is not based on previous blogs I have seen) this is the same blindness that allows other evils in society ..long as that promote THEIR theme its ok..if not you don't get a job or even allowed into the science journals....CENSORSHIP and BIGOTS!!
Clayton19651 1 year ago
@Clayton19651
DR. Lovejoy did not expose anything. All you saw was a 30 second clip that was cut off when he was about to dive into it. It is called quote mining. You preachers showed just enough info and cut it off when they felt that they had what they needed. Why dont you watch the whole doc? Then you can atleast make in informed statement about it.
thestunnedninja 1 year ago
Nobody took a chainsaw to the 'Lucy' fossil. That's a crude lie. I thought "Christians" weren't supposed to lie. Didn't Jesus say something about liars, and who their father was?
The pelvic bones had been crushed together and fused into an impossible anatomical arrangement. So a plaster cast was made of the original, and this was then cut into the separate pieces of natural bone without any change of shape from the original, and reassembled like a 3-d jigsaw.
Why do creationists lie so much?
puffin02 1 year ago
@puffin02 They only showed the PBS broadcast and exposed it ...argue with Dr. Lovejoy would would a scientist change it to make it fit their view and then turn around and call it science...really...would YOU really be willing to ignore it if the opposite was shown....alleged creationists altering things to fit their view....or are YOU just being biased....hmmmm??????
Clayton19651 1 year ago
@Clayton19651
Wow, you are a busy little beaver. Look, another video i have seen you trolling around on. Funny, are you not the one that called us losers for commenting on a video everyday. It was only one video though. You go fishing on many everyday. Fucking scum bag!
thestunnedninja 1 year ago
He altered it...this is sick...science should always condemn this type of diatripe...if there is other info I have no been shown I do want to see it but NEVER should ANY paleontolgist alter ANYTHING ever. This hurts evolutionists and credibiltiy and will give others justification for attacks. Have problems with evolution-E per se but I allow all ideas in..but this is sad...again if this is not true...PBS hosted this issue..but I want to be informed...but still no one ShOULD EVER alter anytng
Clayton19651 1 year ago
@Clayton19651 That is why we have issued this challenge.
All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 Instead of continually challenging the people that understand biology to a contest held in a forum specifically not designed for science, why not challenge the creationists to take their evidences into the actual scientific arena?
Do you think creationists are too scared to try real science in the forum where real science is done? Because what you're doing now is comparable to issuing a biker build-off challenge and holding it in an emergency room.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation Please respond to me why Dr. Lovejoy would alter bones to make it fit his theory and still call it science. Would you accept this if creationists did the same thing??? or is there a double standard?
Clayton19651 1 year ago
@Clayton19651 I've heard the 'chainsaw to the pelvis' rumor a lot, but never seen anyone give any actual legitimate source of it, just other creationists making the same claim.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation Please explain the PBS segment that aired with Dr. Lovejoy that openly showed him altering the remake bones to fit and why is this science?????You folks should stand up against Dr. Lovejoy doing this...I am not hearing anything on your part...this site only showed (with commentary) but the PBS broadcast....please explaint the justification of anyone in science being allowed to do this? for any aspect of science?
Clayton19651 1 year ago
Agter he altered it...this is sick...science should always condemn this type of diatripe...if there is other info I have no been shown I do want to see it but NEVER should ANY paleontolgist alter ANYTHING ever. This hurts evolutionists and credibiltiy and will give others justification for attacks.
Clayton19651 1 year ago
This is not only sad...or even only desperate...this is sick and and an insult to all science....this should not only be challenged but rejected by evolutionists...this falls into the Piltdown man and Nebraska man frauds...I am not a 6 day creationists...or belive in a short time frame of the universe...but this is not really laughable...it is showing where we allow science to gutter into for a particular species at the time.
Clayton19651 1 year ago
PBS showed it biased view...can anyone imagine a creationists altering bones to "fit" their view???? ANd NO dicussions or ranting about misrepresentation??? I want Science not Science fiction...this is scarey if this is occuring...and openly and not condemned by evolutionary biologists.....ThIS IS NOT SCIENCE??? what am I not seeing??
Clayton19651 1 year ago
Ah BB, is that really the best you can do? Can you actually provide a reasoned viewpoint and discussion of the fossil from your own learning, or will you just simply cut and paste what you find on creationist websites? It seems the all you do lately is cut and paste your own "Life Science Prize" BS. You used to be more of a challenge.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman Cluck
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 Like I said, used to be. The science used in the reconstruction is clear, concise, and best of all, reproducible. Perhaps you have specific issues that I can address? Consider this before you begin: forensic anthropology can rebulid a face from a shattered skull to enable a visual identification that can be confirmed with DNA testing in so many cases. How much easier to rebuild a generic specimen that can represent an entire species?
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago 2
@NorthForkFisherman Looks like it fit really well before the changes were done...I am not dumb sir!
Clayton19651 1 year ago
@Clayton19651 Nor have I said you are sir. Misinformed perhaps, but not dumb. Now I'm assuming that you are referring to the portion starting @ 02:43? That's the reconstruction they are using there, and if you note, it shows the normal human flaring. The fossil os coxae as found had a major deformation of the PSIS bending it through 90 degrees anteriolaterally. This deformation is what made it look superfically like genus Pan. All fossils show some deformation.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 Interesting exposure...never saw anything like this before...posted it on other blogs (get lots of crude hate mails...very vulgar language from athiests)...I stated in other blogs if God used macro-e I don't care but the more I am seeing with their position the less I am convinced it is accurate. Still Christ is my Savior, the most important of all issues. Adonei be with you. No Name under heaven where we MUST be saved.
