Replies

I read 'Lucy' back in the early 80s and loved it. Never read a book from a creationist that could match even the Bookcover Summary of Lucy's investigative brillance. In fact I never read a creationist book that proposed 'any' ideas at all except the other side is wrong.

If you want to read nonsense. Go to this post:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1423308/posts

" In fact I never read a creationist book that proposed 'any' ideas at all except the other side is wrong."

What malarky. The creationist argument has much more science on it's side than does the evolutionist argument, which has none, other than theory and wild guesses. try again.

I guess you haven't heard, as apparently lots of people haven't, that lucy was discounted in the 1990s as a chimpanzee species. As for the rest of this article there hasn't been enough fosil fragments of Afarensis recovered to make any judgements on size and variations between the sexes, there have been, however, many people who claim they are simply chimpanzees, and with good evidence to support them.

It seems strange, doesn' it, if one just thinks about it, that although Louie Leaky and others can find so called ancestors to man all over african, apparently at will, that not one specie of Chimpanzee ancestors have been found. Think about that for a while.

If you haven't read any books by creationists that make sense to you perhaps you haven't read the right books or are simply letting your hidebound mind set get in the way.