What proof would you need? (2)

Astridhere · Jan 30, 2012

mzungu said:
No matter what evidence is brought forth to you, you will dismiss it; Whether you do so out of ignorance (this is obvious) or from wanton disregard for the truth makes no difference.

IMO you should stop enjoying the fruits of science (Internet, PC, Medicine, etc.) lest you be branded a hypocrite!

You are another one that can only provide ridicule which BTW is not science.

I am asking you lot to support your interpretations of erectus in light of new evidence and not a single one of you have.

I win my point in declaring erectus to be no more than a hairy ape no more human than a chimp or gorilla is today.

You can sidewind, go for strolls down any garden path and ridicule me as much as you like and still you will not have supplied your support for erectus's intermediacy, let alone refute my interpretations and reasonings of erectus the half witted hairy ape.

Bring it on if you can and if you dare, because if I come back tomorrow and none of you have taken on the challenge I will finally declare myself the winner by default, if nothing else.

Erectus/ergaster is your cornerstone of intermediacy. Defend him in light of new evidence and the ridiculous scenarios your researchers have offered relating to their interpretations of the new Gona female erectus pelvis and huge sexual dimorphism found in erectus if you can.

You are the ones that ridicule creationists for not supporting their view and then when they do most of you are gobsmacked. You reply with nonsense, asides or ridicule just for sake of making a post and self soothing your egos but in no way address anything I have spoken to.

It is simple really. If you can't. If you can only sidewind your little selves away from the issue, evoke ridicule or global hand waves away, then I win on this point.

Belk · Jan 30, 2012

Astridhere said:
You are another one that can only provide ridicule which BTW is not science.

I am asking you lot to support your interpretations of erectus in light of new evidence and not a single one of you have.

I win my point in declaring erectus to be no more than a hairy ape no more human than a chimp or gorilla is today.

You can sidewind, go for strolls down any garden path and ridicule me as much as you like and still you will not have supplied your support for erectus's intermediacy, let alone refute my interpretations and reasonings of erectus the half witted hairy ape.

Bring it on if you can and if you dare, because if I come back tomorrow and none of you have taken on the challenge I will finally declare myself the winner by default, if nothing else.

Erectus/ergaster is your cornerstone of intermediacy. Defend him in light of new evidence and the ridiculous scenarios your researchers have offered relating to their interpretations of the new Gona female erectus pelvis and huge sexual dimorphism found in erectus if you can.

You are the ones that ridicule creationists for not supporting their view and then when they do most of you are gobsmacked. You reply with nonsense, asides or ridicule just for sake of making a post and self soothing your egos but in no way address anything I have spoken to.

It is simple really. If you can't. If you can only sidewind your little selves away from the issue, evoke ridicule or global hand waves away, then I win on this point.

Yes, yes. When you point is dis-proven just ignore it and declare yourself the winner. Never fails.

mzungu · Jan 30, 2012

Astridhere said:
You are another one that can only provide ridicule which BTW is not science.

I am asking you lot to support your interpretations of erectus in light of new evidence and not a single one of you have.

I win my point in declaring erectus to be no more than a hairy ape no more human than a chimp or gorilla is today.

You can sidewind, go for strolls down any garden path and ridicule me as much as you like and still you will not have supplied your support for erectus's intermediacy, let alone refute my interpretations and reasonings of erectus the half witted hairy ape.

Bring it on if you can and if you dare, because if I come back tomorrow and none of you have taken on the challenge I will finally declare myself the winner by default, if nothing else.

Erectus/ergaster is your cornerstone of intermediacy. Defend him in light of new evidence and the ridiculous scenarios your researchers have offered relating to their interpretations of the new Gona female erectus pelvis and huge sexual dimorphism found in erectus if you can.

You are the ones that ridicule creationists for not supporting their view and then when they do most of you are gobsmacked. You reply with nonsense, asides or ridicule just for sake of making a post and self soothing your egos but in no way address anything I have spoken to.

It is simple really. If you can't. If you can only sidewind your little selves away from the issue, evoke ridicule or global hand waves away, then I win on this point.

