What proof would you need? (2)

[Mikecpking]

Woffle again I see. Let me know when you have something intelligent to add.

Darls, nothing that you said saves your 150 years of falsification.

Simply offering ridicule, hot air and an opinion does not stand up at all, but rather demonstrates your desperation.

I have offered an unfalsifiable theory as other creationists do and as you do. I have provided supportive research from your own.

Offering no refute to my assertions really only demonstrates you are one of those sheep that follow blindly with nothing really to say except Baaa.

You have a theory in evolution with no predictive ability eg human/chimp Y chromosome, yet you are prepared to moch creationists. You are desperate and unable to elevate your theory from the mire and hence are prepared to stoop to ridicule, asides, hot air and heaps of baa.

Your Ardi and Lucy with all their humanity are apes. Suck it up, because some evo researchers agree in principle, as demonstrated with more than the hot air you have offered. I am as entitled to cherry pick my research as you lot are, ignoring what is uncomfortable for you.

You lot have tooted your horn many times and shovelled what you reckon only an idiot would not accept down creationists throats, only to find that same evidence thrown into the great garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past.

Creationists assertions and interpretations simply could be no worse than evos mess, change and contradiction, with one single fossil overturning over 150 years of thought.

You do not have to like it. However that is the way it is.

Atheists haunt religious forums because they are fanatical and get cheap jollies pretending they have more substantiation to offer than creationists. Indeed your latest theory of human evolution, after the last was falsified with Ardi, is less than 10 years old, published in 2009, and replaced 150 years of human knuckle walking ancesty in a single find.

This does not mean you should go change your view. However it does mean you evos should perhaps pull your head in.

Do some field Geology study and your view point will change. Banding of fossils, like here which I studied in 1982, blow away the idea that the flood was a cause for all geological formations and structures we see:

Westbury on Severn fossils and fossil collecting

It is hard to explain why there is a thin band of fossils from a single flood from a creationist persepective, if not impossible.

 

[Belk]

Belk your desperation is showing.

If Darwin or any other evo won a Nobel Prize for proving or supporting human knucklewalking ancestry, they would be proven to be a shmook as well as an idiot.

What creationists present can be no worse than what evos present.

Desperation?

So, that's a no on going out and doing the actual science? Just going to post long angry screeds on a forum? Ah well, it is not like anyone here is surprised are they? Do come back when you have more then misspelled insults.

 

[Astridhere]

Do some field Geology study and your view point will change. Banding of fossils, like here which I studied in 1982, blow away the idea that the flood was a cause for all geological formations and structures we see:

Westbury on Severn fossils and fossil collecting

It is hard to explain why there is a thin band of fossils from a single flood from a creationist persepective, if not impossible.

As I said creationist support, theroies and interpretations are no worse than evolutionists.

Your dates are constantly changed and are pinned to misrepresented fossils.

You lot have invented more terms to cover your rear like homoplasy and convergent evolution. eg reworked, ghost ranges, overthrusts, geosynclines. Flood geology cannot be worse than yours. I do not even have to go near the flaws in radiometric dating.

Biologists routinely compare inferences about the order of evolutionary branching (phylogeny) with the order in which groups appear in the fossil record (stratigraphy). Where they conflict, ghost ranges are inferred: intervals of geological time where a fossil lineage should exist, but for which there is no direct evidence.
Fossil ghost ranges are most common in some of the oldest and some of the youngest strata


Evolution Handbook 3


Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible? - Answers in Genesis

So again I say you lot have no better nor substantiated support for your theory. Common thinking and majority support means nothing. 150 years of falsification confirms it.

 

[Astridhere]

Desperation?

So, that's a no on going out and doing the actual science? Just going to post long angry screeds on a forum? Ah well, it is not like anyone here is surprised are they? Do come back when you have more then misspelled insults.

Darls, your 150 years of rubbish on knuckelwalking ancestry is falsified with a new flavour of the month that will also end up in the great garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past.

That is your science as uncomfortable as it may seem.

I still think you evos need to pull your head in. Atheists here for years need to go get a life.

The point remains that creationist supports, theories and interpretations cannot do worse than your presentation of the great rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions past that were flogged as evidence only a fool would deny. Creationists now see who the fools are. This is an uncomfortable truth that you are stuck with and no amount of woffle, ridicule, nor squirming is going to change that fact...and neither will any new flavour of the month....

