# Google celebrates 41st Anniversary of an Ape called "Lucy."



## Mrs. M. (Nov 24, 2015)

Google is celebrating the “41st anniversary of Lucy" today with a doodle of an ape, that evolves into a walking man!  According to one news source, Lucy was discovered in 1973. She lived 3.2 million years ago and her fossilized remains reveal her to be a hominid from the Australopithecus afarensis species.

Why don't more scientists respond to stories promoted by evolutionists when they have already proven evolution is a lie?

Most likely they fear losing their jobs. Some scientists depend upon grants to continue their research. In 2007 there was one organization known as Creation Research Society that had hundreds of members with master's degrees or doctorates in the various fields of science. Apparently, not everyone is in agreement with where man came from!

The chart evolutionists have used to support their theory, tracing hominids seven million years up to modern man, has been exposed as a lie.

According to a TIME magazine article printed on November 10,1975, there was a story about Mrs. Leakey's discovery which revealed serious flaws in their chart! In order for the evolutionists to cover their mistake, they claimed all they had to do was move man back 3 million years, so that they would overlap in time. By doing such a thing, they destroyed their own theory of evolution.

As one expert for the Creation Scientists aptly pointed out, “How could man evolve from the Ausralopithecus if man was already here one million years before them?

In other words, how can evolutionists claim Lucy is a missing link to man when man had already been on the earth for one million years before Lucy was ever born? The flawed research used by evolutionists is covered in Marvin Lubenov's book, “Bones of Contention.”

Interesting that the news article today never mentioned the Peking man. The story on the Peking man bones was that the finders of those bones, kept them hidden away from the public. Permission was granted to two French scientists to study the bones of the "Peking man."  When the French scientists exposed the bones as animal bones, the bones suddenly disappeared! The truth is revealed in Marvin Lubenov's book, “Bones of Contention.”

To sum up some of the evidence provided thus far by the evolutionists, the Peking man bones were animal bones, the "Pilt down Man" (another hoax) was built out of fossilized human skull and the jawbone of an ape according to William R. Fix who wrote, “The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution.”

What about “Lucy?”

Lucy is an ape, not a missing link to humans. Why would the evolutionists use an ape to prove their theory of evolution? Their fossils show that they had short legs, long arms, and that their fingers and toes were curled rather than straight (human hands are not curled). What is the significance? That they swung from trees? We already know that apes swing from trees!

We can be grateful for honest scientists and researchers such as Dr. Charles Oxnard, Dr. Eric von Fange, Marvin Lubenov, John D. Morris Ph.D, Dr. Jack Couzzo, William R. Fix and Dr. Kent Hovind. The latter, whose offer of scientific evidence, exposing evolution as a lie, was rewarded with trumped up charges and a prison sentence!

It appears some people will resort to _anything _in order to silence the truth and perpetuate a lie.

Congratulations, Lucy. Celebrating the anniversary of an ape, has become the new normal!


----------



## Pogo (Nov 24, 2015)

Humans investigate their own history... they find out stuff.

Get used to it.


----------



## Tank (Nov 24, 2015)

Ape lives matter


----------



## Mad Scientist (Nov 24, 2015)

Lucy's knee bones were discovered* then about a year later* the rest of her was found *only* 1,5 kilometers away!

Also, baboon bones were found to be mixed in with what they unearthed. You guys didn't learn about that did ya'? Ooops!

"Lucy! Joo got some splainin' to do!"


----------



## Pogo (Nov 24, 2015)

Mad Scientist said:


> Lucy's knee bones were discovered* then about a year later* the rest of her was found *only* 1,5 kilometers away!
> 
> Also, baboon bones were found to be mixed in with what they unearthed. You guys didn't learn about that did ya'? Ooops!
> 
> "Lucy! Joo got some splainin' to do!"



1.5 km in 3 million years .... lessee that works out to.... a little less than two tenths of an inch a year.

She was a world traveller, that one.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 24, 2015)

Some USMB Progressives evolved from Lucy only last week


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Nov 24, 2015)

That OP-Ed was entirely devoid of scientific fact, understanding, or knowledge.

Good work!


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Nov 24, 2015)

I LOVE LUCY


----------



## Pogo (Nov 24, 2015)

ChesBayJJ said:


> View attachment 55552
> 
> I LOVE LUCY



And I love loosely.  But that's a whole 'nother story.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 24, 2015)




----------



## Esmeralda (Nov 25, 2015)

Mrs. M. said:


> _*Why don't more scientists respond to stories promoted by evolutionists when they have already proven evolution is a lie?*_


No one has proven evolution is a lie, far from it.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Nov 25, 2015)

What is Darwin's Theory of Evolution?


