A Challenge To All Creationists

[jonathan180iq]

"Australopithecus afarensis is one of the most attested species in the fossil record. Hundreds of fossils have been found. Evidence of its bipedality is extensive, including its pelvis, the position of its sacrum, the angle from the femur to the knee, the connections for knee extensors on its leg bones, and the location of its big toe..."
-Reggie Miller's Link

-"...the links are true and real, whether you are willing to accept them or not."
-Reggie Miller

 

[SkepticThinker]

I already told you I'm not your son. Not hardly.

Lucy was presented as a hoax and an outright lie. You cannot deny the truth, PERSON WHO IS NOT MY FATHER.

This is false. Why do you continually ignore the other 300 Australopithecus afarensis individuals that have been documented??

 

[Reggie Miller]

This is false. Why do you continually ignore the other 300 Australopithecus afarensis individuals that have been documented??

I don't care about those.

I do care that scientists lied about Lucy intentionally. That should propose concern for you, too, but since you just choose to act like it never happened you don't care about it.

It isn't false. How many links do I have to provide?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't care about those.

I do care that scientists lied about Lucy intentionally. That should propose concern for you, too, but since you just choose to act like it never happened you don't care about it.

It isn't false. How many links do I have to provide?

There's the problem. You should care about them. They demonstrate that no lie has been told in regards to "Lucy."

Your links don't say what you think they do, as pointed out by many others.

 

[gnostic]

I don't care about those.

I do care that scientists lied about Lucy intentionally. That should propose concern for you, too, but since you just choose to act like it never happened you don't care about it.

It isn't false. How many links do I have to provide?

Wow, reggie.

You have just demonstrated that you are not interested in evidences, because you rather just focus on one fossil, ignoring all other fossils of the Australopithecus afarensis.

Thank you for showing to us that wilful ignorance and bias are alive and dominant among creationists.

 

[Reggie Miller]

There's the problem. You should care about them. They demonstrate that no lie has been told in regards to "Lucy."

Your links don't say what you think they do, as pointed out by many others.

Lies were told. You're wrong. You ignore mountains of evidence that lies were told.

 

[metis]

Nevertheless the links are true and real, whether you are willing to accept them or not.

The two sites you used are religious sites, not scientific ones. If there were to be any doubt about the difference, carefully check out jonathan's #1599 post.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Wow, reggie.

You have just demonstrated that you are not interested in evidences, because you rather just focus on one fossil, ignoring all other fossils of the Australopithecus afarensis.

Thank you for showing to us that ignorance and bias are dominant among creationists.

There are many hoaxes concerning evolutionary scientists. I concentrated on Lucy because that's just one of them.

"In a recent study, Tel Aviv University anthropologists determined that Lucy’s lower jaw bone is some kind of gorilla jaw bone. Other parts of the skeleton are just like the bones of knuckle-dragging, tree-climbing gorillas. Yet Lucy has been Evolutionism's poster child. Very creatively designed sculptures of Lucy appear in tax-funded museums, and these sculptures are hoaxes, not following the obvious ape-like bone structures, but rather dishonestly presenting Lucy as if she had human-like bone structures. This is typical Evolutionary flim-flam. Evolutionists fool themselves first because of their confirmation bias. Everything looks like part of the evolutionary dream, because or Evolutionism's presupposition.

As a result, the evolutionary researchers concluded that Lucy should no longer be considered man’s direct ancestor. As is typically the case in the field of human evolution, a single bone structure overturns years of grossly exaggerated claims. In the face of all these findings, many evolutionist experts declared that Lucy could not have been a forerunner of man."

Here are 10 examples of evolutionists portraying hoaxes. Lucy was just one of them.

Welcome to 6000years.org | Amazing Bible Discoveries | Proof the Bible is True

 

[Reggie Miller]

The two sites you used are religious sites, not scientific ones. If there were to be any doubt about the difference, carefully check out jonathan's #1599 post.

The research conducted in those sites is genuine. If it isn't then post your refutation and stop just saying there is no truth in it because they are "religious" sites. That is fallacious and you know it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Lies were told. You're wrong. You ignore mountains of evidence that lies were told.

Nice alternative facts you've got there.

https://phys.org/news/2009-02-famous-fossil-lucy-scanned-university.html
Lucy's Knee Joint
Australopithecus afarensis | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
Phylogeny of early Australopithecus: new fossil evidence from the Woranso-Mille (central Afar, Ethiopia) | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Three-dimensional Functional Morphology of the Australopithecus afarensis Fourth Metatarsal



And from the link you provided:

"Conclusion
Australopithecus afarensis is one of the most attested species in the fossil record. Hundreds of fossils have been found.

Evidence of its bipedality is extensive, including its pelvis, the position of its sacrum, the angle from the femur to the knee, the connections for knee extensors on its leg bones, and the location of its big toe. Donald Johanson neither needed to lie about the knee joint he discovered in 1973, nor is there any evidence that he ever did lie about it.

In fact, he published a book in 1981 describing everything that the anti-evolutionists claimed to have discovered by questioning in 1986."

Donald Johanson: Was Lucy a Hoax?




So tell me, where am I wrong, exactly?

 

[SkepticThinker]

There are many hoaxes concerning evolutionary scientists. I concentrated on Lucy because that's just one of them.

"In a recent study, Tel Aviv University anthropologists determined that Lucy’s lower jaw bone is some kind of gorilla jaw bone. Other parts of the skeleton are just like the bones of knuckle-dragging, tree-climbing gorillas. Yet Lucy has been Evolutionism's poster child. Very creatively designed sculptures of Lucy appear in tax-funded museums, and these sculptures are hoaxes, not following the obvious ape-like bone structures, but rather dishonestly presenting Lucy as if she had human-like bone structures. This is typical Evolutionary flim-flam. Evolutionists fool themselves first because of their confirmation bias. Everything looks like part of the evolutionary dream, because or Evolutionism's presupposition.

