Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
@roman2819 , I notice you have not replied to my post 1217 regarding how life might have started.
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.
Do you?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.
Odd (not really) that you can't give us the name of this "ex-evolutionist". Just because you don't understand the physics behind radiometric dating doesn't mean it isn't valid.
Who is Dr Weber? Do you have a source for this claim?
I don't think this is actually true. I know I've read more creationist and ID literature than your average creationist has.
Irrelevant.Dating fossils: Do you really understand the depth of it? Or you are just reading and gathering head knowledge?
The ex-evolutionist's name: i will try to see if the material I read is still there.
The ex-evolutionist also believe that creation did NOT happen in 6x24 hours. Day refer to a stage of time. That is my view too, in religious manuscript they use the word Day figuratively.
Dating fossils: Do you really understand the depth of it? Or you are just reading and gathering head knowledge?
Fossils do not mean evolution is true. Fossils just mean those creatures used to exisT.
Fair enough. Just testing...It’s a valid question.
Fair enough. Just testing...
Since I have been considering the debate between creation and evolution, I have done a lot of reading and research to learn as much as I can about both side of the story. Of course, being a Christian for 53 years and made Bible study and background reading my "hobby", plus getting two postgraduate degrees, one in Literature and the other in Divinity teaches one how to do scholarship and the difference between speculation and comment based on research and available evidence. Of course, two people on opposite sides of the fence can view the same evidence and interpret it two different ways.
Just to let you know that I am not some 16 year old computer nerd thrown down here from an alien spaceship.
The difficulty is that we don't have any complete skeletons of these animals so there is still much speculation and guesswork as to what these fossils might be, but no one is certain - until someone finds a complete skeleton of an ape-man as definite proof. What we have are very few bones, some human and some ape, and an attempt to try and merge them into a skeleton, with sculpted additions to try and compete it.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.
Would you quantify what you mean by "a few bones" please.The difficulty is that we don't have any complete skeletons of these animals so there is still much speculation and guesswork as to what these fossils might be, but no one is certain - until someone finds a complete skeleton of an ape-man as definite proof. What we have are very few bones, some human and some ape, and an attempt to try and merge them into a skeleton, with sculpted additions to try and compete it.
This is a very poor demand. Experts in anatomy can often identify a species by one single bone. There is no need for complete skeletons.The difficulty is that we don't have any complete skeletons of these animals so there is still much speculation and guesswork as to what these fossils might be, but no one is certain - until someone finds a complete skeleton of an ape-man as definite proof. What we have are very few bones, some human and some ape, and an attempt to try and merge them into a skeleton, with sculpted additions to try and compete it.
I don't respond in the face of accusation.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.
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.
It is that I choose not to because I know that it will just end up in a pointless diatribe.It's okay if you if you can't answer.
It is that I choose not to because I know that it will just end up in a pointless diatribe.
Would you quantify what you mean by "a few bones" please.
May I ask why you are ignoring all the other finds, excluding them from the count? We could strike all knowledge of Lucy from our repertoire and it would not alter the general sense of human evolution. Why do you think it would?
This was all that was discovered of "Lucy", and the missing bits had to be sculpted as a guess of what the complete skeleton may have looked like. And it was discovered on closer examination that some of the bones were ape and would not have matched with a humaniod skeleton. Now, if the leg was attached to a human or ape foot, then the results might have gone either way - man or ape, but not a combination.
Evolutionists maintain that Lucy provides the best evidence to date that ape-humans existed. But close examination of the only bone that could have been human (the leg bone), close examination shows that the particular grove that contained the unique tendon that enabled the human foot to do its job was missing, and so even though the bone looked like a human one, it could not have had a human foot joined to it. Also, the scientist who tried to put the rib cage together, found that humans ribcages were barrel shapes, and he said there was no way that he could shape the ribs he had into that shape, so he concluded that the ribs were not human at all. And the skill was a small and very similar to a chimpanzee skull.May I ask why you are ignoring all the other finds, excluding them from the count? We could strike all knowledge of Lucy from our repertoire and it would not alter the general sense of human evolution. Why do you think it would?
That is quite a few bones. Mammals are bilaterally symmetrical so that is more bones than you realize. Each unique bone on one side can be mirrored on the other side of Lucy. Nor was she the only Australopithecus afrarensis ever found. She was not even the first. Foot bones have been found since Lucy was discovered. More complete skulls were found after Lucy. Footprints have been found after she was discovered. There is very little "speculation" left when one makes images of those beasties.
This was all that was discovered of "Lucy", and the missing bits had to be sculpted as a guess of what the complete skeleton may have looked like. And it was discovered on closer examination that some of the bones were ape and would not have matched with a humaniod skeleton. Now, if the leg was attached to a human or ape foot, then the results might have gone either way - man or ape, but not a combination.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?