Science Disproves Evolution

OK, let's look at Richmond and Strait."Fossil evidence demonstrates that by 4.1 million years ago, and perhaps earlier, hominids exhibited adaptations to bipedal walking ... Here we present evidence that fossils attributed to Australopithecus anamensis (KNM-ER 20419) and A. afarensis (AL 288-1) retain specialized wrist morphology associated with knuckle-walking. This distal radial morphology differs from that of later hominids and non-knuckle-walking anthropoid primates, suggesting that knuckle-walking is a derived feature of the African ape and human clade."Richmond and Strait are not saying that these australopithecines aren't facultatively bipedal. On the contrary, they know that they are. They're saying that they're bipeds retaining knuckle-walking features, reflecting their knuckle-walking ancestry.Oh look, intermediate forms!---BTW, where are you getting this rubbish from? Obviously you haven't read the papers yourself, so who's been lying to you about what they say?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

As you know this to be a lie, perhaps you should stop reciting it.

Then why do creationists themselves denounce the moon dust lie? Evedently AnswerInGenesis think that it makes creationists look foolish. And for once, they are right.Here are creationists Rush and Snelling:

quote:

---

So are there any loopholes in the evolutionists’ case that the current apparent meteoritic dust influx to the lunar surface and the quantity of dust found in the thin lunar surface dust layer and the regolith below do not contradict their multi-billion year timescale for the moon’s history? Based on the evidence we currently have the answer has to be that it doesn’t look like it." (Snelling and Rush, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 1993)

---

No direct measurement had been made at the time where your phoney figures originate. It has now. See Love and Brownlee, "A Direct Measurement of the Terrestrial Mass Accretion Rate of Cosmic Dust", Science 262, 1993. This is amusing. Do you suppose that the dust on furniture is cosmic dust, or what?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Since you have seen the evidence proving it to be a lie, you know that it is a ie, and we know that it's a lie, and you know that we know that it's a lie, and you know that we know that you know that it's a lie.So not only are you lying, but you're lying when it's certain that you're not fooling anyone. Which is stupid, don't you think? What do you hope to gain besides ensuring that everyone reading this thread knows that you are a liar?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Wrong.I have already shown you a four-billion year date for the Earth from 1921:"Taking the mean of this and the upper limit found above from the ratio of uranium to lead, we obtain 4 x 10^9 years as a rough approximation to the age of the Earth's crust." --- Russell, H.N., 1921. A superior limit to the age of the Earth's crust in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, vol. 99, pp. 84-86.Evolutionists, even in the broadest sense of that term, do not set dates on the age of the universe. This mechanism has been well-known for decades. No "struggle" is involved. What interesting daydreams this guys has.I guess it's even easier to induldge in silly fantasies about the future than about the past or the present.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, it's worse than that.If the claim was true, then Darwin would have thought the Earth was only 4.5 million years old!While he gives no estimate of the age of the Earth per se, but he estimated the denudation of the Weald (which he describes as a "mere trifle") as taking three hundred million years. (See Darwin, Origin of Species, chapter IX.)Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.