"Australopithecus afarenis (Lucy)- when they requested for a knee joint for her, they found one about 200 ft. lower and miles away. Tell me, how could that knee joint belong to Lucy? So, is her knee joint older than the rest of her body? And her inner ear structures, her skull and bones show she is a chimpanzee. She didn’t even walk like a human."
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html
tell me... is any of your information factual... or is it all BS... cause I am starting to think the later is the truth...
---
fuckyfuckerfuckingmcfuckfuck69 wrote:
Someone with a comment that has thought to it? Blasphemy!
Hey, I looked on that site, and guess what I found they listed as a transitional fossil, the legendary fake Archeopteryx. The truth about this reptile is that it’s just a reptile fossil. Then, they cemented on a piece of rock with feather imprints. You can tell it was cemented on to that reptile fossil. Other than this, that reptile is just a reptile fossil. It’s a fake. Oh, and as for the hominid finds, check my post above, and learn the truth. They are not true hominids. All of the other ones are fake. They are not even true transitional fossils. They just find a creature with teeth or something that are similar to that of another species,and call it a transitional fossil. It’s not a real transition, such as a reptile bird, or amphibian reptile, or monkey human, etc. And as for the link between fish to amphibians, they are very similar in structure, so any transitional fossils would not be significant, they are very similar on their own.
--- “Dying men have said, “I am sorry I have been an atheist, an infidel, an agnostic, a skeptic, or a sinner”; but no man ever said with his last breath, “I am sorry I have lived a Christian life." “The wages of sin is death- quit before payday.“
"umm let me guess that was from some creationist who walked up to some fossils and made up his own damn mind about what they were... then he probably called himself a scientist and claimed his findings as fact..."
No, that was fact from several different scientific sources. It’s true.
And as for Lucy, you didn’t say anything about the bone and skull and inner ear structures being just like those of regular apes.
--- “Dying men have said, “I am sorry I have been an atheist, an infidel, an agnostic, a skeptic, or a sinner”; but no man ever said with his last breath, “I am sorry I have lived a Christian life." “The wages of sin is death- quit before payday.“
Someone who cares.... wrote:
“umm let me guess that was from some creationist who walked up to some fossils and made up his own damn mind about what they were... then he probably called himself a scientist and claimed his findings as fact..."
No, that was fact from several different scientific sources. It’s true.
And as for Lucy, you didn’t say anything about the bone and skull and inner ear structures being just like those of regular apes.
and those sources are...
---
fuckyfuckerfuckingmcfuckfuck69 wrote:
Someone with a comment that has thought to it? Blasphemy!
and your posts are not the truth... they are false misguided claims to try to make evolution look like a hoax..."
Did you see what they did on that site? They made up lousy excuses and fought off their way. The refused to acknowledge the truth. They made excuses like the photography made the two parts look different. What is that? What kind of defense is that? Photography has nothing to do with it, the two parts do look different. Oh, and for the different textures of the two parts, they said it was how the animal body left the impression. How could have one body made two different textures?!? Then for the different chemicals in the two parts, the made up a lousy excuse and said it might be preservatives. Well excuse me, but if they applied preservatives to the fossil, wouldn’t they have applied the same preservative with the same substance to both parts of the fossil? Why would one part have one chemical substance, while the other another chemical substance? Because they were different pieces put together! Oh, and they said the two parts fit well except for the surface destroyed by preparation. What a lousy excuse! Those parts don’t fit together, that’s it. No matter what excuses they make about clumsy preparation, the truth stands! It’s a fake.
And I’m not using misguided claims, the truth is that evolution is a lie! It is a hoax! All proof shows that! I’m not even in need of misguided claims, all the proof is for Creation any way! It’s obvious!
And I see you’ve only been refuting me with one obviously biased website. How about some more, real sources?
--- “Dying men have said, “I am sorry I have been an atheist, an infidel, an agnostic, a skeptic, or a sinner”; but no man ever said with his last breath, “I am sorry I have lived a Christian life." “The wages of sin is death- quit before payday.“
The Revered wrote:
True, after all, IF EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE, hydra, I’m looking at you , how can your dog be a slave, when he feels you’re wrapped around his pinky claw?
Rev. Storring
Reverend, I’m not sure what you mean. Could you please restate that sentence in simpler terms.
--- The farther you question, the more they will hate you.
The Revered wrote:
True, after all, IF EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE, hydra, I’m looking at you , how can your dog be a slave, when he feels you’re wrapped around his pinky claw?
Rev. Storring
Reverend, I’m not sure what you mean. Could you please restate that sentence in simpler terms.
