What proof would you need? (2)

Notedstrangeperson · Feb 1, 2012

Mr Strawberry said:
I expect we ate them. Given human nature I would say that would be a fair bet.

Humans (modern humans that is) have been eating each other for thousands of years and we haven't gone extinct yet. Besides, you'd think such intelligent hominids would be able to defend themselves against less intelligent cannibals.

I have my own theories but that may be going slightly off-topic.

mzungu · Feb 1, 2012

Notedstrangeperson said:
Humans (modern humans that is) have been eating each other for thousands of years and we haven't gone extinct yet. Besides, you'd think such intelligent hominids would be able to defend themselves against less intelligent cannibals.

I have my own theories but that may be going slightly off-topic.

Perhaps they died from the allergic reaction to the strawberry desert they ate after the human meal

cupid dave · Feb 1, 2012

USincognito said:
The book that led to the contemporary Creationist movement was Morris and Whitcomb's The Genesis Flood.

I would think Creationists would be more cognizant of their own history, but this is AV you're replying to.

Well the story of the ark is known to every little kids.
It is a great way to introduce kids to the Binble.

But clearly, the story is a veiled description of a factual occurence that even adults could not have been told directly.
Until this very Age, no one would have believed nor accepted the truth.

No one would have believed that modern man suddenly appeared 150,000 years ago.
Nor that other "kinds" of cave men/apes were our ancestors, etc.

But the Ark story makes sense when the word choice is examined and one sees that the dual meanings and synonyms can tell the story as it really happened.

Modern man "flooded" out of Afirca 40,000 years ago.

Mr Strawberry · Feb 1, 2012

cupid dave said:
It is a great way to introduce kids to the Binble.

I like that typo.

Tired of the same old dull sermons? Try out the new, improved BINBLE. It's chock full of sensational, brand new action-packed thrills and spills for all the family. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll stand up in your pew and yell Hallelujah, brothers and sisters. Get it now while stocks last. The Binble. Not for wimps.

Tinker Grey · Feb 1, 2012

progmonk said:
Christianity internally consistent? Heaven Forbid!

Apparently, it does.

cupid dave · Feb 1, 2012

Mr Strawberry said:
I like that typo.

Tired of the same old dull sermons? Try out the new, improved BINBLE. It's chock full of sensational, brand new action-packed thrills and spills for all the family. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll stand up in your pew and yell Hallelujah, brothers and sisters. Get it now while stocks last. The Binble. Not for wimps.

Right.

The church people need to remember that the interpretations they place their faith on were ideas that men set down in the Dsrk Ages, and more recently, in the Middle Ages.

The fail for these ideas should not surprise anyone.

We now know so much morethan any society has had ever had available to them.

Surely, since the 19th century, much of Genesis has become very reasonable.

Like, who could have guessed Wegener would provide evidence that once all the water under heaven was actually gathered together into one place around Pangea????

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Gen. 1:9 And (Father Nature, almighty Reality), God, said, Let, (Panthalassa), the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let (Pangea), the dry land appear:

(composed of the Seven Large Tectonic Plates:

1. North American Plate,
2. Pacific Plate,
3. South American Plate,
4. African Plate,
5. Eurasian Plate,
6. Antartic Plate,
7. Australian Plate),...

...and it was so.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif](Link: The number seven. Seven denoted divine completion. It is embedded in the text of Genesis. See Exegetical Points.)[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif](Click picture for more on the puzzle of number 7)[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The 7 primary Tectonic Plates of Pangea[/FONT]

Huram Abi · Feb 1, 2012

cupid dave said:
Like, who could have guessed Wegener would provide evidence that once all the water under heaven was actually gathered together into one place around Pangea????

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
[/FONT]

Wegener didn't do that, so anyone who guessed he did would be wrong.

Astridhere · Feb 2, 2012

Psudopod said:
Hah! You provide a link with an un-sourced assertion about the IQ of erectus, so I can't look at the actual study. Par for the course, but the really funny bit is this:
"

IQ tests measure something real and something terribly important, but they do not assess all of what is called intelligence. Many important mental abilities are left out. Abilities responsible for art, music, dance, cooking, mechanical invention, clerical exactness, foreign languages, caring for a baby, defeating an enemy in war, and so on, have little connection with IQ. They have little connection because literacy and numeracy have little to do with excellence in these fields."

So in trying to prove that erectus is too stupid to care for its young, you provide a source that specifically says IQ is not a good measure of many capabilities including caring for young.

You've also failed to say why sexual dimorphism prevents infant care or address the clinging response in human babies.

There is evidence for fire use with some erectus. There is not with others. Either this was something learned by a small group, or a mistake was made and the fires were not controlled. So what? None of it has any effect on erectus as a human ancestor or on the theory of evolution in general.

Um... birds and reptiles are not mammals. Really, if you don't know that, I really have no hope for you. Mammals, Astridhere, mammals. There are many mammals that manage to care for their young, offering them the teat rather than having them specifically cling on and seek it themselves. Clinging is a common trait in arboreal mammals like primates, but not so out of the trees. The question you have failed to answer, is that if these creatures, which generally have a lower brain capacity than erectus, can manage it, why can't erectus?