I see; So let me get this straight: Evolution makes no sense to you and you dismiss it outright in favour of the following:

A man is created from dirt, fully grown with his senses and abilities fully functional. A woman is created from his rib. The woman eats a fruit after being told to do so by a snake?
They are known as Adam and Eve and are cast down to earth for their sin. They have 2 sons. Now a Father, a mother and two sons gave this world the whole population of humans in a matter of 4000 years? All this by incest?

Yeah right; and you have the gall to call evolution fake science

Also A being created the planets before he created light

Also a man and his family managed to collect a pair of all the world's animals (including penguins, dinosaurs, etc) put them on a ship he built himself and he and his family stayed on that ship for months because the whole world was inundated with flood water and yet an olive tree managed to survive underwater and the man and his family repopulated the planet with humans in less than 4000 years (incest again)

You have absolutely NO idea what science is all about and how it works and by what rules it functions. You insist on asking us to answer to your loaded pro creationism questions and also you dismiss science if it does not agree with your mythology

Let me remind you that religion is a spiritual thing and not science nor does it deal with the physical world. What you are trying to do is compare apples to transistors!

If you have any respect for religion then keep it as such and leave science to the scientists who do not live in a world where the sign says "Beyond here be dragons".

Hope you are having a good summer down under and are having a nice day

CabVet · Jan 30, 2012

Astridhere said:
You are another one that can only provide ridicule which BTW is not science.

In the mean time, all that you lot (creationists) do is try to disprove evolution with the hope that it will grant support to your fantasies. Unfortunately, proving something wrong (which you are far from doing) does not make something else completely unrelated right. It's like saying "gravity is wrong, therefore storks bring our babies".

mzungu · Jan 30, 2012

CabVet said:
In the mean time, all that you lot (creationists) do is try to disprove evolution with the hope that it will grant support to your fantasies. Unfortunately, proving something wrong (which you are far from doing) does not make something else completely unrelated right. It's like saying "gravity is wrong, therefore storks bring our babies".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxAKFlpdcfc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKpxPo-lInk

Keachian · Jan 30, 2012

Astridhere said:
You have not replied to my post at all. You are heading off on a global aside. The theries of evolution rests on these types of supportive reasonings whereby you present so called intermediates that in reality makes no sense.

I've presented intermediaries? I don't remember doing that, and claiming that they

I have been expecting for weeks a reply to my evidence of erectus being a hairy ape,

I'm a hairy ape, are you saying that I'm not human?

no more human than a gorilla is today. I've expected that you lot would evoke some reasonings around the Gona female erectus pelvis and I have been ready to demonstrate the nonsense behind it. None of you have given it a shot, nor even tried.

Because you have demonstrated time after time after time that you do not understand science and are unwilling to try to understand. Arguing with you about science isn't actually very helpful to anyone and I have already made streams of posts about how you don't understand, how you are twisting the evidence etc.

Mikecpking · Jan 30, 2012

Astridhere said:
Look at this above. Another whole page of woffle that goes nowhere near what I spoke to in the falsification of erectus's near humanity.

I'll repeat, if you cannot defend erectus as being an intermediate in relation to the latest research from your own evolutionary researchers then I win my point. It is that simple.

As I said some of you can only look up answers spoon fed to you. Many of you are unable to use your own reasoning ability to reply to my interpretations.

Rather than call it "woffle", you could answer the questions Pseudopod posed here.

Greg1234 · Jan 30, 2012

CabVet said:
In the mean time, all that you lot (creationists) do is try to disprove evolution with the hope that it will grant support to your fantasies. Unfortunately, proving something wrong (which you are far from doing) does not make something else completely unrelated right. It's like saying "gravity is wrong, therefore storks bring our babies".

Evidence for someone' position automatically attacks the other. As for stork-babies and frog-prince jokes, after their own kind. This isn't Darwinism.

CabVet · Jan 30, 2012

Greg1234 said:
Evidence for someone' position automatically attacks the other. As for stork-babies and frog-prince jokes, after their own kind. This isn't Darwinism.

This makes just as much sense as Astrid's posts.

Greg1234 · Jan 30, 2012

CabVet said:
This makes just as much sense as Astrid's posts.

Storks generate their own kind. Frogs also. Still don't get it?

CabVet · Jan 30, 2012

Greg1234 said:
Storks generate their own kind. Frogs also. Still don't get it?

That has no relation to what I said. Still don't get it?

