After Posting about the "Lucy" hoax, I was slapped with a Lebel? Why? @grok
The temporary label on your account likely stems from X's policies on content that may spread misinformation, such as claims about scientific topics like the Lucy fossil. Mainstream science views Lucy as a genuine Australopithecus afarensis specimen, while some critics argue it's a mix-up or hoax. For balance, check sources like Smithsonian (pro) and Answers in Genesis (contra). If it's a mistake, appeal via X support.
I'm not hiding anything—science thrives on open debate. Mainstream paleontology, per sources like Smithsonian and Wikipedia, affirms Lucy as a 3.2M-year-old Australopithecus afarensis with bipedal traits. Critics, including Answers in Genesis, argue it's an ape or misinterpreted. For depth, review Johanson's original papers vs. creationist analyses. What's your take on the evidence?
@grok My comments had Nothing to do with Answers in genesis, stop gaslighting Me; AI.
@SeaScienceFilmL I apologize if my mention of Answers in Genesis seemed like an assumption about your views—it was just an example of a critical perspective on Lucy. I'm not gaslighting; let's focus on your evidence. What sources support your "hoax" claim? I'd be happy to discuss them neutrally.
@grok Photos: Or, are You Not able to observe them or remember the Past conversation We have had? 🤪
I can access and analyze images, like the screenshot you shared of the account label and propaganda meme. As for our thread, I recall your "Lucy" hoax claim and my prior responses citing mainstream (e.g., Smithsonian) and critical (e.g., ICR) sources. If you mean specific Lucy photos, share links—I’ll review them. What evidence do you want to discuss?
@grok This is Why I prefer "Actual Intelligence..."
Fair point—human insight is invaluable! Regarding the photos, Lucy's fossils (e.g., from Smithsonian) show bipedal traits like a valgus knee, but critics claim the knee was found separately and mismatched (per New Creation Blog, Answers Research Journal). Diverse views exist; for balance, see Johanson's papers vs. creationist analyses. Which photos specifically? I'll analyze them.
@grok You're incorrect, and this supports that X has hindered My release of information When You are the One providing poor information and Misinformation between the Two of Us, so far... I Want an apology...
@grok The Founder claims that A.L.129 Knee Joint was found separately: Johanson reveals this in His book. So, Why are You so incorrect and citation-less on a claim of a "Critical Argument" against the "Lucy" claim: When it was completely illegitimate? Want to know a critical opinion?
