The Neck of the Giraffe

@kellyjay said
Do you consider Lucy valid well-substantiated evidence?

Of course. It is clear valid well-substantiated evidence that Adam and Eve should not be taken literally.

@kellyjay said
My first suggestion to you would be use paragraphs. If you want to play me challenge me.

Come on Kelly, that's a lazy response. Phil made some excellent observations there.

The format was also perfect to share 'random thoughts.'

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Come on Kelly, that's a lazy response. Phil made some excellent observations there.

The format was also perfect to share 'random thoughts.'

I thought I had too which were not addressed..

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Of course. It is clear valid well-substantiated evidence that Adam and Eve should not be taken literally.

So if I re-ask those questions I have about that find you will address them?
You can then show me the direct connection between Lucy and Adam and Eve?

@kellyjay said
So if I re-ask those questions I have about that find you will address them?
You can then show me the direct connection between Lucy and Adam and Eve?

There is no direct connection between Lucy, and Adam and Eve. That's the point Kelly. Lucy demonstrates that humans were not created as they appear today. We evolved.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
There is no direct connection between Lucy, and Adam and Eve. That's the point Kelly. Lucy demonstrates that humans were not created as they appear today. We evolved.

Any comment on my post regarding how that could have happened Biblically?

@whodey said
Any comment on my post regarding how that could have happened Biblically?

You posted 6 (long) replies to me in a row. Highlight the one you want answering.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
There is no direct connection between Lucy, and Adam and Eve. That's the point Kelly. Lucy demonstrates that humans were not created as they appear today. We evolved.

I understand that is what you believe, but I gave you a handful of reasons why Lucy has many holes as being a real piece of evidence. Taking something like this and calling it real evidence doesn’t build confidence in your concussions. If you are going to present evidence for observational material evidence, it should be something that doesn’t have the possibility being completely in error, as I already demonstrated possible issues.

@kellyjay said
I understand that is what you believe, but I gave you a handful of reasons why Lucy has many holes as being a real piece of evidence. Taking something like this and calling it real evidence doesn’t build confidence in your concussions. If you are going to present evidence for observational material evidence, it should be something that doesn’t have the possibility being completely in error, as I already demonstrated possible issues.

There are no holes kelly.

'How do scientists know the species to which Lucy belongs?
When Johanson and Gray discovered Lucy’s fossilized remains, they didn’t know her species. After close examination of the fossils, the research team felt confident they were looking at the bones of a primate that walked upright. The fragmentary bones of Lucy’s hindlimb were sufficiently similar to the knee joint found in 1973 to support the hypothesis that she was a biped. Ultimately, evidence from other parts of Lucy’s skeleton, such as her teeth and pelvis, demonstrated that she was, in fact, a hominin (see Kimbel & Delezene, 2009, for a detailed description of Lucy’s pelvic anatomy and its locomotor implications).

In the few years following Lucy’s discovery, many more hominin specimens were collected from Hadar, including hundreds of specimens from the locality A.L. 333. The A.L. 333 assemblage includes the remains of at least thirteen individuals and is nicknamed the “First Family” (Johanson, Taieb, et al., 1982; Kimbel and Delezene, 2009). In addition, hominin fossils resembling those found at Hadar were discovered at a fossil site called Laetoli in Tanzania. Johanson and his colleague, Dr. Tim White, studied the collection of East African fossils very carefully, paying close attention to the variation among the specimens, and considered whether the East Africa fossils represented a single species or more than one species (Kimbel and Delezene, 2009). They presented their findings to a team of researchers and the group ultimately agreed that Lucy was part of a single, previously undiscovered, species of hominin. This newly identified species, Australopithecus afarensis, was announced by Johanson in 1978.'

www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/lucy-a-marvelous-specimen-135716086

@ghost-of-a-duke said
There are no holes kelly.