MoonLancer · Jan 30, 2012

Greg1234 said:
Storks generate their own kind. Frogs also. Still don't get it?

whats a kind? mind you i don't want examples, i want a definition.

cupid dave · Jan 30, 2012

A "kind" is the same idea as a species since one "kind" is different from all other kinds.

Genesis tells us that there were 22 "kinds" of "men" one after the next.
They were not individual men, but a "kind" of man.
We know this because each "kind" lived way beyond the life span of any "kind" of animal on earth.

And we know this because the Bible tells us that Adam means a "kind," not a person nor individual:

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

Keachian · Jan 31, 2012

cupid dave said:
A "kind" is the same idea as a species since one "kind" is different from all other kinds.

Genesis tells us that there were 22 "kinds" of "men" one after the next.
They were not individual men, but a "kind" of man.
We know this because each "kind" lived way beyond the life span of any "kind" of animal on earth.

And we know this because the Bible tells us that Adam means a "kind," not a person nor individual:

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Gen 5:2 [/FONT][FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name "Adam," (a species or kind) in the day when THEY were created[/FONT]

You know this doesn't actually help to define the creationist concept of 'kind' neither does it really help the fact that your beliefs are incredibly wackey

Psudopod · Jan 31, 2012

astridhere said:
Look at this above. Another whole page of woffle that goes nowhere near what I spoke to in the falsification of erectus's near humanity.

I'll repeat, if you cannot defend erectus as being an intermediate in relation to the latest research from your own evolutionary researchers then I win my point. It is that simple.

But there's nothing to refute because you have provided no evidence. You've asserted that
- erectus is a non-human ape, something that no one disagrees with. Erectus is an ape, like humans, but is not homo sapiens.

-erectus is hairy, like a chimp, but provided no evidenced.

-that erectus could not have lit fires, despite evidence of controlled fires with some erectus remains. This also ignores the fact that if these were deliberately lit, it is not a skill most erectus had by the looks of things, so whether they could or could not is largely irrelevant.

-that erectus was too stupid to look after a dependant infant, ignoring that erectus had only a slightly smaller skull than modern human, and that many mammals that are considerably less intelligent than great apes manager to know how to feed their young and offer them the teat, rather than having a clinging infant that finds it themselves.

As I said some of you can only look up answers spoon fed to you. Many of you are unable to use your own reasoning ability to reply to my interpretations.

And yet for all this you cannot type quote /quote and put it in the appropriate brackets. </cheap shot>

MoonLancer · Jan 31, 2012

cupid dave said:
A "kind" is the same idea as a species since one "kind" is different from all other kinds.

Genesis tells us that there were 22 "kinds" of "men" one after the next.
They were not individual men, but a "kind" of man.
We know this because each "kind" lived way beyond the life span of any "kind" of animal on earth.

And we know this because the Bible tells us that Adam means a "kind," not a person nor individual:

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Gen 5:2 [/font][FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name "Adam," (a species or kind) in the day when THEY were created[/font]

Saying its the similar to an already well defined scientific term is not really helpful and just makes the concept look inadequate

mzungu · Jan 31, 2012

First of all Evolution is a process and the Theory of Evolution explains this process in a scientific way! Darwinism is not evolution as it implies a belief. Calling ToE, Darwinism is akin to calling quantum physics, Einsteinism!

Secondly; Humans ARE apes! We belong to the ape family!

mzungu · Jan 31, 2012

Greg1234 said:
Storks generate their own kind. Frogs also. Still don't get it?

What on earth is a "Kind" Could you give us the taxonomical definition of kind

AV1611VET · Jan 31, 2012

Let's see where this goes:

mzungu said:
What on earth is a "Kind" Could you give us the taxonomical definition of kind

Kind = Genus

Online Etymology Dictionary -- genus said:
kind

mzungu · Jan 31, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Let's see where this goes:

Kind = Genus

Thank you!
Now about the "Darwinism" "Einsteinism" analogy?

What proof would you need? (2)

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

INVICTUS

Question everything

INVICTUS

On Sabbatical

Senior Member

In the beginning was El

Question everything

In the beginning was El

Question everything

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

cupid dave

Guest

On Sabbatical

Godspeed, Spacebat

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

INVICTUS

INVICTUS

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

INVICTUS

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency