What are your thoughts on this?

[Bradskii]

That's not how science works. Are you a scientific theory then?

The theory of common descent states that all living organisms are descendants of a single ancestor. My theory doesn't go back that far. It states that myself and any siblings are descendants of a succession of ancestors. And that 100 generations ago, one of them was my great great x 100 grandfather.

And as I said 'And we find that there are no records to prove it. No direct evidence is available. So it can't be tested. And it can't be reproduced. Yet we know it's most definitely true. So not having any records of the exact event, not having any direct evidence, not being able to actually test the event and not being able to exactly reproduce it does not therefore mean the theory is false.'

So we can't use any of those means (which you yourself proposed) to reach the conclusion we have. So we'll have to find another way. How do you think it's done? There must be a way because we know it's true.

 

[rjs330]

I " admitted" nothing.

As for your guess, well sorry-ah the "big problem" as you
put it, is with credibility of guess- opinion..

The ill considered nonsense about evolution-an actually
significant issue- really didn't do much for overall crecibility.

Yes you did you said there were egregious books. You admitted there were. Your the one who used the word egregious.

I actually gave you an example list. It wasn't' that hard to follow. So yes the LGBT crowd is coming after the children. You can minimiz each event as minor or you can add up ALL the events and see a big problem. Even IF I accepted minor problems, enough grains of sand make a beach. Pile enough bricks on each other and you have a skyscraper. It's the large picture. It's a not just a tree. It's a forest. You and others are so focused on the tree that you have missed or disregarded the forest.

 

[rjs330]

The theory of common descent states that all living organisms are descendants of a single ancestor. My theory doesn't go back that far. It states that myself and any siblings are descendants of a succession of ancestors. And that 100 generations ago, one of them was my great great x 100 grandfather.

And as I said 'And we find that there are no records to prove it. No direct evidence is available. So it can't be tested. And it can't be reproduced. Yet we know it's most definitely true. So not having any records of the exact event, not having any direct evidence, not being able to actually test the event and not being able to exactly reproduce it does not therefore mean the theory is false.'

So we can't use any of those means (which you yourself proposed) to reach the conclusion we have. So we'll have to find another way. How do you think it's done? There must be a way because we know it's true.

So all that to say that you are not a scientific theory. You are referring to genealogy. The theory of a common ancestor is a scientific theory that doesn't actually follow the scientific method. Your genealogy is not the same thing. If we found your x100 grandfather we could trace your genes back to you not to me.

I think you know that, you were just trying to make a point. And it didn't work. Enough on evolution. I do t want to get side tracked. I'm not that interested in it. If I was I'd be on the science part of the forum.

 

[Bradskii]

So all that to say...

It was all that to say that you don't seem to understand how a theory like common ancestry is formulated. It was all to say that you were wrong.

If we found your x100 grandfather we could trace your genes back to you not to me.

We couldn't. He's long gone. We're talking the very beginnings of civilisation. So that wouldn't work. And it wouldn't work with any of the means you suggested. I could explain how it would, but as you're not really that interested I shan't waste any more of my time. Just note that I didn't post the response to show you how it works. Only to show that you didn't know how.

 

[Astrid]

Yes you did you said there were egregious books. You admitted there were. Your the one who used the word egregious.

I actually gave you an example list. It wasn't' that hard to follow. So yes the LGBT crowd is coming after the children. You can minimiz each event as minor or you can add up ALL the events and see a big problem. Even IF I accepted minor problems, enough grains of sand make a beach. Pile enough bricks on each other and you have a skyscraper. It's the large picture. It's a not just a tree. It's a forest. You and others are so focused on the tree that you have missed or disregarded the forest.

To admit is to reluctantly confess. As an ESL
( English as Second Language ) learner, I make use of dictionaries.

In view of the various other negative thigs you
choose to make up about me, your choice of
" reluctant confession "- like I knew all along I
was wrong but did it anyway- was with plain intent.
Unless of course you are merely unfamiliar with your own language and just say things, unaware of what they mean.

That view is the more charitable one.
There's a touch of the naif in simply not knowing
and nothing untoward intended.

You might betimes try the " more charitable" approach yourself. It's said to be a Christian virtue.

The absurd nonsense you posted re evolution
does tend to bolster the view that you merely don't
know any better.

And of course bolsters
what I said about overall creliability of views
from such a source as posts things so ill considered.

Which suggests a more apt analogy than your
" grains of sand".

Being that enough cow- leavings makes a manure pile.

 

[BPPLEE]

The theory of common descent states that all living organisms are descendants of a single ancestor. My theory doesn't go back that far. It states that myself and any siblings are descendants of a succession of ancestors. And that 100 generations ago, one of them was my great great x 100 grandfather.

And as I said 'And we find that there are no records to prove it. No direct evidence is available. So it can't be tested. And it can't be reproduced. Yet we know it's most definitely true. So not having any records of the exact event, not having any direct evidence, not being able to actually test the event and not being able to exactly reproduce it does not therefore mean the theory is false.'

So we can't use any of those means (which you yourself proposed) to reach the conclusion we have. So we'll have to find another way. How do you think it's done? There must be a way because we know it's true.

It is reproduced every time a baby is born. Just multiply x 100

 

[Bradskii]

It is reproduced every time a baby is born. Just multiply x 100

Quite right. How far back do we go until we have to stop?

 

[BPPLEE]

Quite right. How far back do we go until we have to stop?

Either 6,000 years or millions of years depending on who you ask

 

[Bradskii]

Either 6,000 years or millions of years depending on who you ask

So if it's tens of millions of years, is my direct ancestor still human?

 

[BPPLEE]

So of it's tens of millions of years, is my direct ancestor still human?

2 to 6 million

 

[Bradskii]

2 to 6 million

And keep going back...

When is one of your direct ancestors something that you wouldn't class as being human?

 

[BPPLEE]

And keep going back...

When is one of your direct ancestors something that you wouldn't class as being human?

Now your theory is evolving. If you ask me never,

 

[Astrid]

I’m not afraid to talk about anything. This thread is just not the place to do it

Let's go with " ok bye lah"

As they say in Singlish

 

[ozso]

I think humans have always been human beings like the kind that exist today. There's really no comparison between human and ape.

 

[Bradskii]

Now your theory is evolving. If you ask me never,

Yeah, were extrapolating from what we know. So, we know you had a direct ancestor. So what was he back then?

 

[BPPLEE]

Yeah, were extrapolating from what we know. So, we know you had a direct ancestor. So what was he back then?

A man, how is that even remotely relevant to this thread?

 

[Bradskii]

A man, how is that even remotely relevant to this thread?

The earliest known hominid lived around 2.3 million years ago. Say hi to grandad:

 

[ozso]

The earliest known hominid lived around 2.3 million years ago. Say hi to grandad:

View attachment 334590

The so called humanoid is simply a primate.

 

[Astrid]

I'd be so intrigued to hear about the bright line
distinction between a human being and something
(someone) earlier who wasn't exactly the same.

I think humans have always been human beings like the kind that exist today. There's really no comparison between human and ape.

That belief is mandated only by choosing a
a preferred interpretation of the religious book
of your choice.
Facts show something quite different
from various literalistic readings that are
as disconnected from reality as thinking
" book says jesus was a sheep so must
have had four feet and a wool coat".

 

[ozso]

I'd be so intrigued to hear about the bright line
distinction between a human being and something
(someone) earlier who wasn't exactly the same.

There's humans and there's primates. Primates are similar to humans, but there's no way you would have any difficulty telling one from the other.