'How do scientists know the species to which Lucy belongs?
When Johanson and Gray discovered Lucy’s fossilized remains, they didn’t know her species. After close examination of the fossils, the research team felt confident they were looking at the bones of a primate that walked upright. The fragmentary bones of Lucy’s hindlimb were suffic ...[text shortened]... Johanson in 1978.'

www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/lucy-a-marvelous-specimen-135716086

Excellent as long as they are confident than they cannot be wrong! You have a lot of faith!

@kellyjay said
Excellent as long as they are confident than they cannot be wrong! You have a lot of faith!

Don't you think you should start reading a bit about the basics of the theory of evolution and the evidence for it, before you start judging others for accepting it?

@kazetnagorra said
Don't you think you should start reading a bit about the basics of the theory of evolution and the evidence for it, before you start judging others for accepting it?

You assume I haven’t, what have I said do you believe is in error? Do you believe any question or criticism of the process automatically shows lack of knowledge and training?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
You posted 6 (long) replies to me in a row. Highlight the one you want answering.

"Biblically, Divine punctuation in the flow of life is seen in the original creation of the universe, in the creation of the ability for animal life to arise from this matter, and in the tenfold repetition of "and God said" recoded in the first chapter of Genesis. The fact that the making of man is the most intimately described event of that chapter in Genesis implies that mankind is the targeted goal of those punctuations.

When on the 6th day, in the Creator's space-time reference frame, God decided to make mankind, the Bible first states that God will make man in God's image and likeness. (Gen 1:26) In the following verse it is written, "God created mankind in his image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them". The verbs make and create are both used, and so, from these two verses, it appears that both making and creating were involved in the appearance of the first of mankind. Later (Gen 2:7), it is explicitly stated that mankind is formed from a previously existing substance, in fact, the same substance used to form the fowl and land animals (Gen 2:19). However, a special ingredient not mentioned before is summoned at this juncture. God breathes a neshamah, a "soul life" into this creature and man becomes a living being.

Nahmanides (who predates modern science) in his Commentary on Genesis and Maimonides in his Guide for the Perplexed both state with no equivocation: Every material thing that was eventually to exist was derived from what was created in the first instant of creation. That was the only material creation. From that ethereal mass of pure energy and exquisitely thin substance, stones and galaxies and humans were to be formed. We are products of the Big Bang. We are, in fact, made of star dust. The material aspects of man are totally rooted in the universe.

The specialty of mankind is not the physical attributes we have...............mankind and his predecessors, although physically related, are not connected by a spiritual line of evolution. Homo sapiens roamed the Earth form some 300,000 years, in our space-time reference frame, prior to the appearance of mankind. The Neanderthals appear to have started burying their dead 100,000 years ago, and their fossil remains as well as those of the more recent Cro-Magnon became increasingly similar in shape to human beings as the time before the present decreases. But neither the Neanderthal nor the Cro-Magnon evolved into human beings.

At a crucial junction some 5,700 years ago a quantum change occurred. This change is the reason for the Biblically stated partnership between God and the Earth in creating mankind. Indeed, so intimate is mankind's connection with the Earth that the name chosen for the first of the species is Adam, which means "soil" in Hebrew.

All animals received a life giving spirit, a nefesh in Hebrew. The animal that was about to become Adam was no exception. However, into the physical form that contained the nefesh of Adam, the Creator placed an additional spirit, or soul, the neshamah. It is this that has set mankind apart from the other animals. "And the Lord formed man from the dust of the ground and blew in his nostrils a soul of life (neshamah), and man became a living being (nefesh)." (Genesis 2:7)

In The Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides makes a remarkable comment. In the time of Adam, he writes, there coexisted animals that appeared as humans in the shape and also in intelligence but lacked the "image" that makes man uniquely different from other animals, being as the "image" of God."

@kellyjay said
Excellent as long as they are confident than they cannot be wrong! You have a lot of faith!

As previously mentioned, ', 'a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.'

No faith required.