Lucy and Secular Humanism

This is a spin-off of thread "The Inerrancy of the Bible". At message 199 I posted:Tom writes:

quote:

---

Instead of wasting millions of federal tax dollars to make displays like shows lucy(a chimp like creature)having human hands, feet in museums to support secular humanisms, to innocent children.

---

Oh Tom, come on! You mean to tell us that you look at Lucy and all you see is a waste of tax dollars and secular humanism? You don't see a single clue of anything deeper than that? You expect people to take you seriously?Your "innocent children" need to learn a bit of sober science, whether you want to learn anything yourself or not. You have NO RIGHT to deny innocent children a decent education.Tom responded:

quote:

---

berberry, How is putting human hand of a chimp, educating children. If you want to educate the children put chimp hands on chimps. They are lying to the children. kjv Genesis 1:27 says were created in the image of God. When you put human hands on a chimp fossil, your lying to the children, its not sober science. Its an outright lie!

​

P.S. These museum curators should be promoting accurate representations of these chimps. If they refuse to, federal funding should be cut.

---

There have been several other substantive posts on this off-topic; I'd like to continue the discussion here. Perhaps 'Is It Science?' would be the appropriate place.EDIT in response to AdminSylas: Tom has implied (apparently after reading Kent Hovind) that Lucy is a hoax designed to subvert innocent children into "secular humanism". The implication was regarded as off-topic by AdminPhat in the original thread. I wanted to explore Tom's assertion, but given the opposition to doing so in situ I proposed this new topic. If the admins wish to allow the discussion to continue in the other thread then this new one will be obviated and should be closed.This message has been edited by berberry, 01-19-2005 11:49 AM

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This could be a very good topic. However, the proposed initial post does not really identify a clear thesis, or give a clear indication of what issue is being addressed.Can I suggest you make this initial post either a clear question on the nature of the Lucy fossil, or a definite statement about the fossil that others can debate, or a plain indication of what you wish to refute.Cheers -- AdminSylas

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

When you make assertions you are expected to back them up, Tom.

actually, the bible is man's words about god's truth. and no, it's not splitting hairs. it's a big difference. if the bible were god's truth -- well, i wouldn't think it wise to trust god, since he can't even seem to get simple stories right when asked to repeat himself. nevermind that the ten commandments change the second time god gives them. literal or figurative? because you're missing the fun hebrew grammar there. the tense of "made" actually indicates a subtlety in the creation story not properly rendered in english. it indicates that there was a process used to create man, that it took some work.there are LOTS of theistic evolutionists. you can believe in god and think he used evolution to create man.and no, i don't think "The Word" to be "True." the word, as an entity, is an english rendering of a bad aramaic rendering of god. here, god's name was memra, which means "to speak." the name was applied to god the father, not his son. john misunderstood this tradition. you're also confusing god and the book about god. idolatry is a sin, btw. kent hovind? i agree. tax fraud is a nasty business, nevermind perverting the minds of ignorant youth. hah. this isn't "the art of star wars" here. these are fossils. fakes are weeded out relatively easily to even the slightest trained eye.oh, and lets disregard hands.
http://www.anthro4n6.net/lucy/see how it's neither chimp nor human? also, lucy is NOT the only austrolopithecus found you know. kent hovind is a liar and a fraud. this is not an ad hominem argument. the things he puts forward are lies. even answersingenesis thinks so, and i doubt they agree with me. our apologies for deep linking to this image on http://www.anthro4n6.net/lucy/ - The QueenThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 01-23-2005 12:08 AM

You have made assertions Tom.You have yet to support them.Are we to take it that you, in fact, can not support them? That you actually know nothing about the subject?

We're waiting, Tom.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Perhaps rather than actually expecting Tom to support what he says (it is clear he hasn't a hope), we could just ask him to give the source that he got those ideas from? Let's make it as easy as we can eh?

Suits me, Ned.Come on, Tom, who told you this stuff? We'll play nice so long as you do, but you have made an assertion which has been challenged. You do owe us an explanation of some sort.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

i bet it begins with Dinosaur Adventure Land ...

Arachnophilia,New evidence: Lucy was a knuckle-walker
by David CatchpooleSadly, in this regard the public are often misled by inaccurately reconstructed statues and images of Lucy displayed at museums and in textbooks, etc., as her feet (and hands, for that matter) are often portrayed as startlingly human-like. Many evolutionists themselves concede such errors, acknowledging that australopithecine hands and feet were ‘not at all like human hands and feet; rather, they have long curved fingers and toes’2 even more so than apes today that live mostly in the trees. Missing Link | Answers in Genesis

You have referenced a site talking about the nature of Lucy's ability to walk upright.However, you said: How does the site that you referenced support your accusation of apparent fraud? Let's get that out of the way first shall we?Perhaps you just misread the reference you gave.ABEI've looked into the reference you gave and the sources they reference. When you have finished with the discussion of the above then we will discuss your reference in detail. It seems there is something being done that is rather misleading there. You may with to research it further before others jump on it.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-21-2005 23:35 AM

couple of fundamental errors here.1. lucy is not the only australopithecus afarensis, nor is that the only australopithecine species. we are not dealing with a sole example of this creature, and any source that seems to indicate otherwise should not be trusted.2. australopithecus's hands are show a degree of curvature, yes. they are PART WAY between earlier and later species. as for "not at all like human hands" well, let's resort to pictures.chimapanzee: lucy: human: which is it closest to, do you think? find your own pictures if you want, they're not too hard to track down.3. illustrations (except for gray's anatomy above) are not generally scientific documents. usually, they are done by artists. if a paleontology textbooks includes a still from "jurassic park" to help students relate, and it's a picture of velociraptor, they are not intentionally lying to the students because the velociraptor is actually much smaller and a much skinnier snout. illustrations of lucy might have hands exactly like modern humans for the sole reason that the artist who drew it is used to drawing human hands. (but that doesn't change the obvious fact that her hands are much closer to human than say chimpanzee)

Arachnophilia, please remove the image that draws bandwidth from my website. You may download the image from my site to your own computer and then upload it to your own server. Please then credit my website. But please be courteous by not using up my bandwidth... I pay for it!Thanks,
Terrie
http://www.anthro4n6.net/lucy
http://www.anthro4n6.net

Our apologies to anthro4n6 for the deep link. I have fixed the issue and given you credit for the image. Great site by the way.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com