As a result, the evolutionary researchers concluded that Lucy should no longer be considered man’s direct ancestor. As is typically the case in the field of human evolution, a single bone structure overturns years of grossly exaggerated claims. In the face of all these findings, many evolutionist experts declared that Lucy could not have been a forerunner of man."

Here are 10 examples of evolutionists portraying hoaxes. Lucy was just one of them.

Welcome to 6000years.org | Amazing Bible Discoveries | Proof the Bible is True

The fact that there are 300+ other documented Australopithecus afarensis individuals in existence, clearly demonstrates that Lucy is not a hoax.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Lies were told. You're wrong. You ignore mountains of evidence that lies were told.

Read your own link for Pete's sake.

 

[metis]

The research conducted in those sites is genuine. If it isn't then post your refutation and stop just saying there is no truth in it.

More than enough evidence has been supplied for you from real scientific sites posted by several people here.

The fact is that you are not being told the truth from those religious-oriented sites you used should actually open your eyes to the fact that these sources are lying to you, and if they are so willing to lie to you about this, what else are they going to lie to you about?

I grew up in one of those churches (fundamentalist Protestant) that taught such pseudo-science, and even when I was in high school I saw so much evidence to the contrary of what they taught that I left it and found a church that didn't lie and distort.

And then I went and did my undergrad and grad degrees in anthropology and then taught it for 30 years. My biggest problem teaching it was not the issue of finding enough information but of what information I had to leave out because I wouldn't have enough time to cover it all.

 

[Reggie Miller]

The fact that there are 300+ other documented Australopithecus afarensis individuals in existence, clearly demonstrates that Lucy is not a hoax.

Read your own link for Pete's sake.

What part of: the evolutionary researchers concluded that Lucy should no longer be considered man’s direct ancestor are you not getting?

At first it was claimed that Lucy was man's direct ancestor. Or did you not know this? I guess you didn't.

 

[Reggie Miller]

More than enough evidence has been supplied for you from real scientific sites posted by several people here.

The fact is that you are not being told the truth from those religious-oriented sites you used should actually open your eyes to the fact that these sources are lying to you, and if they are so willing to lie to you about this, what else are they going to lie to you about?

I grew up in one of those churches (fundamentalist Protestant) that taught such pseudo-science, and even when I was in high school I saw so much evidence to the contrary of what they taught that I left it and found a church that didn't lie and distort.

And then I went and did my undergrad and grad degrees in anthropology and then taught it for 30 years. My biggest problem teaching it was not the issue of finding enough information but of what information I had to leave out because I wouldn't have enough time to cover it all.

It is or should be common knowledge that when Lucy was first discovered it was claimed that she was man's direct ancestor, which was a deliberate lie. If you deny this then it is you that is in denial, not me.

And what about the other 9 examples I gave? Hmm...

 

[gnostic]

Lies were told. You're wrong. You ignore mountains of evidence that lies were told.

That the most ignorant thing you have said so far, as well as the most dishonest.

You are not looking at mountains of evidences, you are just focusing on one fossil, hence only one evidence.

As I posted before, there is a group of Australopithecus afarensis, of at least 13 individuals, if not more fossils, known as the First Family (AL333), both young and old. This is located near Hadar, the same village that Lucy was found near, and by the found by the same team, one year after Lucy was discovered.

That you would focus only on Lucy, showed you are not interested in looking at other evidences.

So for you to accuse SkepticThinker of not looking at the "mountains of evidence", when you are the one doing exactly that, just demonstrate what a hypocrite you really are.

 

[Reggie Miller]

More than enough evidence has been supplied for you from real scientific sites posted by several people here.

All of that research is based on scientific assumptions, not scientific fact. I don't care for scientific assumptions, myself. Anybody can put a few bones together and say whatever they want about them, doesn't make any of it the truth. All of the dating methods are based on scientific assumptions, for one example, not hard evidence.

 

[Reggie Miller]

That the most ignorant thing you have said so far, as well as the most dishonest.

You are not looking at mountains of evidences, you are just focusing on one fossil, hence only one evidence.

As I posted before, there is a group of Australopithecus afarensis, of at least 13 individuals, if not more fossils, known as the First Family (AL333), both young and old. This is located near Hadar, the same village that Lucy was found near, and by the found by the same team, one year after Lucy was discovered.

That you would focus only on Lucy, showed you are not interested in looking at other evidences.

So for you to accuse SkepticThinker of not looking at the "mountains of evidence", when you are the one doing exactly that, just demonstrate what a hypocrite you really are.

Oh, I've seen your mountains of evidence, all right. See my post above.

And Lucy was the one they lied about, not the others, good try on trying to take the focus off the one they lied about, though, but not good enough.

 

[metis]

It is or should be common knowledge that when Lucy was first discovered it was claimed that she was man's direct ancestor, which was a deliberate lie.

That is also false as when Lucy was first found they thought she might me an early hominid, but because she was so archaic they weren't entirely sure. And even today we do not call her a "direct ancestor", and if any of your sources tell you that then it is they whom are telling you a "deliberate lie". She simply is too far back in time to know exactly where she fits in. Maybe she is; maybe she isn't; but either way she is human.

 

[Reggie Miller]

I've already shown that I'm right. No need to daudle here anymore. If you will deny the truth, then continue on in willing ignorance.