A Challenge To All Creationists

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Oh, I get that that things change in science when new evidence is brought to light, as it should and as it always has. That is actually a very honest position to take.

It's the part where you claim that scientists deliberately lied and distorted the facts that doesn't work. It's the part where you claim that Lucy is a hoax that doesn't work.

 

[gnostic]

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.

Wow, you still going to ignore other evidences presented.

Actually, the first time I posted about AL333 (First Family), you had completely ignored my post. And you are still going to ignore my latest post, so you can focus doing your victory dance on some biased articles.

When scientists do their research and field work, they don't focus on just one evidence only. They would tried to find independent evidences, or other scientists will attempt to find or investigate evidences.

David Johanson and his team did just find partial remains of Lucy, but a lot more fossils, also of the Australopithecus afarensis species, in the following year.

Lucy is famous, but if you were truly a scientist, you wouldn't focus on one evidence, because any good scientific investigator or researcher will try to verify their finding on others. Verify, verify, verify...that's what scientists need to do.

All you are doing is just focusing on one fossil. And you are basing on some links, some of which you don't even bother to fully read, as SkepticThinker has already pointed several times.

Lucy is not a hoax, as you have repeatedly claimed, because there are other Australopithecus afarensis fossils, which verified and confirmed that it is not a hoax.

So the only one lying is you.

 

[Jose Fly]

"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

Thus, according to Reggie the Lucy find is indeed a genuine specimen that provides insight into our evolutionary history.

Well done Reggie!

 

[Reggie Miller]

Thus, according to Reggie the Lucy find is indeed a genuine specimen that provides insight into our evolutionary history.

Well done Reggie!

According to all the assumptions you want to make about it, Lucy could be the queen of China.

My point is/was that Lucy was a hoax in which it was claimed that she was a direct link in the supposed evolution of man. For all of these people to get on here and deny that fact, that is absurd.

 

[metis]

All of that research is based on scientific assumptions, not scientific fact.

That's not how we in science works, as an "assumption" doesn't even make it to the "hypothesis" level .

Anybody can put a few bones together and say whatever they want about them, doesn't make any of it the truth.

Again, that's not how it works, especially since any important find can be and often is inspected by others whereas they have a chance to throw in their 2 cents. And then when anything is published, others can write and refute.

All of the dating methods are based on scientific assumptions, for one example, not hard evidence.

Not true. For example, if those who specialize in the use of radioactive isotopes don't know what they're dealing with, then how could nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons actually work?

 

[metis]

My point is/was that Lucy was a hoax in which it was claimed that she was a direct link in the supposed evolution of man. For all of these people to get on here and deny that fact, that is absurd.

And for you to keep repeating the same thing over and over again when the real science sites tell you otherwise is well beyond absurd.

The reality is that the only real reason you can't accept the basic ToE is simply because of a religious interpretation that doesn't make any sense in today's age, especially in light of the fact that there are other possible interpretations that make much more sense. Do you want to discuss this?

 

[jonathan180iq]

According to all the assumptions you want to make about it, Lucy could be the queen of China.

My point is/was that Lucy was a hoax in which it was claimed that she was a direct link in the supposed evolution of man. For all of these people to get on here and deny that fact, that is absurd.

No.
Your links have accurately described a false statement made in the 1970s about a knee joint and they cited a single person has having "concluded" that the jaw bone came from a "knuckle-dragging gorilla." They have asserted nothing else. They have certainly not concluded that our modern understanding of hominid evolution is inaccurate, nor have they demonstrated that Lucy (or any other of the dozens of Australopithecus samples) are fraudulent.

Shall I show you, first hand?

You take a shot at which letter represents which species.
In no particular order they are:

• Two Neanderthal
• Homo Erectus
• Orangutan
• Chimpanzee
• Gorilla
• Homo Sapien
• Homo Habilis

If you can accurately differentiate between the gorilla and A. Afarensis I will give you $1,000,000.

