Why Evolution and Christianity are Fundamentally Irreconcilable

[Brickjectivity]

So I was correct that you did not read the things you said,
in bozosapiens.

Semantically correct!

 

[Subduction Zone]

You commented that you consider Luvy a poor choice. Your choice of
AIG, and the individual are a good choice from your pov, as they reinforce
your beliefs. A poor choice, though, if you hope to convince anyone
that you have a valid point.

It is not I who called him a liar. The Lancet is no chick tract or tabloid.
They dont do more respectable / credible journals than Lancet.

If they said that some cancer cure is quackery, it would be well to
pay attention.

The "red flag" you speak of can wave both ways. If people tell you
that your new girlfriend is a liar, you can interpret as that they
only want to demonize and treat badly. Or, you might consider the
chance that there is something to it. If Lancet calls fraud,
that is for sure a red flag.

In the event, neither you nor yout professor are being ill used
or demonized, so that is a false issue, false accusation.

It is pointed out that he and AIG are without credibility.
If such tainted sources are all you have to offer, and such
inappropriate hand wave as you offered me is your idea of
a discussion, I wont be part of it.

I trust you will make a better effort.

What is very telling is that I asked several times for support for Menton's claims using a valid source. All that he could come back With was that he won teacher of the year. I could buy a World's Best Dad tee shirt. Would that make me an authority here?

 

[Audie]

Semantically correct!

Sigh.

 

[Audie]

What is very telling is that I asked several times for support for Menton's claims using a valid source. All that he could come back With was that he won teacher of the year. I could buy a World's Best Dad tee shirt. Would that make me an authority here?

He may have been a fine teacher 20 yrs ago as per
awards. Maybe he went off the rails since; who knows.

He clearly is as I noted, a showman. A good teacher needs to
be that. So, if he was awarded, fine.

Our friend puts great importance on it as well he might
as it is all the guy has going now. There is a lot of
very negative commentary on the current state of his
integrity.

If he had researched and respectable data to present,
he could present it where it counts, in a professional
journal, not as an AIG- produced youtube vid.

But never mind, you cannot reason with the unreasonable.

 

[whirlingmerc]

You commented that you consider Luvy a poor choice. Your choice of
AIG, and the individual are a good choice from your pov, as they reinforce
your beliefs. A poor choice, though, if you hope to convince anyone
that you have a valid point.

It is not I who called him a liar. The Lancet is no chick tract or tabloid.
They dont do more respectable / credible journals than Lancet.

If they said that some cancer cure is quackery, it would be well to
pay attention.

The "red flag" you speak of can wave both ways. If people tell you
that your new girlfriend is a liar, you can interpret as that they
only want to demonize and treat badly. Or, you might consider the
chance that there is something to it. If Lancet calls fraud,
that is for sure a red flag.

In the event, neither you nor yout professor are being ill used
or demonized, so that is a false issue, false accusation.

It is pointed out that he and AIG are without credibility.
If such tainted sources are all you have to offer, and such
inappropriate hand wave as you offered me is your idea of
a discussion, I wont be part of it.

I trust you will make a better effort.

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

But really, you aren't dismissing an accomplished medical professor of a distinguished medical school

Interesting article suggesting Lucy died falling from a tree
Family tree fall: human ancestor Lucy died in arboreal accident, say scientists

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

But really, you aren't dismissing an accomplished medical professor of a distinguished medical school

Interesting article suggesting Lucy died falling from a tree
Family tree fall: human ancestor Lucy died in arboreal accident, say scientists

She probably didn't. Your article does not strongly support that claim. And even if she did, so what?

 

[whirlingmerc]

You commented that you consider Luvy a poor choice. Your choice of
AIG, and the individual are a good choice from your pov, as they reinforce
your beliefs. A poor choice, though, if you hope to convince anyone
that you have a valid point.

It is not I who called him a liar. The Lancet is no chick tract or tabloid.
They dont do more respectable / credible journals than Lancet.

If they said that some cancer cure is quackery, it would be well to
pay attention.

The "red flag" you speak of can wave both ways. If people tell you
that your new girlfriend is a liar, you can interpret as that they
only want to demonize and treat badly. Or, you might consider the
chance that there is something to it. If Lancet calls fraud,
that is for sure a red flag.

In the event, neither you nor yout professor are being ill used
or demonized, so that is a false issue, false accusation.

It is pointed out that he and AIG are without credibility.
If such tainted sources are all you have to offer, and such
inappropriate hand wave as you offered me is your idea of
a discussion, I wont be part of it.

I trust you will make a better effort.