Clayton19651 1 year ago
How does a country with some of the greatest scientists and greatest universities have one of the worst public education systems and turn out someone the dumbest people on the industrialized earth? Seriously creationists are some of the dumbest people I talk to, so blinded by faith.
urantivirus 1 year ago
@urantivirus Creationists are very interested in real science, not science fiction.
All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BereanBeacon1 Instead of continually challenging the people that understand biology to a contest held in a forum specifically not designed for science, why not challenge the creationists to take their evidences into the actual scientific arena?
Do you think creationists are too scared to try real science in the forum where real science is done? Because what you're doing now is comparable to issuing a biker build-off challenge and holding it in an emergency room.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BereanBeacon1 Instead of continually challenging the people that understand biology to a contest held in a forum specifically not designed for science, why not challenge the creationists to take their evidences into the actual scientific arena?
Do you think creationists are too scared to try real science in the forum where real science is done? Because what you're doing now is comparable to issuing a biker build-off challenge and holding it in an emergency room.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
HAHA! See it's funny, 'cause we're laughing at them without giving any solid evidence for OUR theory!
Jackskellington123 1 year ago
@Jackskellington123 All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK, CLUCK.
BereanBeacon1 1 year ago
@BereanBeacon1 You're obviously ignorant to the theory of evolution.
Jackskellington123 1 year ago 2
Embarrassing ...
sarevor 1 year ago
@sarevor Yes it is embarssing......to creationists. The lack of objectivity on the YEC side borders on the criminal. Except it's not against the law to be a fool. The science and analysis of this fossil are right on the mark. Based on the collection of this find and all the rest of the Australopithecines, the curve and shaping is accurate. It's like finding a broken pot. The curves and edges show how it fits together. Just that simple.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago 12
The neck shows LUCY walked upright too.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Creationists... well they are so wrapped up in god, and the theory of adam and eve, that they cant see the information that is infront of them. The conditions that the fossil were in, involved that the fossil itself had been compacted and pushed beneath the earth, due to animals or movement in the tectonic plates, the compacting on the fossil could have caused the breakage. Remember, this fossil has been burried for thousands of years, the possibility of breakage or fusion is extemely high.
yourhellloud 1 year ago 17
That is only part of science, the rest is peer review by real scientists not people like yourselves. Its carbon dated and dated by a number of processes. It is then classified which is complicated with not enough space to explain it to you. Go to Richard Dawkins for further study. Lucy is in our linage.
stevjen1 1 year ago
I don't see the problem with this vid. He has the pieces, makes the copy of the puzzle and paste them all together to get the original bones. The power saw is used to create the copy, not to change the shape of the bones!! Are you really stupid or you just laugh for nothing?
They don't work on the bones directly if they are not sure about the conclusions... You don't destroy the original sample if you have only one! You create a copy, moron!
MattleSystem 1 year ago 2
@MattleSystem Due to your escalating & now full blown pattern of verbal abuse, you are now on my list of "Ignore posts & just pray for them."
LoricaLady 1 year ago
Religious wing-nuts spouting nonsense. How embarrassing for your cause. lol.
wadeccwade 1 year ago
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: I am not ignoring Magick's post because of any brilliance in his replies or inability to answer. In fact I have very carefully avoided reading his posts. Magick is on my list of "pray for but do not read comments" due to a history of verbal abuse.
LoricaLady 2 years ago
And I'm just so damn tired about hearing about the hip. Yeesh. All fossils are distorted in one way or another. In AL 288-1 the PSIS was bent thru 90 degrees, which is a total distortion for either H. sap or Pan. A cast was made, cut part with squared corners and reassembled like a broken cup. And it was the curves and shape of the parts that dictate the fit. Man, talk about projecting. I should really quiz Patton about Paluxy Man, or is that Baugh. No matter, cut from the same cloth.
magick205 2 years ago
Two other problems with Lucy. The supposed human-like knee cap was found about a mile from the rest of the fossil, and we just know they belonged together because....?? Also, there is no evidence whatsoever that Lucy ever reproduced any thing different from herself in any way, so how could she be evidence for evolution toward humans?
LoricaLady 2 years ago
@Lorica: More disinformation. Let's set this right. What you are talking about is the AL 129-1a/b knee. It's afarensis all right, but does not belong to AL 288-1. It was found a year eariler and there would be duplication of bones in Lucy. There is none. Additionally, as Au. afarensis as a species is peristant in time (3.2-2.8 mya) and in location (all the rift valley) it's clear that she was part of a population.
magick205 2 years ago
@Lorica: More apelike traits are found in a eariler species called anameisis, more human traits are found in a later species called africanus. Each one showing a combination of traits trending toward more human dentition, more upright gait, less time in the trees, less sexual dimorphism until the split with the robustus. The gracile species continued on into becoming the first of genus Homo. The Afar Valley and Africa as a whole gives up more details of our real genesis everyday.
magick205 2 years ago