Lucy (Australopithecus)

No, I did no such thing. Rather, you used a Jonathan Wells video as a source, plus I strongly suspect that he is the main source of the creationist claims that you keep posting, like the OP of this topic. Add to that that Wells' reason for opposing evolution is religious, since it is part of a crusade he's on to defend his religion (he's a Moonie) from Darwinism -- even though Darwinism poses no danger to any religion except for those religions that believe in things contrary to reality.Part of your confusion is that too many people use "creationist" differently. In most discussions, "creationist" means "opposing evolution and other aspects of science", which is how we're using it. How that happened is because originally opposition to evolution was purely religious and based on beliefs that were predominantly Christian and increasingly biblical-literalist.That religious basis becomes obscured because of the creation of "creation science" in the 1970's as a deliberately crafted deception intended to fool the US courts. After Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) led to the striking down of their "monkey laws", the anti-evolution movement quickly learned to their dismay that their old purely religious objections could no longer be used to argue against evolution being taught. As a result, they created "creation science" through which they falsely claimed that their objections to evolution were all "purely scientific, nothing religious about it." Part of that creation was to take their "public school edition" creationist textbooks and superficially scrub them of any overt and explicit reference to God or to the Bible; their opponents refer to that as their "playing the game of 'Hide the Bible'." Their books and websites try to give the appearance of being non-religious, but that is a deception.The "intelligent design" group started out a bit differently, but even most of them chose to oppose evolution for religious or philosophical reasons. They are better at hiding that than the "creation science" crowd (CSists). For one thing, CSists' claims and arguments would scatter-shot over over a broad range of scientific fields, leading them to pretend to be expert in fields that they knew nothing about -- that frequently shows in the ignorance mistakes in many of their claims. OTOH, IDists tend to stay close to their own areas of expertise, so their kung-fu (read "bullshit") is much stronger than that of CSists. An added advantage for IDists is that they have nothing to do with YEC claims, whereas CSists are married to a "young earth", the weakest part of their package.Early on, IDists worked with CSists and when McLean v. Arkansas (1982) and Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) exposed "creation science" to be religious in nature, CSists switched their game to "Hide the Creationism" by adopting ID claims. Then (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, (2005) exposed ID to actually be "creation science" and hence religious in nature, but we haven't yet seen the next stage in the evolution of creationism.So in these discussions, creationists are those who oppose various sciences, including evolution, for whatever reasons, which ultimately seem to always turn out to be religious. Creationist arguments only appear to be secular. That is the fundamental deception of "creation science". They have to claim that their argument is "purely scientific, nothing religious about it." If I had a nickel for every time a creationist started off a "secular argument" and ended up trying to convert me to his fundamentalist Christian cult, I could fly over there and take you out to a very nice dinner.The only purpose of a creationist claim is to convince. And they don't care how much they have to lie and deceive in order to convince you and, much more importantly, themselves. This has already been debunked. For that matter, that YouTube link you gave only runs for a couple minutes and cannot reach 12:00.

Perhaps this is a point at which to discuss terminology.By all rights, being a creationist should just mean that you believe in a Creator. Specifying anything more should just narrow down what specific kind of creationist you are.Unfortunately, YECs have usurped that term for themselves and have perverted it to mean their particular fundamentalist YEC beliefs along with their particular perverted form of anti-evolution. That is basically the meaning that we are applying here, though broadened to include a number of other forms of dishonest anti-evolution.Please note, Porky, that the problem is not just that they are anti-evolution, but rather that they are dishonest and practicing deception in ways that have very bad effects on society and on individuals. If somebody had honest objections to evolution, then they would be heard out -- though unfortunately first they must get past the massive poisoning of the well over many decades by creationists, for which they would need a lot of patience and a thick skin (unlike a kid we both know).So what about the believers in Divine Creation who do not believe in that form of perverted anti-evolution? What are they supposed to call themselves?Well, biologist Dr. Kenneth Miller, considered one of the foremost opponents of creationism, calls himself a creationist. So does geology professor Dr. Steven Schimmrich, who is also an evangelical Christian and a long-time opponent of creationism (I just emailed a request to repost his old pages).So a creationist can indeed be honest when it comes to science, but that depends on what kind of creationist he is. Of course, the "creation science" or ID kind of creationist cannot be honest, because their doctrine is based on lies and deception and on the practice of deceiving their audiences. It is possible, but we never hear about them because they cannot gain any traction even in the creationist community.The purpose of creationist claims and arguments is to persuade, therefore the most important test of any creationist claim or argument is in how persuasive it sounds. If a claim sounds persuasive, then it will be used regardless of how utterly false it is. But any that does not sound persuasive will go unnoticed regardless of how true it is.There are creationists who do conduct honest research, but as a result of their honesty their research is ignored by the creationist community and we outside that community never hear about it. Instead, all that we ever hear about are the claims that are highly sensationalist and utterly false.Simple natural selection of creationist claims. Truth and honesty drive down the level of sensationalism and so those claims are selected against while the sensationalist false claims are selected for. Amen to that!I started working out the fundamental differences between scientists and creationists. It's very unfinished: Fundamental Differences Between Scientists and CreationistsBasically, scientists are trying to discover something and they have to rely on each other's research, so they are motivated to test others' research and to detect and correct mistakes, frauds, and shoddy scholarship, thus making science self-correcting. All creationists want to do is to convince, so they don't care how false and shoddy another creationist's work is, so mistakes and frauds never get corrected, thus making creationism eternally perpetuating lies.

And again you make reference to your leaning towards young-earth claims.Do you want to talk about it? What claims are you referring to? What is your source for those claims? Should I start a new topic for that discussion?I think that verifying even a few of those young-earth claims should prove very eye-opening for you. Unless you've already been sucked so deeply into creationism that that will cause you to go into denial -- well, we've already seen those symptoms with your other refuted claims.

