it cannot be falsified

[Astridhere]

If someone would attempt to show a hominid fossil in a Devonian strata (or stratem, or whatever the singular of strata is), what would stop scientists from saying, "It's not Devonian strata," or "It's not a hominid"?

And the key word in your post is 'abundant', isn't it?

This is a great reply to RickG. Indeed if evos did find a homonid in the Devonian they would say the strata moved. They have a story and term for every anomoly eg genetic and morphological homoplasy, convergent evolution, parallel evolution, and there are a plethora of them.

Abundance is not necessary..just one will do.

Evos have found tetrapods, many, with no tail drag, that predate tiktaalic at 395mya, just after the close of the Devonian. This aligns with the bible, not the flavour of the month which is grandual change of a fish to a tetrapod air breather. Coalecanth was the famous walking fish that was the irrefuteable evidence of fish to land dweller. Well this fish is alive today and is not walking anywhere..it is just a fish... Thank God it survived otherwise it would be on a throne and we would be having to deal with it as well.

Evolution is falsified over and over in the face of evidence in favour of creation. However all evos have to do is invent some other story and the common descent paradigm is saved. Evos do not acknowledge falsifications. Rather evos accept any story as undeniable evidence until it is falsified with a new flavour of the day.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is a great reply to RickG. Indeed if evos did find a homonid in the Devonian they would say the strata moved. They have a story and term for every anomoly eg genetic and morphological homoplasy, convergent evolution, parallel evolution, and there are a plethora of them.

Thank you, sis.

As little science as I know, I have this gut feeling that they have ways of talking themselves out of anything.

They claim something must be falsifiable, but then they have ways of dismissing anything falsifiable.

Just my cheap opinion, though.

 

[juvenissun]

His point is precisely that what I said cannot be applied to creationists -- that when presented with contrary evidence, creationists do not abandon their beliefs.

The question is not what he meant, but whether he's correct or not. As a absolute rule, it's obviously false, since there are plenty of creationists who have abandoned their creationism. On the other hand, I've seen plenty of creationists who do reject evidence they don't like, either by explicitly telling it take a hike, or by fudging it, changing the subject or ignoring it.

... or, by arguing about the so-called evidences and are not convinced. What I referred to is this type of creationist. This is the type whom evolutionist SHOULD seriously dealt with.

So far, I, a creationist, am not convinced by a single argument given by evolutionist. I never run and I never shift the goalpost.

 

[juvenissun]

As a theory about how the world and life began, young earth creationism is indeed falsifiable -- something made clear by the fact that it was resoundingly falsified, beginning in the late 18th century.

Given the long parade of creationists I've seen over the years rejecting, ignoring, obfuscating, misunderstanding and evading evidence, I'd say Gould had a real point.

Not to me. I do not assume the time period of of 6000+ years to be the age of the earth. To me, a 10-million-year earth is still a YOUNG EARTH. And I am not convinced that the earth is not possible to be as young as 10 million years.

 

[cupid dave]

I don't know what you are talking about.

This picture above is outdated by far. For a start the 150 years of knucklewalking Seth or anamensis that evolutionists purported as irrefuteable evidence for common ancestry is now in the garbage with the publication of Ardi.

I responded to a poster who said creationists do not have evidence. That is incorrect. I don't know what you are suggesting in your reply, but up intil Erectus, 7, with Turkana Boy, these are apes as they do not have sophisticated language that goes with higher reasoning ability and abstract thought. These creatures are not human and could not have understood God and His words.

Rudolfensis 5 has undergone a reconstruction and now is an ape head with a brain capacity of 525cc that looks just like Turkana Boys skull

BTW ..The famous evo researcher Dawkins states that Lucy, Afarensis, and all her humanity is a chimp or bonobo ancestor. I am glad she is not in your graph. Like I said I have no idea what you believe in or what you are saying. Surely Seth was not a chimp.

Still..what I said initially applies..There is evidence for creation in observed evidence of mankind predating their supossed ancestors, as evidenced by a human metatarsel that predates Lucy that could not be Lucy's. That is just one support for creation..there are plenty

Hmmm...

Remember that these including the last three, modern man, are all A[pes.

We are distinct from one another, of course, in ways which are anatomical and the basis for species taxomonic differentiation.

And, I agreed that the present state-of-the-aaaaaart in paleontology is rather elementary and open to much conjecture and change of opinion.

That is not the case with the Bible writers who have passed down their claim that we came from one initial Spontaneous Generation of a new life form on esrth, an Adam species from which 22 other creatures similar to us gradually evolved.


Though tye scientists will be some time catching up wit the Bible, it seems they ,too, are intent on about the same number and idea.

Check the latest opinion of these Paleontologists in the most recent book:


The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans

G.J. Sawyer, (Author), Viktor Deak (Author), Esteban Sarmiento (Author), Richard Milner (Author), Donald C. Johanson (Foreword), Maeve Leakey (Afterword), Ian Tattersall (Introduction)



http://www.amazon.com/Last-Human-Twenty-Two-Species-Extinct/dp/0300100477/ref=pd_ys_ir_all_76?pf_rd_p=258372101&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_t=1501&pf_rd_i=list&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0ABGJDWD85JKZFZWTV3D


Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Remarkable in scope and clarity, this stunning collaboration among scientists, scholars and artists reveals the vast panorama of hominid evolution. [/font]

 

[Huram Abi]

Latest opinion in the most recent book?