 

[Orogeny]

reworked

You're right, it's impossible for sediment to be deposited, resuspended, and then deposited again.

ghost ranges

You're right, paleontologists shouldn't ever say 'we think an organism should be here, but we can't find it! Lets keep looking'.

overthrusts

You're right, we shouldn't give descriptive names to structural features that are common in compressional tectonic regimes.

geosynclines

This term has been obsolete since plate tectonics became the dominant theory in crustal geology. Nothing like arguing against something you don't even understand.

Flood geology cannot be worse than yours.

It is, because there is no evidence for it, it rarely makes testable predictions, and when it has, they have turned out to be false. It is a theory that has been completely disproved time and time again since even the earliest days of geology.

 

[Belk]

Darls, your 150 years of rubbish on knuckelwalking ancestry is falsified with a new flavour of the month that will also end up in the great garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past.

That is your science as uncomfortable as it may seem.

I still think you evos need to pull your head in. Atheists here for years need to go get a life.

The point remains that creationist supports, theories and interpretations cannot do worse than your presentation of the great rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions past that were flogged as evidence only a fool would deny. Creationists now see who the fools are. This is an uncomfortable truth that you are stuck with and no amount of woffle, ridicule, nor squirming is going to change that fact...and neither will any new flavour of the month....

You say the prettiest things.

Have a hug.

 

[Mikecpking]

As I said creationist support, theroies and interpretations are no worse than evolutionists.

Your dates are constantly changed and are pinned to misrepresented fossils.

You lot have invented more terms to cover your rear like homoplasy and convergent evolution. eg reworked, ghost ranges, overthrusts, geosynclines. Flood geology cannot be worse than yours. I do not even have to go near the flaws in radiometric dating.

Biologists routinely compare inferences about the order of evolutionary branching (phylogeny) with the order in which groups appear in the fossil record (stratigraphy). Where they conflict, ghost ranges are inferred: intervals of geological time where a fossil lineage should exist, but for which there is no direct evidence.
Fossil ghost ranges are most common in some of the oldest and some of the youngest strata


Evolution Handbook 3


Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible? - Answers in Genesis

So again I say you lot have no better nor substantiated support for your theory. Common thinking and majority support means nothing. 150 years of falsification confirms it.

Hi Astridhere,
Why don't you go and do some unbiased field study work without the lenses of Answers in Genesis who know diddlysquat about geological processes.

Carbon dating, to prove their ignorance has nothing to do with geological time as it is only accurate for 30,000 years, not millions!

 

[cupid dave]

It seems that the central problem for creationists is that they misread Genesis and/or were indoctrinated by people who repeated ideas that made sense in past ages before we knew the facts we have available today.

This is the Theistc Evolution understanding of Genesis:



1) It is clear that the Universe DID have a beginning, 13.9 billion years ago.

(Gen 1:1)
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id19.html


2) The hot spinning molten matter that was to coalesce into the planet Earth was without form:

http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id132.html


3) There were seven long Cosmic "days" since that Big Bang, which we call the seven cosmic/geological Eras

http://kofh2u.tripod.com/genesispic/Eraclock.jpg


4) A Cosmic Dark Age did precede that advent of let there be light to flood the cosmo:

(Gen 1:3-5)
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/DarkAge2.jpg


5) There was one ocean, once, where all the waters had been collected together

(Gen 1:9

http://kofh2u.tripod.com/genesispic/superocean.jpg


6) Pangea/Rodinia did actually confirm that the dry land appeared surrounded totally by water

(Gen 1:10
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id123.html


7) The Plant kingdom did establish itself before the Animal kingdom

(Gen 1:11
http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id18.html



8) The Sun and the Moon and all the Stars were "MADE," given authority over circadian Earth Time as soon as life appeared:

http://kofh2u.tripod.com/id126.html



9) Man WAS the last step in the evolution of Dominant Life on earth.[/

(Gen 1:27)

http://kofh2u.tripod.com/genesispic/sethNoah.jpg



10) Man HAS managed to form a mental IMAGE of "Father Nature" by understanding of His Laws and creation



11) Gen 5:2 says god called them, the man and his wife, the "Adamites," a species:


Gen 5:2 Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the day when THEY were created

 

[Astridhere]

You're right, it's impossible for sediment to be deposited, resuspended, and then deposited again.
You're right, paleontologists shouldn't ever say 'we think an organism should be here, but we can't find it! Lets keep looking'.

You're right, we shouldn't give descriptive names to structural features that are common in compressional tectonic regimes.

This term has been obsolete since plate tectonics became the dominant theory in crustal geology. Nothing like arguing against something you don't even understand.

