Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Shemjaza" data-source="post: 75910155" data-attributes="member: 146291"><p>Your total unwillingness (inability?) to demonstrate your source and its context.</p><p></p><p>You repeating the same misleading descriptors after others point out the issues with it. The whole "Scientists dispute Homo habilis" you were using to imply that there was scientific dispute that it was in fact a transitional fossil, rather than exactly what kind and where it fit into classifications.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So yet another example of the same kind of nonsense.</p><p></p><p>They found a transitional primate fossil, the initial interpretation was that it was closer to a Homo erectus... but further examination of the evidence show that it was closer to an australopithecine.</p><p></p><p>No dispute that it was a transitional primate fossil.</p><p></p><p>And the entire situation is possible because Hominid and primate skellitons are so similar that it takes serious effort to distinguish them. Because there isn't a hard line between the colloquial concepts of "human" and "ape".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm noticing that you are still not referencing your source... and you only seem to jump to the next idea, after someone points out how flawed your previous one was.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Shemjaza, post: 75910155, member: 146291"] Your total unwillingness (inability?) to demonstrate your source and its context. You repeating the same misleading descriptors after others point out the issues with it. The whole "Scientists dispute Homo habilis" you were using to imply that there was scientific dispute that it was in fact a transitional fossil, rather than exactly what kind and where it fit into classifications. So yet another example of the same kind of nonsense. They found a transitional primate fossil, the initial interpretation was that it was closer to a Homo erectus... but further examination of the evidence show that it was closer to an australopithecine. No dispute that it was a transitional primate fossil. And the entire situation is possible because Hominid and primate skellitons are so similar that it takes serious effort to distinguish them. Because there isn't a hard line between the colloquial concepts of "human" and "ape". I'm noticing that you are still not referencing your source... and you only seem to jump to the next idea, after someone points out how flawed your previous one was. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?
Top
Bottom