Posted on 11/19/2009 3:13:17 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Creationists are ‘liars' (?): Geologist Donald Prothero doesn’t like the fact that we don’t agree with his ideas on evolution.
I love the attitude some evolutionists have toward professional, scientific debate. Because creationist scientists do not agree with their biased, subjective and unsubstantiated ideas they spit the dummy and call us liars.
The latest tirade from geologist Donald Prothero is in an opinion piece in NewScientist entitled ‘Evolution: What missing link?’1 I like that title.
His article was picked up by the Telegraph newspaper in the UK which reported, ‘Creationists “peddle lies about the fossil record”.’2
Lies? Are creationists really lying?
No!
It’s just that Prothero does not like the fact that we don’t agree with his ideas. It upsets him so much that he describes creationists in this way: ...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
"Creatarded? LOL! How creative (excuse the pun).
Creationist sources misrepresent science out of necessity.
Now here are the facts about "Lucy:"
Lucy, as mentioned before, has many detractors, it is a wonder why she is even mentioned as an example of Evolution; Lucy being important because of her “ability” to walk upright. First, Lucy’s pelvis was in forty different pieces when found. When they finally put it together, they found it did not fit the model of an upright hominid, so they shaped the “distortion” to fit the correct model (Donald Johanson, Ansestors, pgs. 64-65, 1994). In a conversation on a NOVA special, Johanson states the following:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2106hum1.html
We needed Owen Lovejoy's expertise again, because the evidence wasn't quite adding up. The knee looked human, but the shape of her hip didn't. Superficially, her hip resembled a chimpanzee's, which meant that Lucy couldn't possibly have walked like a modern human. But Lovejoy noticed something odd about the way the bones had been fossilized.
OWEN LOVEJOY: When I put the two parts of the pelvis together that we had, this part of the pelvis has pressed so hard and so completely into this one, that it caused it to be broken into a series of individual pieces, which were then fused together in later fossilization.
DON JOHANSON: After Lucy died, some of her bones lying in the mud must have been crushed or broken, perhaps by animals browsing at the lake shore.
OWEN LOVEJOY: This has caused the two bones in fact to fit together so well that they're in an anatomically impossible position.
DON JOHANSON: The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy's hip bones seems to flair out like a chimps. But all was not lost. Lovejoy decided he could restore the pelvis to its natural shape. He didn't want to tamper with the original, so he made a copy in plaster. He cut the damaged pieces out and put them back together the way they were before Lucy died. It was a tricky job, but after taking the kink out of the pelvis, it all fit together perfectly, like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. As a result, the angle of the hip looks nothing like a chimps, but a lot like ours.
Second, Brian Richmond and David Strait (eminent paleoanthropologist) of George Washington University identified similar morphological features on two early ‘hominids’, including Lucy:
“A UPGMA clustering diagram … illustrates the similarity between the radii of A. anamensis and A. afarensis and those of the knuckle-walking African apes, indicating that these hominids retain the derived wrist morphology of knuckle-walkers (Richmond & Strait, Nature404(6776): 382, 2000 ).”
Third, Charles Oxnard (Charles E. Oxnard, Dean, Grad School, Professor Biology and Anatomy, USC) reinforces the fact that Lucy is not in between ape and man, that the uniqueness of Lucy makes her an improbable candidate for the Evolutionary line of man (Charles E. Oxnard, Professor Biology & Anatomy, USC, AMERICAN BIOLIGY TEACHER, Vol. 41, May ’79, pg. 274). In 2001, Dr. Meave Leaky (part of the great Leaky family) states:
“It is impossible to tell whether we are more closely related to Lucy or K. pltyops. There is too much missing from the fossil record since then (Cohen, Who’s your daddy? New Scientist, pg 5, March 2001).”
Then there is the trouble of trying to retract what Richard Leaky, renowned anthropologist, stated in 1983 that the scull of Lucy was so incomplete that most of it is “imagination made out of plaster of paris (The Weekend Australian, magazine section, pg. 3, May 1983),” let alone what kind of species she belonged to. To this date, no true scientist could tell you that a real “transitional” fossil, or “missing link,” has been found. Scientists freely admit that there are still too many gaps in the fossil record (Gould, S.J., Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6:119–130 (p.127), 1980).
