Choosing a faith

The only thing you got right in that steaming pile of crap is that Lucy was an ape. But then, so are you.

I will start by noting that you do not answer a single point in the post that you are supposedly replying to. I’ll take that as a concession.

quote:

---

Paulk, do you know that evolutionists (especially
paleoanthropologists) are some of the biggest liars on
earth? I'm not kidding!
​

---

No, that’s creationists.,

quote:

---

Human evolution is a fact, they scream. Then they come
out with this idiotic tree that only the most gullible among
us would accept.

---

Says the most gullible among us.Of course it is a fact, you just reject it because you swallow the lies of creationism

quote:

---

Scientists claim to have fragments of over 400
Australopithcines. However, all the fragments combined
fits on one table.

---

I’ve heard a version of this before, spread by creationists who are not bright enough to understand that he keep finding more hominin remains. Want to actually try supporting this claim, for once?

quote:

---

When a portion of Lucy's pelvis was found it was
flared out, much like that of an ape.
​
However, the pelvis was damaged; so, these great men
of integrity cut it into and then they glued it together again.

---

Not true. The first reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis - not the way it was originaly found - looked ape-like but it was demonstrably incorrect. So they made a more correct reconstruction which is what you are objecting to.

quote:

---

There were no bones of the feet, but that did not
prevent them from giving it human feet.
​
Their reasoning is that a thousand miles away were ten
inch human footprints preserved in the same strata.
​
And since the strata was assigned an age of three-
and-a-half millions years, they could not have been
made by humans.
​
It never entered their misguided minds that their
dating technique was highly flawed. Or perhaps it did.
There is no notoriety in finding ape fossils.

---

Yes, it never occurred to them to believe creationist lies.And they were right, as fossil evidence has shown Science News

quote:

---

Lucy has curved fingers designed for tree climbing. The
shape of the radius bone and the way it entered the
wrist allowed it to lock in place.

---

Lucy’s hands are no more present than her feet.

quote:

---

Lucy was an ape. Nothing but a knuckle-walker.

---

Lucy could walk upright. Her knee joints showed that from the very start.

First, please note the point that PaulK made in Message 2507 that you completely changed the subject in order to avoid the points he made in Message 2504 regarding you having made up a lot of shit that's not in the Bible. Typical, typical, typical.Second, thank you for your testimonial that you believe that your religion can only be supported by lies. Which is your admission that your religion is itself a steaming crock of BS. Thank you for your public service in warning us away from it.If that were not the case, then you would not be so adamant in the near-exclusive use of lies. Please, what is your source of this latest stream of lies? What will we discover when we examine that source's claims? Erika (better known on YouTube as "Gutsick Gibbon") has her YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/@GutsickGibbon , where her intro description reads:

quote:

---

Welcome to Gutsick Gibbon! I'm Erika, a current PhD student in Biological Anthropology. I have a Masters of Research degree in Primate Biology, Behavior and Conservation with a BSA in Pre-Professional Animal Science and minors in Anthropology and in Biology.

​

Here you can find videos concerning primates, general zoology, paleontology, anthropology, and evolutionary biology! I also spend a hefty amount of time debunking Young Earth Creationism, which I find to be an enjoyable hobby akin to debunking Flat Earth.

​

I find there to be a deep and personal beauty in being a part of the animal kingdom, and thus strive to be a gentle and modern ape. I hope you leave here feeling the same way!

---

That means that she has studied the subject of primate evolution (which includes human evolution) far deeper and more thoroughly than either you or your source has. She is also in the teaching mode, so she is very good at explaining things and in actually showing us the differences between species and explaining details of those differences.A few decades ago, an evangelical Christian and then-PhD candidate in Physical Geology had a discussion ring on science and religion. He has retired from the issue since graduating and starting his family, but at the time he wrote (my emphasis added):

quote:

---

In general, I've been dismayed by the lack of scholarship, research, and ethics displayed by these men who claim to be devout Christians. They totally misrepresent mainstream science and scientists, ignore evidence contrary to their claims, and display an amazing ignorance of even the most basic fundamentals of science and scientific inquiry. Their materials are aimed toward laypeople who are in no position to evaluate their claims. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but who is better qualified to judge the accuracy of K-Ar dating, an evangelist who reads creationist literature and has never taken a physics or geology course in his life or a Ph.D. in isotope geochemistry (who may also be a devout Christian) who has spent 25 years studying K-Ar dating in granites?

