The Demise of Evolution

[pitabread]

I dont post known false statements. You are accusing me of lying and trolling. You are wrong. You are also accusing me of running away, but its your hostility that causes me to leave. Im done, have a nice day.

Your behavior contradicts your claims that you are looking for evidence. Which suggests you really are just here to troll and/or engage in petty arguments.

If you're not sincere in looking for actual evidence or understanding, why are you even here?

 

[Kylie]

What do you mean? What type of fossils do you think would support the theory?

Crocoduck!

 

[Kylie]

@roman2819 , I notice you have not replied to my post 1217 regarding how life might have started.

 

[HitchSlap]

I dont post known false statements. You are accusing me of lying and trolling. You are wrong. You are also accusing me of running away, but its your hostility that causes me to leave. Im done, have a nice day.

Have a nice day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I dont post known false statements. You are accusing me of lying and trolling. You are wrong. You are also accusing me of running away, but its your hostility that causes me to leave. Im done, have a nice day.

Yes you have. And you have been running away from a more than reasonable offer. I have not been hostile, and though you may not have openly lied your posts have been less than honest. You have been goading using false statements.

Once again. I made an earnest offer. Learn what is and what is not evidence so that you can begin to understand it properly and you can see all of the evidence that you want. I will help you with that concept.

 

[Need answers]

Yes you have. And you have been running away from a more than reasonable offer. I have not been hostile, and though you may not have openly lied your posts have been less than honest. You have been goading using false statements.

Once again. I made an earnest offer. Learn what is and what is not evidence so that you can begin to understand it properly and you can see all of the evidence that you want. I will help you with that concept.

Nothing i have posted is known to me to be false. Look im trying to leave. Please stop slandering my character. By.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing i have posted is known to me to be false. Look im trying to leave. Please stop slandering my character. By.

I have not slandered you once. I don't think that you understand what slander is either. I can and will support my claims in this matter. Would you like a quote of one of your obviously false claims?

 

[Jimmy D]

So the fossil record cant support evolution?

A telling answer.

You obviously aren’t looking for a meaningful discussion.

I’ll try again though. You mentioned that palaeontologists interested in human evolution have only discovered a “few ape skulls”, do you really believe this?

 

[Paul James]

Im ready to see these fossils that supposedly show clear links in the evolutionary process.

I've seen a study of the existing skulls that have been discovered which evolutionists say show the development of humans from apes. The lecturer showed which skulls were of apes that walked on four legs and which skulls show that their owners walked on two legs. It was the positioning of the hole where the brain was connected to the spinal cord. The four-legged owners had the hole further back on the base of the skull to enable the owner to walk on four legs and still be able to face forward. The others had the hole right in the middle to show that the owner walked on two legs. So he concluded that the skulls that had holes in the centre of its base were definitely human, and the ones that had the hole near the back of the base were ape. There were normal size human skulls and smaller ones, while the ape ones were of a similar size. He had a modern chimpanzee skull to show that an ape skull had the hole at the back of the base and not the middle.

Once he sorted the skulls into human and ape categories, he found none that filled the gap between ape and human - being a skull that had no forehead and sloped face as is the characteristic of ape skulls. If he had found one like that which had the hole in the centre of the base of the skull then he could conclude that its owner could well have filled in the gap between human and ape and would have been a true ape-man. But none of the skulls had that characteristic.

He also concluded that the difference in size of the human skulls were different types of true humans which once existed but became extinct. This is quite believable, because humans come in all shapes and sizes, from the pygmies of Africa to the large Scandinavian and Canadian tree lifters.

He said something interesting as well - humans before the tower of Babel event were culturally advanced, but when language groups were split up, individual language and cultural groups lacked people with knowledge and expertise and so the abilities and cultures went back to the stone age, and they had to start all over in gaining the necessary skills they had before. This explains the simple tools found with human skeletons. They were not a sign of a lack of intelligence, but a lack of knowledge, which their language group had lost at the tower of Babel.

I found this very enlightening, something I didn't know previously. Answers a lot of questions for me.

 

[Paul James]

Still waiting to see those fossils.

I wouldn't bother. It's never going to happen. It is not a matter of logic, but of will. They want to believe what they choose to believe and they will not change regardless of anything you say or produce by way of evidence. They will use even the evidence that you produce and interpret to favour their own choice of what they want to believe.

You will just wear yourself out in just a fruitless exchange of "he says and she says".

 

[VirOptimus]

I've seen a study of the existing skulls that have been discovered which evolutionists say show the development of humans from apes. The lecturer showed which skulls were of apes that walked on four legs and which skulls show that their owners walked on two legs. It was the positioning of the hole where the brain was connected to the spinal cord. The four-legged owners had the hole further back on the base of the skull to enable the owner to walk on four legs and still be able to face forward. The others had the hole right in the middle to show that the owner walked on two legs. So he concluded that the skulls that had holes in the centre of its base were definitely human, and the ones that had the hole near the back of the base were ape. There were normal size human skulls and smaller ones, while the ape ones were of a similar size. He had a modern chimpanzee skull to show that an ape skull had the hole at the back of the base and not the middle.