You're relying on ad hominem, but you might enjoy the book "Lucy Dethroned"
Lucy Dethroned

Lucy probably a He

"
Hausler and Schmid noted that Lucy’s pelvis was ridgeless and heart-shaped, which means that “she” was more likely a “he.” They wrote:

Contrary to Sts 14 [designation for a specific A. africanus fossil—BH/BT], delivery [of a baby—BH/BT] in AL 288-1 would have been more complicated than in modern humans, if not impossible, due to the protruding promontorium.... Consequently, there is more evidence to suggest that AL 288-1 was male rather than female. A female of the same species as AL 288-1 would have had a pelvis with a larger sagittal diameter and a less protruding sacral promontorium.... Overall, the broader pelvis and the more laterally oriented iliac blades of AL 288-1 would produce more favourable insertion sites for the climbing muscles in more heavily built males.... It would perhaps be better to change the trivial name to “Lucifer” according to the old roman god who brings light after the dark night, because with such a pelvis “Lucy” would apparently have been the last of her species (29:380, emp. added)."

Lucy probably a chimp

"...That admission begs the question as to why this fossil was not categorized from the outset as simply a chimpanzee. But this gender declaration poses additional problems for Lucy. As Hausler and Schmid went on to note: “If AL 288-1 was female, then one can exclude this species from the ancestors of Homo because its pelvis is certainly less primitive than the pelvis of Sts 14 [the designation for a specific A. africanus fossil—BH/BT]” (1995, p. 378). Both of the pelvises mentioned display some degree of damage, and both are missing critical parts, but it should be noted that in regard to the Lucy fossil, more than one attempt was made at reconstruction...."

Not an upright walker at all

"...The March 29, 2000 San Diego Union Tribune reported:
A chance discovery made by looking at a cast of the bones of “Lucy,” the most famous fossil of Australopithecus afarensis, shows her wrist is stiff, like a chimpanzee’s, Brian Richmond and David Strait of George Washington University in Washington, D.C., reported. This suggests that her ancestors walked on their knuckles (Fox, 2000)...."

Bottom line... a tree dweller

"
In their concluding remarks, Stern and Susman remarked:

It will not have escaped the reader’s attention that the great bulk of evidence supports the view that the Hadar hominid was to a significant degree arboreal.... We discovered a substantial body of evidence indicating that arboreal activities were so important to A. afarensis that morphologic adaptations permitting adept movement in the trees were maintained (60:313).
In the September 9, 1994 issue of Science, Randall Susman reported that the chimp-like thumbs in A. afarensis were far better suited for tree climbing than tool making"

 

[Subduction Zone]

you're relying on ad hominem

No, calling your source a liar without evidence might be an ad hominem. The problem is that he was shown to be a liar.

Meanwhile I challenged you to find any support at all for his claims. Your inability to do so means that tacitly you agree that he is a liar as well.

 

[whirlingmerc]

No, calling your source a liar without evidence might be an ad hominem. The problem is that he was shown to be a liar.

Meanwhile I challenged you to find any support at all for his claims. Your inability to do so means that tacitly you agree that he is a liar as well.

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.


"

 

[whirlingmerc]

No, calling your source a liar without evidence might be an ad hominem. The problem is that he was shown to be a liar.

Meanwhile I challenged you to find any support at all for his claims. Your inability to do so means that tacitly you agree that he is a liar as well.

Sure looks like a chimp

"
LUCY’S RIB CAGE
Due to the impossibility of reconstructing Lucy’s skull from the few fragments available, the determination that Lucy walked uprightly like a human had to be derived from her hips and ribs. Peter Schmid, a paleontologist at the Anthropological Institute in Zurich, Switzerland, studied Lucy extensively, and summarized his efforts as follows.

When I started to put the skeleton together, I expected it to look human. Everyone had talked about Lucy as being very modern, very human, so I was surprised by what I saw. I noticed that the ribs were more round in cross-section, more like what you see in apes. Human ribs are flatter in cross-section. But the shape of the rib cage itself was the biggest surprise of all. The human rib cage is barrel shaped, and I just couldn’t get Lucy’s ribs to fit this kind of shape. But I could get them to make a conical-shaped rib cage, like what you see in apes (as quoted in Leakey and Lewin, 1992, pp. 193-194).
Ribs can be “tweaked” and rotated so that they appear more “barrel-like” or conical, but the best (and correct) arrangement is the original morphology. The facets from the ribs that line up on the vertebrae provide a tighter fit when aligned correctly. In Lucy’s case, her ribs are conical, like those found in apes."

 

[whirlingmerc]

No, calling your source a liar without evidence might be an ad hominem. The problem is that he was shown to be a liar.

Meanwhile I challenged you to find any support at all for his claims. Your inability to do so means that tacitly you agree that he is a liar as well.

Ironic quote from Donald Johansen

"
, in the March 1996 issue of National Geographic, Donald Johanson himself admitted: “Lucy has recently been dethroned” (189[3]:117, emp. added). His (and Lucy’s) “fifteen minutes of fame” are over. As Lee Berger declared: “One might say we are kicking Lucy out of the family tree” (as quoted in Shreeve, 1996). Fascinating, how often the hominid family tree is pruned!
"

 

[whirlingmerc]

Clearly many experts have kicked Lucy out of the tree... but dogma dies hard even in the 'scientific community' ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.