---

IOW, Erika knows what she's talking about, unlike your creationist source.She was also raised a young-earth creationist, so she is thoroughly familiar with those claims and has researched them. Several of her videos address the lies that creationists tell (eg, the book Bones of Contention, the movie Dismantled, A Scientific Deconstruction of Evolution" ("'Dismantled' is the Most Dishonest Documentary I've Ever Seen")) as well as the many serious problems with creationist claims (eg, the heat problem). If you were to buck your established history of creationist dishonesty and provide us a reference to your source for this message (Message 2505), then we may find that Erika has already critiqued it in one of her videos. Mind you, once she gets started a video can end up being hours long. That makes sense, since once we start examining the facts, there are so many that it takes time to cover them. Creationism is so much briefer since all you need to do is to close your eyes, plug up your ears, and lie your ass off in order to deny reality.Here are a few of Erika's videos dealing with Lucy: I only had time to watch the first one before this morning's OLLI class, so I will refer to it in this reply. I recommend that you watch all three for your edification as well as to coax your head free from your rectum. Erika also refers to 400 individuals, whereas your remarks about what's missing, etc, refer to just the one individual known as "Lucy". What's missing in one individual can be present in other individuals; eg, Lucy's feet are missing, but we do have the feet of several other individuals. And there's also that inconvenient fact that our bodies have bilateral symmetry, such that if you know what the right side looks like, then you also know what the left side looks like.Also, I have seen that photo of "all the fragments combined fits on one table". Both photos, actually. The one that creationists publish and the actual photo the creationists have cropped to hide the large number of fossil fragments. The cropped creationist photo only shows a small fraction of the total number of fossil fragments. That cropping and misrepresentation could be nothing other than deliberate deception.Verily, creationists are fucking liars! In comparing the skeletal features related to bipedalism, Erika compares human, chimpanzee, and Australopithecus afarensis (I'll refer to that as "Lucy") skeletons.In the case of the pelvis, the chimp and Australopithecus pelvises look nothing alike, but Lucy's looks much closer to the human pelvis. Then getting into the details, Erika shows specific characteristics in the human pelvis vital to bipedalism (eg, a broad sacrum, a ridge for the attachment of a muscle vital to bipedalism) which the chimp pelvis does not have but which Lucy did have -- Erika even goes so far as to point out and describe those features or lack thereof on all three pelvises (ie, no vague hand-waving like creationists do). As already pointed out above, we do have the feet of several other individuals and they are indeed human-like.Fucking lying creationists! Yeah, sure, even we humans can walk on all four. We can't do it very well. And we have to strain to tilt our head back at a very unnatural angle in order to see anything except for the ground directly below our head.The reason is the foramen magnum, the hole in the head through which the brain stem attaches to the spinal cord. The foramen magnum of humans and Lucy clearly show us to be/have been bipedal, whereas the foramen magnum of chimpanzees clearly show that they are not.Of importance is both the placement and the angle of the hole and Erika shows that one the three skulls in detail. In humans it's placed more forward than in chimps and the hole angles much more forward than in chimps, indicating the direction at which the spinal cord leaves the cranium. Lucy's placement and angle are very close to that of humans, indicating bipedalism.I mean, really, what stupid creationist did you get that claim from?There's also the business of body proportions. Bipedalism needs different proportions (eg, legs longer than the arms) than does knuckle-walker than does brachiation (swinging from the branches like a gibbon). Lucy has the body proportions for bipedalism. Yes, Erika does cover that as well (in fact, it's one of the first things she covers). Erika also notes arboreal characteristics and that there's disagreement as to whether Lucy was both arboreal and bipedal (on the ground) or whether the arboreal features were remnants from a more arboreal form.But just what the hell is that supposed to have to do with bipedalism? What the hell are you talking about?Also, what's this "lock in place" business? That would be useful for brachiation, but Lucy's body proportions do not match with that mode of motion. And knuckle-walking requires specialization that humans and Lucy do not have, not to mention very different body proportions.
​​ As already noted, Lucy's characteristics are inconsistent with knuckle-walking.Or are you also abjectly ignorant of what knuckle-walking requires and how to identify a knuckle-walker from its skeleton? Look at photos of both human and non-human apes. Not all humans have white sclera (whites of the eye) and white sclera do occur in non-human apes (from that link):

quote:

---

The eyes of all non-human primates had been thought to be dark with small, barely visible sclera, but recent research has suggested that white sclera are not uncommon in chimpanzees, and are also present in other mammals.

---

The wonderful thing about living in a scientific world is that each of us is able to test what we have been told in order to determine whether it is true. You should try doing that some time. Even the Bible tells us to test everything and hold on to that which is true, so why won't you? So are we. So what's your point?Oh yeah! Your point is that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

Paulk, do you actually believe that the sun was created
on day one, and created again on day four?Isaiah states 45:18 that the earth was not created in
tohuw.Yet, in Genesis 1:2 the earth is in tohuw.Furthermore, in verse 2, before light was created on day
one, the earth was already there. It was covered with water.The only thing created on day one was light.When exactly do you think the earth and the water on it
were created? It is a certainty that the earth was created
before day one.If the earth were already there before day one, how can
one say that the sun was not already there, especially
with any degree of credibility?When Satan decided to exalt his throne into heaven,
and above the other angels of God, where exactly was
his throne at that time?What clouds were he going to ascend above?We know that He is currently the god of this world. He
is the prince of the power of the air.If he were not sitting on that throne when God created
Adam, then how did he come to obtain it?Adam did not have the authority to give it to him. And
God would not give it to him after he had rebelled
against him.The truth is that God had placed Satan on earth's throne
sometime in the past, before Adam was created.The way I have laid this out should be simple enough
for anyone to understand. Why are you having so much
trouble with it?

quote:

---

Paulk, do you actually believe that the sun was created
on day one, and created again on day four?

---

I don’t believe the story at all, and I certainly don’t believe that it says that the sun was created twice. In so far as it says anything on the matter creation on day 4 fits best.

quote:

---

Isaiah states 45:18 that the earth was not created in
tohuw.
​
Yet, in Genesis 1:2 the earth is in tohuw.

---

Because that is the initial state before creation. Genesis 1:1 is a summary of what follows.

quote:

---

When exactly do you think the earth and the water on it
were created? It is a certainty that the earth was created
before day one.
​
If the earth were already there before day one, how can
one say that the sun was not already there, especially
with any degree of credibility?

---

You’re confusing what science says with what the story says. The story has a worldview greatly different from the modern view. In the story, the sun is just a light in the - solid - sky. Daylight is the light separated from the darkness, preceding the placement of the sun in the sky.

quote:

---

When Satan decided to exalt his throne into heaven,
and above the other angels of God, where exactly was
his throne at that time?

---

Isaiah 14 is not about Satan, it’s about the King of Babylon. And the King of Babylon had his throne in Babylon.

quote:

---

The truth is that God had placed Satan on earth's throne
sometime in the past, before Adam was created.

---

Where does it say that in the Bible?

quote:

---

The way I have laid this out should be simple enough
for anyone to understand. Why are you having so much
trouble with it?

