A thread on evolution

[createdtoworship]

No, you are quite simply wrong. Humans are apes, thats a fact and not up for debate.

LOL, your comment begs the question as to what is factual. It's A logic fallacy that presupposes humans are apes without laying out premises or reasons for it being the case. Here let me help you out...
The Fallacy of Begging the question, more commonly known as "circular
reason," or arbitrary logic:

When I was reading a book on logic sold by Ken Ham ministries it said this:
"In order to determine the truth value of a statement, it is necessary
to go outside the statement." - Introductory Logic- by D. J. Wilson,
and J. B. Nance - 2002 by mars hill textbooks.

An example of this is: “Evolution is true because it is scientific”

It begs the question as to what legitimate science is. Especially in relation to Evolution. In other words it presupposes evolution is scientific without laying out the argument why it is scientific.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL, your comment begs the question as to what is factual. It's A logic fallacy that presupposes humans are apes without laying out premises or reasons for it being the case. Here let me help you out...
The Fallacy of Begging the question, more commonly known as "circular
reason," or arbitrary logic:

When I was reading a book on logic sold by Ken Ham ministries it said this:
"In order to determine the truth value of a statement, it is necessary
to go outside the statement." - Introductory Logic- by D. J. Wilson,
and J. B. Nance - 2002 by mars hill textbooks.

An example of this is: “Evolution is true because it is scientific”

It begs the question as to what legitimate science is. Especially in relation to Evolution. In other words it presupposes evolution is scientific without laying out the argument why it is scientific.

You are merely building strawmen and misrepresenting arguments again.

And as a result you are incorrectly using logical fallacies.

Of course since you do not know what is and what is not evidence you cannot see your errors. No one is saying that humans are apes because evolution is true. Even though we have amply demonstrated that as well. You have been given various peer reviewed sources that support the claim of how man evolved,

By the way, why would you read a book from a person that demands that his workers not use the scientific method? You claim to be all about the science and you get what little "science" you think that you know from bogus sources.

 

[Job 33:6]

this one obviously only has one human like creature. the rest have shovel faces.

View attachment 201987

you can easily see the human like creature has a bigger brain and more of a roundish skull.

You say only one skull is human like, yet sahelanthropus has a foreman magnum beneath its skull (more human like). It has a shorter span in which it teeth take a more C shape than a U shape (also human like), it doesnt have massive canine teeth (human like), it has the massive brow ridge, much like other primitive hominids which are more human like, and its face while is somewhat elongate, is more flat than elongate, and the angle between the orbital plane and the foreman magnum is more human like than ape like.

So you say there is only one human like creature, sure there is only one homo sapiens sapiens. But sahelanthropus still holds human like traits.

 

[createdtoworship]

You say only one skull is human like, yet sahelanthropus has a foreman magnum beneath its skull (more human like). It has a shorter span in which it teeth take a more C shape than a U shape (also human like), it doesnt have massive canine teeth (human like), it has the massive brow ridge, much like other primitive hominids which are more human like, and its face while is somewhat elongate, is more flat than elongate, and the angle between the orbital plane and the foreman magnum is more human like than ape like.

So you say there is only one human like creature, sure there is only one homo sapiens sapiens. But sahelanthropus still holds human like traits.

 

[VirOptimus]

LOL, your comment begs the question as to what is factual. It's A logic fallacy that presupposes humans are apes without laying out premises or reasons for it being the case. Here let me help you out...
The Fallacy of Begging the question, more commonly known as "circular
reason," or arbitrary logic:

When I was reading a book on logic sold by Ken Ham ministries it said this:
"In order to determine the truth value of a statement, it is necessary
to go outside the statement." - Introductory Logic- by D. J. Wilson,
and J. B. Nance - 2002 by mars hill textbooks.

An example of this is: “Evolution is true because it is scientific”

It begs the question as to what legitimate science is. Especially in relation to Evolution. In other words it presupposes evolution is scientific without laying out the argument why it is scientific.

No, you are wrong. Humans are apes by definition, its not debatable.

 

[Job 33:6]

View attachment 202018 View attachment 202016

Its not a human. Never said it was. But it has many human like features.

None of the other species being discussed are human. Theyre proto humans. They are pre human beings. And Proto people have proto features. They clearly arent dinosaurs, but as the fossil succession goes, the fossils become more and more human like over hundreds of millions of years, until they get to a point where they start looking closer and closer to being regular everyday people like us. And then, just after those who look almost like us (like sahelanthropus), we appear in the fossil succession, and here we are.

The point isnt to show that sahelanthropus is a human like you or I, but that it is a protohuman. So yes, it will have bigger canines than any regular everyday person you or I knows.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, you are wrong. Humans are apes by definition, its not debatable.

Perhaps but the definition and the dictionary you use don't rely on the laws of science.

 

[createdtoworship]

Its not a human. Never said it was. But it has many human like features.

None of the other species being discussed are human. Theyre proto humans. They are pre human beings. And Proto people have proto features. They clearly arent dinosaurs, but as the fossil succession goes, the fossils become more and more human like over hundreds of millions of years, until they get to a point where they start looking closer and closer to being regular everyday people like us. And then, just after those who look almost like us (like sahelanthropus), we appear in the fossil succession, and here we are.

