None of the above Sisyfos, your limits are too narrow. There are way too many conclusions that can be drawn from fossils (that evolutionists want to posit as empirical fact). And Lucy is a prime example. Way too many speculative conclusions are promulgated as fact based on the scant evidence of bones scattered across a broad area.
They go from this:
With absolutely NO empiricism to back it up! And the comical thing is the forced human-like attributes to assist the evolution indoctrination in ALL cases like this.
Also, fossils arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t empirical evidence for anything other that the fact that they are fossils. The other variables that evolutionists attempt to populate their stories with are nothing more than a priori speculation and are not the "observed empirical" evidences they (the evolutionists) pretend they are.
At last a sentence from you I can agree with... "fossils arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t empirical evidence for anything other that the fact that they are fossils. " Exactly.
And I agree with you that the representation going from image 2 to image 3 is sketchy and I am certain that at the display or such it is labeled "artists impression of 'lucy'" or the like. Image 2 on the other hand represents a fact, namely that "If the fossilized bones found are combined according to what we know about human and primate composition we end up with this.
This is the way science works: A lot of if's. However, when the web of observed points of facts (empirical evidence as stated above) becomes tight enough some of these assumptions CAN BE treated as facts. This is the basis for paradigms, and yes paradigms shift. Newtonian physics was replaced by Quantum physics, since when using the newtonian ifs the predictions did not match the empirical facts. when that happens the paradigm shifts, not the empirical facts.
The difference the scientific paradigms and the religious you hold is that you are unwilling to change your paradigm. One of your basic if's is that the earth is 6000 years old. That is, if you find that the predictions made from this is countered by empirical facts you rather attack the empirical facts rather than your paradigm.
Example from wikipedia: "To eliminate individual variations in tree ring growth, dendrochronologists take the smoothed average of the tree ring widths of multiple tree samples to build up a ring history. This process is termed replication. A tree ring history whose beginning and end dates are not known is called a floating chronology. It can be anchored by cross-matching a section against another chronology (tree ring history) whose dates are known. Fully anchored chronologies which extend back more than 10,000 years exist for river oak trees from South Germany (from the Main and Rhine rivers). Another fully anchored chronology which extends back 8500 years exists for the bristlecone pine in the Southwest US (White Mountains of California). Furthermore, the mutual consistency of these two independent dendrochronological sequences has been confirmed by comparing their radiocarbon and dendrochronological ages. In 2004 a new calibration curve INTCAL04 was internationally ratified for calibrated dates back to 26,000 Before Present (BP) based on an agreed worldwide data set of trees and marine sediments."
The empirical steps in dendrochronology is straightforward:
1. measure a lot of tree ring widths (empirical evidence)
2. match tree ring widths (empirical evidence)
3. count all the matched rings (empirical evidence)
Now the only assumptions involved:
1. The rings are due to the season variations of a year. One ring one year. (empirically proven)
2. Different trees in the same area will show the same pattern since they have experienced the same seasonal changes. (empirically proven)
3. The rings found in old wood will still represent the seasonal changes of the area where it lived (paradigm theory, consistent with carbon dating, etc.)
Dendrochronology gives that the earth age is at least 10000 years.
If we now start with the religious paradigm theory that the earth is 6000 years old this paradigm stands against the scientific paradigm theory in 3 above.
In order to remain the paradigm YEC people now have to change 3 into something else. What is your explanation?