[Nathan Zachary]

" 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.

[marylandrepub1]

No ideas, none. The last two ideas from creationists were from the so called Book of Moses. There are 2 Creation stories and 2 Noah's Ark stories in Genesis . Each of the stories contradict the other (in most details) because they were written by different people at different times (JE+P). One was written in the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the other in the southern kingdom of Judah, both as competing stories, after the Kingdom split. Both must have had the same verbal folklore origins. You can't possibly claim that these stories explain anything about nature.

Lucy was the upright walking human relative with the chimps brain. Even if Don Johanson made mistakes at least he had an idea and explained how he came to his conclusions. Creationists never pose any ideas so they assume they win because they have nothing to defend(sound familiar?)

[Mylo]

"More Science"? We got more o' dat science on our side!

Try facts, evidence, experiments, falsifiable and accepted theories that help to observe and predict the universe.

Science is a process, not a result. Saying "More Science" is like a Communist insisting that they have "more Economics" on their side. And he may well be right in that there is more WRITTEN on his side, but unfortunately for the millions who have suffered under that sick system, the facts, evidents, and experiments all indicate that Capitalism is a much better system.

You don't even have that going for you. There are hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific journals that discuss evolution, molecular evolution, geology, paleontology, and astronomy; and they all contradict the Creationist view of a young Universe and an Earth inhabited by unchanging species.

[lemura]

Ignore the scientists; they will only taunt and torment you with facts. I'm with you - I've believe in a young earth as well, as recounted in this Norse tale:

In the beginning there was the void. And the void was called Ginnungagap. What does Ginnungagap mean? Yawning gap, beginning gap, gap with magical potential, mighty gap; these are a few of the educated guesses. Along with the void existed Niflheim the land of fog and ice in the north and Muspelheim the land of fire in the south. There seems to be a bit of confusion as to whether or not these existed after Ginnungagap or along side of it from the beginning. In Niflheim was a spring called Hvergelmir from which the Elivagar (eleven rivers - Svol, Gunnthra, Fiorm, Fimbulthul, Slidr, Hrid, Sylg, Ylg, Vid, Leiptr, and Gioll) flowed. The Elivargar froze layer upon layer until it filled in the northerly portion of the gap. Concurrently the southern portion was being filled by sparks and molten material from Muspelheim.

[Junior]

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.

Do you have any POSITIVE evidence for creationism? Note, sniping against evolution is NOT POSITIVE evidence for creationism, as the latter does not win by default.

Until you come up with that POSITIVE evidence, you really don't have a leg to stand on here.

[Oztrich Boy]

You don't get it. Lucy is a vivid and exciting book because the authors are excited by the subject.
Johanson and Eday would have written the exact same book if Creationism and Creationists didn't exist

If Evolutionists didn't exist, Creationists wouldn't write one darn thing because they are nowt more than parasites.

[Vaquero]

"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" Wow! do you realise how ignorant you sound? What science is that.....scientology? or perhaps a shaman waving a dead chicken and letting its guts slide into the water for soothe saying purposes? or how about the science of the supersticious, desert wandering, bronze age sandle wearers who wrote the 'science book' you base your 'theories' on.

[b_sharp]

"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."

You mean like the ark, the flood, the Grand Canyon, Paluxy footprints, a 6000 year old earth, vapour canopy, super rapid tectonic plate movement, hydroplate theory, on and on...

Yup! Plenty of science there.