Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is a Religious Issue
Morte
Member (Idle past 6103 days)
Posts: 140
From: Texas
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 124 of 303 (212256)
05-28-2005 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Jman267
04-26-2005 3:18 PM


Re: Let's try to deal with your misconceptions, one at a time.
Parts of this looked familiar to me, and some of it seemed out of place with the tone of the rest of your posts, so I checked...
Jman267: Plagiarism is against the forum guidelines (along with substituting insults for actual debate, but let's ignore this for now). Can you explain the similarity/sameness of much of what you say to various creationist sites on the web?
Examples:
Jman267, in post 59, writes:
Lucy? Bwhahahahahahahhahahahah don't make me laugh. In regards to Lucy what you were not told is that the knee joint end of the femur was severely crushed; therefore, Johanson's conclusion is pure speculation; guess work! Anatomist Charles Onard, using a computer technique for analysis of skeletal relationships, has concluded that Lucy did not walk upright, as least not in the same manner as humans. In this connection, it should be mentioned that the chimpanzee spends a considerable amount of time walking upright. Thus, there is no valid scientific basis for a conclusion that Lucy was anything more than some kind of monkey or chimpanzee!
Lucy has other problems:
Almost all of the evolutionists that investigated the 40% skeleton have changed their minds at least once or more times!
No one has yet found a skeleton that had a skull! Yes, parts from different areas of the dig were put together to form Lucy! She was not found with a skull that could definitely be said to be her own. How many of the tribes do you think ate and killed monkeys? This alone would disqualify this find from being given any serious accreditation because of the monkey skeletons laying around.
Drs. Stern and Susman point out the many ape-like features of Lucy such as: A. The hands and feet. B. The heavy muscled foot with the proper curve needed for climbing. C. Long curved hands with heavy muscles needed for climbing and living in trees. D. The angle of the shoulder blades showing that the muscles were attached in such a way as you would find in a tree dwelling monkey. E. The shape and angularity of the pelvic bone shows the animal to be ape, not human. 6
Question: What walks like a monkey, has heavy muscled curved hands and feet like a monkey, has shoulder blades like a monkey, and a pelvic angle showing that it lived in trees like monkeys? Well, if you are an evolutionist you might think man! Tsk, tsk! Come on, there must be a limit to how stupid a person can be!
Ronald Powell, at Evolution: The Truth?, writes what appears to be the exact same wording:
What you were not told is that the knee joint end of the femur was severely crushed; therefore, Johanson's conclusion is pure speculation; guess work! Anatomist Charles Onard, using a computer technique for analysis of skeletal relationships, has concluded that Lucy did not walk upright, as least not in the same manner as humans. In this connection, it should be mentioned that the chimpanzee spends a considerable amount of time walking upright. Thus, there is no valid scientific basis for a conclusion that Lucy was anything more than some kind of monkey or chimpanzee!
Lucy has other problems:
Almost all of the evolutionists that investigated the 40% skeleton have changed their minds at least once or more times!
No one has yet found a skeleton that had a skull! Yes, parts from different areas of the dig were put together to form Lucy! She was not found with a skull that could definitely be said to be her own. How many of the tribes do you think ate and killed monkeys? This alone would disqualify this find from being given any serious accreditation because of the monkey skeletons laying around.
Drs. Stern and Susman point out the many ape-like features of Lucy such as: A. The hands and feet. B. The heavy muscled foot with the proper curve needed for climbing. C. Long curved hands with heavy muscles needed for climbing and living in trees. D. The angle of the shoulder blades showing that the muscles were attached in such a way as you would find in a tree dwelling monkey. E. The shape and angularity of the pelvic bone shows the animal to be ape, not human. 6
Question: What walks like a monkey, has heavy muscled curved hands and feet like a monkey, has shoulder blades like a monkey, and a pelvic angle showing that it lived in trees like monkeys? Well, if you are an evolutionist you might think man! Tsk, tsk! Come on, there must be a limit to how stupid a person can be!
***
Jman267, in post 87, writes:
How can 0 + 0 equal life when it does not even equal one?
How can anything come to life if it is dead?
Better yet, can anything come to life of itself when it never was?
If life came from nothing how can something come from nothing? Isn't that faith?
When you have faith don't you have a religion?
The same source cited above writes:
Question: If it came from nothing how can something come from nothing? Isn't that faith?
Question: When you have faith don't you have a religion?
Question: How can 0 + 0 equal life when it does not even equal one?
***
Jman267, in post 70, writes:
Numerous kinds of extinct animals are found, but NEVER, in all of these billions of fossils, is a truly incipient or transitional form found. No fossil has ever been found with half scales/half feathers, half legs/half wings/ half-developed heart, half-developed eye or any other such indicator.
The Logic Of Creation #2:
Numerous kinds of extinct animals are found (e.g. dinosaurs), but never, in all of these billions of fossils, is a truly incipient or transitional form found. No fossil has ever been found with halfscales/half feathers, half legs/half/wings, half-developed heart, half-developed eye, or any other such thing.
***
Jman267, in post 70, writes:
Why can't we see a man evolve from an ape, a star evolve from hydrogen, life evolve from chemicals or any thing of the sort?
(Also, many variations of this one appear in other posts)
The Logic of Creation #1:
No one has ever observed a star evolve from hydrogen, life evolve from chemicals, a higher species evolve from a lower species, a man from an ape, or anything else of this sort.
...and so on. Now, granted, these appear in various incarnations throughout the web (searching for a direct quote will bring up several nearly identical websites, save for the backgrounds and fonts) and it is difficult to determine their origins, but this does not justify substituting another's words for your own, which without reference implies that they are your own.
By my count, you have now violated Forum Guidelines 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 10. I don't know if we'll be hearing from you again, but if so, please try to use your own words in future posts, as well as keeping them civil and on-topic.
Though you may not care for the forum rules, consider whether or not calling us idiots or plagiarizing is at all an effective method of debate, as well as whether or not the God you worship would appreciate it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Jman267, posted 04-26-2005 3:18 PM Jman267 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024