More Complete than Lucy

There's a big part of your problem - you fail to distinguish between legitimate intellectual curiosity and rejectionist theistic sophistry.

Thank you, timber. You said it much better than I could have.

What he means is, the lower body is very human like after the brainwashed evo-losers re-arranged it with saws, hammers, and chisels etc. etc.

Evolution isn't about science; it's about lifestyles, and feeling good about being a sinner which is sort of the opposite of Christianity. Christianity says that while sin is unavoidable in this life, we can have the decency to act like we regret it once in a while.

There are several threads where you can argue evolution and Bible to your heart's content. That ain't why I started this one, and I refuse to engage in it here. You want to be childish about it, go ahead, I can't stop you. Just don't expect any polite answers and don't think I am going to read the **** you post.

Indeed it is fortunate - and telling - that the academic integrity, intellectual honesty and logical development of the medeival-minded luddite rejectionists who's cause you champion are typified by the quality of discourse displayed through your contributions to these discussions, gunga.

Like I say, nobody defends any sort of a science theory the way evolution is defended, i.e. to the last man, at all costs, and the truth be damned. Only religions and lifestyles are defended like that. I mean, this whole ID thing has come down to a pure freedom of speech issue; evolutionites don't believe in freedom of speech. Evolutionites believe they have some God given right to insist that their bullshit be taught as a "fact" in public schools at public expense, and that no nobody who disagrees should be allowed to speak.

But, like I say, it's about lifestyles. My question to the evo-losers is this: What part of the lifestyle do you think you're going to get to take with you?

How are you guys any better than slammites looking for 72 virgins in Allah's celestial whorehouse??

Re: More Complete than Lucy


It's nice to see another fossil from that epoch added to the data.

It sure takes them a long time to chip those things from the rock. I wouldn't have the patience.

Bullshit. Evolution is targeted for all-out attack by ignorant fundamentalist religionists who rightfully perceive it to be fatal to the fairytales and mythology they prefer to embrace as opposed to coming to grips with the realities of knowledge. Contrary to your assertions, gunga, and those of your ilk, the entire assembled body of evidence points, without contradiction or even contraindication, nowhere but to the fact of evolution, whereas the proponents of the ludicrous proposition you stridently, albeit incompetently and futiley, endorse have produced absolutely no evidence whatsoever on their own behalf, have published nothing in any legitimate academic or scientific journal in support of their proposition, employ nought but sophistry by way of argument, serving only to render themselves and their proposition laughingstocks among the legitimate academic, scientific, and philosophic communities. Your sort have picked a fight you absolutely cannot win, any more than could the Church beat Gallileo's ideas.


Perhaps it is; appaently your sort prefer the stultifying intellectual and philosophic constraints of the medeival lifestyle, while the rest of the world strides unafraid and unashamed into the future.

No one "takes anything with them", the measure of civilization is the framework for advance it leaves its succeeding generations.


Quite obviously "we" - those who are not hive-minded fundamentalist religionists - differ both from "them" and from you in, among numerous others, the particular respect that we are not consumed and driven by fear, superstition, and hatred.

It is not for me to demonstrate your weakness. You can do that for yourself.

I am not trying to create doubt. Only searching for the true facts.

The fact that you compare me to gungasnake has torn at my heart. I will be forever damaged.

Somebody who didn't know any better might mistake you for a reasonable person, i.e. it might not occur to them that what you had in mind to leave behind was a brain-dead ideological doctrine masquerading as science which had brought about two world wars, and a system of laws forbidding anybody from ever criticizing the ideological doctrine in a public school.

You make it sound like there is some sort of a dialectic between evolution and religion. There isn't; the dialectic is between evolution and the rest of science:

http://www.evolutionisimpossible.com

To have a dialectic between evolution and religion you'd have to have a religion which operated on an intellectual basis similar to that of evolution so that you'd have an apples to apples comparision, i.e. the dialectic would be between evolution and voodoo.

Other than for the fact that evolution serves as a religion and lifestyle justification system and psychic security blanket for yuppies who work in science-related fields, evolution would have been jettissoned decades ago. No real science theory goes on being defended after all the facts are in and they all point in other directions.

There are several lines of argument which should have killed it off by now, that is, on a level playing field, and I mean that any one of these arguments alone should have sufficed to kill it.

One whole category of such arguments arises from the realm of mathematics and probability theory:



Beginning in the mid 1960s at a number of symposia at the Wistar center in Philadelphia a number of the world's best mathematicians tried to explain the nature of reality to evolutionists, who are still in denial:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist12.htm

Basically, I might be willing to listen to a theory which requires one or two probabilistic miracles in the history of the universe or even the solar system. I am not willing to listen to something which stands everything we know about probability theory on its head; every complex creature on this earth is basically a zero-probability event from the standpoint of evolution.

Another whole category involves fruit fly experiments:

Fruit flies breed new generations every couple of days, so that breeding them for 20 or 30 years will involve more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of humans or anything resembling humans on the Earth. This was in fact done in the early decades of the 1900s in an all out effort to produce macroevolution in the lab. They subjected the flies to heat, cold, shock, blast, radiation, noise, and everything else known to produce mutations and then recombined mutants every possible way, and all they ever got were fruit flies. The results were so striking that several of the scientists involved publiclly renounced evolution including the famous case of Richard Goldschmidt who afterwards claimed he was being subjected by colleagues to something akin to the 10-minute hate sessions which George Orwell described.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut10.htm

Yet another category of things is the fossil record itself.

The fossil record simply does not show the kinds of intermediate fossils which darwinism demanded. It shows animal species going for long periods of time without changing (STASIS), and the abrupt emergence of new kinds of animals.

