Really? So Lucy couldn't have walked on all fours, even if she had wanted to...that's a damn shame. Oliver walks on all fours due to arthritis, according to his vet. Seeing as Lucy's arms were so long that she would only have been forced to bend over a little bit to touch her hands to the ground, I imagine she could have walked on all fours if she had wanted to. Just like poor Oliver with his old, arthritic self.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=379134&in_page_id=1770

So these humans, with human pelvises couldn't possibly be walking on all fours, even though scientists have studied them and confirmed that they do? Thanks for clearing that up for me.

You didn't say we have all of her pelvis? It sure seems to be what you were saying in this quote "You said we didn't have Lucy's pelvis, which we do & is almost an exact match to a human pelvis, sounds like you're the one reaching at straws, claiming to be more knowladgable on the subject than all the anthropologists who've examined pre human species, namely Lucy in this case"

Tell me, how can a partial pelvis be an "almost exact match" to a human pelvis?

Donald Johanson and James Shreeve wrote a book called "Lucy's Child." Johanson is the discoverer of Lucy.

They get into some detail on the issue of bipedality. On page 199, Johanson and Shreeve mention an examination of the pelvic fragments done by Owen Lovejoy:

"'Lucy was not just capable of walking upright,' Owen later wrote, 'It had become her only choice.' (Italics found in the original.) Point by point, Owen and his student Bruce Latimer showed how, below the waist, Lucy was factory-built for full bipedality."

There's a lot more on the subject, too....

I think I figured it out man, it was the same alien ship that brought Obama that planted Lucy, that would explain her bi pedal pelvis..lol;^]

I agree 'Dr.spidercbm'!!!

Many things I don't understand, such as what could possibly motivate you in posting all this stuff, you might not hesitate in calling the 'truth and nothing but the scientific truth', on the chatting forum of DATING SITE!!!

Try and make an effort, and understand for yourself, the 'simple' suggestion I offer you: TAKE YOUR 'TRUTH' AND 'PUT' IT WHERE IT BELONGS...

... THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH CHANNELS!!!

Go out and challenge those whom are worthy of your 'unique' brilliance!!!

OH! and by the way, should you see the light, and pick up on my suggestion, be sure and hire a professional coach whom will help you in decontaminating all the 'apologetics' mindset and vocabulary from your official papers and dissertations.

Not that there is anything wrong with that 'Dr.spidercbm', but it is just that science and 'apologetics' simply don't mix. A bit like 'evolution' and 'creationism', no common grounds!!!

I have to take issue with that, scripture says God created but not how he created;^]

I'm sorry 'Lex', and however much appropriate and pertinent the information you post here, may seem to us 'poor chatters', I believe it is of no interest to 'Dr.spidercbm'.

You must understand 'Lex', 'Dr.spidercbm' has incomprehensible information, ... to us poor posters, which may turn out to be the 'final truth' on the origins of man and life itself.

He would simply need to get out of this 'dating site' and go and present it to the scientific community!!!

I hope he does!!!

You don't need the whole convoluted and perverted 'creationist' machine to support that 'evolution' is an intrinsic part of 'god's creation!!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=379134&in_page_id=1770



I would guess that if a full grown human can walk on all fours, that Lucy could have walked on all fours if she needed to.

Here's a great picture of them walking on all fours as they do in their normal life. So...Lucy with arms much longer than they have couldn't possibly have walked on all fours?

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/03/timewarpfamilyBBC070306_450x298.jpg

The bible doesn't have to be taken word for word in order for one's christian faith in god to be intact!!!

What say you 'turtlepoet78' ?!?!?

That's the thing, the anti evolutionists have tryed to monopolise the term "creationist". Of course we know there are tons of creation stories, but yeah I agree evolution was a big part of how God created, he is afterall the ultimate & original scientist;^]

Not all of it, before Abraham reached Sumeria the Hebrews had no alphabet & so history was passed on oraly. Each book is it's own exception to symbolism vs. direct, but the seven day explanation had to be symbolic in my humble as well as many of the other Genesis stories;^]

So let's see...I've destroyed all of your strawmen, shown time and again that science and logic support my position and now you guys are forced to do childish name calling. Yep, you guys win again.

Dr. SpiderCMB! You guys really showed me! No evidence + childish name calling = your MO. Great job guys, you have finally put me in my place.

What are the mods doing? Isn't this attacking the messenger and not the message? Oh yeah, there's a moderator defending your postion. This place has turned into a complete zoo.

Find no qualms with those statements!!!

And asserting it so, makes you no less of a Christian!!!

Are we not in agreement here?!?!?

Absolutly, the literalists hold no monopoly over any corner of Abraham religion;^]

There is no name calling!!!

There is simply a refusal on your part to consider that this conversation cannot be had on an intelligent basis.

Science cannot be treated from the perspective of religious dogma and beliefs.

And, religious dogma and beliefs cannot be discussed or treated for what it is, from the perspective of the scientific domain.

