Why Evolution and Christianity are Fundamentally Irreconcilable

[metis]

Actually I supplied a quote

Let me guess... you think it's a fake link... see the link on Lucy Dethroned

see --> Lucy Dethroned

Are there bogus sites that push falsehoods about evolution-- you betcha. Are there bogus sites that push falsehoods that condemn religion-- you betcha as well.

When quoting science, one needs to seek out reputable sources that don't have agendas to push falsehoods. One could say the same about some things that Dawkins has written and said whereas he sometimes pushes his anti-religion opinions as if they're slam-dunk facts.

We know with certainty that there is and has been a evolution of life forms, and this includes humans because nothing else makes sense in regards to the massive amount of evidence that's out there. I came from a fundamentalist church, had thoughts about going into the ministry, but my interest in science led me to study this matter in detail, and there simply is not one speck of doubt that evolution has taken place. Needless to say, I left that church and found another that accepted science and didn't see it as some sort of threat.

 

[ecco]

definitely an ad hominem

"
AUSTRALOPITHECINE TEETH:
MORE EVIDENCE THAT LUCY WAS ARBOREAL
One of Donald Johanson’s specialties is identifying differences within the teeth of alleged hominids. In fact, in his original description, he gave a great deal of attention to the dentition of A. afarensis. By measuring the various differences in molars and canines, he systematically assigned various fossils to predetermined groups. However, even his highly trained eyes may have missed some important microscopic data. Anthropologist Alan Walker has been working on ways of possibly determining behavior based on evidence from the fossil record. One of his methods includes quantitative analysis of tooth microwear. Using image enhancement and optical diffraction methods of scanning, Walker believes he might be able to reconstruct ancient diets from paleontological samples. In speaking of Walker’s material, Johanson noted:

Dr. Alan Walker of Johns Hopkins has recently concluded that the polishing effect he finds on the teeth of robust australopithecines and modern chimpanzees indicates that australopithecines, like chimps, were fruit eaters.... If they were primarily fruit eaters, as Walker’s examination of their teeth suggests they were, then our picture of them, and of the evolutionary path they took, is wrong (Johanson and Edey, 1981, p. 358).
So we now have impressive evidence that Lucy and her kin ate fruit from trees, rather than foraging for food on the ground.


"

Science marches on. That's a good thing.

 

[Audie]

Science marches on. That's a good thing.

That those primates could and did climb is hardly a surprise.
Others less well suited also do.
goat in tree - Yahoo Image Search Results

 

[whirlingmerc]

Think o

That those primates could and did climb is hardly a surprise.
Others less well suited also do.
goat in tree - Yahoo Image Search Results

Think of it this way: from the neck up Lucy is very non human, from the neck down Lucy is very non human... that about covers it.


"
From the neck down, nearly every: feature was likewise non-human. Australopithecus fossils, including those which are thought to be much more recent and therefore should be more human-like, have long, curved fingers and long, curved toes—well adapted to swinging from tree limb to tree limb.

The features which suggest upright posture to Johanson are primarily the hip and knee joints, but numerous studies on the hip have shown otherwise. Oxnard, in his 1987 book, Fossils, Teeth and Sex (which contains an excellent summary of these various studies), claims that, "These fossils clearly differ more from both humans and African apes than do these living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique" (p. 227). Evidently they could walk somewhat upright, as pygmy chimps do today, but not in the human manner at all. Furthermore, Johanson seldom reminds us that he found the knee joint—the strongest evidence for upright stance—in a location some two to three kilometers away, and in a layer of rock some 200 feet lower. Clearly, the knee does not belong with the rests, but even if they do go together, the knee is not diagnostically upright, and; points more specifically to tree-climbing abilities, according to Oxnard and other authorities."
Was Lucy An Ape-man?

 

[whirlingmerc]

Dr. Charles Oxnard completed the most sophisticated computer analysis of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken, and concluded that the australopithecines have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever, and are simply an extinct form of ape (Fossils, Teeth and Sex: New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, 1987).

see Problems with Lucy and Skull 1470

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Science marches on. That's a good thing.

yes ..away from Darwinism!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dr. Charles Oxnard completed the most sophisticated computer analysis of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken, and concluded that the australopithecines have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever, and are simply an extinct form of ape (Fossils, Teeth and Sex: New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, 1987).

see Problems with Lucy and Skull 1470

If this is true why can't you find a reliable source? You linked to a site that looked like it was made by a high school student.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Think o



Think of it this way: from the neck up Lucy is very non human, from the neck down Lucy is very non human... that about covers it.


"
From the neck down, nearly every: feature was likewise non-human. Australopithecus fossils, including those which are thought to be much more recent and therefore should be more human-like, have long, curved fingers and long, curved toes—well adapted to swinging from tree limb to tree limb.

