Astridhere
Well-Known Member
- Jul 30, 2011
- 1,240
- 43
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Nababolis says
Do explain, you have lost me.
It appears you could not comprehend the example I already gave you to save the obvious circular reasoning that goes on around this. Real science and the basic equations that support it get men to the moon using gravitational theories that work. This is because you can observe the reality of how gravity works in this part of the universe. However, the singularity is a theoretical assertion that uses gravitational theory that does not even work theoretically and is not observed and therefore is not real science...it is theoretical.....
Evolution is supported by theoretical science and assertions eg Yiu find fossils and then have to do things like put human foot arches on a chimp to explain a 3.6myo fully human metatarsel fossil found. It does matter to evos if Erectus was a waddler and contradicts Lucy being more bipedal that the Gona pelvis has made Erectus out to be..
Creation is supported by observation which is the basis of real science. eg chimps, bonobos, gorillas or any other apes do not have human foot arches and metatarsels and this observed and factual. Therefore the metatarsel found demonstrates mankind predates their supposed ancestors like Lucy and Ardi (chimp and gorilla) and even Erectus the waddler. Erectus and her waddle is not a problem for me because a bipedal ape with a human gait as apes apparently had in Lucy (if it is not all woffle) would have gone into a waddle as they were adapting back to the trees and on to becoming a chimp, bonobo, orang, gorilla etc reflecting the gracile and robust apes we see today.
Now this above is based on the reasonings of researchers I believe have no idea what they are talking about.
Understanding evolution doesn't mean we have all the answers and if biologists are right now about to reorder the history of human evolution then so be it, I don't see it as such a problem. Personally, I'm not a biologist and lack any knowledge on the details of human evolution.
i just find it interesting, that you assume that any problem in a theory is a massive deal and is grounds to dismiss it.
This would be fair enough if it was just one little change or so. However you have 150 years of them. You do not have a theory at all. What you have is a theory in evolution itself. If you had a theory you would see the data continue to support the status quo not change it virtually with every new find.
You see you lot will never recover from asserting Lucy with all her humanity is now a chimp or bonobo. It is testimony to stupidity and a bunch of researchers that have no idea really what they are talking about.
Indeed these ancient apes could be the ancestors of some modern apes but they could also just as easily not be. These ancient apes could have been bipeds or no more bipedal than apes are at times today.
However what the data is... is what it is and I believe I have successfully demonstrated 2 things.
One is that evolutionary researchers have no idea what they are talking about.eg Lucy
Secondly I have demonstrated that even biased and ridiculous evolutionary scenarios and interpretations, make a better case for creation than they do evolution.
This above is also using your own evolutionary assertions to demonstrate the nonsense and inconsistent straw grabbing behind all evolutionary support for human ancestry...
Do explain, you have lost me.
It appears you could not comprehend the example I already gave you to save the obvious circular reasoning that goes on around this. Real science and the basic equations that support it get men to the moon using gravitational theories that work. This is because you can observe the reality of how gravity works in this part of the universe. However, the singularity is a theoretical assertion that uses gravitational theory that does not even work theoretically and is not observed and therefore is not real science...it is theoretical.....
Evolution is supported by theoretical science and assertions eg Yiu find fossils and then have to do things like put human foot arches on a chimp to explain a 3.6myo fully human metatarsel fossil found. It does matter to evos if Erectus was a waddler and contradicts Lucy being more bipedal that the Gona pelvis has made Erectus out to be..
Creation is supported by observation which is the basis of real science. eg chimps, bonobos, gorillas or any other apes do not have human foot arches and metatarsels and this observed and factual. Therefore the metatarsel found demonstrates mankind predates their supposed ancestors like Lucy and Ardi (chimp and gorilla) and even Erectus the waddler. Erectus and her waddle is not a problem for me because a bipedal ape with a human gait as apes apparently had in Lucy (if it is not all woffle) would have gone into a waddle as they were adapting back to the trees and on to becoming a chimp, bonobo, orang, gorilla etc reflecting the gracile and robust apes we see today.
Now this above is based on the reasonings of researchers I believe have no idea what they are talking about.
Understanding evolution doesn't mean we have all the answers and if biologists are right now about to reorder the history of human evolution then so be it, I don't see it as such a problem. Personally, I'm not a biologist and lack any knowledge on the details of human evolution.
i just find it interesting, that you assume that any problem in a theory is a massive deal and is grounds to dismiss it.
This would be fair enough if it was just one little change or so. However you have 150 years of them. You do not have a theory at all. What you have is a theory in evolution itself. If you had a theory you would see the data continue to support the status quo not change it virtually with every new find.
You see you lot will never recover from asserting Lucy with all her humanity is now a chimp or bonobo. It is testimony to stupidity and a bunch of researchers that have no idea really what they are talking about.
Indeed these ancient apes could be the ancestors of some modern apes but they could also just as easily not be. These ancient apes could have been bipeds or no more bipedal than apes are at times today.
However what the data is... is what it is and I believe I have successfully demonstrated 2 things.
One is that evolutionary researchers have no idea what they are talking about.eg Lucy
Secondly I have demonstrated that even biased and ridiculous evolutionary scenarios and interpretations, make a better case for creation than they do evolution.
This above is also using your own evolutionary assertions to demonstrate the nonsense and inconsistent straw grabbing behind all evolutionary support for human ancestry...
Last edited:
Upvote
0