Also, while we're at it, you might want to consider why humans have reflexive cling mechanism, if it is something they have never had any need for.

He posted screen shots of the book while you were still looking at a wiki link.

Fossilisation is rare, but you still need to explain why we have a good number of erectus and not of modern humans. Nor any other evidence of them other than fossiliation. So don't know how you can claim point 2 is valid, real scientists have shown their fossils, where are the creationists' modern humans from that era? Finally, I can garentee if something as monumental as this was found, it would be throughly invesitigated. Look at the recent discovery of nutrinos travelling apparently faster than light. This breaks all sorts of rules, but somehow, despite those evil scientists and their evidence supressing ways, everyone knows about it.

Yes finding bidedalism earlier than expected was surprising, but nothing was fasified. Again, it was a prediction, based on the fact that bidedalism is only present in humans. There was no evidence that it had to be that way, and now we have evidence, both morphological and genetic, that it was the other way round. Interesting, but not a fasiflcation of evidence.

You're the one that keeps banging on about erectus being highly sexual dimorphic. Don't you understand what that means? Hint, the female pelvis has less of an effect on Turkana boy than you appear to believe.

These things are about the position of various species on the human family tree. If erectus is not a direct ancestor it means nothing to evolution. And nothing you have said is a falsification. Predictions have been amended when new evidence comes to light, but nothing so far has been falsified.

No it's not. One factor (brain size) was closer to humans than other apes, another factor (rate of infant maturity) was not. While these two things are linked, they are not indepentant of all other factors, therefore are not contradictory.

Explain why that is necessary, then we'll discuss. Remember, not all trait changes are grandual, and not all changes happen at the same speed.

Perhaps you can point out where any of this shows any fasification for human evolution, let alone evolution in general.

You have backed up nothing. You have not demonstrated erectus could not take care of its young, that it must be as hairy as an ape, that it has no human traits, that it is incapable of fire use etc. Inb the mean time, erectus continues to have a cranial capacity closer to humans than other apes, and females are equiped with a wide birth canal for big headed young, through their pelvis that is much more human than chimp or gorrila, and males were upright and athletic.

Also this:

is a complete lie. I have never said anything other than I work in IT.

[/quote]

Darls, you may like to look up what supporting ones assertions and big attitude looks like.

I have provided evidence of Erectus's IQ being around 50 and this is from evo researchers. This supports everything I said and asserted. The other huge clue is they were too stupid to engage in sophisticated speech. You may wiggle and deny, post a million posts and ignore the research provided as much as you want, you can hide your head in the sand as well and woffle on about sides, and still you will never refute my assertion and interpretation.

You on the other hand have provided nothing but denial and your own opinion.

In other words..YOU LOOSE ....BIG TIME.

Psudopod · Feb 2, 2012

astridhere said:
Darls, you may like to look up what supporting ones assertions and big attitude looks like.

I have provided evidence of Erectus's IQ being around 50 and this is from evo researchers. This supports everything I said and asserted. The other huge clue is they were too stupid to engage in sophisticated speech. You may wiggle and deny, post a million posts and ignore the research provided as much as you want, you can hide your head in the sand as well and woffle on about sides, and still you will never refute my assertion and interpretation.

You on the other hand have provided nothing but denial and your own opinion.

In other words..YOU LOOSE ....BIG TIME.

And I have supported, from the very link you used, that it is irrelevant to your point. IQ is not an adequate measure of maternal care. IQ is pretty much a measure of how well a person takes IQ tests.

When you feel like addressing my points rather than claiming victory, let me know.

Keachian · Feb 2, 2012

Psudopod said:
IQ is pretty much a measure of how well a person takes IQ tests.

I find it somewhat amazing that people still don't understand this

mzungu · Feb 2, 2012

Astridhere said:
In other words..YOU LOOSE ....BIG TIME.

You do realise that vanity is a sin, don't you

Your pseudo scientific explanations in no way warrant our attention! When you decide to bring forth peer reviewed evidences and a sound theory to back and explain those evidences then we may entertain them otherwise you may as well wallow in the world of make believe!

mzungu · Feb 2, 2012

progmonk said:
I find it somewhat amazing that people still don't understand this

Not to mention that IQ tests in no way represent intelligence. I am sure that a bushman of the Kalahari would fail miserably in any IQ test but when it comes to surviving in the desert then My bets are on the Bushman for we will invariably fail miserably to survive. It takes intelligence to survive under such harsh environments. I know people who have doctorates in various fields but have the intelligence of a GNU! Some of them believe in the hollow earth conspiracy while others insist that we never went to the moon!

Part of Intelligence is the ability to observe and use those observations to advantage! To comprehend and reason when faced with the unknown! To make sense of one's surroundings, etc.

Would anyone call an Inuit who has never seen a tree stupid if he fails to recognise a picture of a tree?

