Isn't it true that the more a group tries to censor it's members, the more suspect it is?

[Neb]

Wrong again. I understand this topic fairly well. You have no clue at all. You believe stories that were morality tales for children at best. Lucy is much closer to you than she is a closer to a chimp. You are in effect calling yourself a chimp. You really need to work on your arguments

Let's start by comparing hip bones. One of these things is not like the other:

watch this on how it was altered.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

watch this on how it was altered.

That doesn't look like a scientific conference to me. Any peer reviewed papers to back your assertions?

 

[Neb]

You are ignoring the radiometric dating because it isn't what you want.

They could NOT use the K-Ar because they could not find any "igneous rocks" [read your C&P again] back in 77 so 13 years later they came back with the newly updated Ar-Ar and viola! a 92-year-old chimp became a 3.2 million-year-old human.

Transitional is not the same as ancestral. Those are two different concepts.

It's all part of your argument.

 

[Neb]

That doesn't look like a scientific conference to me. Any peer reviewed papers to back your assertions?

Do you think this video was a lie? It showed how the hip was altered.

 

[Subduction Zone]

watch this on how it was altered.

Sorry, but you are using a lying source. I know about how Lucy was reconstructed and has nothing to do with your failure here.

Bones are distorted quite often when you put many tons of sediments above them. Lucy's hips as first found that still resemble human hips far more than they resemble chimp hips, were in a position that made child birth or even walking impossible. A casting was made of the original and that was restored by analyzing how it had been distorted in the first place.

Neb, when you run away from an argument you tacitly admit that it was correct, as you did so here.

By relying on lying sources you admit that you are wrong, as you did so here. If you want to refute or support science try to find ones that do not lie about the original peer reviewed work:

Correcting Creationists Redux…Was Lucy’s Pelvis Reconstruction A Fraud?

"Second, reconstructing fossil fragments is a standard practice among those of us who study ancient bones. Bones fragment, get pushed together, become fossilized in place and must be pieced together to restore their original orientation (by the way, this is the same technique used by forensic anthropologists to reconstruct an individual’s identity – creationists don’t seem to have a problem with bone fragments being “reconstructed” to identify a murder victim). Further, creationists misrepresent what Lovejoy actually did. He did not “reshape the bone…in a vain attempt to make her more human”. He (and every other anatomist who looked at the fossils) realized the bone had been fossilized in an “anatomically impossible position” (emphasis added). The documentary noted this, Lovejoy described this at professional meetings and in professional publications, and others have noted it. The only people who seem to ignore this fact are the creationists who are more interested in weaving a Darwinist conspiracy theory than understanding the nature of paleontological research. Lovejoy simply cut the broken parts out and re-fit them into the position they occupied at the time Lucy was alive."

Do you realize that even to work at Answers in Genesis and other such sites one must swear not to use the scientific method?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you think this video was a lie? It showed how the hip was altered.

No, it misrepresented how and why the hip was altered. See my previous post.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

They could NOT use the K-Ar because they could not find any "igneous rocks"

That is false.

"Initial attempts were made in 1974 by Maurice Taieb and James Aronson in Aronson's laboratory at Case Western Reserve University to estimate the age of the fossils using the potassium-argon radiometric dating method. These efforts were hindered by several factors: the rocks in the recovery area were chemically altered or reworked by volcanic activity; datable crystals were very scarce in the sample material; and there was a complete absence of pumice clasts at Hadar."
Lucy (Australopithecus) - Wikipedia

The K/Ar method is susceptible to error in weathered igneous rock which can be overcome in the Ar/Ar method.

[read your C&P again] back in 77 so 13 years later they came back with the newly updated Ar-Ar and viola! a 92-year-old chimp became a 3.2 million-year-old human.

Right. They used an improved method that better fit the samples. What they didn't use is index fossils which is what you claimed. Will you admit you are wrong on this point?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Do you think this video was a lie? It showed how the hip was altered.

Where is the scientific evidence demonstrating that it was altered?

 

[Neb]

That creationists go out of their way to misunderstand what transitional means is indicative of cognitive dissonance at best. Sometimes a person has to "lie to oneself" in self defense of a cherished idea. What drives me nuts are those that get it only half way and then pretend that shows that transitional fossils are not evidence for evolution.

