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.
Unless we understand the subtext of those beliefs, this is meaningless. If 88% of americans beleived in astrology it would'nt make astrology correct (logical fallacy: "appeal to auhority"). It would just prove that 88% of Americans have fallen prey to the lowered scholastic standards.
When no one is here to hold you accountable, you CRIDers use logical fallacies as crutches to support your inability to debate the issue using facts.
This is science that Dan Rather could appreciate.
I'll ask you:
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 (sic) in our math courses?
More rewording:
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 Christians must die.
You see, it makes much more sense when you use your words in the true sense of reality. But since you don't live in reality, it's understandable.
Given a line made up of thousands of points, you choose a point to debate and then say the line is invalid.
Intellectual dishonesty, the mark of a CRIDer.
And I think I can do this on this thread without my buddies, so I am not pinging anyone. It is all too easy.
We'll just sit back and smile.
Well, they will be able to attack my typing. When I get in a hurry, it can get pretty bad.
And we all know that bad typing is a sign of bad thought.
Read the threads!
Fact: An Evo stated more educated people believe Evolution to be true.
Fact: I proved that more educated people know Creation to be true.
Question: where is the logical fallacy in these 2 facts?
P.S.: Why should I believe a person who couldn't pass a grade school English class? USE SPELL CHECK!
Along with spell check, press the thought check on your science, more than 600+ scientist with Ph.D.'s agree.
Too bad you are can't follow the discussion.
Another "Bad" thought. LOL!
Before I proceed -- this is the the 600+ scientists who signed the letter supporting ID? And you are proffering this as an argument? I just want to make sure I am clear on your post.
I may have missed this. An "Argumentum ad populum" is pretty irrelevant, but if it floats your boat, fine.
Fact: I proved that more educated people know Creation to be true.
By definition it is impossible to prove people "know" Creation to be "true." The best you can hope for is to demonstrate x% of people BELIEVE Creation to be "true."
And for you I am making it a point to grammar and spell check since I know that these are the important points of the debate.
Evo-losers are absolutely immune to logic but they are not immune to ridicule, and the world has to learn to laugh at them. This video helps.
See post 147 -- they DID attack my typing LOL!!!
It is like another version of what they teach law students: If you can't win on facts, argue the law. If you can't win on the law, argue the facts.
In this case, if you can't win on logic and you can't win on facts, attack the typing!
Please explain how attacking one data point somehow undermines TToE. This is analogous to saying since Saint Christopher didn't exist, Christianity is a sham.
Please ensure your answers are grammatically correct since this is a fundamental part of the debate.
Because Spelling and Grammar are the main point.
I'm not 'attacking one data point'; I'm claiming that in this particular case, evolutionists have been caught in an outright act of fraud and it is both clear and instructive that in their own minds they have done nothing wrong. They are so totally bought into a basic paradigm that they view any piece of evidence which contradicts that paradigm to be damaged and in need of some sort of repair or restoration.
By contrast, even the nazis and communists knew better than to buy into their own idiotic propaganda on a wholesale basis.
When Hitler used this argument against Einstein (100 Scientists Against Einstein) Einstein replied, If I were wrong, one would be enough.
Is that recipe like hot cross buns?
You forgot those here that bought the $69.95 DVD from the creationist web-site only to find out it had the same dis-information as the $29.95 DVD they bought the year before.
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.