The features which suggest upright posture to Johanson are primarily the hip and knee joints, but numerous studies on the hip have shown otherwise. Oxnard, in his 1987 book, Fossils, Teeth and Sex (which contains an excellent summary of these various studies), claims that, "These fossils clearly differ more from both humans and African apes than do these living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique" (p. 227). Evidently they could walk somewhat upright, as pygmy chimps do today, but not in the human manner at all. Furthermore, Johanson seldom reminds us that he found the knee joint—the strongest evidence for upright stance—in a location some two to three kilometers away, and in a layer of rock some 200 feet lower. Clearly, the knee does not belong with the rests, but even if they do go together, the knee is not diagnostically upright, and; points more specifically to tree-climbing abilities, according to Oxnard and other authorities."
Was Lucy An Ape-man?

Oh my!! You just admitted that Lucy is an example of a transitional fossil.

My work here is done.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Skull 1470 discovered by Leakey is supposed to be an ancestor to man, too. Did you know that Leakey and others obtained 41 potassium-argon dates for this skull, all of which they rejected because the date obtained was not "right"? Finally Leakey used an argument based on the size of pigs teeth found in the strata to get the date for skull 1470 that he thought was correct.

Problems with Lucy and Skull 1470

It just ain't right? hmmmm but the pigs tooth method is much more accuate?

Oh my!! You just admitted that Lucy is an example of a transitional fossil.

My work here is done.

Lucy is very non human, completely THEREFORE transitional? ... no... I was thinking more in line with that interstellar quote "Evolution is vastly overrated" Ambassador Delai from Babylon 5

But for more on ancient pigs tooth and drawing very very wrong conclusions... see Nebraska man one of the two 'evidences' presented to the public at the Scopes trial... the other? a chimp skeleton deliberately stained to look old and with teeth ground down to look less non human - science? no, not really

see 'inherently wind"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Skull 1470 discovered by Leakey is supposed to be an ancestor to man, too. Did you know that Leakey and others obtained 41 potassium-argon dates for this skull, all of which they rejected because the date obtained was not "right"? Finally Leakey used an argument based on the size of pigs teeth found in the strata to get the date for skull 1470 that he thought was correct.

Problems with Lucy and Skull 1470

It just ain't right? hmmmm but the pigs tooth method is much more accuate?



Lucy is very non human, completely THEREFORE transitional? ... no... I was thinking more in line with that interstellar quote "Evolution is vastly overrated" Ambassador Delai from Babylon 5

But for more on ancient pigs tooth and drawing very very wrong conclusions... see Nebraska man one of the two 'evidences' presented to the public at the Scopes trial... the other? a chimp skeleton deliberately stained to look old and with teeth ground down to look less non human - science? no, not really

see 'inherently wind"

When you rely on dishonest idiots you tend to make yourself look like one. Skull 1470 is not a Australopithecus. It is an example of Homo habilis. The date is not a problem:

KNM-ER 1470

You are clearly brighter than this. Please don't paint yourself with the same brush.

And you already admitted that Lucy is transitional. You are not asking the right questions. You might want to put a little more thought into your posts.

Lastly, as I pointed out you are using sites written by liars and idiots. A quick Google search would have told you that Nebraska Man was not used in the Scopes Trial. The judge allowed no expert testimony. You can read more here:

The Scopes Trial: Frequently Rebutted Assertions. By W. R. Elsberry.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This site has a very short video that shows models of human,chimp, and Australopithecus hips. Lucy was nowhere a chimp:

NOVA: Becoming Human | Fossil Evidence of Bipedalism

 

[Audie]

When you rely on dishonest idiots you tend to make yourself look like one. Skull 1470 is not a Australopithecus. It is an example of Homo habilis. The date is not a problem:

KNM-ER 1470

You are clearly brighter than this. Please don't paint yourself with the same brush.

And you already admitted that Lucy is transitional. You are not asking the right questions. You might want to put a little more thought into your posts.

Lastly, as I pointed out you are using sites written by liars and idiots. A quick Google search would have told you that Nebraska Man was not used in the Scopes Trial. The judge allowed no expert testimony. You can read more here:

The Scopes Trial: Frequently Rebutted Assertions. By W. R. Elsberry.

Skull 1470 discovered by Leakey is supposed to be an ancestor to man, too. Did you know that Leakey and others obtained 41 potassium-argon dates for this skull, all of which they rejected because the date obtained was not "right"? Finally Leakey used an argument based on the size of pigs teeth found in the strata to get the date for skull 1470 that he thought was correct.

Problems with Lucy and Skull 1470

It just ain't right? hmmmm but the pigs tooth method is much more accuate?