"

Not an ad hom, and more lies do not support your claim.

Please read carefully, real science is done through the process of peer review. If a person avoids peer review and can do real science, if he has published before, it is almost certain that he does so because he knows his claims would be refuted. It is a form of lying through omission.

Where are the articles from well respected peer reviewed professional journals that support your claims?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ironic quote from Donald Johansen

"
, in the March 1996 issue of National Geographic, Donald Johanson himself admitted: “Lucy has recently been dethroned” (189[3]:117, emp. added). His (and Lucy’s) “fifteen minutes of fame” are over. As Lee Berger declared: “One might say we are kicking Lucy out of the family tree” (as quoted in Shreeve, 1996). Fascinating, how often the hominid family tree is pruned!
"

Sorry claims without links are less than worthless, and National Geographic is not a reliable source for this sort of work. You need to be able to refer and link to peer reviewed sciences that supports your claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure looks like a chimp

"
LUCY’S RIB CAGE
Due to the impossibility of reconstructing Lucy’s skull from the few fragments available, the determination that Lucy walked uprightly like a human had to be derived from her hips and ribs. Peter Schmid, a paleontologist at the Anthropological Institute in Zurich, Switzerland, studied Lucy extensively, and summarized his efforts as follows.

When I started to put the skeleton together, I expected it to look human. Everyone had talked about Lucy as being very modern, very human, so I was surprised by what I saw. I noticed that the ribs were more round in cross-section, more like what you see in apes. Human ribs are flatter in cross-section. But the shape of the rib cage itself was the biggest surprise of all. The human rib cage is barrel shaped, and I just couldn’t get Lucy’s ribs to fit this kind of shape. But I could get them to make a conical-shaped rib cage, like what you see in apes (as quoted in Leakey and Lewin, 1992, pp. 193-194).
Ribs can be “tweaked” and rotated so that they appear more “barrel-like” or conical, but the best (and correct) arrangement is the original morphology. The facets from the ribs that line up on the vertebrae provide a tighter fit when aligned correctly. In Lucy’s case, her ribs are conical, like those found in apes."

You seem to keep forgetting that you are an ape. Pointing out that Lucy is an ape does not help your cause. And sources that do not go through peer review cannot refute ideas that went through peer review.

Once again, please do your homework. Find peer reviewed sources, not glamour press, not false creation "peer review" but articles that are from well respected professional sources.

 

[Audie]

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

But really, you aren't dismissing an accomplished medical professor of a distinguished medical school

Interesting article suggesting Lucy died falling from a tree
Family tree fall: human ancestor Lucy died in arboreal accident, say scientists

That is old news, but surprising that a "chimp" would die
falling from a tree. Almost like she's not very good at it.
I'd have thought you 'd keep quiet on that one. Must
not have thought it through. Quelle surprise.

But never mind. Your lying doctor is all you need.

Pretending it is an "ad hom"* to point to his lack
of credibility fits right in with your needs.

Tho maybe if you were in court accused by a notorious
liar testifying outside his field of expertise, you 'd be
ok with it; why not especially if he were a -gasp- ex professor!

You'd not want to ad hom the poor darlin' by mentioning
his perjury convictions, now, would you?

I will leave you to it.

* Something else you've only the most facile grasp of,
is the concept of "ad hom". But keep it up, it adds nicely
to the miasma surrounding the credibility of your posts.

 

[Audie]

You seem to keep forgetting that you are an ape. Pointing out that Lucy is an ape does not help your cause. And sources that do not go through peer review cannot refute ideas that went through peer review.

Once again, please do your homework. Find peer reviewed sources, not glamour press, not false creation "peer review" but articles that are from well respected professional sources.

Hey, ya got something against glam??

 

[whirlingmerc]

Hey, ya got something against glam??

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

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Really? Too bad that you cannot support that claim.

You can't refute that which you refuse to understand.

 

[Cooky]

There is one thing (likely the only thing) that Answers in Genesis got right, but many other Christians refuse to accept. The theory of evolution and Christianity are fundamentally irreconcilable. Here's why:

If evolution is true, then there is no actual distinction between humans and other animals. The line drawn between humans and our more primitive ape ancestors is completely arbitrary. In other words, if evolution is true, then there was no first human, and thus no Adam or Eve. If there was no Adam or Eve, then there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, then the entire belief system of Christianity fall like a house of cards, because the doctrine of original sin is the very foundation upon which all of Christianity is built.

Am I saying that it is impossible to be a Christian and accept evolution? No, because many people (perhaps the majority of people) hold inconsistent beliefs. However, I do believe strongly that evolution and Christianity are fundamentally irreconcilable in that they both cannot be true. If Darwinian evolution is a fact (and it is as close to a fact as we can get outside of mathematics and logic), then the core metaphysical claims of Christianity cannot be true for the reasons given above.

When would the first evolved human have existed? Why should his name not have been Adam?

...Obviously at some point there must have been a first human. Or at least more human than not.