What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?

[Mr Laurier]

That doesn't surprise me, as they would have been sequestered from the rest of the population, as were those who had leprosy.

Why would they have been "sequestered"? And by who?

 

[AV1611VET]

Look closely. Look very closely. You are covered with fine hair.

Bingo!

I don't need to "look closely, look very closely" at an ape though, do I?

That's how far science will go to make us look like them, isn't it?

Which one of these two pictures is the man? which one is the ape?

(No fair peeking at the urls!)

 

[Kylie]

As would I if it had actually happened.

I wouldn't call it a reboot exactly.

It's more of a Frasier situation. Keep just one part of what you had before and create a new go at it, but the continuity of the earlier series is still canon.

 

[SelfSim]

Bingo!

I don't need to "look closely, look very closely" at an ape though, do I?

That's how far science will go to make us look like them, isn't it?

Which one of these two pictures is the man? which one is the ape?

(No fair peeking at the urls!)

Oh brother!!

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would they have been "sequestered"?

Remember what I said earlier? it's a disease?

Deuteronomy 28:59 Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.

And by who?

I would assume they did it voluntarily.

Or maybe with a little help ... or both.

2 Chronicles 26:20 And Azariah the chief priest, and all the priests, looked upon him, and, behold, he was leprous in his forehead, and they thrust him out from thence; yea, himself hasted also to go out, because the LORD had smitten him.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Remember what I said earlier? it's a disease?

And yet no evidence of disease is found on any of the remains.
Habilis is not a disease.

Deuteronomy 28:59 Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.

I would assume they did it voluntarily.

huh? Whyfore doeth thou spakest of plagues? Or maybe they were not "sequestered" at all.

Or maybe with a little help ... or both.

Or nether.

2 Chronicles 26:20 And Azariah the chief priest, and all the priests, looked upon him, and, behold, he was leprous in his forehead, and they thrust him out from thence; yea, himself hasted also to go out, because the LORD had smitten him.

But you hath yet to showeth that the remains of Habilis are those of thy chief priest Azariah. Not hath thou showed that there was any sign of leprosy amongst yon remains.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Bingo!

So where does that leave you?

I don't need to "look closely, look very closely" at an ape though, do I?

Depending on the ape.

That's how far science will go to make us look like them, isn't it?

huh?
given that science goes exactly no distance at all to make anything look like anything....

Which one of these two pictures is the man? which one is the ape?

Both are apes. One is a gorilla, the other is a human.

(No fair peeking at the urls!)

pft

 

[Subduction Zone]

That doesn't surprise me, as they would have been sequestered from the rest of the population, as were those who had leprosy.

Amazing how they managed to sequester them by time too!

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'll bet you did.

I knew you didn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet no evidence of disease is found on any of the remains.

The fact that it's not covered in cooties doesn't change my opinion one bit.

Habilis is not a disease.

Now you know why God called it "wonderful," don't you?

It leaves smert people scratching their heads, searching for bugs on their skeletons, and denying they are us, based on their predetermined set of rules that they made up.

In short, those skeletons defy all logic.

"Wnderful," isn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Amazing how they managed to sequester them by time too!

Ya ... that's a whole different ball of wax.

 

[renniks]

So more lies then?

No evidence of Homo habilis being found with hu Homo habilis being found with man remains.

They don't have complete skeletons, but the thing about evidence and analysis is that you can study multiple animals and multiple species to learn about how the work.

The remains of habilis we have show us that it was a primate, but differently formed from a human or an australopithecus.

Do you have the context of the quote? If it's actually from an expert I assume it's exactly the kind of internal disagreement where they don't dispute that the remains are that of a transitional primate, but don't think habilss shouls be defined as a distinct species.

It was debated for a long time whether it was a legitimate find. Look it up. But now it's accepted as fact on extremely scanty evidence. And people tell me there are no assumptions, no guesswork! It's treated as fact now. Laughable, really. But, they needed a missing link, so they fit it in whether it was legitimate or not.

 

[Job 33:6]

A few problems with this argument.
The most recent sediment beneath the basalt layer labelled 'Tpw' is dated from the mid Pliocene age around 3 million years ago.
Dating the top most basalt layer indicates the nearby extinct Anakie volcanoes which is the source last erupted 1.5 million years ago.
Clearly these ages are too old in the context of a biblical global flood.

If creationists want to argue the dating is incorrect there is the sediment labelled 'Qpe' on top of the basalt layer.
This sediment is dated from the Pleistocene-Recent period and contains fossilized marine life due to changing sea levels as a result of climate change not the remnants of a global flood.
The bottom line is there is absolutely no evidence of a global flood in this region.

Is tpw on the cross section? I don't see it. What color is it?

And what marine fossils have been found in Qpe?

 

[Shemjaza]

It was debated for a long time whether it was a legitimate find. Look it up. But now it's accepted as fact on extremely scanty evidence. And people tell me there are no assumptions, no guesswork! It's treated as fact now. Laughable, really. But, they needed a missing link, so they fit it in whether it was legitimate or not.

Debated by who? When? On what evidence? Treated by who?

You can't just make stuff up and expect people to believe you.

I've never seen any evidence that anyone with any expertise doesn't think that it is remains of a transitional primate... there's just some (minority) attitudes that it's just a tall Austalopithecus, or other related species.

No one has ever presented anything like a conjecture that it's just a chimera of random modern ape and human bones as your fantasies seem to be implying.

 

[Bradskii]

Bingo!

I don't need to "look closely, look very closely" at an ape though, do I?

No. But you need to look closer at us.

"Per square centimetre, human skin has as many hair follicles as that of other great apes. The difference is not in the number, but in the fineness of the hair that grows from those follicles".
The not-so-naked ape

Didn't you think to check first?

 

[Speedwell]

It was debated for a long time whether it was a legitimate find. Look it up. But now it's accepted as fact on extremely scanty evidence. And people tell me there are no assumptions, no guesswork! It's treated as fact now. Laughable, really. But, they needed a missing link, so they fit it in whether it was legitimate or not.

So what? What's your dog in this fight, anyway? You are constantly harping about uncertainties or parts of evolutionary theory that are less well evidenced than others, as if that was some kind of a "gotcha." Why?

 

[AV1611VET]

No. But you need to look closer at us.

No, I don't.

This is what I said:

I don't need a biologist to tell me the difference between an ape and a human.

Just look at an ape: strong, hairy, no reading and writing skills, limited domiciles. No. Actually they aren't.

I know what you're doing to dilute my point, as I'll show below.

"Per square centimetre, human skin has as many hair follicles as that of other great apes."

You're taking "hairy" to mean, "covered in hair follicles," whereas I mean "hairy" to mean "shaggy."

 

[renniks]

So what? What's your dog in this fight, anyway? You are constantly harping about uncertainties or parts of evolutionary theory that are less well evidenced than others, as if that was some kind of a "gotcha." Why?

Because they show how shakey the whole theory is.

 

[renniks]

You can't just make stuff up and expect people to believe you.

I'm not. Debated by other scientists. I'll look up names if you want.

 

[Speedwell]

Because they show how shakey the whole theory is.

As compared to what? Right now it's the best theory we've got, no matter how shakey you think it is.