Hmmm.........so, that would make the founder of evolution a fraud and a charlatan too?
Darwin faked the so called "Lucy", it was a human bone and a monkey bone. He admitted it, on his death bed none the less. And yet they are still saying that she is real, "the best evidence since Lucy", is actually what I have heard them say. Fraud, yep, that is what Darwin was, yet you still believe in his fraud hypothesis.
-Seth
Darwin didn't even discover Lucy! She was discovered in 1974 by a French geologist
91 years after Darwin died. Are you even going to fact-check yourself before you try and have a "debate" with people who clearly have an infinitely better understanding of evolution? At least be educated about it. Also, Darwin admitted
nothing discounting evolution on his death bed. That is one of the most basic lies that creationists like to spread. They like to say similar things about Carl Sagan and any other person who has ever said anything that they disagreed with. They'll probably try to say the same thing when Hawking or Dawkins die.
You expecting us to take you seriously when you refuse to hear any facts is one thing, but expecting a reasonable debate after you say
that is absolutely ridiculous, and not to be offensive, but it makes it very clear just how poorly educated you are on this subject.
Australopithecus afarensis was never "debunked" and certainly wasn't a "human and monkey" bone. First of all, multiple specimens of
Australopithecus have been found, and Lucy is FAR more than two random bones pushed together. They have the better part of her skeleton, including fragments of the skull and pelvic bones.
Also
Again you are right. I will NOT change my mind, but none the less, I find it a interesting conversation.
If this is your mindset, you will never be a scientist. Because even with irrefutable evidence, you've already stated that your mind cannot be made to change. This is the antithesis of everything that science and scholarly minds stand for. I honestly hope you outgrow this childish position, as I did.
One of the biggest problems with "creation science" and "scientists" who back it is that they did not start with a question. You see, in science a person must have a question about something. "How does that work? Why do apples fall? What is the sun made of? Why does Mars appear to retrograde? How did there come to be so many species on the Earth?" You must first ask a question and then try to figure out the answer, going wherever the evidence takes you. With "creation science" they started with the answer they wanted, and then they picked the evidence that was convenient and spun it with the intention of supporting their own answers, ignoring any evidence to the counter.
If all of human knowledge were wiped out today, if every single bit of what we know were gone and we had to start completely from scratch, the idea of creationism, including any creation myths that originate from religions, would be gone. Civilizations who arose after us would never have any clue that some of us though the world was 6,000 years old and that every creature simply appeared into being as it is. No one would ever know about a story in which a talking snake tricked two people into the fall of mankind.
But they would be able to, over time, figure out what science has discovered. They would see the diversity, wonder how it came to be, they would ask questions and find evidence and would eventually arrive at the same conclusion that the curious and the thinkers of our species have: evolution.
You can keep thinking that you know better than thousands of peer-reviewed professionals, and you can keep thinking that the entire scientific community of the world has some kind of mad conspiracy to disprove your religion's creation myth and your religion's god, but frankly I'm done here because not only have you shown that you know absolutely nothing valid on this topic, you've also shown that you have absolutely zero interest in learning about it, and if you have no actual desire to learn then I have nothing else to say here.
