The Demise of Evolution

[Paul James]

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

I've looked through hundreds of Google images of skulls and I can't see any examples where the underside of an Australopithecine is shown. So it doesn't conclude anything. The skull the lecturer showed had the foramen magnum in the centre of the base and the skull had human teeth and the shape of the head was not sloped at all. He concluded that is was purely human and not an ape-human hybrid. But I did see skulls identified as Australopithecine which the original was just a top half with the part below the nose cavity, including the jaw a constructed mock-up of what the sculptor wanted it to look like.

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.

If you don't believe that everyone before the tower of Babel event spoke the same proto-language, then were split up into a number of different proto-languages which separated people into different language and cultural groups, then there is no point me trying to change your will in this.

But you mentioned Old English. It is a mixture of Latin, Germanic, Saxon, French and Old Briton. There was an original proto-language, but it developed as Britain was invaded by the Romans, Saxons, Vikings, and the Normans. So it is not a pure language, therefore one of the language groups that resulted from the tower of Babel was not English. And the English language developed and changed over time to what we know of it now. American English started with the 17th Century Pilgrims, and so it has the characteristics in spelling and pronunciation from the 17th Century, and it has developed from there.

 

[Jimmy D]

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.

Are you referring to that Todd Woods video?

I have also seen it and I find his arbitrary grouping of skulls unconvincing. Have you got a link to his methodology?

Some of the skulls he declared as being in the ape category are known to be bipedal.

I suggest that you might be better informed on the topic if you look at peer reviewed literature by experts in the field rather than apologetics videos.

 

[Paul James]

Are you referring to that Todd Woods video?

I have also seen it and I find his arbitrary grouping of skulls unconvincing. Have you got a link to his methodology?

Some of the skulls he declared as being in the ape category are known to be bipedal.

I suggest that you might be better informed on the topic if you look at peer reviewed literature by experts in the field rather than apologetics videos.

I guess you and me can view the same evidence and draw two different interpretations from it.

 

[Shemjaza]

I guess you and me can view the same evidence and draw two different interpretations from it.

It's the reasoning and justification that's important.

 

[Paul James]

It's the reasoning and justification that's important.

Correct!

 

[Jimmy D]

I've looked through hundreds of Google images of skulls and I can't see any examples where the underside of an Australopithecine is shown. So it doesn't conclude anything.

The cranial base of Australopithecus afarensis: new insights from the female skull

Well, it is accepted that the evidence shows that A Afarensis was bipedal, yet Todd claims it is in the “ape group”.

 

[Paul James]

The cranial base of Australopithecus afarensis: new insights from the female skull

Well, it is accepted that the evidence shows that A Afarensis was bipedal, yet Todd claims it is in the “ape group”.

I looked for it on the video and couldn't find it. It is possible that an extinct kind of ape could have been bipedal and not human at all, especially if the other characteristics are more ape like than human. He says that the jury is still mainly out and that there are still vast unexplored areas of Africa in which more skulls and bones could be found - so he is leaving his options open.

He says that the great diversity of the humanoid skulls reflects the diversity of humans who lived in proximity to the tower of Babel. I think he likens them to the great diversity of dog breeds, and yet they are all unmistakenly of the dog family. So no surprises there.

 

[Shemjaza]

I looked for it on the video and couldn't find it. It is possible that an extinct kind of ape could have been bipedal and not human at all, especially if the other characteristics are more ape like than human. He says that the jury is still mainly out and that there are still vast unexplored areas of Africa in which more skulls and bones could be found - so he is leaving his options open.

He says that the great diversity of the humanoid skulls reflects the diversity of humans who lived in proximity to the tower of Babel. I think he likens them to the great diversity of dog breeds, and yet they are all unmistakenly of the dog family. So no surprises there.

But no clear barrier between "ape" and "man".

 

[Jimmy D]

I looked for it on the video and couldn't find it. It is possible that an extinct kind of ape could have been bipedal and not human at all, especially if the other characteristics are more ape like than human. He says that the jury is still mainly out and that there are still vast unexplored areas of Africa in which more skulls and bones could be found - so he is leaving his options open.

Is a Todd Wood video your only source of knowledge on the topic? He’s not even a palaeontologist.

It sounds to like the “bipedal ape” you describe above is exactly what we would expect to see if the current evolutionary model is true. A “transitional” form if you will.

 

[Paul James]

Is a Todd Wood video your only source of knowledge on the topic? He’s not even a palaeontologist.

It sounds to like the “bipedal ape” you describe above is exactly what we would expect to see if the current evolutionary model is true. A “transitional” form if you will.

It is good enough for me. End of story.

 

[Larniavc]

It is good enough for me. End of story.

Why is it good enough for you but actual people with the relevant training in the field disagree?

 

[Paul James]

Why is it good enough for you but actual people with the relevant training in the field disagree?

I don't respond to anything and even slightly smells of contentious "you" comments. If this is your attitude then we have nothing to say to each other.

 

[Jimmy D]

I don't respond to anything and even slightly smells of contentious "you" comments. If this is your attitude then we have nothing to say to each other.

It’s a valid question.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't respond to anything and even slightly smells of contentious "you" comments. If this is your attitude then we have nothing to say to each other.