---

Oh it’s giving me no trouble at all. The fantasies and misreadings of the Bible you are promoting aren’t a problem at all. That’s why I find it so easy to answer. And why you find it so difficult to answer my points - you can’t find anything in Revelation 12 that suggests that it occurs before Adam was created, can you ? Indeed it’s only a “short time” before the Millenium (see Revelation 12:12 and 20) and there are other clues to the contrary right there.

For Candle 2. I looked into the beliefs of the United Church of God and found that the following was one of its basic tenants.

quote:

---

Military Service and War: UCG holds that Christians are forbidden by the commandments of God from taking a life. Christians are viewed as being called out of this world, having their citizenship in heaven, and discouraged from participating too closely in worldly affairs. John 18:36 is often used to defend this position, “Jesus stated, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants fight…’ ” Also, because most militaries require you to sign away certain rights, UCG strongly dissuades members from enlisting and voluntarily giving away their freedom to serve God to the best of their ability.

---

I also read that one of the foundational beliefs of your church is that the Bible is inerrant. With that in mind how do you square those beliefs with the following Biblical passages?from KJV Deuteronomy 7:2

quote:

---

and when the LORD your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them.

---

and from Deuteronomy 20: 16-18:

quote:

---

16 But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

​

17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee:

​

18 That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the Lord your God.

---

and Samuel 15:13:

quote:

---

Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.’”

---

In Mark 3:29 This was in the response to those that claimed that His power came from the work of Satan.The unforgivable sin then is to assign the work of the goodness of God to Satan or simply to evil. Jesus tells us that we are to love our enemies as he campaigned for a non-violent revolution against the Romans in opposition to those who wanted Him or someone else to mount of an army to militarily drive the Romans out. He was all about defeating evil with the power of God's love.With all that in mind it seems to me that is what your view of inerrancy does is to contravene Jesus by declaring genocide, and public stoning for that matter, to be the work of God.What you are doing is making a false idol of the Bible and your religion although called Christianity is much more akin to Bibleianity by prioritizing an inerrant Bible over the teachings of Jesus.I doubt that you will respond to this, and that you will ignore as you did. with my previous post Message 2456. I understand your reluctance. You can't square belief in a genocidal god with the teachings of Jesus.

Of course he can! Just like you can square a believe in a loving god with a god that allows the entirety of his creation to suffer and die.People aren't rational, they believe what they need to believe.

Sure all life suffers physical death but of course the Christian message is that physical death is not the same as the death of consciousness. Ya, I've heard that and some people still believe that life exists, against all odds, because of blind mindless good luck.

You see how easy it is to rationalise away a problem that's confounded religion and philosophy from the beginning of time? Poof, gone!

We have enough of these discussions that you know that I have previously said that this is the biggest issue that Christians have to face. So certainly it is a matter of faith, but it is part of the Christian faith. Of course I don't know that it rep[resents the truth but I do believe it.However, true or not, I still believe that we are called as humans to do all that we can to mitigate death and suffering.

You believe what you want to believe and candle believes what he wants to believe. Like us, you know he's just factually wrong to believe that the animals and plants that we see around us today were created only 6,000 years ago in the form that we see them in now. He believes that Adam and Eve were real and that Noah really did build an Ark.If you'd been around in the 17th century you'd believe that too. As would I.Beliefs are cultural. What you believe is a function of the society you're born into, when your were born and your own personality and education.You are able to see the irrationality of candle's beliefs, but not your own. And that's simply because your beliefs prevent you.

We've already explained to you what complete and utter bullshit lies you have posted about Lucy. Though I have no doubt that you refuse to read them, undoubtedly with your usual whine that your phone is too small to read anything on it.Erika ("Gutsick Gibbon") posted a new video addressing creationist hypocrisy, mainly how they accuse scientists of lying while they lie their asses off -- The World's Biggest Hypocrite at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaYVFPEw_l0 (will not embed). She runs through a video by Calvin of the Answers in Genesis Canada branch and critiques it.This was posted in the comments section.

quote:

---

I get so furious whenever YECs talk about Lucy (it's irrational...she's just the first fossil ancestor I learned about and I love her). Leave her alone! She (maybe!) fell out of a tree and died! Hasn't she been through enough?!