To keep 'attacking' the scientific domain on the basis that 'it' supposedly contradicts the beliefs of some, will not change anything to the fact that there is no direct line or connection between science and faith, and facts and beliefs.

Be in peace with your beliefs, and stop inventing false attacks where there are none. It won't stop 'science', and it won't change 'faith'!!!

Could you show me where I made a faith based argument? Can you show where I used the Bible as evidence in this discussion? Wow, would you look at that? Those strawmen really light up the night sky when they burn up.

I have looked at the evidence and I disagree. I made logical and well reasoned arguments. You have offered nothing but insults and sarcasm. You should at least get a warning for that, but you won't, because we all know who are the "trouble makers" around here (hint: Only Christians cause trouble). Turtlepoet78's arguments were mostly strawmen and gratuitous assertions (Oliver was simply trained to walk upright!). You guys haven't offered anything that would pass as a legitimate argument. A fairhanded review of the thread would find that you have indeed attacked me, rather than my arguments.

I sincerely think you are not even conscious that you're missing the point entirely!!!

As for your question, I think I'll resort to the story of this little guy in my grade 3 class.

Claude was his name. I later understood that Claude must have had an attention disorder based on lack of attention/affection, probably.

Anyhow, he would always talk to classmates and disturb the whole class to the dismay of the teacher, whom we would always hear calling out: 'Claude, it's your last chance. If I catch you talking again, I'll send you to the 'principal office'.

Sure enough, Claude spoke again, and was sent to the principal's office.

Together with the teacher, and following a call to the parents, it would appear that the principal's visit had Claude realize that he could no longer talk dismissively in class. Were it to happen again, there would be much more serious consequences than a visit to the principal's office.

Well guess what, Claude did not talk dismissively again for the rest of the school year.

But that wasn't the end of it!!!

Not a minute would go by without a book falling from Claude's desk, the noise of his wooden desk-top dropping, or the ultimate, blowing his nose with such force, that one could have sworn a moose had just entered the room.

You've guessed it, Claude was back in the principal's office, but this time, he claimed with all the sincerity he could muster, that he had done nothing wrong, '... tell me teacher, WHEN DID I ONCE SPEAK DISMISSIVELY?!?!?...' he must have asked defiantly.

'... But Claude, would reply the principal, YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT!!! The point is, you keep disturbing the class in an intolerable manner'.

Of course, as long as Claude was inhabited by this 'attention/affection' deficit disorder, he would uncounsciously keep doing 'everything' to get attention. And that was never going to be conducive with running a 3rd grade classroom, nor was it ever going to bring Claude th affection he so longed for!!!

Much like you 'spider', feeling that your religion and faith are under attack all the time, and eventhough you don't use faith based arguments (as Claude stopped talking dismissively),
you still come from your faith based convictions, with apologetics artillery, TO DEFEND YOUR FAITH (equivalent to Claude uncontrollable attention/affection deficit disorder).

Just as you don't seem to get the message, Claude followed the 'letter' of the message from the pricipal, but never understood the spirit:
the incompatibility between 'attention/affection deficit' and running a classroom, just like science motivated discussions will never work inside of faith motivated purposes.

You have no positions. You have no arguments. You have no point. There is no basis for it.

There is no amount of insinsting on the part of apologetics that 'evolution' ATTACKS their faith, that will have the domains of science and faith connect. There is no connection. Ther ca be no attack. Science CANNOT reach faith. Neither can faith reach science.

You need to convince your apologetics friends that this delusional sense of permenantely being under attack from sceince or otherwise is 100% counterproductive.

It might have been true way back when Christians were burned at the stake for their beliefs. But let me assure you, that is no longer the case today. And metaphorical attacks, as fabricated and and perceived by apologetics don't count.

As for faith based arguments, incompatible intent, motives and practices are the very basis of one's argument, much more so then the words one may write or speak.

That is the point 'spider'. And on that basis, trying to 'prove' creationism on the sole basis of the amateurish and presuppositional 'disproval' of evolution, is absurd at best, and squarely dishonest at worst.

Nothing on this planet, much less science, is under the obligation of satisfying one's delusional mission to impose one's world view.
Whether this view comes from religion or faith matters none.

One's faith is not based on material/physical conditions. For one whom wishes to keep insisting that it is, shouldn't become the concern of anyone, on a dating site or otherwise.

I can't say anything else without violating the rules of the forum. All I can say is that everything you say makes me laugh. I ask myself, how could you know so much about Claude and what the Principle said to him in private, unless you were in fact Claude? Now it all makes sense, how you run into a thread and never offer anything intelligent. You simply insult the forum members and use sarcasm and disappear for a couple weeks. Well, have a good one Claude, sorry to hear about your rough childhood. But as for me, I was participating in a discussion that was started by someone else. I was making arguments based on facts, which I supplied. I never once mentioned by own religious beliefs and I never once used them to support anything I said. You should still get a repremand from the Mods, but you are safe, being that your profile says "Religous: Non-Religous".



See ya later Claude, I hope you have gotten enough attention for today.