You have your own definition of transitional, right? Macroevolution is what you guys got. You could NOT possibly trace these so-called transitional form to any other forms at all unless of course, you have the DNA, right? Now, your 68 million t-rex with collagen, this you could.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They could NOT use the K-Ar because they could not find any "igneous rocks" [read your C&P again] back in 77 so 13 years later they came back with the newly updated Ar-Ar and viola! a 92-year-old chimp became a 3.2 million-year-old human.[/quoite]

The K/Ar method is an older method. Technology has improved since then. The could find igneous rocks, but they could not be dated at that time. Just because the first plane could not beat the speed of sound does not mean that all planes cannot do so. There is a reason that areas are retested when new technology is invented.

It's all part of your argument.

Perhaps you should try to learn the difference. It is very likely that Australopithecus afarensis is an ancestor of yours. If it wan't it would have been a very close relative to afarensis.

Or perhaps we could go over the concept of scientific evidence again and how Lucy is without a doubt evidence for human evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where is the scientific evidence demonstrating that it was altered?

It was reconstructed. Not "altered". I linked an article on it. When found the bones were distorted by weight and pressure. That is common. As found Lucy was "anatomically impossible". She could not bear children or even walk. A casting was made of the original and that casting was cut on obvious break lines and reconstructed.

So in that sense Lucy was never reconstructed, a casting of her hip was.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have your own definition of transitional, right? Macroevolution is what you guys got. You could NOT possibly trace these so-called transitional form to any other forms at all unless of course, you have the DNA, right? Now, your 68 million t-rex with collagen, this you could.

No, it is creationists that try to redefine transitional. And no, why do you think that DNA is needed? And there is no DNA in the T-Rex collagen. Collagen is a structural protein, it is not a cell.

Here let me help you:

Transitional fossil - Wikipedia

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group."

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It was reconstructed. Not "altered". I linked an article on it. When found the bones were distorted by weight and pressure. That is common. As found Lucy was "anatomically impossible". She could not bear children or even walk. A casting was made of the original and that casting was cut on obvious break lines and reconstructed.

So in that sense Lucy was never reconstructed, a casting of her hip was.

If creationists have to make the claim that Lucy is faked somehow then it only confirms just how transitional she really is.

 

[Neb]

Where is the scientific evidence demonstrating that it was altered?

You guys are always looking for "scientific evidence". For Lucy to be called a hominid she must walk in a bipedal manner, right? IOW, Lucy was not a tree swinging chimp or a knuckle-walking chimp anymore because she had evolved from being a primate to a bipedal hominid and with the pictures of the javaman and the neantherthals, that were published, all these were for the purpose of displaying the chronological order, or the MISSING LINKS, from the hominid to the modern man as “scientific evidence” of the ToE.

Another example is, the Nebraska Man. Someone found a PIG tooth and built an ENTIRE MAN around it and call it the Missing Link and it goes into the text-books but found to be a fraud, decades later, but stay in circulation and still pushed as evidence of the ToE.

It’s easy to fabricate all these lies and call it the ToE’s “scientific evidence” than to prove scientifically the molecule to man fantasy.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You guys are always looking for "scientific evidence".

Yeah, strange that.

For Lucy to be called a hominid she must walk in a bipedal manner, right?

Hominids are classified by having adaptations for bipedal walking which is exactly what we see in the Australopithecine pelvis. Australopithecines have human-like physical features not seen in other apes and ape-like features not seen in modern humans. This is what makes Australopithecines a transitional species, the mixture of physical features from humans and non-human apes. This is the scientific evidence.

Another example is, the Nebraska Man. Someone found a PIG tooth and built an ENTIRE MAN around it and call it the Missing Link and it goes into the text-books but found to be a fraud, decades later, but stay in circulation and still pushed as evidence of the ToE.

Nebraska man was rejected by the scientific community immediately after publication. It was never considered to be a valid hominid fossil by the scientific community.

It’s easy to fabricate all these lies and call it the ToE’s “scientific evidence” than to prove scientifically the molecule to man fantasy.

Is it a lie that the pelvis from Australopithecines is more like the human pelvis than the chimp pelvis?


The two pelvises in the middle sure look a lot like the one on the left and very different from the one on the right. How am I lying about this?

 

[Neb]

That creationists go out of their way to misunderstand what transitional means is indicative of cognitive dissonance at best. Sometimes a person has to "lie to oneself" in self defense of a cherished idea. What drives me nuts are those that get it only half way and then pretend that shows that transitional fossils are not evidence for evolution.

You do not have any "intermediate links".