It is, because there is no evidence for it, it rarely makes testable predictions, and when it has, they have turned out to be false. It is a theory that has been completely disproved time and time again since even the earliest days of geology.

It does not matter if what you sayabout creationism is correct or not.

The point is creationist support can be no worse than evolutionary support.

Researchers are finding that
on top of the 1% distinction, chunks of missing
DNA, extra genes, altered connections
in gene networks, and the very structure of
chromosomes confound any quantification​

of “humanness” versus “chimpness"
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/biology/franz/biology38/_files/1836.pdf

A leading researcher from the Max Plunk Insitute suggests there is no way to come up with a comparison.

Even biased research by your researchers have found a 17% difference in brain networks. The Y chromosome is at least 30% different and comparable to 310 million years of evo separation. This was not predicted.

Indeed evolutionists ignore differences, look for the rare similarities and then sprook they have found similarity. This is not only misrepresentative, to me, it borders on fraudulent misrepresentation that is not declared to the public.

After 150 years of finding evidence to support a transition from a chimp-like creature to a creature that had very little in common with a chimanzee totally discredits any evolutionary support.

The Y chromosome is just one example of the inability of TOE to make predictions. You have invented terms like homoplasy and convergent evolution to side step anomolies. The record demonstrates chaos with no predictive capability.

What I have had a gut full of is evolutionists making out their supports, interpretations and theories are better than any variety of creationist. I have had a gut full of evolutionists ridiculing creationists with any flavour of the month, most of which is challenged from within evolutionary circles. I have had a gut full of evolutionists suggesting creationist are ignorant because they do not swallow flavour of the month as being just that, the latest flavour that may be falsified at any time.

Creationist theories and interpretations can be no worse than evolutionists, that are continually challenged and often falsified with one single fossil.

That is the point and it is factual, no matter how uncomfortable it is for you.

 

[Orogeny]

It does not matter if what you sayabout creationism is correct or not.

The point is creationist support can be no worse than evolutionary support.

I didn't say anything about creationism, I was simply defending the usage of geologic terminology. And if all you're left with is 'Our junk may not be better than yours, but it isn't worse', and that assertion is based on a red herring, then you lose.

Researchers are finding that
on top of the 1% distinction, chunks of missing
DNA, extra genes, altered connections
in gene networks, and the very structure of
chromosomes confound any quantification​

of “humanness” versus “chimpness"
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/biology/franz/biology38/_files/1836.pdf

A leading researcher from the Max Plunk Insitute suggests there is no way to come up with a comparison.

Even biased research by your researchers have found a 17% difference in brain networks. The Y chromosome is at least 30% different and comparable to 310 million years of evo separation. This was not predicted.

Indeed evolutionists ignore differences, look for the rare similarities and then sprook they have found similarity. This is not only misrepresentative, to me, it borders on fraudulent misrepresentation that is not declared to the public.

After 150 years of finding evidence to support a transition from a chimp-like creature to a creature that had very little in common with a chimanzee totally discredits any evolutionary support.

The Y chromosome is just one example of the inability of TOE to make predictions. You have invented terms like homoplasy and convergent evolution to side step anomolies. The record demonstrates chaos with no predictive capability.

What I have had a gut full of is evolutionists making out their supports, interpretations and theories are better than any variety of creationist. I have had a gut full of evolutionists ridiculing creationists with any flavour of the month, most of which is challenged from within evolutionary circles. I have had a gut full of evolutionists suggesting creationist are ignorant because they do not swallow flavour of the month as being just that, the latest flavour that may be falsified at any time.

Creationist theories and interpretations can be no worse than evolutionists, that are continually challenged and often falsified with one single fossil.

That is the point and it is factual, no matter how uncomfortable it is for you.

Aaaand copypasta that has nothing to do with any of my points or the points in the post I was addressing. I'll take the fact that you didn't address my points as an indication that you either cannot, and so cede the points to me. Thanks for playing.

 

[cupid dave]

It does not matter if what you say about creationism is correct or not.

The point is creationist support can be no worse than evolutionary support.

Researchers are finding that
on top of the 1% distinction, chunks of missing
DNA, extra genes, altered connections
in gene networks, and the very structure of
chromosomes confound any quantification​

of “humanness” versus “chimpness"
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/biology/franz/biology38/_files/1836.pdf

A leading researcher from the Max Plunk Insitute suggests there is no way to come up with a comparison.

Even biased research by your researchers have found a 17% difference in brain networks. The Y chromosome is at least 30% different and comparable to 310 million years of evo separation. This was not predicted.

