Evidence for God from Science

Let's be a bit more fair about this. Most evolutionists do not claim Lucy was a Hominid. Nor do they even claim that they know whether she was a direct descendent. However, the fossils show similarities to more upright walks than do either Bonobos or chimps.

DannyM wrote: Concepts are immaterial. Materialism is a concept. The concept of materialism is immaterial. Yet materialism (at least strict materialism), says that there is only the material. Hence (strict) materialists can't really believe in materialism , since the concept of materialism, being immaterial, can not exist.

Well done sir, well done.

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:

DannyM wrote: Concepts are immaterial. Materialism is a concept. The concept of materialism is immaterial. Yet materialism (at least strict materialism), says that there is only the material. Hence (strict) materialists can't really believe in materialism , since the concept of materialism, being immaterial, can not exist.

Well done sir, well done.

Danny, that is brilliant! Where did you get that from? Surely, you're not clever enough to come up with that one on your own.
That's the quote of the week!

Let's be a bit more fair about this. Most evolutionists do not claim Lucy was a Hominid. Nor do they even claim that they know whether she was a direct descendent. However, the fossils show similarities to more upright walks than do either Bonobos or chimps.

Australopithecus afarensis is one of the longest-lived and best-known early human species

Source: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/hum ... -afarensis

The most famous of hominid fossils (Lucy) is classified as A. afarensis.

Source: http://archaeologyinfo.com/australopithecus-afarensis/

Talk origins has listed Lucy as a Hominid and go into an explanation that says basically they have redefined the word Hominid to suit their presuppositions.

The word "hominid" in this website refers to members of the family of humans, Hominidae, which consists of all species on our side of the last common ancestor of humans and living apes.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

Articles being published this year still state that....

Australopithecus afarensis, an ancient human ancestor who lived around 3 million years ago, spent most of its time walking, instead of climbing

This hominid is one of the gracile australopithecines.

http://www.macroevolution.net/australop ... ensis.html

Zoe,

I am all for fairness. What evidence are you using to arrive at your statement? I'm not cherry picking sites. Nearly every basic definition I've found of Lucy refers to her has Hominid, and many if not most suggest she is a human ancestor.

RickD wrote:

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:

DannyM wrote: Concepts are immaterial. Materialism is a concept. The concept of materialism is immaterial. Yet materialism (at least strict materialism), says that there is only the material. Hence (strict) materialists can't really believe in materialism , since the concept of materialism, being immaterial, can not exist.

Well done sir, well done.

Danny, that is brilliant! Where did you get that from? Surely, you're not clever enough to come up with that one on your own.
That's the quote of the week!

Ooh, that's an old one, Rick, just reworded (and so no doubt inferior) by me. So yes, you are right

Nice one. I'm starting to understand why most atheists never seem to stick around here for very long... people don't like to see arguments that they just can't answer or the attempts they do put up be dismantled (in other words, people don't like being made to look foolish).

Nice one. I'm starting to understand why most atheists never seem to stick around here for very long... people don't like to see arguments that they just can't answer or the attempts they do put up be dismantled (in other words, people don't like being made to look foolish).

Most atheists rely on numbers, arrogance, elephant hurling, loads of BS and refusal to listen, to gain advantage on threads and forum, youtube or FB...when they see some sense they run back, they don't want to be out numbered and they don't want to be proven wrong by low-IQ Christians

neo-x wrote:Most atheists rely on numbers, arrogance, elephant hurling, loads of BS and refusal to listen, to gain advantage on threads and forum, youtube or FB...when they see some sense they run back, they don't want to be out numbered and they don't want to be proven wrong by low-IQ Christians

Elephant hurling? Brb, dying from

StMonicaGuideMe » Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:04 pm

neo-x wrote:
Most atheists rely on numbers, arrogance, elephant hurling, loads of BS and refusal to listen, to gain advantage on threads and forum, youtube or FB...when they see some sense they run back, they don't want to be out numbered and they don't want to be proven wrong by low-IQ Christians


Elephant hurdling? Brb, dying from

LOL...it's true

see below

"Elephant hurling is a debate tactic in which a debater will refer to a large body of evidence which supposedly supports the debater's arguments, but without demonstrating that all the evidence does indeed support the argument."

Ah, I love it! I was wondering what one could call that tactic. Here I am thinking of some elephant being hurled...LOL I think I'm going to laugh about it every time I'm faced with this scenario from now on. Thanks, Neo! LOL

Ah, I love it! I was wondering what one could call that tactic. Here I am thinking of some elephant being hurled...LOL I think I'm going to laugh about it every time I'm faced with this scenario from now on. Thanks, Neo! LOL

Now that you have shown me another way to see it...I cant help myself either