Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds?
For those not in the know, the above song by the beatles was a sort of homily to the joys of LSD. LSD is a hallucinogen, which means you see crazy stuff when you take it.
Perhaps that is what Donald Johanson, the man who discovered "Lucy", was on when he made his assessment. Somehow, in contradiction of what other similarly-minded archaeologists had claimed, Mr. Johanson said that Lucy was the ancestor of humans.
A quick examination of the find shows that he 'built' his model of Lucy from two separate fossil finds, which happened to be 60 to 70 meters [over 200 feet] lower in the strata and two to three kilometers [1.24-1.86 miles] away from each other. Thus the model is immediately suspect. Throw in that many paleontologists (not just creation scientists) believe that Lucy was a knuckle walker, not upright as Johanson claimed, and you have a suspicious position indeed.
So why did Johanson declare that he had found the ancestor to humanity? Three reasons: one, the greater community of anthropologists and paleontologists a actively looking for this evidence. Just as Rather and Mapes were looking for a document smearing President Bush eagerly accepted the fakes, Johanson knew that the evidence would not be given a thorough examination by his peers.
Two, he wanted the recognition, just as the purveyor of Piltdown Man did. Who wouldn't want to be recognized as the one who made perhaps the greatest archeological discovery of our time?
Three, he wanted to prove macroevolution. While I can't find him writing this, we certainly know that if he was a Christian, he wouldn't have made such ridiculous leaps of logic (in this case :)).
Lucy continues to hang around, despite its problems. I had some joker at the Kentucky Academy of Sciences present Lucy information that was wrong and downright deceptive as part of his talk (he was the keynote speaker) on evolutionary psychology. I wasn't willing to bust him out on the podium - I still wanted to win first prize in my division (which I did). Thus, I demonstrate the inherent selfishness of humans in...myself.
Oddly enough, if you type "lucy pygmy chimp" into Google, one of the suggested alternate searches given is "George Bush". Good grief.
UPDATE: Mark effectively kicked me in the mouth on this one. I was foolish to go looking for something when I already had the info on it. I retract my knee 'evidence', as it is dubious at best. Here is the best link for Lucy-debunking I have found to date. Almost all(if not all) of the scientists cited are not creationists. Now, that dosn't mean that they don't believe in evolution - but that they recognize, scientifically, the flaws in Lucy.
Besides, even when evolutionists find out that their theory isn't working, they just change to a new nuance - they never consider discarding macroevolution.
Faith in a theory is not scientific proof. It doesn't mean it isn't true - but don't confuse them.
Perhaps that is what Donald Johanson, the man who discovered "Lucy", was on when he made his assessment. Somehow, in contradiction of what other similarly-minded archaeologists had claimed, Mr. Johanson said that Lucy was the ancestor of humans.
A quick examination of the find shows that he 'built' his model of Lucy from two separate fossil finds, which happened to be 60 to 70 meters [over 200 feet] lower in the strata and two to three kilometers [1.24-1.86 miles] away from each other. Thus the model is immediately suspect. Throw in that many paleontologists (not just creation scientists) believe that Lucy was a knuckle walker, not upright as Johanson claimed, and you have a suspicious position indeed.
So why did Johanson declare that he had found the ancestor to humanity? Three reasons: one, the greater community of anthropologists and paleontologists a actively looking for this evidence. Just as Rather and Mapes were looking for a document smearing President Bush eagerly accepted the fakes, Johanson knew that the evidence would not be given a thorough examination by his peers.
Two, he wanted the recognition, just as the purveyor of Piltdown Man did. Who wouldn't want to be recognized as the one who made perhaps the greatest archeological discovery of our time?
Three, he wanted to prove macroevolution. While I can't find him writing this, we certainly know that if he was a Christian, he wouldn't have made such ridiculous leaps of logic (in this case :)).
Lucy continues to hang around, despite its problems. I had some joker at the Kentucky Academy of Sciences present Lucy information that was wrong and downright deceptive as part of his talk (he was the keynote speaker) on evolutionary psychology. I wasn't willing to bust him out on the podium - I still wanted to win first prize in my division (which I did). Thus, I demonstrate the inherent selfishness of humans in...myself.
Oddly enough, if you type "lucy pygmy chimp" into Google, one of the suggested alternate searches given is "George Bush". Good grief.
UPDATE: Mark effectively kicked me in the mouth on this one. I was foolish to go looking for something when I already had the info on it. I retract my knee 'evidence', as it is dubious at best. Here is the best link for Lucy-debunking I have found to date. Almost all(if not all) of the scientists cited are not creationists. Now, that dosn't mean that they don't believe in evolution - but that they recognize, scientifically, the flaws in Lucy.
Besides, even when evolutionists find out that their theory isn't working, they just change to a new nuance - they never consider discarding macroevolution.
Faith in a theory is not scientific proof. It doesn't mean it isn't true - but don't confuse them.
posted by Hammertime at
1/22/2005 02:53:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home