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Nov 25, 2015)

Op-Eds? Really? Not 'Conspiracy Theories?' 

Evolution's not a lie.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 25, 2015)

Evolution is FACT

God is a THEORY


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Nov 25, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Evolution is FACT
> 
> God is a THEORY



God isn't a theory, He's only an hypothesis.  Or just an uneducated guess.


----------



## Picaro (Nov 25, 2015)

Esmeralda said:


> Mrs. M. said:
> 
> 
> > _*Why don't more scientists respond to stories promoted by evolutionists when they have already proven evolution is a lie?*_
> ...



No one has to prove evolution is a lie; the evolutionists have to prove its a fact, something they can't do. Evolution is  a faith based fairy tale.


----------



## Esmeralda (Nov 25, 2015)

Picaro said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > Mrs. M. said:
> ...


LOL There is tons of concrete imperical evidence of evolution. It is not a faith based fairy tale by any means.  It is religion that is faith based. People of reason and common sense know that.  Those who have been brainwashed to deny evolution are the ones believing fairy tales.


----------



## Picaro (Nov 26, 2015)

Esmeralda said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Esmeralda said:
> ...



Yes, I completely forgot all that 'tons of concrete evidence' for human evolution. Why, all of it combined would almost cover my kitchen table ... Don't know if would weigh a 'ton', though, more like maybe a hundred pounds ...


----------



## PK1 (Nov 26, 2015)

Mrs. M. said:


> Google is celebrating the “41st anniversary of Lucy" today with a doodle of an ape, that evolves into a walking man!  According to one news source, Lucy was discovered in 1973. She lived 3.2 million years ago and her fossilized remains reveal her to be a hominid from the Australopithecus afarensis species.
> 
> Why don't more scientists respond to stories promoted by evolutionists when they have already proven evolution is a lie?
> 
> ...


---
This OP is like a Lit major who never took a Physics class commenting on & criticizing Einstein's theory of relativity.
What is an uninformed opinion worth?
.


----------



## PK1 (Nov 26, 2015)

Coloradomtnman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is FACT
> ...


---
Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory.
A religion is a FANTASTIC theory.
.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Nov 26, 2015)

Picaro said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > Mrs. M. said:
> ...



 No scientific theory has ever been proven.  That isn't how science works.   Since you aren't familiar with this basic premise of science, I will assume it is safe to say you aren't aware of the theories - there are more than one and they aren't competing theories - that attempt to descibe the scientific fact of evolution.  So it follows that you most likely don't know what you are talking about.  And therefore your rebuttal isn't valid or credible.


----------



## Picaro (Nov 26, 2015)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Esmeralda said:
> ...



Save the snarky retorts for those claiming evolution is a fact, or that there is 'massive tons of evidence' for it. It isn't even a theory at this point, just wishful thinking. 

You must be talking about yourself when babbling about theories and the basic premises of science, since you likely don't have the first clue about theory versus speculation and what constitutes empirical evidence.

Hint: A handful of bone fragments from extinct species of apes over millions of years don't support the evolution worshippers' claims.


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Nov 26, 2015)

Picaro said:


> Save the snarky retorts for those claiming evolution is a fact, or that there is 'massive tons of evidence' for it. It isn't even a theory at this point, just wishful thinking.



But it is a theory, a very solid theory, and there are huge amounts of evidence that support it. All you need to do is a little research on-line.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Nov 26, 2015)

Picaro said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...



Evolution is a fact.  It is a scientific fact.  The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is a theory that attempts to describe and explain evolution.  There are other theories that also attempt this through genetic drift, sexual selection, etc.

The theories of evolution are supported by empirical evidence from the fields of geology, paleontology, anthropology, biochemistry, biology, and physics.  ERV DNA code found in primate DNA and human DNA is incontrovertible. 

Don't be know what ERVs are?  Retrovirus DNA randomly inserted in an early ancestor of chimpanzees and humans shows up identically in humans and chimpanzees in the identical spot in the the identical strand of DNA.  Creation advocates attempt to explain this away as coincidence or a preclusion for retroviruses to insert DNA only in specific places or specific DNA.  There is no empirical evidence to support such a claim and there is observable, repeatable evidence that retroviruses insert their DNA randomly with no proclivity for specific sites.

