tgamble

for you reading pleasure. Or frustration. Whichever.

<a href="http://informationcentre.tripod.com/evolve8.html" target="_blank">http://informationcentre.tripod.com/evolve8.html</a>

"Let's discuss just what evolution would mean if it were true. If evolution were true then there would be absolutely no point to life except to reproduce. We are merely links on a chain. We are the highest and most advanced form that evolution has taken, but eventually we'll be regarded as pond scum. We are insignificant individuals on an insignificant planet in an insignificant solar system in an insignificant galaxy in an insignificant universe. What we do today will hold little or no significance for future generations and there are no consequences for our actions. You believe that there is no God or if there is a God he did a crappy job creating the universe and then just kicked back after he finished his "half-ass job" and let nature do it itself (which according to theistic evolutionists did a much better job than God did). As you have already seen, however, and will shortly continue to see, there is a million and one problems with evolution. In fact it is not technically a science at all. Common descent can not be directly observed so it must be believed in faith. This makes it a religion. Numerous times contradictions and nonsense occur in evolution. All over the place de-evolution is cited, yet de-evolution does not exist by the words of those same scientists who cited it. If you believe in evolution, you believe that nothing came from nowhere to create the big bang. Inanimate material self-organized into a complex universe. Electricity struck ozone to create inanimate organic material which in turn self-organized within a chaotic environment to create proteins. These inanimate objects also self-organized and turned from non-living to living. These single celled creatures who were incapable of thought, through personification, willingly changed their genetic structure. Through a fluke two fragile sexes were developed (which is de-evolution because it makes reproduction much more fragile, unlikely, and difficult) which both survived and thrived. After this, cells began to group together to form multi-cellular animals which, in turn, mutated their own dna and after a series of impossible circumstances became life as we know it."
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" /> <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

tgamble

Beautiful Lucy: The missing link! The missing link! The cry went up from the evolutionists during the seventies after the discovery of Lucy, the first nearly complete Australapithecus afarensis ever discovered. They laughed until they found out there were many more links, but are still awfully smug about it today. How can you refute that? The evidence is right there! I couldn't believe this when I read it in National Geographic...Lucy is incapable of reproducing. Moreover, she is neither female nor male. What?! That's right. Scientists have concluded that Lucy's hips are all wrong. They lack the ventral arc which suggests that lucy was a male. In addition to this her hips were far too narrow for child birth. She would have crushed the newborn at birth. Obviously, the scientists claim, Lucy is a man. That is great say the couple who found her, but you neglect one thing. This species is sexually dimorphic. This means that males are much larger than females which means that females would only be 2 or 3 feet tall due to the small size of the males. Obviously she's not a male. So let me ask you this. If lucy is not a male and she is not a female...and the species is incapable of reproduction, what does that tell you? It means they put the puzzle together wrong! That's right. When they found the skeleton, it was not all together in one piece. It was spread out over a full mile. Why would one ever think that this could be part of the same animal! They just went around and collected bones...puzzle pieces and placed them together. Unfortunately they don't fit. What a shame. How about all the other skeletons you ask? What other skeletons. Lucy was the only complete one ever found! I wonder why we weren't taught that in school... This isn't the only great controversy over little Lucy. A far greater one rages, but is kept quite secretive from the public arena. Peter Schmid, a swiss anthropologist (one of the people who challenged Lucy's gender) claims that she was not efficiently bipedal at all as has been suggested, but rotated her trunk causing her to waddle much like a modern gorilla. In addition to this, he claims that if the reconstruction is correct, the ribs are too heavy and the upper thorax too small to take in oxygen efficiently or cool herself. She would have to pant like a dog. This new argument proves that, though showing some semi-human characteristics, Australopithecus afarensis is nothing more than an extinct ape.

<a href="http://informationcentre.tripod.com/evolve2.html" target="_blank">http://informationcentre.tripod.com/evolve2.html</a>

David Gould

And the common ancestor of humanity and chimpanzees is...

[drum roll]

...nothing more thatn an extinct ape.

tgamble

<a href="http://www.amath.washington.edu/people/faculty/schmid/" target="_blank">http://www.amath.washington.edu/people/faculty/schmid/</a>

Professor Schmid completed his undergraduate work at the Technical University Munich in 1986 and received an Engineer's degree in the field of Aeronautics and Astronautics in 1989. He continued on to receive his doctorate in Mathematics in 1993 from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, before joining the University of Washington. His teaching interests include ordinary and partial differential equations, numerical methods and integral equations.

tgamble

Anyone know anything about this alleged debate over Lucy's gender? His claims seem to be highly dubious at best.

This was determined from a single speciman and it was further determined that there can be no exceptions? How does he know about the small size of the males if lucy was the only one found?

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]</p>

Valentine Pontifex

This was suggested it a some years ago, but my nonprofesional understanding is that is is very now a dead issue: proposed, considered, and rejected.

<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=968046 8&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">AL 288-1--Lucy or Lucifer: gender confusion in the Pliocene</a>

DarkBronzePlant

Aside from the fact that he doesn't know how to use a carriage-return, this guy is just arguing that the evolution makes him feel like there is no defined purpose for life, and therefore he must reject it.

To me, his argument just provides more evidence that religion is big lie, designed to quell people's feelings of inadequacy.

liquid

From this sentence:

"His teaching interests include ordinary and partial differential equations, numerical methods and integral equations."

You can conlude this man is an academic wash-up with no serious research funding. Simple topics, and referring to teaching interests over research interests is a great giveaway.

Godless Dave

So what? I figured that out when I was 10. It doesn't bother me one bit. Actually it helps me appreciate the awesome splendour of the universe.

Once again, cosmology, not biology.

Bad cosmology at that.

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: Godless Dave ]

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: Godless Dave ]</p>

hezekiah jones

Hear, hear. My sentiments exactly.