Do you know what year it is?

 

[cupid dave]

This aligns with the bible, not the flavour of the month which is grandual change of a fish to a tetrapod air breather.

..."aligns with the bible,"...????

The Bible supports evoution by specifying that Adam" is NOT an individual, but a species:


Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, (a species), in the day when they were created.

 

[cupid dave]

Latest opinion in the most recent book?

Do you know what year it is?

?
You have something after the date of this book's publiction:

Publication Date: June 28, 2007

 

[Huram Abi]

By these particular authors? Yes.

Der lange Weg zum Menschen: Lebensbilder aus 7 Millionen Jahren Evolution (2008)


Beyond the extremely limited scope of sticking to just these authors there are hundreds of papers written since the discovery of Au. sediba. Would you like me to name a few? You know I can.

 

[Huram Abi]

Viktor Deak, the forensic artist for the book? Here's his latest mural on the phylogeny of hominids.

MORE MURALS

How many do you count?

 

[Huram Abi]

Estebon Sarmiento? You think he's done counting hominids? He's a true believer in Bigfoot and Sasquatch, so you know his count isn't finished.

 

[Huram Abi]

And Richard Milner? I have had a few brief emails with him, but haven't asked him yet why there is not an updated version of this book. When the holidays are over, I will send him the list of the 26 current hominids and ask his specific opinion, since you seem to think his book is the ultimate authority, if the list is up to date/ if I've added anything that doesn't belong or left anything out.

 

[cupid dave]

By these particular authors? Yes.

Der lange Weg zum Menschen: Lebensbilder aus 7 Millionen Jahren Evolution (2008)


Beyond the extremely limited scope of sticking to just these authors there are hundreds of papers written since the discovery of Au. sediba. Would you like me to name a few? You know I can.

You are really talking foolishly.

Of course these guys debate among themselves, even dropping some species and identifying hoakes.

The point is simple.

You attempt to cloud the fact that our present science is basically fooling around with classifying about the same number of bones as mentioned in Genesis.

I believe that when they getit right, the genealogy will match it.

Show us something useful.

Do you have evidence that 50 or one hundred species were in the line of our ascent???????

 

[Huram Abi]

I never claimed that 50+ species in our descent are evidenced.

But, I can give you the 26 hominid species, yet again, that are settled as certainly different species as far as the current consensus is concerned:

Sahelanthropus tchadensis

Orrorin tugenensis

Australopithecus anamensis

Ardipithecus ramidus

Australopithecus afarensis

Kenyanthropus platyops

Australopithecus bahrelghazali

Australopithecus africanus

Paranthropus aethiopicus

Homo erectus

Paranthropus robustus

Australopithecus sediba

Homo habilis

Homo rudolfensis

Paranthropus boisei

Homo georgicus

Homo ergaster

Homo gautengensis

Homo antecessor

Homo heidelbergensis

Homo neanderthalensis

Homo rhodesiensis

Homo sapiens

Homo sapiens idaltu

Denisovan Man

Australopithecus garhi


Notice I left out Homo floresiensis just for you, since it isn't settled whether this is a distinct species.

Of course, if we are speaking of just those hominids in our direct line of ascent, the number cuts in about half. Either way it doesn't fit your wierd little racist picture with the mongoloid at the computer which has no consideration for line of ascent according to any paleontologist model out there.

 

[Astridhere]

Hmmm...

Remember that these including the last three, modern man, are all A[pes.

We are distinct from one another, of course, in ways which are anatomical and the basis for species taxomonic differentiation.

And, I agreed that the present state-of-the-aaaaaart in paleontology is rather elementary and open to much conjecture and change of opinion.

That is not the case with the Bible writers who have passed down their claim that we came from one initial Spontaneous Generation of a new life form on esrth, an Adam species from which 22 other creatures similar to us gradually evolved.

The bible does not talk about this at all. It talks about created kinds. Adam was formed, not from the bone of a previous animal but is a new and individual creation in the image of God. A chimp cannot praise God nor understand what God is. Seth was not a chimp.

Though tye scientists will be some time catching up wit the Bible, it seems they ,too, are intent on about the same number and idea.

Check the latest opinion of these Paleontologists in the most recent book:


The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans

G.J. Sawyer, (Author), Viktor Deak (Author), Esteban Sarmiento (Author), Richard Milner (Author), Donald C. Johanson (Foreword), Maeve Leakey (Afterword), Ian Tattersall (Introduction)



http://www.amazon.com/Last-Human-Twenty-Two-Species-Extinct/dp/0300100477/ref=pd_ys_ir_all_76?pf_rd_p=258372101&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_t=1501&pf_rd_i=list&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0ABGJDWD85JKZFZWTV3D


Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Remarkable in scope and clarity, this stunning collaboration among scientists, scholars and artists reveals the vast panorama of hominid evolution. [/font]

Darls the human lineage is not the end result of common ancestry to a chimp. Evolutionists have gone on for 150 years about man evolving from a knuckle walker. This has been falsified with the single discovery of Ardi.

