What proof would you need? (2)

[Astridhere]

Welcome to Facebook - Log In, Sign Up or Learn More

The link goes nowhere.

Regardless of who you are nothing I produce or interpretations I make are any worse than your changing flavour of the month. End of discussion.

I believe you have misrepresented Dawkins. However I have sufficient without him to support my interpretations that are as unfalsifiable as yours.

Regardless again I say that my own assertions, are just as good as anything you produce.

Here is the latest and the Lucy lovers whose reputation hangs on Lucy are real mad...

Hominid fossils may shake up the human family tree

In a series of reports published in Friday's edition of the journal Science, the researchers describe the Australopithecus sediba specimens as having a curious mix of primitive and modern features that could prompt experts to redraw the human family tree.

Hominid fossils may shake up the human family tree - Los Angeles Times

Oh no not again.....Afarensis out and Sediba in.....with the suite of humanity as well as curved fingers, longer thumb than Ardi and mankind, and curved feet, unlike Lucy apparently, or were they???? Honestly......grasping at staws, all of them. So now you have two species of australopithecus with the 2my old sediba with more primitive feet than Lucy that was found with no feet. Get where I am going with this? Lucy is misrepresented big time by all and sundry.

With some of your evo scientific community not really convinced themselves about who is who in the zoo any interpretation I or anyone gives is as good as 150 years of evolutionary thinking overturned with just one fossil.

 

[Astridhere]

What evidence?



You don't falsify evidence. You falsify hypotheses. Do you even understand how science works?

Your hypothesis of knucklewalking ancestry is a false hypothesis and was falsified. You have no credibility. You have story tellers.

Anything any creationist site proposes is as good as anything you have to offer.

 

[USincognito]

The link goes nowhere.

You're calling me a liar. I provided a link to my Facebook page which includes the photo of me and Dawkins. If that's not good enough, I've got something planned for when I get home and then, to you can go suck eggs.

I snipped the rest of your wall of text because you have yet to respond to my demolishment of your claim (again) about Coelacanths. Did you miss it, or just ignore it. Maybe after you flounder and try and change the subject - as you did when I showed you were completely wrong (again) about the content of the Death Before the Fall page on Answers in Creation, I'll waste some of my time showing how your foolish misunderstanding of hominids makes your supposed objections meaningless.

 

[Keachian]

The link goes nowhere.

It goes to his FB page you have to be logged in to see it.

Hominid fossils may shake up the human family tree

In a series of reports published in Friday's edition of the journal Science, the researchers describe the Australopithecus sediba specimens as having a curious mix of primitive and modern features that could prompt experts to redraw the human family tree.

Hominid fossils may shake up the human family tree - Los Angeles Times

Oh no not again.....Afarensis out and Sediba in.....with the suite of humanity as well as curved fingers, longer thumb than Ardi and mankind, and curved feet, unlike Lucy apparently, or were they???? Honestly......grasping at staws, all of them. So now you have two species of australopithecus with the 2my old sediba with more primitive feet than Lucy that was found with no feet. Get where I am going with this? Lucy is misrepresented big time by all and sundry.

And this disproves the theory of evolution how? It changes it sure, but change =/= disproof, our understanding should fit the evidence available to us, yes? Yet every time we've changed our understanding due to new evidence you've gone "ha just put it in the trash can, you can't get these pieces right, you're obviously wrong"

With some of your evo scientific community not really convinced themselves about who is who in the zoo any interpretation I or anyone gives is as good as 150 years of evolutionary thinking overturned with just one fossil.

Yawn, same old rhetoric that you trounce out that shows your inability to understand the scientific process and anything else related to it.

 

[CabVet]

You have no credibility. You have story tellers.

When you can't falsify the message, just shoot the messenger, works every time.

 

[CabVet]

The link goes nowhere.

Regardless of who you are

Stop with the lies, the link goes to his Facebook page. You were the one that said he wasn't the person on the picture, he produced the evidence, now you come with this "regardless of who you are"?

 

[Keachian]

It changes it sure

Actually, now that I think about it more it doesn't change the theory at all, it only changes the theory of human evolution and only in a minor way at that

 

[USincognito]

It goes to his FB page you have to be logged in to see it.

Stop with the lies, the link goes to his Facebook page. You were the one that said he wasn't the person on the picture, he produced the evidence, now you come with this "regardless of who you are"?

If either of you want to PM me on FB I can, conclusively, show that Astrid is making a fool of herself (yet again).

As far as these newspaper articles she keeps linking to, all they're doing is discussing how some findings by some paleontologists might require placing our ape-man ancestors in different positions within the family tree of common descent. Astrid, in her child-like misunderstanding of evolution, apparently thinks our ape-man ancestors should be fully H. sapiens and have no basal characteristics. None of the news reports she links to say that:
- they're not ape men
- they're not our ancestors
- the findings are conclusive
At best, if any of them do become conclusive with more finds, an ancestor moves from grandmother to great aunt. What problem that is for evolution, I have no idea and it sure as heck doesn't faslify the theory.