Facts about “Lucy” from Evos, none from non-Evos.
So, if I take a few bones and mess with them a little bit to make them fit better, can I be an evolutionist too?
:)
I did.
Evo techniques exposed.
Where did they live? What doctrine did they preach? How were they so effectively erased from history?
I guess when you don't know anything, cheesy conspiracy theories and an insistence that your off the cuff remarks simply MUST be true have to substitute for actual knowledge and references that support your contentions.
She was an australopithocine, one of many hundreds of fossils of such, she was the first, not the only. Are all other australopithocine fossils similarly “discredited” or “misidentified”?
Thank you very much!
Speaking of actual knowledge and facts, where is Catholic Church history from the time of the NT to Constantine?
What is the line of Popes during that time? Who were they? When did Catholic Church doctrine come into existence?
Seems like there's an over 300 year gap between Peter and the actual recorded establishment of the Roman Catholic Church.
Aren't you concerned with actual knowledge and references concerning that?
No, as I pointed out to you, the DNA analysis provides evidentiary support of the assumption of a clade based upon a shared morphological characteristic.
“The formation of the group is based upon shared evolutionary traits and descent is shown by the grouping?” c-y-c
Once again, NO. A clade group is formed upon the presence of a shared ‘evolutionary trait’ and descent is accepted or rejected based upon DNA evidence.
“Cladistics is nothing more than subjective classification, subjective because it's based upon the classifier's assumptions. Assumptions of evolutionary lineage, assumptions of characteristics lost or gained, seeing membership in a class defined by the classifier.” c-y-c
DNA analysis is not subjective. Either two species are more similar in DNA to each other than to a third species or they are not.
” What more do I need to show that that what you said was incorrect than that cladograms are ACTUALLY confirmed by DNA analysis?” allmendream
“How about something besides just your unsupported “I know more than you” assertions?” c-y-c
So I showed you an ACTUAL study that used DNA to construct a cladogram. and yet still my assertions are “unsupported”. And now instead of misrepresenting this field of science, you have now moved on to misrepresenting your own statements.
My citation had EVERYTHING to do with what you said. You said cladograms were both constructed and confirmed using morphological data and that is simply NOT the case, as my citation showed you.
Creationists must misrepresent science out of necessity.
Well I just suggest you don’t take it from me, but read God’s Word. It’s better than hidden treasure you know.
Where did they live?
Who were they?
Where did they go?
Throwing up another source that does nothing to support your contention just makes you look like more of a fool.
You called that one.
And you pinged me why?
Nothing in the Bible speaks of a vast population of Christians of antiquity that were neither Roman or Byzantine Catholic.
Through the majority of the Christian era, the vast majority of Christians have been either Roman or Byzantine Catholic.
That is simply historic fact. Despite how it rubs your anti-Catholic sensibilities the wrong way.
I am concerned with you supporting your contention that there was somehow this vast population of non-Roman or Byzantine Catholic Christians.
Where did they live?
Who were they?
Where did they go?
Throwing up another source that does nothing to support your contention just makes you look like more of a fool.
He provided no source at all, while doing the “no source would be credible to you” dance.
That is typical creationist “scholarship”. Make unsupportable statements and then say “you wouldn't accept any evidence” despite the fact that they haven't offered any.
That and the typical ‘You are just a liberal’ accusation inherent in the “Columbia” statement, as well as the idiotic assumption that I am a Catholic or would only accept a Catholic source as legitimate.
Far from calling anything, it was just another assertion unsupported by any evidence. Typical.
“...hate to your fellow Christians.”
“...just makes you look like more of a fool.”
Projection. See the bots would keeping coming from the same angle every time.
Where did they live? Anywhere they could.
Who were they? People who God touched with His merciful Grace.
Where did they go? They’re still here, as God said they would be.
This the Bible not credible to you?
This should apply to anyone depending on the Bible for "facts" to prove creationist theory, since creationists weren't there to observe them.
Yep, sure, you convinced me...LOL!
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.