A Historical Science Challenge

Smidlee · Jul 2, 2015

Loudmouth said:
So you have no problem with common ancestry between humans and a handful of ape species?

I don't believe in universal common ancestor so I have no problem with creation. There is no evidence that an ape can become a scientist.

Loudmouth · Jul 2, 2015

Smidlee said:
I don't believe in universal common ancestor so I have no problem with creation.

That doesn't come close to addressing what I wrote.

I am not even proposing universal common descent since I am only talking about 4 or 5 species. Do you accept common ancestry between humans and the other great apes? If not, why not?

There is no evidence that an ape can become a scientist.

Yes, there is.

Smidlee · Jul 2, 2015

Loudmouth said:
That doesn't come close to addressing what I wrote.

I am not even proposing universal common descent since I am only talking about 4 or 5 species. Do you accept common ancestry between humans and the other great apes? If not, why not?

Yes, there is.

Slapping a butch of skull together proves nothing. That's because there are no known scientist that has a head without a body . Remember you are the one who post those pictures of the clouds which has images in them. Apply your own logic here. It's just a butch of clouds.

Loudmouth · Jul 2, 2015

Smidlee said:
Slapping a butch of skull together proves nothing.

Transitional fossils do evidence evolution, and how humans evolved to be scientists.

That's because there are no known scientist that has a head without a body .

Who says they don't have a body?

Remember you are the one who post those pictures of the clouds which has images in them. Apply your own logic here. It's just a butch of clouds.

Pretty sure those are real organisms.

SkyWriting · Jul 2, 2015

joshua 1 9 said:
It's fairly easy to deal with the bad guys. So the police have a lot of time to shake down law abiding people for minor infractions so they can charge them fines to cover everyone's paycheck.

They don't have time for that in my city.

SkyWriting · Jul 2, 2015

The Cadet said:
This one is for the people who think science can tell us nothing about the past.

Science can give us hints about past events. But we must repeat them
in order to get any measure of supporting data. If they could be proven
then there would be "Scientific History"

which there is not.

Smidlee · Jul 2, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Transitional fossils do evidence evolution, and how humans evolved to be scientists.

The fossil record as a whole doesn't support evolution. It's too easy to slap a few fossils together and make up stories which is constantly changing since it's based on human opinion. You are ignoring the stasis that is very common in the fossil record.

Who says they don't have a body?

Pretty sure those are real organisms.

This is not the post you just posted with all those skulls. Scientist knows that human skulls can vary a lot. Most human fossils are only a few pieces of bone or a few teeth.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v11i11f.htm

Forget what you’ve heard about Homo habilis and Homo erectus, the origin of bipedal posture, and the genetic similarity of humans and chimps, because evolutionists have changed their minds, again.

The complete skull of Homo erectus was found within walking distance of an upper jaw of Homo habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis, researchers said. 4

Evolutionists seem to be content to admit that all the details about evolution are wrong while insisting the general principles are right. That isn’t good science. It isn’t even good logic. All these “facts” and discoveries can be twisted every which way because they have no foundation in truth. Truth doesn’t change. The theory of evolution never stays the same.

Loudmouth · Jul 2, 2015

Smidlee said:
The fossil record as a whole doesn't support evolution.

Which fossil has falsified the theory?

It's too easy to slap a few fossils together and make up stories which is constantly changing since it's based on human opinion.

It isn't human opinion that these fossils have a mixture of basal ape and modern human features. Those are facts, and that is what makes them transitional.

You are ignoring the stasis that is very common in the fossil record.

Evolution predicts that some lineages will have stasis. Why is that a problem?/

This is not the post you just posted with all those skulls.

You asked for the body of these transitional species, so I had to use a different picture.

Scientist knows that human skulls can vary a lot. Most human fossils are only a few pieces of bone or a few teeth.

Those aren't a few pieces of bone or teeth. Look for yourself.

bhsmte · Jul 2, 2015

Smidlee said:
I don't believe in universal common ancestor so I have no problem with creation. There is no evidence that an ape can become a scientist.

What about a plumber? Can an ape become a plumber?

Smidlee · Jul 2, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Which fossil has falsified the theory?

It isn't human opinion that these fossils have a mixture of basal ape and modern human features. Those are facts, and that is what makes them transitional.

In most cases they are not sure if the all the fossils belong to the same creature. Lucy for example bones were spread out over a good distance.
Evolutionist are the one who tries to focus on a fossil or two while the fossil record as a whole supports creation (stasis) more than evolution.

Evolution predicts that some lineages will have stasis. Why is that a problem?/

Some? The problem with evolution is it tries to explain away everything including contradictions (most of the time names Co-evolution). There is not just some lineages that have stasis but the whole fossil record.

You asked for the body of these transitional species, so I had to use a different picture.

Those aren't a few pieces of bone or teeth. Look for yourself.

I was addressing your picture which lines up skulls according to evolutionist assumptions. It's not evidence of an animal becoming a scientist.

bhsmte said:
What about a plumber? Can an ape become a plumber?

Do plumbers claimed their origins came from a mythological ape-like creature?

bhsmte · Jul 2, 2015

Smidlee said:
In most cases they are not sure if the all the fossils belong to the same creature. Lucy for example bones were spread out over a good distance.
Evolutionist are the one who tries to focus on a fossil or two while the fossil record as a whole supports creation (stasis) more than evolution.

Some? The problem with evolution is it tries to explain away everything including contradictions (most of the time names Co-evolution). There is not just some lineages that have stasis but the whole fossil record.