Your god, Darwin said, “Why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” So, the assumption is, we should find “transitional forms” in “countless numbers” but there is a problem according to Darwin and he explained it in the next chapter, i.e., Chapter 9 - On the Imperfection of the Geological Record

“Darwin addresses the fact that his theory of natural selection is not supported by findings in the geological (or fossil) record. If Darwin’s theory of natural selection were true, paleontologists studying fossils should be able to find intermediate links between existing species and their parent forms throughout the geological record. Unfortunately, those intermediate links have rarely been found. To refute his theory’s critics, Darwin argues that the geological record is imperfect.”

“Darwin argues that because the earth has existed for an unfathomable number of years, based on his good friend Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, the number of changes that have taken place on its surface, including the number of species that have formed, flourished, and eventually become extinct, is infinite compared to the paltry holdings of fossils at geological museums.”

IOW, the only way Darwin could explain his theory on “why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” is to make another theory on why do we not find them, and that is because of “the Imperfection of the Geological Record” based on Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology.

“Darwin argues that the physical makeup of the earth’s surface is constantly in flux.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

You guys are always looking for "scientific evidence". For Lucy to be called a hominid she must walk in a bipedal manner, right? IOW, Lucy was not a tree swinging chimp or a knuckle-walking chimp anymore because she had evolved from being a primate to a bipedal hominid and with the pictures of the javaman and the neantherthals, that were published, all these were for the purpose of displaying the chronological order, or the MISSING LINKS, from the hominid to the modern man as “scientific evidence” of the ToE.

Another example is, the Nebraska Man. Someone found a PIG tooth and built an ENTIRE MAN around it and call it the Missing Link and it goes into the text-books but found to be a fraud, decades later, but stay in circulation and still pushed as evidence of the ToE.

It’s easy to fabricate all these lies and call it the ToE’s “scientific evidence” than to prove scientifically the molecule to man fantasy.

First off "missing link" is a bogus creationist term. I suggest that you avoid it.

Second there is no doubt that Lucy was a biped.

And your claim about Nebraska Man is one hundred percent wrong. I warned you about using lying sites, why do you still go to them? Nebraska Man was never accepted by scientists. It was a newspaper article, not a scientific article, that blew it up into what it was not.

Neb, you and I both know that you are the one that believes in a fairy tale. You should be trying to find out why we know that your beliefs are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do not have any "intermediate links".

Of course we do. We can show countless examples, here are just a few:

Your god, Darwin said, “Why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” So, the assumption is, we should find “transitional forms” in “countless numbers” but there is a problem according to Darwin and he explained it in the next chapter, i.e., Chapter 9 - On the Imperfection of the Geological Record

“Darwin addresses the fact that his theory of natural selection is not supported by findings in the geological (or fossil) record. If Darwin’s theory of natural selection were true, paleontologists studying fossils should be able to find intermediate links between existing species and their parent forms throughout the geological record. Unfortunately, those intermediate links have rarely been found. To refute his theory’s critics, Darwin argues that the geological record is imperfect.”

“Darwin argues that because the earth has existed for an unfathomable number of years, based on his good friend Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, the number of changes that have taken place on its surface, including the number of species that have formed, flourished, and eventually become extinct, is infinite compared to the paltry holdings of fossils at geological museums.”

Quote mining is a dishonest technique. You should not use it. The Bible says "There is no God" at least twelve times. Does that make it valid? Your quotes out of context do not help you. Yes, 150 years ago the fossil record was a bit sparse. Do you seriously think that no fossils were found since then?

OW, the only way Darwin could explain his theory on “why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” is to make another theory on why do we not find them, and that is because of “the Imperfection of the Geological Record” based on Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology.

“Darwin argues that the physical makeup of the earth’s surface is constantly in flux.”

No, he based his theory on much more than just the fossil record. Even today the fossil record is just a small part of the evidence for the theory of evolution. It is merely the easiest evidence for amateurs to understand.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You do not have any "intermediate links".

The Smithsonian does.

IOW, the only way Darwin could explain his theory on “why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” is to make another theory on why do we not find them, and that is because of “the Imperfection of the Geological Record” based on Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology.

And we know that the geologic record is imperfect. There are gaps of millions of years between many deposits. Darwin was right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Smithsonian does.

And we know that the geologic record is imperfect. There are gaps of millions of years between many deposits. Darwin was right.

And there always will be some "gaps". Of course that does not mean there are not intermediates. I simply do not understand the "logic" of creationists. I think it has to be largely desperation on their part.