Creation/Evolution Non-Participant Commentary & InvitationsComment on existent debates, invite or challenge members to debates, and plan your debates here!
View Poll Results: Are you interested in debating the topic?
By the way, Mark, while you're here: would you care to share the particulars on those "contrived [Homo habilis] tools they keep pointing to"? In case you don't remember where you mentioned that, see here.
__________________ "There is much we do not understand about the history of life, and the same will be true of our grandchildren. But, then, if we knew all there was to know, scientific interest would cease. Textbooks may portray science as a codification of facts, but it is really a disciplined way of asking about the unknown." - A.H. Knoll, Life on a Young Planet
"[G]ood and evil are names for what people do, not for what they are." Philip Pullman, The Amber Spyglass
Still talking to me in the third person I see. Homo habilis averaged right just below 600cc, thus the need for a new classification getting around the cerebral rubicon. Turkana Boy was actually 880cc but was still very young and was projected to have had a cranial capacity close to 1,000cc at adulthood. You know this....
Oh, closer to 1,000 cc, certainly.
The cranial capacity of WT 15000 is measured at 880cc. Using the same extrapolations that were used for height, it is estimated that he would have attained an adult cranial capacity of 909cc.
Whichever way you dice it, Turkana Boy and the other H. erectus / ergaster specimens have cerebral capacities quite between H. habilis and H. sapiens.
Originally Posted by mark kennedy
Now you go back to playing to the party spirit of bashing creationists with fallacious ad hominems. BTW, thanks for the formal debate in General Theology it was fun demonstrating how you don't really have one.
Have a nice day
Mark
At least, when I say people are wrong, I show why ...
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
... to insist that the rising of the sun is figurative while the rising of the Son is literal is also hypocrisy.
- Geraldus Bouw, To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
At least, when I say people are wrong, I show why ...
I've seen your work shernren and demonstrated what is wrong with it repeatedly. You had an invitation to a formal debate on how Creationism is worse then geocentrism, how did that work out for you?
Originally Posted by Naraoia
By the way, Mark, while you're here: would you care to share the particulars on those "contrived [Homo habilis] tools they keep pointing to"? In case you don't remember where you mentioned that, see here.
What exactly is your point?
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
I can't remember what my point was a year ago. Maybe I was thinking of specimen accessions or publications... dunno.
__________________ "There is much we do not understand about the history of life, and the same will be true of our grandchildren. But, then, if we knew all there was to know, scientific interest would cease. Textbooks may portray science as a codification of facts, but it is really a disciplined way of asking about the unknown." - A.H. Knoll, Life on a Young Planet
"[G]ood and evil are names for what people do, not for what they are." Philip Pullman, The Amber Spyglass
After years of this guy telling me whats wrong with my thinking I challenged him to a debate of theological issues since he refused to honor his challenge in here. The man appealed to not one theological principle but instead spiraled into the fallacious attacks on credulity that has become the heart of the emphasis in every evolutionists arguments.
See for your self and quit assuming everything or is that too much to ask.
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
Last edited by mark kennedy; 21st May 2010 at 03:03 AM.
Still no comment on Todd Wood's baraminological analysis showing your contention that habilis is a chimp ancestor?
__________________ (The Library of Alexandria) questioned the permanence of the stars, but did not question the justice of slavery - Carl Sagan in Cosmos
Still no comment on Todd Wood's baraminological analysis showing your contention that habilis is a chimp ancestor?
While I do enjoy your posts most of the time, this one leaves me clueless. Were you asking me a question about this....chart because I'm not really a baraminological....whatchmacallit.
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
While I do enjoy your posts most of the time, this one leaves me clueless. Were you asking me a question about this....chart because I'm not really a baraminological....whatchmacallit.
__________________ (The Library of Alexandria) questioned the permanence of the stars, but did not question the justice of slavery - Carl Sagan in Cosmos
Guess it didn't interest me much, I mean I don't really see the significance. I've been away from the boards a while, maybe I'm slipping. At any rate if we are talking about this:
The cranial capacity of MH1, which has been estimated to be at 95% of adult capacity (420 ml/cc) Australopithecus sediba
I'm not impressed. As a matter of fact the cranial capacity is pretty close to modern chimpanzees and the dating puts it right around the time of Turkana Boy. Still don't see why this thing is not considered as a possible ancestor for the chimpanzee.
Isn't it odd that this invitation thread is still at the top. As I recall it's several years old. At any rate the invitation is still open, I'll consider any and all offers.
Have a nice day
Mark
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
Linear Mode
