Lucy (Australopithecus)

So you knew that there were more bones than this which went into the reconstruction, but you failed to mention them. Do you see the problem here?

With Lucy, we have a nearly complete skeleton from the neck down, assuming that one side is a mirror image of the other side. We also have numerous A. afarensis skulls that are nearly complete and match up with the pieces from Lucy.

How is this speculative?

That has nothing to do with the opening post. You are trying to change the subject now that you have been caught misrepresenting the evidence.

Also, we find fossils of a bipedal ape from the same time period and same geographic area. What is wrong with saying that A. afarensis is the top suspect for leaving those footprints?

They also use modern analogues to do these reconstructions. For example, the correlation between human skin color and latitude is well known. Populations at higher latitudes tend to have fairer skin than populations at lower latitudes because of the selection pressures for skin cancer and vitamin D production. The size of a muscle correlates with the size of the bone it is attached to, so smaller fragile bones will have smaller muscles attached to them. All of this allows artists to add an approximate details to the skull.

At the end of the day, scientists use the bones themselves to determine if they are transitional, not these reconstructions.

It is always better to go to the original source, the scientists who actually did the science. Creationists on creationist websites aren't doing the science.

You are projecting. It is the creationists who constantly attack the character of scientists because they have no scientific evidence to stand on. Just look at your most recent posts. None of them contain anything close to scientific. Instead, they are allegations about scientists making speculations and other misdeeds.

They are wrong because the evidence doesn't support their claims.

Once again with the attacks on peoples' character. Why?

Why can't you discuss the features the fossil has and how it relates to the fossil being transitional? Why the constant attacks on character?

The only way to do science is through the scientific method.

It is the same prejudice that we hold towards all liars and con men, and it isn't because they are not scientists.

Also, if it is science then they need to be using the scientific method. Putting qualifiers like "secular" and "creationism" before science is just nonsense. Either it is science or it is not.

In every post where you accuse scientists of "hysteria" or "speculations".

Why? If the evidence points to a conclusion why shouldn't we accept that conclusion? Should we just pretend the evidence doesn't exist?

With Lucy we have a fossil species with a mixture of ape and modern human features. We have a theory that predicts such creatures existed in the past. Why shouldn't we accept this as evidence in support of the theory?

The problem is that creationists don't interpret fossils. They have no criteria for determining if a fossil is ape or human. All they have is claims.

All of the atheists on this site, including myself, are careful to never claim that any theory is absolutely proven. Once again, you are trying to attack the character of people on this forum instead of focusing on the actual science.

I think there is a difference between a belief held in the absence of evidence (faith) and a belief held in contradiction to mountains of evidence (denial, cognitive dissonance).

Your belief in Jesus and God is based on faith. It isn't contradicted by evidence, it merely lacks it. The disagreement between atheists and theists is focused around the idea that faith is not a reliable method for finding knowledge.

That differs greatly from denial. Many theists and atheists agree that we should ditch beliefs that are contradicted by evidence. This is why many theists accept evolution and the old age of the Earth.

Overall, we should be cognizant of where our disagreements lie, and where we agree.