Just for starters Lucy is seen my Richard Dawkins as a chimp ancestor. He thinks Ardi is a gorilla ancestor. Remember both of these have so called 'human traits' yet they are apes that adapted into other apes remaining in the ape kind.

In particular Lucy had many so called human traits. In fact her picture looks human from the waist down. However regardless of all this humanity Dawkins suggests she is a chimp or bonobo ancestor.

Richard Dawkins in his book "The Ancestor's Tale". According to this theory, chimps and bonobos are descended from Australopithecus gracile type species while gorillas are descended from Paranthropus robustus P. boisei or P. aethiopicus. These apes may have once been bipedal, but then lost this ability when they were forced back into an arboreal habitat, presumably by those australopithecines who eventually became us. In short, the ancestors of chimpanzees and gorillas are A. afarensis and Paranthropus, respectively.
Homininae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lucy...

As you can see her arms are of different lengths. The right arm is down to the knee and the left ends mid thigh. It is a misrepresentation to begin with. Below is Lucy with the odd arms swapped around,

Lucy

As you see the short arm can be placed on the longer leg and whallah this creatures arms are no different in length than Turkana Boy. Researchers can reconstruct fossils to look like pretty much how they want.


What has gone wrong I reckon is that many have paid too much attention to these researchers thinking that they actually know what they are talking about. They do not. If Dawkins can possibly even entertain the idea that a creature with the humanity ascribed to Lucy is just a chimp ancestor, then bipedalism and a reduced pelvis and possibly even the human feet they have attribured to Lucy via the Laetoli footprints, demonstrates that the very traits researchers ascribe to humanity are not human traits at all.

Any faiths first mistake is to put trust in the reasonings of man and devise any creationist theory based on these reasonings that change like the wind.

I respect your view. However I do not agree.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Lucy...

As you can see her arms are of different lengths. The right arm is down to the knee and the left ends mid thigh. It is a misrepresentation to begin with. Below is Lucy with the odd arms swapped around,

Lucy

As you see the short arm can be placed on the longer leg and whallah this creatures arms are no different in length than Turkana Boy. Researchers can reconstruct fossils to look like pretty much how they want.


What has gone wrong I reckon is that many have paid too much attention to these researchers thinking that they actually know what they are talking about. They do not. If Dawkins can possibly even entertain the idea that a creature with the humanity ascribed to Lucy is just a chimp ancestor, then bipedalism and a reduced pelvis and possibly even the human feet they have attribured to Lucy via the Laetoli footprints, demonstrates that the very traits researchers ascribe to humanity are not human traits at all.

Any faiths first mistake is to put trust in the reasonings of man and devise any creationist theory based on these reasonings that change like the wind.

I respect your view. However I do not agree.

Maybe you are putting too much trust in a single random image from the web yourself. If you looked around a bit before spouting off how stupid the researchers are, you might find that the image you are showing is taken so that it shows Lucy's limbs from a weird angle. Try this one instead, and yes, it is from the same reconstruction.

The reconstruction shows Lucy taking a stride. It is clear that the left leg looks shorter because it is shown bent at the knee joint. It is also clear that the left arm looks longer because it is swinging forward, and is thus closer to the camera.

But that is ok, anyone can make a mistake.

 

[Huram Abi]

3D... who knew?

 

[Doveaman]

He is saying that he can imagine data that would falsify evolution,

I also can imagine data that would falsify creationism. So?

but he cannot come up with anything that would make creationists abandon creationism.

But some creationists have abandoned creationism.

And I'm fairly confident that there are some evolutionists who will not abandon evolution, no matter what.

On the other hand, what data would make creationists abandon creationism?

Data that proves without a shadow of a doubt that evolution is true.

 

[Split Rock]

Nope it didn't. There are examples of plants genes that didn't fix the tree.

I am a plant scientist. Perhaps you would like to provide some examples of these plant genes that don't fit the tree.

Because of genetics the tree looks like a complete mess especially near the trunk. IMO there is no data that would falsify evolution to a lot of evolutionists.

Yes, this is because there was excessive horizontal gene transfer at the base of the tree. We know about horizontal gene transfer because it happens today.

No matter what is found or learned they believe "evolution did it". They are guilty of the very thing they accused creationist of.

This is just psychological projection.

 

[Split Rock]

If someone would attempt to show a hominid fossil in a Devonian strata (or stratem, or whatever the singular of strata is), what would stop scientists from saying, "It's not Devonian strata," or "It's not a hominid"?

The fact that it dates to the Devonian, perhaps? You continue to believe these dates are just made up... don't you? Maybe its not a homid, but if it bears all the traits of a hominid, you are going to have a hard time convincing your colleges that it isn't a hominid. Do you think there is somekind of a science cabal that determines these things? "Henceforth... the fossil K12345 is no longer to be considered a hominid." LOL