That make sense.Next question: Is there only one way to do the science or are there several ways? If several, must the conclusions match up?

I often observe that there is a prejudice against creationism. The reasoning is that creationists are not scientists--or so we are told. Perhaps we should compare and contrast methodologies used in forming conclusions---to see if secular science and creationism science are using the same tools and methods.

It is actually at about 13:00, and what Neil deGrasse Tyson says is that 85% of members of the National Academy of Sciences reject a personal God. That is not the same as saying that 15% of the members of the NAS are creationists. A person can believe in a personal God without necessarily being a creationist.

Faith and others have told (and shown) us the difference between the two.Real science follows the evidence where it leads, and tries to understand it.Creation "science" is designed as a means of doing religious apologetics, and its conclusions--known in advance--must support belief and scripture.

The daughter and I saw the actual fossil of Lucy at the Houston Museum of Natural Science back in 2008. The fossil is actually a very dark brown rather than white or of a lighter shade.The main importance of this find, which correctly pointed out is but one among hundreds of the genus, is the illiac flare (the alignment of the hip is more human than other apes). This is what I pointed out to the kid, because it indicates an upright posture. Considering the age and size of the braincase in other fossilized skulls of this particular species, it also shows that upright posture preceeded the enlargement of cranial capacity later seen in the genus Homo (regardless of a stature of under 4 feet).So it is kind of a big deal in the history of physical anthropology.However a lot of new discoveries have occurred since Lucy. I advise more familiarity with this rapidly changing field before drawing any tentative conclusions based on incomplete and truly dated knowledge. Edited by anglagard, : Forgot titleEdited by anglagard, : Title mispellin'

Examples, please. Especially hysteria. If "not related directly" means "not our ancestors", nobody knowledgeable claims that particular species is our ancestors. In general we cannot identify direct descendents of any fossil.It's pretty certain they are our n^th cousins, where n is a huge number.

It's worthwhile pointing out that there are some honest creationist writings, but they are about creationist claims rather than mainstream topics. Dr. Aardsma eviscerated Setterfield's "C-decay" nonsense (and parted ways with the ICR later for unspecified reasons). Dr. Vardeman wrote several papers about the impossible thermodynamics of a vapor canopy (but couldn't avoid adding some apologetics in the discussion). There are others I don't recall right now.

quote:

---

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

---

Mate. Who's character have I attacked? Where?
As I said on another thread if anyone feels I have personally attacked them please point it out and I will address it because that is definitely not my intention.

Ok so this term "creationist" is given to the more radical religious people that take the whole bible literally. Point taken.I don't think anyone who has very firm beliefs can be objective here, weather they're creationist or atheist. Ideally they should be agnostic with no disposition at all.
Sceptical questions should be welcomed from such a person without persecution.
Anyway I don't want to get into that war.Creationists claim all the fossils to be either man or another species of ape.
And by only observing the fossils one can interpret it any way they like realy.Personally I think the case for humans evolved from primates is a strong one. Details such as how, when, where, from what aren't as well understood and are speculated on. It seems this is the opinion of most level headed scientists anyway who are careful in conveying the fact that uncertainty still shadows much of it.The hardcore atheists (not you) claim everything is scientifically proven, that we know it all but there are variations in opinions between evolutionists as well.
For example this link is an article from the scientific journal, Nature.How China is rewriting the book on human origins | NatureTwo possible migration patterns are looked at. One is that humans fully evolved in Africa before migrating the other suggests evolution was occurring separately in Asia as many human related fossils are found there that date back millions of years.

In your other thread you claimed, This insults all scientists whose fields remotely touch on the theory of evolution. First, the theory of evolution is the single best explanation for the dataset it covers; it accounts for all relevant data, it is contradicted by no relevant data, and it successfully makes predictions.Secondly, in several years studying evolution, fossil man, osteology, human races, and related subjects in graduate school there was never any mention of religion, or any efforts to "discredit religion."Your broad-brush attack is not only insulting to many of us, but wrong as well.

The finer the detail the more uncertainty there may be, but this does not disprove, or even ding, the overall patterns shown by the theory of evolution. Virtually no scientist will claim anything is "scientifically proven." Proof is for liquor, photography, and mathematics. (Scientists know this but creationists generally don't.) Here are some definitions that might help.

​

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

​

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

​

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

​

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process. [Source]

​

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

​

Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.

​

The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!

​

So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source

​

So folks are looking at the fine details and trying to refine migration patterns of early species. What's wrong with that? What will result is more research, better explanations, and a more accurate picture of the past.But because there are some disagreements over details, creationists tend to think that evolution is all wrong, keeps changing, and "is just a theory." Much of this comes from a priori religious belief rather than scientific evidence.

quote:

---

And again you make reference to your leaning towards young-earth claims

---

Firstly cheers for defining the term "creationist" and for accepting me as agnostic.
Finally... LoL.In reference to your quote I was making a hypothetical scenario of introduced data which may conflict with ToE as ive heard that athiest scientists will try work a way around it to suit ToE which is just totally wrong if true.As to the age of the earth I don't think the bible gives that info so im not sure on the creationists motives against it.
But I noticed some arguments questioning its accuracy. U may of heard of them.One was of a lava flow that was 10 years old. The decay rate of 5 or 6 elements where measured. The results where in a range of 20,000ya to hundreds of millions of years ago. Something along those linesAnd others of living specimens that have dated back millions of years.
So I dunno.I does puzzle me how large populations of modern humans, with our brain capacity, migrated together. In communities 200,000ya but didn't show the classical signs of civilisation (language, maths, agriculture, architecture) which is essential in societies till about 6,000ya