Ethiopia to Exhibit 'Lucy' Fossil in United States

I'm sorry, but Answers in Genesis is not a scientific site. Indeed, it doesn't "do" science, but merely peruses scientific journals searching for something it can latch onto that might support its views.

21 posted on 04/12/2004 5:12:04 PM PDT by Junior (Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.)

Who do you think they are more likely to confuse Lucy with-Ann Richards or Molly Ivins?

22 posted on 04/12/2004 6:23:14 PM PDT by RightWingAtheist

To: RightWingAtheist

Who do you think they are more likely to confuse Lucy with-Ann Richards or Molly Ivins?

A descendant of Lucy appeared recently in a movie: Pic from "Dune".

23 posted on 04/12/2004 6:34:10 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Why yes, that IS a gun in my pocket.)

To: RightWingAtheist

Madelaine Albright. No, wait. That would be who they'd confuse with a troll doll.

24 posted on 04/12/2004 6:34:13 PM PDT by Junior (Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.)

I guess we are all entitled to our own opinions - I studied anthropology pretty extensively in graduate school while obtaining my MS degree. My opinion is that evolution is a belief; not science.

Several years after I graduated I ran across the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research and started getting their journals. Call it a hunch but I'm guessing they have no scientific credibility in your opinion although these guys have substantial academic backgrounds and field experience.

Not that I need any scientific evidence (as a christian I walk by faith not by site) but I think their scientific studies are pretty solid based on what I've read.

http://www.creationresearch.org/
http://www.icr.org/

25 posted on 04/12/2004 6:46:08 PM PDT by Down South P.E.

To: Down South P.E.

The may have entire alphabets after their names, but they don't do science. They pick over others' works like scavengers in a dump, hoping to come across something that might bolster their position, but creation "scientists" do not do original research in any way, shape or form.

They leave that to evolutionists...

26 posted on 04/12/2004 6:57:10 PM PDT by Junior (Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.)

Why is this going to Houston?

They probably thought it would get stolen in NYC or DC. New York's American Museum of Natural History has about 3 million annual attendance compared to about 2.3 million for Houston's Museum of Natural Science.

27 posted on 04/12/2004 7:16:17 PM PDT by rustbucket

To: PatrickHenry

Oh, Linda Hunt. I thought you were going to post a picture of Susan Sarandon. :-)

28 posted on 04/12/2004 8:06:05 PM PDT by RightWingAtheist

Very professionally worded and objective of you. Pretty sad this issue eats at you so bad. Must be a pretty big hole in your gut...or heart...kind of like the big holes in evolution. At least there is a solution for the hole in your heart anyway.

I guess you would have the same scolding comments pertaining to the nonevolutionists, nonchristian scientist that disagree with evolution as well; or for that matter anyone who disagreed with your opinion or the so-called experts opinions? You may want to try doing some of your own original research and quit believing everything the so-called experts say. I will go so far as to agree with you though that the so-called "science" of evolution is a dump ( or as the Bible would label it: science falsely so-called).

29 posted on 04/12/2004 8:10:36 PM PDT by Down South P.E.

To: PatrickHenry

Thanks for the ping!

30 posted on 04/12/2004 10:11:44 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl

To: Down South P.E.

The funny thing is, there are whole databases devoted to cataloging & debunking creationists' claims or misquotes. (Talk about a productive research programme! :-)

31 posted on 04/12/2004 11:20:45 PM PDT by jennyp (http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)

To: Rate_Determining_Step

Hey honey, you know how you always wanted to visit Texas...?

32 posted on 04/12/2004 11:24:40 PM PDT by jennyp (http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)

To: Down South P.E.

No. It doesn't "eat at me" as you put, Dr. Freud. I notice you didn't actually come up with an answer to my statement (that creationists don't do science) but rather attacked my motives in making it. How very liberal of you. One can disagree all one wants with evolution, but until one actually undertakes to experiment and research, one's disagreements are so much vaporware. However, I stand by my remarks that creationists do not do research (at least scientific research -- quote mining seems to be as close to actual research as they dare to get). Take a gander at an earlier thread: Who are the Creation "Scientists?"

33 posted on 04/13/2004 3:31:10 AM PDT by Junior (Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.)

I used to be a rocket scientist but ever since I got smart I'm a flat-earther.
</creationist mode>

34 posted on 04/13/2004 7:25:14 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Why yes, that IS a gun in my pocket.)

I like Answers in Genesis :)

35 posted on 04/13/2004 7:26:29 AM PDT by cyborg (GO CONDI GO!)

"Come, my pet - there is work to be done! With help from my disciples, we'll soon control the universities, then the elementary schools, media, etc."

"Muhahahahahahaha"

36 posted on 04/13/2004 8:12:31 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

Actually, the mascot here at Darwin Central is a finch. It has a sort of sentimental value, doncha know.

37 posted on 04/13/2004 8:18:57 AM PDT by Junior (Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.)

Actually, the mascot here at Darwin Central is a finch. It has a sort of sentimental value, doncha know.

Why, because it refuses to change?

38 posted on 04/13/2004 8:34:02 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo

To: LiteKeeper; Dataman

Refresh my memory: do you know this? If they were to exhibit "Lucy" as she was found, exactly what fragments would they be exhibiting, and how far apart would they have to be exhibited?

Dan

39 posted on 04/13/2004 8:36:46 AM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])

Refresh my memory: do you know this? If they were to exhibit "Lucy" as she was found, exactly what fragments would they be exhibiting, and how far apart would they have to be exhibited?

My goodness. I know the Almighty specifically forbade lying, but evidently that commandment must have been "nailed to the cross" along with all the other prohibitions some Christians find unpleasant.

In regards to the old canard (that's "lie" for you in Rio Linda) that Lucy's knee was found some distance from the rest of the skeleton, you might check out the actual information surrounding this incident:

The claim is not only false, it is clearly shown to be false in Johanson's published writings about "Lucy" (e.g., Johanson and Edey 1981, ch. 7-8) and it has been pointed out repeatedly to its proponents that it is false. Despite this, none of the major proponents of the claim has publicly retracted it. One major proponent has privately agreed that it is false, and a few creationists have agreed to stop repeating it. One minor proponent made a public retraction.
The claim originated with Tom Willis, head of the Creation Science Association for Mid-America, in an article he wrote for the Bible-Science Newsletter (1987). In his article, Willis reported on a lecture by Johanson at the University of Missouri on November 20, 1986. Willis reported that the following exchange occurred during the question-and-answer session which followed Johanson's lecture:

Q. How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?
A. Sixty to seventy meters lower in the strata and two to three kilometers away.

This question was perhaps intended by the questioner to mean "How far away from Lucy did you find Lucy's knee?", but was clearly interpreted by Johanson to mean "How far away from Lucy did you find the 1973 knee joint?" Willis does not recognize the confusion in his article, even though the discoveries of both the original knee joint (1973) and Lucy (1974) are described in detail--including the locations of the finds--in Donald C. Johanson and Maitland E. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (1981) and in the articles in the April 1982 issue of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. The creationist misunderstanding would never have occurred had either of these sources been consulted. Johanson's writings have always been clear about the fact that his 1973 knee joint was a separate find from Lucy. All of the bones shown in photographs of Lucy were found at a single location.

But hey, you've been on these threads long enough to have come across this before. This, of course, makes me wonder why you continue with the old lie that the bones were found in different locations.

40 posted on 04/13/2004 9:06:06 AM PDT by Junior (Remember, you are unique, just like everyone else.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794