Do you deny or dismiss the evidence of genes from Neanderthal's are in our DNA?


This is also supported by the Bible:


2That the sons of God, (through the line of Seth) saw the daughters of (Neanderthal) men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

​

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Adam, (an eponym for a species: see Gen 5:2)
[/FONT]

 

[Orogeny]

Why did you just insert Neanderthal into that verse like it belongs? You can't just add words to the bible in order to make it say what you want. Come on, man.

 

[Keachian]

Why did you just insert Neanderthal into that verse like it belongs? You can't just add words to the bible in order to make it say what you want. Come on, man.

Orogeny meet cupid dave, his interpretations will astound you and he is far more set in his ways than any creationist I have ever met, he thinks that he is reading the Bible literally.

 

[Keachian]

Do you deny or dismiss the evidence of genes from Neanderthal's are in our DNA?

common answers to this include neanderthals are modern humans and no there isn't

This is also supported by the Bible:

No it's not

2That the sons of God, saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

I don't get it

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Adam, (an eponym for a species: see Gen 5:2)
[/FONT]

Yes אָדָם means man... however I don't see how this relates to your unbiblical idea that Adam wasn't homo sapiens

 

[Astridhere]

I didn't say anything about creationism, I was simply defending the usage of geologic terminology. And if all you're left with is 'Our junk may not be better than yours, but it isn't worse', and that assertion is based on a red herring, then you lose.



Aaaand copypasta that has nothing to do with any of my points or the points in the post I was addressing. I'll take the fact that you didn't address my points as an indication that you either cannot, and so cede the points to me. Thanks for playing.

I did address your post by giving information about ghosts and other terms invented to address annomolies in strata.


Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

In other words creationists are equally entitled to hand wave away any annomoly with some story, nor should creationists have to defend any inconsistency. Why? Because evolutionists hand wave away inconsisteny often and still have faith.

 

[CabVet]

I did address your post by giving information about ghosts and other terms invented to address annomolies in strata.

Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

In other words creationists are equally entitled to hand wave away any annomoly with some story, nor should creationists have to defend any inconsistency. Why? Because evolutionists hand wave away inconsisteny often and still have faith.

Great source! I think AV's sources (simply "the Bible") are more credible than yours.

 

[Astridhere]

Do you deny or dismiss the evidence of genes from Neanderthal's are in our DNA?

I deny that evolutionary geneticists know what they are talking about when they look for anything made from algorithmically reconstituting a small fragment of DNA into a sequence.

Besides, I am happy to accept thay Neanderthal are human, but different ie nephalim.

This has nothing to do with the story you support. A pretty picture does not prove anything.

This is also supported by the Bible:


2That the sons of God, (through the line of Seth) saw the daughters of (Neanderthal) men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

​

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Adam, (an eponym for a species: see Gen 5:2) [/FONT]

You keep on posting these pictures like as if posting a picture that your faith puts together is evidence. It is not evidence. It is your story.

What you should be concerned about, if you support anything evos say about erectus is that erectus is now being seen as highly sexually dimorphic and much less human like than previously thought. Of course this does not come as a surprise to me. This includes getting it on with the female erectus/apes in an ape like manner and having the sexual dimorphism comparative to a gorilla. This is what evos call a primitive trait.

The other concern for you is that half wits do not have sophisticated language. That means Cain and the rest did not have the capacity for sophisticated language, according to evo theory and would not have understood the commandments or anything else going on for that matter. They also had to have the capacity to write on stone tablets as in the 10 commandments. This capacity is only seen in fully functional higher reasoning beings with abstract thought ie homo sapiens.

So basically your story should be as good as any and has to hand wave away such annomolies as I have spoken to just like evos do. Your theory is very out of what with any interpretaion of data, but you are welcome to thing that half wits write and talk if you want to. However your constant pasting up of pictures really is not evidence for anything. Neither is your query of neanderthal evidence of anything. I think your theory is actually worse than evolutionary and less consistent with the data available, as biased as that data is.

 

[Astridhere]

Great source! I think AV's sources (simply "the Bible") are more credible than yours.

It does not matter what you think on the back of 150 years of falsifications.

 

[Keachian]

Do you deny or dismiss the evidence of genes from Neanderthal's are in our DNA?


This is also supported by the Bible:


2That the sons of God, (through the line of Seth) saw the daughters of (Neanderthal) men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

​

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Adam, (an eponym for a species: see Gen 5:2)
[/FONT]

 

[CabVet]

It does not matter what you think on the back of 150 years of falsifications.

Last time I checked, that is less than 3,500.