---

Calvin also invokes the famous PT Barnum quote about a sucker being born every minutes. Actually, I have myself used it many times in the past four decades to describe why PRATTs exist ("Points Refuted A Thousand Times"). Most creationist claims -- and especially the young-earth ones -- were around in 1980 when I started studying "creation science" and undoubtedly predate that by several decades -- indeed, the Seventh Day Adventists (SDAists) in the 1920's are a primary source of so many standard young-earth claims used by creationists who, I would assume, would consider SDAists to be members of a cult. What I have noticed is that many old creationist books are still circulating despite having been refuted (eg, H. Morris' Scientific Creationism and its bogus and refuted moon dust claim; see my page, MOON DUST about my research into that claim) and new books just repeat the same old refuted claims, often without citing their creationist source. The problem is that even though all those claims were refuted long ago, most commonly shortly after they were created, none of the creationist literature ever mentions that fact. Indeed, the creationists often add the lie that no scientist has ever tried to respond to those claims, when the fact is that not only have they responded, but they have also refuted those claims. Unfortunately, the creationist literature only prints the claims but make absolutely no mention of their refutations or never criticisms of them, deceiving new creationists into think that those false claims are true and recent (instead of being a half to a full century old) and nobody can respond to them. Then when they try to use those "unassailable" claims they become bug splatter on the windshield of Truth. Often, they realize how false creationism is and retire from the fray, but there's a boatload of new creationists coming down the pipeline to replace those casualties, all headed for the same fate.

Just as you believe what you want to believe.
​ I agree and as our cultures are predominately materialistic it does make sense that your culture has biased you in favour of materialism. You believe what you want to believe. Can you not see how irrational it is to believe that we are nothing but that life exists, against all odds, because of blind mindless good luck.

GDR writes: Against all odds is kinda hard to say. I'm just cruising by and saw this discussion. So if you folks here have already discussed the Fine Structure Constant, alpha = ~1/137.036, then nevermind. Or visit Quanta Magazine . From the link: There are some physicists who propose many worlds with all kinds of properties, some near ours (resulting in worlds that last a while), some not (and this results in a short lifespan for those worlds) and these are spontaneously being created at zillions of times per planck-second. Some even argue that every possibility of a quantum outcome actually is happening tight now.While I cannot go along with these ideas out of sheer disbelief, I could also argue that all it takes is 1 world like ours, so against all odds suddenly becomes near certainty, if all kinds of worlds are created out of this *nothingness*.The link mentions that Quite at odds with Einstein's "God doesn't roll dice"!!Indeed, even Feynman wrote:

You've been playing this false equivalence card for years. Nothing anyone can say stops you. You really need it don't you?I don't believe that even you believe that a belief in, say, talking snakes and animals going in two-by-two is the equivalent of my 'belief' in, say, the scientific method. Do you?You're being disingenuous as usual.You know (not believe) that candle's beliefs are plain wrong just like I do; there's no equivalence there; it's just a matter of fact but 500 years ago all three of us would have believed the same things. It's developmental and with developmental changes you'll have people far behind and people far ahead.Your personal beliefs are a function of societies and personal preferences, as are mine. Neither of us invented them. But just as you've trimmed down the original Christian beliefs to suit some modern knowledge and abandoned the most ludicrous, I've gone a bit further and allowed more knowledge and fewer beliefs. Our culture has allowed us to do this.And by-the-way, as far as religious beliefs go my only remaining irrational belief is that there is no god. I have no idea whether that position is correct or not.I certainly don't "believe that we are nothing but that life exists, against all odds, because of blind mindless good luck." I simply don't know.What I do know is that all the various flavours of institutional religions are complete manmade fabrications born of primitive superstitions and human power struggles. Your form of Christianity is just one of many thousands such inventions.