 

[Astridhere]

It goes to his FB page you have to be logged in to see it.


And this disproves the theory of evolution how? It changes it sure, but change =/= disproof, our understanding should fit the evidence available to us, yes? Yet every time we've changed our understanding due to new evidence you've gone "ha just put it in the trash can, you can't get these pieces right, you're obviously wrong"
Change, falsification of previous theories, you may call it what you wish. The point is the new evidence is supposed to support current theories not dicredit them with every nearly every find.

I did not say anything disproves TOE, I asserted that any creationist interpretation or hand wave aaway of annomolies could not possibly be worse than what you have to offer.
Yawn, same old rhetoric that you trounce out that shows your inability to understand the scientific process and anything else related to it.
However the same old rhetoric cannot be falsified. It is as unfalsifiable as any of your changng stories and flavours of the month.

All your researchers agree on is 'it all evolved'.

Creationist interpretations and supports could not possibly be worse than yours.

 

[Keachian]

Change, falsification of previous theories, you may call it what you wish. The point is the new evidence is supposed to support current theories not dicredit them with every nearly every find.

It does support the current theory of human evolution from apes, what it also does (if it does anything at all) is disprove the hypothesis that we were descended from a specific ape.

I did not say anything disproves TOE, I asserted that any creationist interpretation or hand wave aaway of annomolies could not possibly be worse than what you have to offer.

Yet they see far more anomalies in their "theory" than what the theory of evolution has, Occam's razor dictates that we take the one with the fewer anomalies.

 

[Astridhere]

If either of you want to PM me on FB I can, conclusively, show that Astrid is making a fool of herself (yet again).

As far as these newspaper articles she keeps linking to, all they're doing is discussing how some findings by some paleontologists might require placing our ape-man ancestors in different positions within the family tree of common descent. Astrid, in her child-like misunderstanding of evolution, apparently thinks our ape-man ancestors should be fully H. sapiens and have no basal characteristics. None of the news reports she links to say that:
- they're not ape men
- they're not our ancestors
- the findings are conclusive
At best, if any of them do become conclusive with more finds, an ancestor moves from grandmother to great aunt. What problem that is for evolution, I have no idea and it sure as heck doesn't faslify the theory.

I do not have to falsify your theory, although I think it is falsified.

Dawkins is not totally sure of afarensis or there would be no 'perhaps' about it....perhaps it was the curved fingered sediba that spawed humanity with her curved fingers on her way to chimpdom or gorilladom also.

If you walked up the line like an inspecting general-past Homo erectus, Homo habilis, perhaps Australopithecus afarensis -and down again the other side (the intermediates on the chimpanzee side are unnamed because, as it happens, no fossils have been found), you would nowhere find any sharp discontinuity.
Meet my cousin,the chimpanzee

Here Dawk-ins suggests a nice transition down the chimp side then admits in brackets as a hand wave away that there is no evidence to base his theory on. Just another example of straw grabbing and speculation.

Nothing I say or assert could be worse than the changing flavour of the month you lot use as evidence often based on nothing at all.

I do not have to falsify anything to demonstrate the shakey ground you lot base your assertions on and that nothing could be worse than disproving your own theory of knucklewalking ancestry that you held for 150 years or more with one fossil find.

You can squirm and say many words and none would change my unfalsifiable theory and assertion, much the same as yours.

Your so called supports are non credible at best. Creationists could not possibly present worse than your mess. Hence, you have no justification for ridiculing them or refuting creationists with evo flavours of the month as if they mean something, then pretending what you've got to offer is any better, more robust or substantiated than creationists assertions. That would be a lie.

 

[USincognito]

I do not have to falsify your theory, although I think it is falsified.

You think a lot of things and all of them have proven to be wrong, so who cares?

Dawkins is not totally sure of afarensis or there would be no 'perhaps' about it....perhaps it was the curved fingered sediba that spawed humanity with her curved fingers on her way to chimpdom or gorilladom also.

Your bizarre obsession with "curved fingers" doesn't detract from the point I have made and you simply cannot refute. Au. ape men basal features in no way change the fact that they also exhibit derived features of descendant ape men including H. sapiens ape men. The foramen magnum is that of a biped and the pelvis is midway between a chimp and a modern ape man H. sapiens. The hands and feet don't change this fact.

If you walked up the line like an inspecting general-past Homo erectus, Homo habilis, perhaps Australopithecus afarensis -and down again the other side (the intermediates on the chimpanzee side are unnamed because, as it happens, no fossils have been found), you would nowhere find any sharp discontinuity.
Meet my cousin,the chimpanzee

Here Dawk-ins suggests a nice transition down the chimp side then admits in brackets as a hand wave away that there is no evidence to base his theory on. Just another example of straw grabbing and speculation.

I have no idea what you're talking about regarding this quote as your comment appears to have nothing to do with what Dawkins said in a 20 year old OpEd. He suggests nothing of the sort regarding the hominan line (where he does suggest there is a seemless transition) and in fact notes there are not chimpanzee transitionals found at the time. How your failure of reading comprehension led you to believe that tiny quote suggested "a nice transition down the chimp side" is beyond me, though typical for your inablity to understand what you have actually read.