EDIT: I don't know why I wrote Homo Habilis... That should say A. Afarensis.

 

[McBell]

I've already shown that I'm right.

No you haven't.

No need to daudle here anymore.

To be honest I am surprised you stayed around as long as you have given the number of times your *** has been handed to you.

If you will deny the truth, then continue on in willing ignorance.

I have no doubt what-so-ever you will continue to wallow in willful ignorance.

 

[Jose Fly]

My point is/was that Lucy was a hoax in which it was claimed that she was a direct link in the supposed evolution of man.

It looks like you don't understand what the word "hoax" means.

 

[Shad]

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

K

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

Nope. People pointed out one bone went unnoticed. They corrected that oversight

 

[Skwim]

No.
Your links have accurately described a false statement made in the 1970s about a knee joint and they cited a single person has having "concluded" that the jaw bone came from a "knuckle-dragging gorilla." They have asserted nothing else. They have certainly not concluded that our modern understanding of hominid evolution is inaccurate, nor have they demonstrated that Lucy (or any other of the dozens of Australopithecus samples) are fraudulent.

Shall I show you, first hand?

You take a shot at which letter represents which species.
In no particular order they are:

• Two Neanderthal
• Homo Erectus
• Orangutan
• Chimpanzee
• Gorilla
• Homo Sapien
• Homo Habilis

If you can accurately differentiate between the gorilla and A. Afarensis I will give you $1,000,000.

Oops! I answered your $1,000 question before seeing it wasn't open to everyone.



.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Oops! I answered your $1,000 question before seeing it wasn't open to everyone.
.

Just so everyone knows, Skwim got it right without cheating. He let me know in a private message.
(He wins nothing.)

Good luck, Reggie Miller! I'm sure the person in your links who thinks all jaw bones "look like a gorilla's" were well versed in hominid morphology and have passed that information on to their readers.

 

[SkepticThinker]

According to all the assumptions you want to make about it, Lucy could be the queen of China.

My point is/was that Lucy was a hoax in which it was claimed that she was a direct link in the supposed evolution of man. For all of these people to get on here and deny that fact, that is absurd.

How do you define "hoax?"

 

[SkepticThinker]

It looks like you don't understand what the word "hoax" means.

I'm starting to realize that has got to be the problem here.

 

[Skwim]

Just so everyone knows, Skwim got it right without cheating. He let me know in a private message.
(He wins nothing.)

.​

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm starting to realize that has got to be the problem here.

I see this sort of thing quite a bit from creationists. They try and turn a scientist being wrong about something into a deliberate fraud, or an example of how scientists can't be trusted.

As if science is an enterprise where you have to get everything 100% absolutely correct the first time, every time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I see this sort of thing quite a bit from creationists. They try and turn a scientist being wrong about something into a deliberate fraud, or an example of how scientists can't be trusted.

As if science is an enterprise where you have to get everything 100% absolutely correct the first time, every time.

Maybe it's a certain ignorance towards how science actually works as well.

 

[Jose Fly]

Maybe it's a certain ignorance towards how science actually works as well.

Oh definitely. But that's to be expected from people who get their understanding of science from Chick tracts, Kent Hovind, and Ken Ham.

 

[Milton Platt]

.



MAKE A CONVINCING CASE* FOR CREATIONISM WITHOUT REFERENCING EVOLUTION.​

* As in, convince the non-creationist.

That's all folks​

.

Dude, you have received over 11,000 views and over 1600 responses to this OP. Shouldn't there be some kind of RF trophy or something given out here?

 

[Skwim]

Dude, you have received over 11,000 views and over 1600 responses to this OP. Shouldn't there be some kind of RF trophy or something given out here?

Yeah, 11,000 views and 1,600 responses, yet not one convincing case for creationism without referencing evolution. Perhaps a Not-For-Lack-Of-Trying EFFORT award could be made on behalf of all those who posted in vain.