Okay, what I meant was: Is an animal, such as a dog, really a slave if it thinks that it has a good life? We look at it as us being dominant over the dog, but the dog thinks “Hey, this is cool, I don’t have to hunt, I sleep in a warm house, get belly-rubs and have an automatic fetch-machine if I just look cute." See, subjectivity.
dark99 wrote:
“Australopithecus afarenis (Lucy)- when they requested for a knee joint for her, they found one about 200 ft. lower and miles away. Tell me, how could that knee joint belong to Lucy? So, is her knee joint older than the rest of her body? And her inner ear structures, her skull and bones show she is a chimpanzee. She didn’t even walk like a human."
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html
tell me... is any of your information factual... or is it all BS... cause I am starting to think the later is the truth...
The problem is the usage of Lucy: a particular fossil find and a general term for the entire species.
A knee joint found miles away can be Lucy’s if we are using the term for the entire species. The knee could be a different animal of the same species.
Also, Lucy didn’t walk exactly like humans because she ISNT a human.
"And I see you’ve only been refuting me with one obviously biased website. How about some more, real sources?"
There is no such thing as an unbiased source. However, if the source has evidence and correctly provides its to readers, then the source can be taken more seriously than other. I use talk.origins because they do this.
You must not have read the article of the link you posted. Archaeopteryx is a species. A particular fossil of the species may have been altered by someone. However, there are other fossils of the species that are not forged.
The Revered wrote:
True, after all, IF EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE, hydra, I’m looking at you , how can your dog be a slave, when he feels you’re wrapped around his pinky claw?
Rev. Storring
Reverend, I’m not sure what you mean. Could you please restate that sentence in simpler terms.
Okay, what I meant was: Is an animal, such as a dog, really a slave if it thinks that it has a good life? We look at it as us being dominant over the dog, but the dog thinks “Hey, this is cool, I don’t have to hunt, I sleep in a warm house, get belly-rubs and have an automatic fetch-machine if I just look cute." See, subjectivity.
It’s true that the dog subjectively believes that. And subjectively, to some people it’s a slave. So yeah, that’s fair to say.
--- The farther you question, the more they will hate you.
sometimes it’s about conceiving something that you couldn’t quite see
and *snap* like that the lightbulb blinks on
take 2
--- "The Problem with the English language is that it is as pure as a crib-house whore. It not only borrows words from other languages; it has chased other languages down dark alley-ways, clubbed them unconscious and rifled their pockets for new vocabulary."
SWC, there is no concspiracy amongs scientists. Scientists actively check and double check their models. The first scientist to find positive evidence that disproved evolution would gain worldwide fame, probably win a Nobel Prize, and his name would go in the history books alongside Newton, Darwin, and Eintstein. There is more incentive to disprove evolution than to find evidence that supports evolution. Creationists on the other hand have a lot to lose: their entire identity.
So why aren’t you ID and creationists posting your irrefutable eivdence in peer-review journals? Why do you just post them on AIG and in church pamphlets? Because you have no evidence (none that hasn’t been refuted anyways. Your AIG boys would be world famous if they disproved evolution. There are over 50 articles published in peer reviewed jounrnals that refutes Irreducible Complexity. Did ID proponents just overlook this and not tell all their followers? To this date, ID has no positive evidence and no peer reviewed article published. The same goes for creationists. The only thing you people have is a mass of ignorant people.
Someone who cares.... wrote:
Hey, I looked on that site, and guess what I found they listed as a transitional fossil, the legendary fake Archeopteryx. The truth about this reptile is that it’s just a reptile fossil. Then, they cemented on a piece of rock with feather imprints. You can tell it was cemented on to that reptile fossil. Other than this, that reptile is just a reptile fossil. It’s a fake. Oh, and as for the hominid finds, check my post above, and learn the truth. They are not true hominids. All of the other ones are fake. They are not even true transitional fossils. They just find a creature with teeth or something that are similar to that of another species,and call it a transitional fossil. It’s not a real transition, such as a reptile bird, or amphibian reptile, or monkey human, etc. And as for the link between fish to amphibians, they are very similar in structure, so any transitional fossils would not be significant, they are very similar on their own.
DestinyGuy678 wrote:
ok someone who cares if you don’t believe in evolutio where did new species come from thay didn’t walk out of water just like that
I don’t know why any of you even bother, we all know we will never get what we want, SWC will always be an ignorant SOB, and we will never convert, so whats the point?
--- Dogbert said the deepest thing ever.
“It is all a part of the big illusion we perpetuate upon ourselves and which is in turn perpetuated upon us. When we believe we engage the illusion, when we stop believing we shatter the illusion and ourselves in the process because we are part of it."
I believe in GOd but things that happened in the bible aren’t to be taken litarly, like the big bang, God probably created that and he sets thing s in motion and teaches people lessons as they adavnce in their lives, but nothing that happens in the bible is to be taken letaraly
»
Off-Topic
» Can God might have created evolution?
, how can your dog be a slave, when he feels you’re wrapped around his pinky claw?