{snip self-congratulatory wall of text}

 

[USincognito]

I do not believe you are the guy in that photo. I think you are big noting yourself and using the power of a lie to misrepresent Dawkins.

I'll go get the book from a library and read it for myself. A snapshot of a page or so means nothing..........USingognito will then have to suck eggs. If he is being deceiptful now would be the time to admit to it.....

Well, I couldn't find the t-shirt, but I have linked to my Facebook page and set up a profile pic with a personal message to Astrid. Plus here's me, holding the book, admittedly minus Dawkins, but with another personal message to Astrid.

I await her, yet again, telling me how sorry she is for being as wrong as she was.

and here's the original again for comparison.

 

[CabVet]

Well, I couldn't find the t-shirt, but I have linked to my Facebook page and set up a profile pic with a personal message to Astrid. Plus here's me, holding the book, admittedly minus Dawkins, but with another personal message to Astrid.

I await her, yet again, telling me how sorry she is for being as wrong as she was.

I looked at your evidence and I don't think those are the same two persons. The shirts are different.

/sarcasm

 

[Astridhere]

Well, I couldn't find the t-shirt, but I have linked to my Facebook page and set up a profile pic with a personal message to Astrid. Plus here's me, holding the book, admittedly minus Dawkins, but with another personal message to Astrid.

I await her, yet again, telling me how sorry she is for being as wrong as she was.

and here's the original again for comparison.

Well then if you are so aware of Dawkins work, why do you misrepresent him?

Yes I am happy that you are Dawkins mate, but I am not sure you are not misrepresenting him.

Further to that why don't you get Wiki to change it's content if it has misrepresented Dawkins. You're not much of a mate if you let what you consider a huge Wiki mistake to stay there. Wiki are easy to contact. They are not creationist and would change the content quickly.

The photo is great. I will copy it as it is testimony to my getting under your skin. I love it.

My doubt of whom you said you are comes mostly from your denial that Dawkins suggests Lucy is a chimp ancestor.

It also comes from your not contacting Wiki and getting them to change their content. It would be better coming from you. You can tell them what Dawkins actualy said in his book.

However what I have sourced already demonstrates that Dawkins has a 'perhaps' against Lucy, at least.

None the less, whom you are does not detract from the fact that what you have to offer is any better than what any creationist has to offer, because our interpretations and supports cannot be worse than your changing mess. That is the point.

 

[USincognito]

I do not believe you are the guy in that photo. I think you are big noting yourself and using the power of a lie to misrepresent Dawkins.

Well, I couldn't find the t-shirt, but I have linked to my Facebook page and set up a profile pic with a personal message to Astrid. Plus here's me, holding the book, admittedly minus Dawkins, but with another personal message to Astrid.

I await her, yet again, telling me how sorry she is for being as wrong as she was.

In 3.... 2... 1...

Well then if you are so aware of Dawkins work, why do you misrepresent him?

Further to that why don't you get Wiki to change it's content if it has misrepresented Dawkins.

The photo is great. I will copy it as it is testimony to my getting under your skin. I love it.

My doubt of whom you said you are comes mostly from your denial that Dawkins suggests Lucy is a chimp ancestor.

It also comes from your not contacting Wiki and getting them to change their content. It would be better coming from you. You can tell them what Dawkins actualy said in his book.

However what I have sourced already demonstrates that Dawkins has a 'perhaps' against Lucy, at least.

Shocking!!!!

No apology for calling me a liar Astrid? Wow! Your pride makes Satan look self-depricating.

 

[Astridhere]

I looked at your evidence and I don't think those are the same two persons. The shirts are different.

/sarcasm

And it appears he never read the book, or doesn't want to help his mate.

USincognito says he is not a person he is an ape.

 

[CabVet]

The evidence that creationists present cannot be worse than evolution.

Astridhere, you keep repeating the sentence above in all of your posts. How about you show us some evidence for a change?

P.S.: Falsifying 1 million other scientific theories is not evidence to support yours.

 

[Astridhere]

In 3.... 2... 1...



Shocking!!!!

No apology for calling me a liar Astrid? Wow! Your pride makes Satan look self-depricating.

OK I can aplogise for believing your misrepresentation of Dawkins was because you were not the guy in the photo. That at least was a good excuse for you.

Now what is your excuse for either misrepresenting Dawkins or not helping him out by contacting Wiki and changing the content? Let me know when you do so. Untill then I will use Wiki's content and assert that Dawkins shovelled Lucy's humanity into chimpdom. The reason I will back Wiki as opposed to you is Wiki have no reason to lie, while you do.

Now you can apologize to all creationists for trying to pass off 150 years of falsifications as any better than what creationists offer.

Creationist interpretations cannot possibly be worse than yours.

 

[CabVet]

Creationist interpretations cannot possibly be worse than yours.

Astridhere, you keep repeating the sentence above in all of your posts. How about you show us some evidence for a change?

P.S.: Falsifying 1 million other scientific theories is not evidence to support yours.