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.
Thanks tomzz!
ping
Hey, I agree with you, lots of color in the world! BUT, there is only one way to be right and plenty of ways to be wrong. Let me speak in your same language:
yooouuuu ...aaarrrre .... wwwrrronnng ....!!!! There is still hope for you though. Answer this, was Jesus a liar, lunatic, or God?
But hey, if it makes you feel better to have some weasel room, go right ahead. The lurkers aren't fooled, and neither is anyone else.
And what is it I am wrong about? That people who believe in a several thousand year old creation myth, who call themselves conservatives, paint all the rest of us thinking conservatives with their "ignorant goober literalist" brush? You can believe whatever mythology floats your boat; I don't care. When you imply that one must believe in a particular narrow, close minded, interpretation of a folk tale in order to be considered conservative, you tick me off.
"interpretation of a folk tale in order to be considered conservative, you tick me off. "
What he said.... double for me.
Oh you mean that if we had a candidate like Ronald Reagan we wouldn't stand a chance.
"Following a speech to a fundamentalist coalition in Dallas in 1980, then Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan held a press conference at which he was asked if he thought the theory of evolution should be taught public schools. He replied, "Well, it's a theory, it is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science and is not yet believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was believed. But if it was going to be taught in the schools, then I think that also the biblical theory of creation, which is not a theory, but the biblical story of creation, should also be taught" (Science, 1980, 209: 1214)."
Source was an atheist site not a creationist site
Or maybe George W. Bush who endorsed teaching intelligent design.
Let's see, is there a recent president who embraced evolution? That's right Jimmy Carter. Maybe conservatives should embrace a presidential candidate like Jimmy Carter? Is that what you are saying?
No, Ronald Reagan didn't run around teaching that the world was 6000 years old. And George Bush doesn't do that either. There is a HUGE difference between the concept of ID and the concept of ZAP. You can leave the Jimmy Carter red herring in the drawer. And I will tell you again, if the Republican party moves toward the fundamentalist direction, we are toast.
The Republican party is mostly fundamentalist. Strangely enough a majority of Democrats also believe in Biblical Creation. Not only will the Republicans not implode if they go with a fundamentalist, they will have an even greater draw to those Democrats who are dissatisfied with their party.
Only 9% of Republicans believe in the complete absence of ZAP. Going with a candidate like that is what would make us toast.
"Turns out 9% of Republicans believe in evolution without God, while 16% of Democrats and 14% of Independents feel similarly. 23% of Republicans are fans of intelligent design, as are 28% of Democrats and Independents. 66% of Republicans are creationists, while 51% of Democrats and Independents are."
You're views are not mainstream Republican and welcome to FR.
If you want the White House back, stay away from ZAP. I have no problem whatsoever with a God theory. I have no problem especially with Jesus for two reasons. One, the story was written in historical times where eyewitness accounts are more credible, and two even if I am wrong and Jesus was just a guy, it isn't a bad way to live one's life. That being said, literal interpretation of the old testament is beyond ridiculous. And believing anything word for word that was translated from languages that comparable words didn't even exist, and to do a direct translation is innacurate to say the least.
It's not very relevant to politics. Outside of a constitutional amendment, it's going to be decided largely by the courts. And there are bigger fish to fry right now.
Your fears are not warranted. But a ZAP candidate would help more than hurt, as it would draw more democrats than the few republicans that would leave over it.
Do you believe in a little zap but not major zap? Or do you believe all zap is impossible?
There are 6 billion people on the planet. 2 billion are Christian. My guess is that God probably hears over 1 billion prayers a day. Do you think God's powerful enough to hear that many prayers?
I do. I think he can ZAP a billion galaxies with a billion stars each into existence for no other reason than that He wanted to and wanted to provide light sources for Earth.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinquishable from magic." - Aurthur C. Clark
"Genesis is to incredible to be believed"
No, Genesis is physically impossible. I don't believe in zap beyond the Big Bang. And I really don't have a need to believe that Jesus was a magician. The message he sent was the power, not the magic.
Well said.
True the power is in the message, but the miracles and the prophecies confirmed Him. As it did Moses, the prophets, and the apostles. Prophecy which demonstrates God's foreknowledge and miracles which demonstrate God's power are two key demonstratable proofs which God offers us beyond the truth of the message itself.
I just find it strange that you believe the eyewitnesses about the message but not about the miracles.
"No, Genesis is physically impossible."
Are you so certain that we know all there is to know about physics?
Dr. Barry Setterfield makes a case that due to the theory of relativity that billions of years of processes could have been occurring on distant galaxies during the 4th literal 24 hours on planet earth.
I take it that you hope for eternal life? Because that is pretty key to Jesus's message. Does that makes sense to you? Does your eyes tell you that one can live eternally? You believe this that you cannot see, but you refuse to believe anything else that you cannot see. Interesting.
The apostle Peter nearly 2000 years ago prophecized that man would adopt uniformitarian views and thereby forget the flood and creation. It has happened just as foretold.
2 Peter 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.(<-Uniformitarian belief leads to ignorance of creation and flood->) 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
"The apostle Peter nearly 2000 years ago prophecized"
Was that the same guy who denied Jesus three times just to save his own ass? Seems like a prophet that could see so far in the future would know denying the savior might not be a good idea. So why is it Peter could see 2000 years aheead, but not right in front of him?
Yep that's the same guy. You would have thought that, especially given that he just got through telling Jesus that he knew Jesus was the Son of God and how much he loved Him. But we don't always think clearly under pressure.
Nevertheless, Peter did nail the prediction.
Let's see, hhmmm, switch a couple of words here and you get, "And what is it I am wrong about? That people who believe in a several decade old evolution myth, who call themselves conservatives, paint all the rest of us thinking conservatives with their "ignorant goober literalist" brush? You can believe whatever mythology floats your boat; I don't care. When you imply that one must believe in a particular narrow, close minded, interpretation of a folk tale in order to be considered conservative, you tick me off.
And I only have to change a couple of words!
It takes a lot more thoughtfulness to be able to admit your wrong. To tell you the truth, I WAS an Evo until my mid twenties, then I examined the evidence instead of taking things at face value. I WAS an agnostic until I looked at the evidence about the Bible. I WAS wrong about both. This is what happens when you go lockstep with government school system. As a start, read "Evidence that demands a verdict" by Josh McDowell.
Besides bad grammar in your sentence structure, "about as good" does not cut it.
But hey, if it makes you feel better to have some weasel room, go right ahead. The lurkers aren't fooled, and neither is anyone else.
The "lerkers?" I think I have driven you to delusion, my apologies. I suppose the old saying, "God first makes mad those he condemns" holds true, your a perfect example Junior.
Goodbye.
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.