tgamble

I bet you thought that not even creationists would parrot the old lie about Lucy's kneejoint anymore.

Never underestimate the dishonesty of creationists.

<a href="http://www.creationism.org/crimea/engl/g2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.creationism.org/crimea/engl/g2.htm</a>

After all the scandals with human evolutionary ancestors in Europe, Asia and America, special attention was paid to excavations taking place in Africa. Almost all ape fossil remains found here were classified into their own species. Such classification gave the impression of a great group of such creatures as Plesianthropus transvaalensis, Paraanthropus robustus, Paraanthropus crassidens, Telanthropus capensis, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus transvaalensis, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus prometheus and other half-human, almost-human and very-close-to-human creatures. Consequently, it was stated that differences between those individuals did not extend to age, sex and individual differences, and all finds were classified as representatives of one extinct ape species - australopithecus (southern ape). The most complete (up to 40%) skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis was found in 1974 near Hadar (Ethiopia) by D. C. Johanson's expedition. The find was given the name Lucy. At first Lucy was declared to walk upright (bipedal locomotion as they called it). The reason for this conclusion was a badly damaged (crushed) knee joint, the state of which allowed it to conjunct both human and ape like. Lucy's pelvis, to the great sorrow of the discoverer, did not match the idea of bipedal locomotion, but to excuse this problem they declared "her pelvis to be somewhat distorted." Years later it was announced that the notorious knee joint was found 2400 meters from the skeleton. Moreover, it was found 80 meters deeper (according to the strata chronological scale suggested by the excavator himself, the knee had to be a half million years older than its owner). The experts who examined Lucy are still arguing. They can not estimate which extremities of that amazingly complete skeleton were longer - arms or legs. The mystery of Lucy's sex also troubles the experts; - they are not sure whether Lucy was female or male.6 Detailed study of all morphological parameters of all kinds of australopithecus lead to the conclusion that they differ both from humans and apes much more then humans differ from apes, so they cannot be the transitional form between a man and an ape.

Nataraja

Are they stupid? Is there something in their brains missing or something? If we shake their heads hard enough will their little pea-sized brains fall out? <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> The hypocrisy...the stupidity...I can't stand it! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

RufusAtticus

FYI: <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html" target="_blank">Lucy's Knee Joint</a>

Ergaster

That was funny!

We ought to start a contest: who can find a creationist post with the most whoppers per line inch. That one would definitely be in the running!

RufusAtticus

Ergaster, you can always play <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001499" target="_blank">Creationist Now</a>.

tgamble

yeah I know. Which is why their lying pisses me of so much. It's not a fucking secret! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Valentine Pontifex

It is a secret. It is a secret to their victims. Ninty-nine percent of people don't follow this controvery in detail. How could they? There are many controversies out there and no one can follow them all. And in most controversies out there one side is not so utterly underhanded. Add that with American society's bias very strong anti-evolution. And the anti-evolutionists have been very effective at telling the public the evolutionists are the really dishonest ones. Frankly the pro-science side needs to be much more effective in getting the word out to the everyday Joe. Those who take the effort to honesty research both sides will come out overwhelmingly on the right side.

Those who are engaged in debates in the letters to the editor sections of newspapers might try to incorporate concrete examples of creationist dishonesty. It might be a good idea to get in a reference to <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org" target="_blank">www.talkorigins.org</a> or use the shorter talkorigins.org which also works.

tgamble

Agreed. the lies about transitional fossils and thermodynamics are one thing, but lying about the knee joint is something else. It's really easy for anyone to see the dishonesty.

Ditto with Gish's bullfrog proteins and how he repeatedly promised to provide documentation and failed to do so. Lies that not even a creationist can't deny when confronted.

Other similar dishonesty such as Sarfati's claims about chicken lyzosome being more similar to humans than any other animal. Four words. Chimps lysome is identical. How hard is that to understand?!

Examples of out of context quotes would also work. Especially when they are so out of context that the grammar has been changed. ie. a comma replaced with a period and the rest of the sentence cut off.

Such blatant examples of dishonesty are plentiful and would, IMO, be more effective that explaining why a paticular fossils is transitional or trying to explain thermodynamics etc.

SA's article was good, through I think I would have chosen some different arguments. AIG had a point that most creationists don't use the old "why do we still have monkeys argument". Through it is still used. Holy shit that was painful. Maybe Discover, or other science magazine would be willing to publish rebuttals to creationist arguments and/or examples of dishonesty/incompetance. ie. falling for April fool's jokes.

Also, it's not just evolution that creationists attack. Pointing out that the geologic column was mapped by 1795 (or at least, maps of it existed) refutes the whole "GC is based on the assumption of evolution" quite easilly.
The list is endless. Scientists and science magazines (or even other magazines such as Time) need to point it out. Otherwise American science education is going down the shitter.

Evolution doesn't need to be defended.

Creationism needs to be attacked.

On the other hand, what's the difference?

[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]</p>

Valentine Pontifex

But only if the intended victim takes the effort to actually do the fact checking.

No person can possibly research every claim they hear even if they wanted to. That many creationists are not the type to want to does not help. But even if they are the type, the fact checking will only occur if the victim is interested enough to do the effort. There are plenty of other issues to get people's attention. And with the creationists' sucessful propoganda effort and an often feeble evolutionist response does not help.

tgamble

But they wouldn't have to if it were layed out in front of them.

Exactly. I think a much stronger and forceful response is needed. Creation "science" is bullshit, it needs to be exposed as bullshit in magazine articles and newspaper science columns. Treated with the contempt it so richly deserves.

I don't mean by nasty to creationists, just state the facts without name calling or judgemental statements (ie. "this shows the lack of honesty...") Let the reader see that for themselves in the clear and undisputable facts.