I was addressing your picture which lines up skulls according to evolutionist assumptions. It's not evidence of an animal becoming a scientist.

Do plumbers claimed their origins came from a mythological ape-like creature?

Do some plumbers agree with evolution?

Loudmouth · Jul 2, 2015

SkyWriting said:
Science can give us hints about past events. But we must repeat them
in order to get any measure of supporting data.

Here are the fossils again.

Look at that. You just made a repeated observation.

Loudmouth · Jul 2, 2015

Smidlee said:
In most cases they are not sure if the all the fossils belong to the same creature. Lucy for example bones were spread out over a good distance.

No, they weren't. That is yet another story that professional creationists have invented. Also, Lucy is just one example of many Australopithecine fossils, and they have bodies that match.

Evolutionist are the one who tries to focus on a fossil or two while the fossil record as a whole supports creation (stasis) more than evolution.

Then why don't we see humans in Cambrian strata? It seems that you don't know what you are talking about.

Some? The problem with evolution is it tries to explain away everything including contradictions (most of the time names Co-evolution). There is not just some lineages that have stasis but the whole fossil record.

Then why don't we find human fossils in the Cambrian? Why do we see hominid fossils that become more and more human-like through time? How is that stasis?

I was addressing your picture which lines up skulls according to evolutionist assumptions.

It doesn't line them up by assumptions. Except for the chimp skull at A, the rest of them are lined up by the age of the rocks they were found in.

It's not evidence of an animal becoming a scientist.

Transitional fossils are evidence of just that.

Do plumbers claimed their origins came from a mythological ape-like creature?

Claims don't change reality.

Smidlee · Jul 2, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Here are the fossils again.

Look at that. You just made a repeated observation.

We already know humans and apes skulls can vary a lot. No evolution required.

Smidlee · Jul 2, 2015

Loudmouth said:
No, they weren't. That is yet another story that professional creationists have invented. Also, Lucy is just one example of many Australopithecine fossils, and they have bodies that match.

Then why don't we see humans in Cambrian strata? It seems that you don't know what you are talking about.

Even evolutionist claim that just because no fossil of a creature in a layer doesn't mean that creatures didn't exist in that time period. So no human fossil in Cambrian strats accordding to evolutionist mean absolutely nothing.

Then why don't we find human fossils in the Cambrian? Why do we see hominid fossils that become more and more human-like through time? How is that stasis?

A two edged sword since we can ask where all those pre-cambrian fossils? Are you picking cherries again?

It doesn't line them up by assumptions. Except for the chimp skull at A, the rest of them are lined up by the age of the rocks they were found in.

Transitional fossils are evidence of just that.

Claims don't change reality.

These assumption are constantly changes and your Talkorigins is out of date and not consider to be true.

Loudmouth · Jul 2, 2015

Smidlee said:
We already know humans and apes skulls can vary a lot. No evolution required.

Then show me a modern human who has a skull like H. erectus. Show me a modern ape that has a pelvis like Lucy.

Loudmouth · Jul 2, 2015

Smidlee said:
Even evolutionist claim that just because no fossil of a creature in a layer doesn't mean that creatures didn't exist in that time period. So no human fossil in Cambrian strats accordding to evolutionist mean absolutely nothing.

We don't even find mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians. . . why are all of these huge groups of animals completely absent in the Cambrian?

A two edged sword since we can ask where all those pre-cambrian fossils? Are you picking cherries again?

YOU ARE THE ONE ARGUING FOR STASIS!!!!!!!!!!!

You tell us where they are. Where are the giraffes in the Pre-Cambrian. Where is a single mammal?

These assumption are constantly changes and your Talkorigins is out of date and not consider to be true.

Show me where the dates for those skulls has changed. The ages of those skulls are measurements, not assumptions. They are lined up BY THEIR AGE. What we see is hominids with more and more human features as we go through time. How can that be stasis?

Smidlee · Jul 2, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Then show me a modern human who has a skull like H. erectus. Show me a modern ape that has a pelvis like Lucy.

"The complete skull of Homo erectus was found within walking distance of an upper jaw of Homo habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis, researchers said. 4"

Just one example of man's evolution myth busted.

Evolutionists seem to be content to admit that all the details about evolution are wrong while insisting the general principles are right. That isn’t good science. It isn’t even good logic. All these “facts” and discoveries can be twisted every which way because they have no foundation in truth. Truth doesn’t change. The theory of evolution never stays the same.

Exactly.

Smidlee · Jul 2, 2015

Loudmouth said:
We don't even find mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians. . . why are all of these huge groups of animals completely absent in the Cambrian?

YOU ARE THE ONE ARGUING FOR STASIS!!!!!!!!!!!

You tell us where they are. Where are the giraffes in the Pre-Cambrian. Where is a single mammal?

and that's a two edge sword that cut the evolutionist since many Pre-Cambrian fossils are totally missing. Are you denying stasis is the norm in the fossil record?
It seems to me stasis is a fact. Creationist uses stasis as evidence of creation.

DogmaHunter · Jul 3, 2015

Smidlee said:
Since I shared 50% of my father genes then of course you can test to see if there is a match . This test can be repeated many times. But it doesn't explain all there is about the past event nor does it deal with origins.

That test deals with your origins.
There are other tests that deal with origins of entire populations. Species. Yes.

A Historical Science Challenge

Veteran

Contributor

Veteran

Contributor

The Librarian

The Librarian

Veteran

Contributor

Newbie

Veteran

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Veteran

Veteran

Contributor

Contributor

Veteran

Veteran

Code Monkey

Similar threads