Lucy is very non human, completely THEREFORE transitional? ... no... I was thinking more in line with that interstellar quote "Evolution is vastly overrated" Ambassador Delai from Babylon 5

But for more on ancient pigs tooth and drawing very very wrong conclusions... see Nebraska man one of the two 'evidences' presented to the public at the Scopes trial... the other? a chimp skeleton deliberately stained to look old and with teeth ground down to look less non human - science? no, not really

The lie:

Nebraska man one of the two 'evidences' presented to the public at the Scopes trial... the other? a chimp skeleton deliberately stained to look old and with teeth ground down to look less non human - science? no, not really

How delightfully ironic, using a falsehood to try to allege that others use falsehoods.

The facts:

There was no physical evidence presented at the Scopes Trial. No expert witness testified before the jury. Only one expert was allowed to speak directly to the court. Statements from experts were read into the transcript at one point. However, no expert whether speaking directly or via affidavit mentioned Nebraska Man in the trial.

But, in further irony, Whil got one part right! The "no, not really".

 

[Audie]

Think o



Think of it this way: from the neck up Lucy is very non human, from the neck down Lucy is very non human... that about covers it.


"
From the neck down, nearly every: feature was likewise non-human. Australopithecus fossils, including those which are thought to be much more recent and therefore should be more human-like, have long, curved fingers and long, curved toes—well adapted to swinging from tree limb to tree limb.

The features which suggest upright posture to Johanson are primarily the hip and knee joints, but numerous studies on the hip have shown otherwise. Oxnard, in his 1987 book, Fossils, Teeth and Sex (which contains an excellent summary of these various studies), claims that, "These fossils clearly differ more from both humans and African apes than do these living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique" (p. 227). Evidently they could walk somewhat upright, as pygmy chimps do today, but not in the human manner at all. Furthermore, Johanson seldom reminds us that he found the knee joint—the strongest evidence for upright stance—in a location some two to three kilometers away, and in a layer of rock some 200 feet lower. Clearly, the knee does not belong with the rests, but even if they do go together, the knee is not diagnostically upright, and; points more specifically to tree-climbing abilities, according to Oxnard and other authorities."
Was Lucy An Ape-man?

A person could play dueling websites I suppose.

I had two points to make.

You falsely called "Lucy" a chimp.

That the creature could climb is hardly surprising,and
in no way addresses whether it was or was not
ancestral to hmankind.

If you will concede those two points, there may
be some future in discussion. If not, you are
merely preaching, and we are done.

Just for fun,here are footprints made by your
so-called "chimp"
lucy footprints - Yahoo Image Search Results

 

[ecco]

Science marches on. That's a good thing.

yes ..away from Darwinism!

Dar·win·ism
ˈdärwəˌnizəm/
noun
the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin.
​

Science is not marching away from Darwinism. Science is continually find new support for Darwinism.

How is it possible that you don't understand that.

 

[Audie]

Dar·win·ism
ˈdärwəˌnizəm/
noun
the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin.
​

Science is not marching away from Darwinism. Science is continually find new support for Darwinism.

How is it possible that you don't understand that.

Cog dis? Wishful thinking? Lack of analytical skulls?
Excessive devotion to creosites?

A lot of our creos will tell you that "more and more" scientists
are renouncing evolution.

Driving across Kansas I heard a preacher telling of the great
groundswell of revival he could feel all across the land.

Sane sort of thing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

. . .

Driving across Kansas I heard a preacher telling of the great
groundswell of revival he could feel all across the land.

Sane sort of thing.

That was merely some bad Mexican food that he ate. A few days, and bottles of Pepto Bismol, later and he felt right as rain again.

 

[Audie]

That was merely some bad Mexican food that he ate. A few days, and bottles of Pepto Bismol, later and he felt right as rain again.

Yeah, wish it were so easily cured. WHAT was I doing in
Kansas anyway.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, wish it were so easily cured. WHAT was I doing in
Kansas anyway.

Must of been that twister Dorothy:

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Actually... the newest thinking is that Lucy isn't even a female ...
Lucy is a really poor choice of a transitional form

Why? Australopithicus afarensis has a mixture of ape and human features. There is absolutely no doubt about this. For example:



The human pelvis is on the left and the chimp pelvis is on the right. The two in the middle are A. afarensis and Ar. ramidus, two hominid transitionals. Those pelvises sure look more like that of a human than of a chimp. Do you disagree? It doesn't take a degree in medicine to see the obvious.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The person who discovered Lucy... the male chimp... gave up and said Lucy was Dethroned
case closed

Lucy wasn't a chimp as its pelvis demonstrates. No chimp has a pelvis like that seen with Lucy. That pelvis is human-like, not chimp-like.