Posted on 11/25/2009 7:56:35 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Maybe with other specimens, but Lucy is being used till this day; do you agree that Lucy should not be used?
The "talking points" were from Evos, not Creas; nice try.
Your “criticism” is not valid because they can tell by another Australopithecus afarensis skull (AL 444-2) that Lucy was bipedal plus Australopithecus afarensis bipedality is dramatically confirmed by a set of footprints discovered in fossilized ash.
Put against the evidence that the Evos I presented,your evidence does not take anything away from, nor comes close to, the irrefutable truth that Lucy should not be used as evidence of Evolution. Again; nice try.
Obviously you are not worth debating, you do not believe anything, let alone entertain any notion, that goes against your world veiw.
Lucy should continue to be used as one example only of early bipedal hominids. It should not be used as the only or conclusive example unless in the context that it "suggests" certain attributes and age.
You are ignoring independent evidence that contradicts your supposed problem with evolution.
The supposed problem is dealing with one fossil, not the totally of the evidence confirming Australopithecus afarensis bipedality
I simply pointed that fact out to you. Your cherry picking the evidence will not work.
As long as there is there is the examples of contrary evidence to Lucy, as stated by the Evos that I had presented, no problem; but there is not. Do you agree, as stated by legitimate Evos, that there should be contrary evidence to Lucy presented in high school text?
Two people have shown you that your so called “contrary” evidence has been answered with two separate independent pieces of evidence. So there is no “contrary” evidence to present.
It appears that your reading comprehension is as bad as your understanding of science.
I agree that Lucy should not be presented as conclusive in isolation. Any legitimate presentation should be accompanied by a qualifier or disclaimer. I don't think that high school science is going to do much more than scratch the surface anyway.
Now you have my curiosity, what "qualifier or disclaimer?"
I have contacted a friend that I used to work with when I worked with the school districts here in LA and Orange County but this person does not work with them now either. It’s pretty tough getting a copy of just about any book in the k-12 government school system unless your a parent so the best I can do is go by memory. I know that the book was a biology book by Miller and Levine, a 2006 edition. It talked about Lucy but they may have only referenced Australopithecus afarensis, the scientific name for Lucy. The thing that got me was that it only referenced it as proof of evolution, no contrary evidence against this specimen.Miller and Levine is widely used throughout the nation in k-12 government schools.
No matter how many times you repeat the same refuted story it will not make it true.
There as pointed out to you earlier that we have 3 separate artifacts show that Australopithecus afarensis, was bipedal.
When citing "Lucy" as an example intellectual honesty would dictate that conclusions are not based solely on the Lucy example but is corroborated by other specimens, or that the information is disputed, or that many scientists content that it is not conclusive.
The problem I am alluding to has little to do with the evolution versus creation debate, and has a lot to do with teaching critical thinking and scientific skepticism. Whether history, economics, social studies, or science students in most public schools are not being taught how to think, how to construct or deconstruct an argument or hypothesis or even scientific process. As I said earlier, get your kids out of those schools or spend a significant amount of time rebutting and supplementing what is coming form the class room.
Hey GGG, where are you? I look forward to your pings and haven’t had one for awhile.
So we should be teaching “Man lived with dinosaurs” YEC creation...along with Hindu, Mayan, Inca, Aztec, Druid, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Pagan, and Animist versions of creation....in a SCIENCE ROOM? As “science”?
You wanna “debate” these notions, keep it in a philosophy or religious studies class....science is not a debate.
With the invention of modern genetics and nice expensive genetic sequencers, biologists are turning to molecular evidence and getting away from drawing sometimes subjective conclusions based on observations of fossils.......because mutations are heritable, they stick around.
Much easier when you have a nice genetic code to compare in a spreadsheet than to have to recreate a perfect 3D model from 2D fossils.
No problem here, but it would help either side if there were quotations, evidence, etc., with citations when presenting the inconclusiveness of Lucy.
“The problem I am alluding to has little to do with the evolution versus creation debate, and has a lot to do with teaching critical thinking and scientific skepticism. Whether history, economics, social studies, or science students in most public schools are not being taught how to think, how to construct or deconstruct an argument or hypothesis or even scientific process.”
Exactly! And how do government schools expect high school, and collage, students to defend what there taught if they do not know what the opposing view is. There are so many holes in every subject being taught to high school students that are so easily defensible if they would receive even a minimal amount of information from both sides of any debate in any subject.
“As I said earlier, get your kids out of those schools or spend a significant amount of time rebutting and supplementing what is coming form the class room.”
There are a lot of people taking their children out of the government school system, true; but it is a still a small percentage of the population. If the problem were just my “kids” then there would be no problem, but we live with the byproduct of the government school system not only in science, but with our economy, politics, law, military, etc.
But if you don’t mind, one last question; if legitimate evidence is brought to a science subject to prove it is true or false, and God and/or “religion” is not evoked, then does it matter if the source is from “a man of God,” an Atheist, or anything in between?
It a kind if self validating question. Legitimate is legitimate. The personal theology of the presenter is of little consequence. I am and know many men of science (I am an engineer) who are devout in in their faith. (Not all are Christians). Those who are legitimately interested in science (knowledge) are not interested in artificially supporting falsehoods for political or theological issues.
BTW - I really enjoy these honest give and take discussions. Thank you.
"Legitimate is legitimate."
Agreed.
"BTW - I really enjoy these honest give and take discussions. Thank you."
Thank you! Civility with passion in a debate is always the best way to go, but I always was weak in turning the other cheek; this is a tough one to keep. I will keep in mind that you do have a very civil and straightforward side to you and keep away from any negative preconceptions of you, I hope and think you will do the same the next time you see my writing. Anyway, I'm thankful to you on the way this conversation ended; see you on another thread.
;)
The difficulty in expressing any scientific skepticism, at least on FR, is that as soon as one questions a currently held assumption for whatever reason (Like you want to know WHY it's a currently held assumption, the reasoning behind it) the knee jerk reaction tends to be that it's a religious attack on science.
I've been accused more times than I can count of getting all my anti-science thinking from creationist websites, which I do not frequent.
I've gone to them to verify what someone has said about them, just as I've checked out TalkOrigins and other evolutionist websites to see what they have to say.
But not every question everyone has is a religious attack on science. And people are not stupid because they don't agree with everything current scientific consensus claims.
There seems to be quite a double standard. On one hand we're told that skepticism is good and scientific theories should be challenged, yet when they are, the person challenging is often attacked. And within the scientific community, there's often disagreement on theories, yet if someone knows that you're coming from a religious perspective, what you think about science notwithstanding, you're immediately labeled as a *Creation scientist*, with no knowledge and no regard of what you're really thinking.
;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.