The recent Gould/Eldredge "punctuated equilibria" variation of evolution attempts to deal with this problem but has major kinds of problems of its own.


Yet another category is the recent neanderthal DNA studies.

Studies of neanderthal DNA in the late 1990s have eliminated the neanderthal as a plausible ancestor for modern man and all other hominids are further removed from modern man than the neanderthal.
This leaves no possible evolutionary antecedent for modern man on our planet.


Further evidence arises from the study of the giant animals of past ages.

There is now overwhelming evidence that humans were dealing with at least leftover dinosaurs just a few thousand years ago, and then last summer they turned up soft tissue inside a tyranosaur bone which looks much like hamburger you'd buy at the grocery store:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

And then there's the question of population dynamics and the Haldane dilemma which indicates that it would take quadrillions of years for our complex biosphere to evolve if that were possible, which it isn't.


Basically, evolution is junk science and, as junk science goes, it's a particularly dangerous and harmful flavor of junk science. Not something I'd want to leave sitting around as a legacy for my kids.

So, when we have truely overwhelming evidence that evolution is a fact, you wave it all away as speculation, but then along comes a single example of what 'appears' to be soft tissue, and suddenly you see overwhelming evidence that dinosaurs were around mere thousands of years ago.

You seem to be very biased about what you consider overwhelming.

When was that? I mean, MICROevolution is a fact of sorts, but the theory of evolution is not about microevolution, and MACROevolution is basically a brain-dead ideological doctrine as I noted above.

But as I noted, there's lots of evidence for dinosaurs in the recent past, aside from the question of how meat survives for 70 million years.

Vine DeLoria notes ("Red Earth, White Lies" and other writings) that Indian ancestors had to deal with dinosaurs on a regular basis, and you have accurate pictures of known dinosaur types up on canyon walls and in caves in many parts of North America.

Mishipishu (stegosaur) petroglyph at Agawa Rock, Lake Superior, note the sawblade back:



DeLoria notes that Indian oral traditions describe the stegosaur as having red fur, a sawblade back, and a great spiked tail which he used as a weapon.


Sauropod petroglyph, Natural Bridges Utah:

You're brain-dead if you think evolution didn't happen. Your denial and fear of the obvious fact of evolution is palpable.

And just because you noted something above doesn't mean squat. Evolution by means of natural selection is simply a scientific fact. You can say the world is flat all you want, and you can say it's only 4000 years old all you want, but it doesn't change what we know to be true: Evolution happened, and it's happening. The Earth is not flat, and it's not 4000 years old, and anyone who thinks it is, is a nutcase pure and simple.



Pictures on walls and wriiting in ancient books can't compete with overwhelming physical evidence, of which we have plenty.

I'm sure you're convinced of your world view, but so is the looney tune ranting about the end of the world. So enjoy your rant, but don't think for a second that you're fooling anyone.

Sorry, but history trumps empty theorizing. I could as easily take you on a tour of Tokyo today and demonstrate that there is no physical evidence of the city having been bombed into dust 60 years ago, and argue that it couldn't have happened. A simple perusal of two or three history books will convince most reasonable people that it did.

I long ago gave up giving consideration to fundamentalist arguments for several reasons. First, if you are to be polite to them and wade through all the minutae they delve up, solely to muddy the issue, it is time consuming and always comes up with the same result: intellectual dishonesty, and hysteria, because they see their most cherished religious fantasies falling by the wayside, like so many felled trees. They will say anything to create confusion. Also, I don't have the sort of capacity for fact retention someone like Timber obviously has. So, when a fundy fills a page or two with a mixture of fact, fantasy and outright lies, were I to be polite and seek to refute their arguments, it would consume all of my free time. For what? Just to get to the point where you can tell them what you knew you were going to tell them all along. If I were seventeen, not 64, I might see the fun in all that. But, why should I let their idiocy derail me from appreciation of the fine work being done on humanity's behalf by the Leakys and other scientists in the same and related fields? Life is short. So is my patience.

Mishipishu means "Great Horned Lynx", not Stegosaur.

One source...

But it doesn't trump evidence, and we have plenty.

You're not even grasping at straws, you're just grasping at self delusion and hoping against hope that someone will believe you. It's not working.

Mishipishu means, literally, "Water Panther", which was basically a stegosaur as DeLoria noted. Unless you know of some other animal which ever walked our shores which had a sawblade back and a spiked tail which it used as a weapon.

The reason we have these petroglyphs today is that Indians have always been in the habit of touching them up every few decades. The horns on the image at Agawa Rock were added at a much later time; real stegosaurs did not have or need horns.

Panther, lynx, whatever... not stegasaur.



But real Lynxes have large ear tufts, very much like that.

The petroglyphs are estimated between 140 and 400 years old. You think there was one stegasuar wandering around Lake Superior at that time. Did that stegasaur have any relatives living at that time? Do you think the primitive people of that time just decided to paint one little picture of the biggest creature in their habitat? Meanwhile the plains indians were using buffalo hides, hornes, milk and meat to run their culture and build their houses. We have no stegasaur TeePee's, no carved bones, none of their tail spikes were used for ornaments, even though they would naturally have been the most impressive thing in the environment.

Nice try.

Lewis and Clark noted that Indian guides were in mortal terror of Mishipishu glyphs along the Mississippi river. Those were plainly (much) older than 150 years, and I'd assume the one at Agawa Rock is also unless/until somebody can show me real evidence for believing anything else.

As I noted, Indians have always been in the habit of touching the things up. Being touched up 150 years ago and being 150 years old are not the same thing.