How would you explain that?  Is that just "speculation"?


----------



## PK1 (Nov 27, 2015)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Coloradomtnman said:
> ...


---
The religious "explanation" is _"God did it"._
No need for curiosity, or explaining why God created Chimps and other hominids; it's simply_ "God's will"_.

.


----------



## asaratis (Nov 28, 2015)

Coloradomtnman said:


> That OP-Ed was entirely devoid of scientific fact, understanding, or knowledge.
> 
> Good work!


It is also accompanied by a photo resembling a character costume from _Planet of the Apes.   _It is certainly not a photograph of Lucy or her remains.


----------



## Picaro (Dec 3, 2015)

ChesBayJJ said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Save the snarky retorts for those claiming evolution is a fact, or that there is 'massive tons of evidence' for it. It isn't even a theory at this point, just wishful thinking.
> ...



Barney the Dinosaur's Facebook page?

What there is are huge amounts of evidence lacking in support of the evolution speculation. It's a genre of writing, and there are shelves of similar writings in most bookstores and libraries under the heading of 'Science Fiction', some of which have more science behind their speculations than evolution does.


----------



## Picaro (Dec 3, 2015)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Coloradomtnman said:
> ...



I'm not a creationist; go ask one of them. As for the rest of your assorted handwaves, they don't constitute evidence either, they are just speculation as well, and in no way constitute empirical evidence.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Dec 3, 2015)

Picaro said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...



Would you explain for me why you think DNA evidence for common descent is just speculation?  I ask because I don't understand at all how you could perceive it that way.  Your point of view must just be totally different from mine and I want to understand better, especially because you say you aren't a creationist.


----------



## Picaro (Dec 11, 2015)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Would you explain for me why you think DNA evidence for common descent is just speculation?  I ask because I don't understand at all how you could perceive it that way.  Your point of view must just be totally different from mine and I want to understand better, especially because you say you aren't a creationist.



What you want is a discussion on metaphysics, i.e. the attempt at attributing teleological interpretations to an ateological 'theory' for which there is no significant evidence for; there is no other premise than "We Hate the Xians!!!", and using some little factoid or other to represent the whole argument, rather than presenting any real empirical chain of evidence. Conspiracy theories, and political ideologies as well, use the same tactic.


----------



## asaratis (Dec 12, 2015)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Coloradomtnman said:
> ...


My theory is you can have a created world that evolved into all that exists to date.  The Rat Fish has been on earth, unchanged...for 150,000,000 years.  Just think how long it took nature, nature that was created by God to come up with that perfect predator?

Human nature came up with the 7 day Creation story...because mankind, when it finally came around...had no conception of millions of years...and it had to come up with a story to tell the kids who wondered where all this came from.  Accountants came along after man learned to count.  That is when science began. Religion is a child of narcissism. To believe...religiously...that the world (and all the fishes on it) was created in 7 days, one has to suspend belief in the science of counting years, especially the science of counting them backwards through archaeological evidence and scientific enumeration of findings

To posit that all currently existing species of life came into being in their present forms in an instant (or a single day) is incredible in light of the millions of species, both animal and vegetation and their interdependence upon each other and the intricate, evolved configurations.  To posit that dinosaurs and mankind existed simultaneously is equally incredible.

God created all that exists way back at the Big Bang. Evolution started when hydrogen atoms began to cluster and evolve into the heavier elements....one at a time.  (BTW, the Earth owes it habitability to Fe and the fact the it spins at one revolution per day on a tilted axis as it orbits the sun once per year as the moon sloshes the oceans back and forth).

Creation is not a myth.   Neither is Evolution.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Dec 12, 2015)

asaratis said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...



I think that is far more likely than any of the creation myths that linger on still today.

I just watched on youtube a debate about evolution between Dr. Kent Hovind and Dr. Michael Shermer.   Dr. Hovind's, who is a great speaker, arguments were either a critique of Darwinian evolution based on misunderstandings, misconstrued facts or assumptions, and evangelical fundamentalist biblical beliefs.  He made no positive argument for his literal interpretation creation hypothesis.  And that's the biggest problem with young earth creationism.  There is no positive argument that can be made scientifically.

I don't believe your hypothesis, but I don't believe in the Big Bang or evolution either.  Belief isn't necessary to understand that both theories are simply the current best explanations of the available information.  There is no need to substitute belief for knowledge.


----------