The point isnt to show that sahelanthropus is a human like you or I, but that it is a protohuman. So yes, it will have bigger canines than any regular everyday person you or I knows.

Well in order to be proto Human it needs to have both characteristics of both beings, even then it's not proof they are the same ancestry, any more than Mario brothers and Mario maker games are the same game due to being manufactured at a similar factory. apes and Humans are both created by God, have similarities yes but that doesn't prove it has similar ancestry just a similar maker or creator. make sense? so a few similarities will not prove something to be a missing link, only extraordinarily compelling links would do so. plus I have proven such creatures are not human or in human ancestry, and are mainly ape like in numerous examples.

 

[pitabread]

apes and Humans are both created by God, have similarities yes but that doesn't prove it has similar ancestry just a similar maker or creator. make sense? so a few similarities will not prove something to be a missing link, only extraordinarily compelling links would do so.

What's that I hear? Is that the sound of goal posts moving?

I think it is!

 

[VirOptimus]

Perhaps but the definition and the dictionary you use don't rely on the laws of science.

Laws of science? Show me theese laws.

 

[createdtoworship]

Laws of science? Show me theese laws.

once again please provide evidence of macro evolution, evolution between two genras. This will be one of the laws of science we need, which is observation. A theory cannot be tested without observation.

 

[createdtoworship]

What's that I hear? Is that the sound of goal posts moving?

I think it is!

goal posts moving are when you take a topic and shift the playing fields. I simply brought a factor into the debate that you did not know. This is not changing the goal posts simply because you were unaware of this extra fact.

 

[pitabread]

goal posts moving are when you take a topic and shift the playing fields. I simply brought a factor into the debate that you did not know. This is not changing the goal posts simply because you were unaware of this extra fact.

That's cute. You think you're being original.

This is hardly new. Creationist asks for transitional fossils or species. Creationist gets presented with transitions. Creationist comes up with a variety of excuses as to why they aren't transitions including that the transition in question was actually specially created and therefore not transitional to begin with.

And round 'n round it goes...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps but the definition and the dictionary you use don't rely on the laws of science.

What do you mean by the "laws of science"? You appear to be using a phrase inappropriately again.

 

[createdtoworship]

That's cute. You think you're being original.

This is hardly new. Creationist asks for transitional fossils or species. Creationist gets presented with transitions. Creationist comes up with a variety of excuses as to why they aren't transitions including that the transition in question was actually specially created and therefore not transitional to begin with.

And round 'n round it goes...

so I guess I am winning, is what you are saying. Hurraah!

 

[createdtoworship]

That's cute. You think you're being original.

This is hardly new. Creationist asks for transitional fossils or species. Creationist gets presented with transitions. Creationist comes up with a variety of excuses as to why they aren't transitions including that the transition in question was actually specially created and therefore not transitional to begin with.

And round 'n round it goes...

but seriously, I can find similarities in all mammals if I want to. thats why they are mammals. There are also finer tuned similarities. Such as that all creatures have DNA. Now this later fact is one that proves what I Was saying, in that they have DNA because they are made by the same creator. That is a plausible explanation for similarities found in animals. I never said you had to agree. But to be honest you must accept it as a plausible theory.

 

[createdtoworship]

again these two creatures may have similarities, but their differences outweigh the fact that they are similar, as you can clearly see they do not look at all like each other. Lets just say I would never mate with a woman with chompers like that, or monster eye brows like that. I mean ruff ruff. Similarities can be explained by the fact they were created in the same place or by the same God.

 

[pitabread]

so I guess I am winning, is what you are saying. Hurraah!

Exactly what is it that you feel you are 'winning' here?

 

[pitabread]

but seriously, I can find similarities in all mammals if I want to. thats why they are mammals. There are also finer tuned similarities. Such as that all creatures have DNA. Now this later fact is one that proves what I Was saying, in that they have DNA because they are made by the same creator. That is a plausible explanation for similarities found in animals. I never said you had to agree. But to be honest you must accept it as a plausible theory.

It's not particularly useful information. Especially if it's just resorting to supernaturalism which is traditionally what humans tend to do when they lack natural explanations for things. It's just a stop-gap.

If you really want to show evidence that life on Earth had a designer, then maybe you can start by demonstrating existence of that designer. Where are they? How did they create their design? Was it a one time deal at the dawn of the Earth? Or has it been ongoing throughout the history of the planet?

Is there only one designer? If similarities are from the same designer, then do difference indicate multiple designers? And so on...

 

[createdtoworship]

It's not particularly useful information. Especially if it's just resorting to supernaturalism which is traditionally what humans tend to do when they lack natural explanations for things. It's just a stop-gap.

If you really want to show evidence that life on Earth had a designer, then maybe you can start by demonstrating existence of that designer. Where are they? How did they create their design? Was it a one time deal at the dawn of the Earth? Or has it been ongoing throughout the history of the planet?

Is there only one designer? If similarities are from the same designer, then do difference indicate multiple designers? And so on...

I did provide clinical evidence of the designer in the op videos.