Posted on 06/18/2006 7:59:34 AM PDT by tomzz
This little video was shown at the apologetics group at the McLean Bible Church last week and the effect on viewers was rather striking.
Lucy is the 40% more-or-less complete australopithicus skeleton which is commonly presented as a missing link of sorts, and the thought processes behind the manner in which reconstructions of lucy are presented indicates a mindset in which, at every juncture at which reality clashes with ideology, it is reality which simply gets tossed.
Lucy's actual remains did not included hands or feet and reconstructions are commonly presented with human or near-human hands and feet despite the fact that other skeletons of the same creature have hands and feet which are clearly those of an ape, with curved fingers for moving about in trees. Mary Leakey in fact had found clear tracks of human footprints in the same strata and location as Lucy's remains and the assumption is that at least one australopithicus MUST have had human feet.
Asked whether a better explanation would be that the tracks were simply produced by humans, Leakey and others replied that was impossible since the tracks were millions of years old.
The obvious explanation of course is that a human made the footprints and "Lucy" was simply that human's pet monkey.
The story actually gets better (much better) from there if you can believe that, with evolutionists claiming that a deer or other animal trampled "Lucy"'s hips and pelvis, breaking them into pieces, and that the pieces congealed by chances into the conformation of those of an ape, and deriving the true picture of Lucy's hips and pelvis by making a plaster cast, breaking it up with a saw, and then rearranging the pieces into a more human conformation.
For anybody willing to part with the twelve dollars, this little documentary offers an astonishing glimpse into the mindset of the evolution true believer.
David Menton earned a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University. He served as a biomedical research technician at Mayo Clinic and then as an associate professor of anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine (St Louis). For almost two decades he has been profiled in American Men and Women of Science—A Biographical Directory of Today’s Leaders in Physical, Biological and Related Sciences. Dr. Menton has lectured throughout the United States and Canada on the creation-evolution controversy.
"Total college grads who are creationists: 25%"
But look at the SECOND question!:
Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's CREATION (emphasis mine). College graduates: 54% [!] Add the 25% of pure creationist and you get a whopping 79%!
Good job guys, you've made my case for me. PLEASE, KEEP SENDING ME YOUR STUFF!!! BAHHHAAAAA!!! LOL !!!
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/oct/05101705.html
Astonishing 88% of Americans Believe in Creation or God-Directed Evolution [!]
You seem to be under the mistaken perception that science is some sort of popularity contest. It's kind of sad, really.
What is sad is the delusional attributes Evos have of the populous. At first they say "most educated people believe in Evolution;" then when they are confronted with the fact that most educated people believe in Creation, they say its not a popularity contest.
"Lurkers," I rest my case! ;)
I never made that claim. You obviously have me confused with someone else. 99 percent of the populous could believe in creationism, but it doesn't make it any more true.
99 percent of the populous could believe in evolution, but it doesn't make it any more true.
"99 percent of the populous could believe in evolution, but it doesn't make it any more true."
Celmak, are you just reprinting what Junior says? He's right, so I guess that would be ok...
Celmak, do actually believe when you get statistics from a Religious source that has an obvious agenda, that those numbers are good? And don't rest your case yet, you are bound to be wrong twenty or thirty more times just on this thread.
So you're saying that non-science should be taught in science class because most people believe the non-science to be true? Most people in this country believe their horoscopes too. Do you think we should include astrology alongside astronomy? Most people of my acquaintance at least seem to have lucky numbers they play in the lottery; should we include numerancy in our math courses?
"We do live in a democracy though"
No we don't.
"BAHHHAAAAA!!! LOL !!!"
I may never eat Coco Puffs again.
"So you're saying that non-science should be taught in science class because most people believe the non-science to be true?"
Celmak has no clue what he is saying.
Hey, playing the percentages, a vast majority of Muslims believe we all need to die. Line em' up boys, the verdict is in. No, sorry, we took a poll and all infidels must die.
Didn't, know Gallop was religious.
"Celmak, are you just reprinting what Junior says? He's right, so I guess that would be ok...
Better read what Junior wrote.
And don't rest your case yet, you are bound to be wrong twenty or thirty more times just on this thread.
Bring it on!
Let's see, with a little rewording here, I'll ask this question:
So you're saying that Evolution should be taught in science class because few people believe Evolution to be true? Most people in this country believe their horoscopes too. Do you think we should include astrology alongside astronomy? Most people of my acquaintance at least seem to have lucky numbers they play in the lottery; should we include numerancy in our math courses?
Next thing you know, they will be saying that Saint Christopher never existed. I mean, mis or dis information is known only to science, right?
"No we don't."
OK, Democratic-Republic.
Apparently, that's where 2nsdammit got his poll.
BAHHHAAAAA-BAHHHAAAAA!!! LOLOLOL !!!"
School in the CRIDer world:
Of course, we have to include the Hindu Creation "theory," the American Indian Creation "theory," the Zoroastrian Creation "theory."
But those aren't "religion," just "alternate theories."
Of course, theories explain WHY something happens, but the CRIDers always seem to think they explain THAT something happens. Thus they don't understand why gravity is a "theory" even though you see something fall.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.