Once he sorted the skulls into human and ape categories, he found none that filled the gap between ape and human - being a skull that had no forehead and sloped face as is the characteristic of ape skulls. If he had found one like that which had the hole in the centre of the base of the skull then he could conclude that its owner could well have filled in the gap between human and ape and would have been a true ape-man. But none of the skulls had that characteristic.

He also concluded that the difference in size of the human skulls were different types of true humans which once existed but became extinct. This is quite believable, because humans come in all shapes and sizes, from the pygmies of Africa to the large Scandinavian and Canadian tree lifters.

He said something interesting as well - humans before the tower of Babel event were culturally advanced, but when language groups were split up, individual language and cultural groups lacked people with knowledge and expertise and so the abilities and cultures went back to the stone age, and they had to start all over in gaining the necessary skills they had before. This explains the simple tools found with human skeletons. They were not a sign of a lack of intelligence, but a lack of knowledge, which their language group had lost at the tower of Babel.

I found this very enlightening, something I didn't know previously. Answers a lot of questions for me.

Firstly, human are apes.

Secondly, the tower of Babel is a myth, not literal history. We know how languages developed and evolved.

 

[VirOptimus]

I wouldn't bother. It's never going to happen. It is not a matter of logic, but of will. They want to believe what they choose to believe and they will not change regardless of anything you say or produce by way of evidence. They will use even the evidence that you produce and interpret to favour their own choice of what they want to believe.

You will just wear yourself out in just a fruitless exchange of "he says and she says".

Science is not a "belief". Science is a method to describe physical reality.

Denying physical reality is irrational and ignorant.

 

[Paul James]

Firstly, human are apes.

Secondly, the tower of Babel is a myth, not literal history. We know how languages developed and evolved.

If you want to have that belief, nothing I say that will make any difference. So that ends the discussion as far as I am concerned.

 

[VirOptimus]

If you want to have that belief, nothing I say that will make any difference. So that ends the discussion as far as I am concerned.

Thats not beliefs, thats facts.

Denying facts is irrational.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I've seen a study of the existing skulls that have been discovered which evolutionists say show the development of humans from apes. The lecturer showed which skulls were of apes that walked on four legs and which skulls show that their owners walked on two legs. It was the positioning of the hole where the brain was connected to the spinal cord. The four-legged owners had the hole further back on the base of the skull to enable the owner to walk on four legs and still be able to face forward. The others had the hole right in the middle to show that the owner walked on two legs. So he concluded that the skulls that had holes in the centre of its base were definitely human, and the ones that had the hole near the back of the base were ape. There were normal size human skulls and smaller ones, while the ape ones were of a similar size. He had a modern chimpanzee skull to show that an ape skull had the hole at the back of the base and not the middle.

Once he sorted the skulls into human and ape categories, he found none that filled the gap between ape and human - being a skull that had no forehead and sloped face as is the characteristic of ape skulls. If he had found one like that which had the hole in the centre of the base of the skull then he could conclude that its owner could well have filled in the gap between human and ape and would have been a true ape-man. But none of the skulls had that characteristic.

The foramen magnum is typically in an anterior position in Australopithecine skulls and they have a sloped forehead and face. There goes that argument.

He said something interesting as well - humans before the tower of Babel event were culturally advanced, but when language groups were split up, individual language and cultural groups lacked people with knowledge and expertise and so the abilities and cultures went back to the stone age, and they had to start all over in gaining the necessary skills they had before. This explains the simple tools found with human skeletons. They were not a sign of a lack of intelligence, but a lack of knowledge, which their language group had lost at the tower of Babel.

I found this very enlightening, something I didn't know previously. Answers a lot of questions for me.

Why would people forget everything they know because there was a change in their language? We no longer speak Old English, but we still have the knowledge of our ancestors.

 

[Paul James]

Science is not a "belief". Science is a method to describe physical reality.

Denying physical reality is irrational and ignorant.

You are quite correct. And the scientific method involving direct observation, testing, experimentation, examination and replication is the way to describe the physical reality all around us. You are also quite correct in denying the scientific method as irrational and ignorant, seeing it is the only scientific way of describing physical reality.

 

[Paul James]

Thats not beliefs, thats facts.

Denying facts is irrational.

You are quite correct that denying facts is irrational. Any intelligent person knows that. Using the scientific method establishes a hypothesis as a fact, and so when it does, it is irrational to deny it.

 

[Shemjaza]

Still waiting to see those fossils.

Can you explain what you are actually requesting?

Because you have been pretty negative about skulls and bones from a variety of non human, but more human structured then other ape fossils.

What are you actually requesting? Because a basically seamless progression of skulls from the chimp like "Lucy" to modern humans feels like an easy visualisation to support all the genetic and non-human examples of evolution.

 

[VirOptimus]

You are quite correct that denying facts is irrational. Any intelligent person knows that. Using the scientific method establishes a hypothesis as a fact, and so when it does, it is irrational to deny it.

Then, why do you do it?

 

[Larniavc]

He said something interesting as well - humans before the tower of Babel event were culturally advanced, but when language groups were split up, individual language and cultural groups lacked people with knowledge and expertise and so the abilities and cultures went back to the stone age, and they had to start all over in gaining the necessary skills they had before. This explains the simple tools found with human skeletons. They were not a sign of a lack of intelligence, but a lack of knowledge, which their language group had lost at the tower of Babel.

So you haven’t been studying evolution: you’ve been watching apologetics.

Bad start