Bipedalism is a trait of humans. So if we find an ape that has a similar bone structure to a human, such as an ape that is bipedal, then that ape would be morphologically between human and ape.

Another example is sahelanthropus.

Sahelanthropus has a brain capacity a quarter the size of modern man and muscle attachments suggesting potential quadrapedalism. It also had an elongated skull. All of these suggesting it was not human but ape.

However;

It also had more human like teeth and a more human like C shaped lower jaw (rather than U shaped). It's foramen magnum is also more forward than in apes, drawing division over quadrapedalism vs bipedalism. It also had a flatter face and pronounced brow ridges, which are human features.

There are many fossils that share both human and basal ape features. These are called transitional fossils.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I've looked through hundreds of Google images of skulls and I can't see any examples where the underside of an Australopithecine is shown. So it doesn't conclude anything. The skull the lecturer showed had the foramen magnum in the centre of the base and the skull had human teeth and the shape of the head was not sloped at all. He concluded that is was purely human and not an ape-human hybrid. But I did see skulls identified as Australopithecine which the original was just a top half with the part below the nose cavity, including the jaw a constructed mock-up of what the sculptor wanted it to look like.

Others have shown the errors of your argument and the mistaken claims you find convincing. You can believe what you like, but that doesn't mean it's not wrong.

If you don't believe that everyone before the tower of Babel event spoke the same proto-language, then were split up into a number of different proto-languages which separated people into different language and cultural groups, then there is no point me trying to change your will in this.

But you mentioned Old English. It is a mixture of Latin, Germanic, Saxon, French and Old Briton. There was an original proto-language, but it developed as Britain was invaded by the Romans, Saxons, Vikings, and the Normans. So it is not a pure language, therefore one of the language groups that resulted from the tower of Babel was not English. And the English language developed and changed over time to what we know of it now. American English started with the 17th Century Pilgrims, and so it has the characteristics in spelling and pronunciation from the 17th Century, and it has developed from there.

Lots of words, several mistakes but no attempt to answer my question. Please explain why anyone would forget everything they know if they spoke different language.

 

[Larniavc]

I don't respond to anything and even slightly smells of contentious "you" comments. If this is your attitude then we have nothing to say to each other.

It's okay if you if you can't answer.

 

[roman2819]

If everything is evolving, i would expect to see that in the fossil record, but all we have are a few ape skulls.

True.

There was someone by name of Dr Weber who spend 30 years to study evolution because he had great passion to understand it. He read in-depth about evolution and travelled to N America, Europe and Australia to study fossils. He measured the fossils found and could not see evidence of evolution.

Because he research evolution so much, he was able to narrow it to 5 key questions and answer them. He wrote a book to that effect, explaining evidences for evolution is not strong. Dr Weber spend 30 years to dig out evolution. Surely he know what he is saying.

By contrast. most people here only read about evolution. If you are not in that field, you really won't know if what you are reading is correct or twisted and slant. Do you understand what you are reading? Or do you believe just because you want to, because it sound good.

 

[roman2819]

You don't have to wait. If you live anywhere near a major university go and look over their fossil collections whenever you want. They will have quite literally many tons of them.

Fossils do not mean evolution is true. Fossils just mean those creatures used to exisT.
you may want to read post # 1417 above, where i said how a Dr. Weber studied fossil.

Honestly, there are no accurate ways to ascertain if something is 100,000 or millions of years old. Neither carbon dating nor any methods are that accurate. not even close. I once read about an ex-evolutionist who said that. He joined an evolution team, found that they made plenty of assumptions and therefore their answers are flawed. I read about people dating fossils to be 10 or 100 million years old. Give me a break seriously.

And if you are not an expert in the field of carbon dating or dating fossils, you really don;t know how those guys come up with the numbers. In other words. you don't really understand or know if you are believing lies or not.

 

[Speedwell]

True.

There was someone by name of Dr Weber who spend 30 years to study evolution because he had great passion to understand it. He read in-depth about evolution and travelled to N America, Europe and Australia to study fossils. He measured the fossils found and could not see evidence of evolution.

Because he research evolution so much, he was able to narrow it to 5 key questions and answer them. He wrote a book to that effect, explaining evidences for evolution is not strong. Dr Weber spend 30 years to dig out evolution. Surely he know what he is saying.

By contrast. most people here only read about evolution. If you are not in that field, you really won't know if what you are reading is correct or twisted and slant. Do you understand what you are reading? Or do you believe just because you want to, because it sound good.

Why not? It doesn't really have an impact on my daily life, although I gather that the theory has made valuable contributions to the biological sciences. As much as I understand the science it is plausible, reasonably well-evidenced and there is no credible competing theory, so I accept it much as I accept any other scientific theory: provisionally, pending further evidence.

 

[MIDutch]

Honestly, there are no accurate ways to ascertain if something is 100,000 or millions of years old. Neither carbon dating nor any methods are that accurate. not even close. I once read about an ex-evolutionist who said that. He joined an evolution team, found that they made plenty of assumptions and therefore their answers are flawed.

Odd (not really) that you can't give us the name of this "ex-evolutionist".

I read about people dating fossils to be 10 or 100 million years old. Give me a break seriously.

Just because you don't understand the physics behind radiometric dating doesn't mean it isn't valid.