Notedstrangeperson · Feb 2, 2012

Psudopod said:
And I have supported, from the very link you used, that it is irrelevant to your point. IQ is not an adequate measure of maternal care. IQ is pretty much a measure of how well a person takes IQ tests.

Mzungu said:
Part of Intelligence is the ability to observe and use those observations to advantage! To comprehend and reason when faced with the unknown! To make sense of one's surroundings, etc.

Would anyone call an Inuit who has never seen a tree stupid if he fails to recognise a picture of a tree?

True, but in this case IQ tests don't apply. Dead bodies are notoriously bad at them.

In the case of extinct hominids, both Homo Erectus and the Boskops skulls (the ones who supposedly had an IQ of 150), intelligence was estimated by looking at the impressions inside the skulls - which gave them an idea of the size of their prefrontal cortex - and behavioural evidence i.e. creating stone tools.

Of course these only give us a very basic estimate of their intelligence. Chimps supposedly have an IQ in the late 40s (link). Some sources say that have IQs of up to 90 but this is only when compared to children of the same age. I find it hard to believe that a hominid as human-like as Homo Erectus was only as smart as a chimp.

cupid dave · Feb 2, 2012

Posted by Psudopod

IQ is pretty much a measure of how well a person takes IQ tests

progmonk said:
I find it somewhat amazing that people still don't understand this

That reduces to the definition that IQ s a measurement of the quanity of Truth that exists in the mental outlook of a person.

Intelligence = Truth.

"I am the Truth, the way, and the life"....

cupid dave · Feb 2, 2012

Posted by cupid dave

Like, who could have guessed Wegener would provide evidence that once all the water under heaven was actually gathered together into one place around Pangea????

Huram Abi said:
Wegener didn't do that, so anyone who guessed he did would be wrong.

Really?

You say, Wegener did not provide evidence ultimately useful to establishing the concept of Pangea?

"In 1915, in The Origin of Continents and Oceans (Die Entstehung der Kontinente und Ozeane), Wegener published the theory that there had once been a giant continent, he named "Urkontinent" (German word meaning "origin of the continents",[6] in a way equivalent to the Greek "Pangaea",[7] meaning "All-Lands" or "All-Earth") and drew together evidence from various fields. Expanded editions during the 1920s presented the accumulating evidence. "

Alfred Wegener - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

cupid dave · Feb 2, 2012

Bimbo said:
What has all this got to do with the existence or nonexistence of Gods?

UI guess it supports the veracity of things Iopost in general, and demonstrates the fail of people like Hurami to discredit my comments based on effotrs to find something or anything that supports the idea that I am wrong, at least in some little itty bitty minor way or another.

Nevertheless, you have not responded to my direct comment: that humans have been shown (by Psychologists) to behave and perceive in one or another of 12 world views which is essentially the same concept of "worshipping" or being religious to some God-headed type of behavior.

The Christian complaint from the very beginning has been that men need to stop behaving as they do, stop replicating the patterned behavior inherent in thier Mythologies, and change to a Christ-like behavior.

cupid dave · Feb 2, 2012

mzungu said:
Not to mention that IQ tests in no way represent intelligence. I am sure that a bushman of the Kalahari would fail miserably in any IQ test but when it comes to surviving in the desert then My bets are on the Bushman for we will invariably fail miserably to survive. ?

IQ Tests are not always Standardized written examinatins.

Little children can be and are tested by more practical methods.

Astridhere · Feb 2, 2012

mzungu said:
Not to mention that IQ tests in no way represent intelligence. I am sure that a bushman of the Kalahari would fail miserably in any IQ test but when it comes to surviving in the desert then My bets are on the Bushman for we will invariably fail miserably to survive. It takes intelligence to survive under such harsh environments. I know people who have doctorates in various fields but have the intelligence of a GNU! Some of them believe in the hollow earth conspiracy while others insist that we never went to the moon!

Part of Intelligence is the ability to observe and use those observations to advantage! To comprehend and reason when faced with the unknown! To make sense of one's surroundings, etc.

Would anyone call an Inuit who has never seen a tree stupid if he fails to recognise a picture of a tree?

I love to see you evolutionists backtrack and disagree with research I have provided by providing only your opinion. This is a typical demonstration of evolutionists inability to provide science to back their claims.

Evos can provide as many opinions and convolutons they wish to provide and they still will not get a stupid half wit of a primate devoid of sophisticated speech and a small neural canal that are highly sexually dimorphic like a gorilla to complete the complex task of fire lighting nor raising dependent offspring.

What proof do I need to change my view? Some robust science and some plausible scenarios behind evolutionists claims would be a good start.

Evolutionists really should wake up to the fact that their psuedo science is based on non plausible scenarios that no reasoning person should attribute merit to.

mzungu · Feb 2, 2012

Astridhere said:
I love to see you evolutionists backtrack and disagree with research I have provided by providing only your opinion. This is a typical demonstration of evolutionists inability to provide science to back their claims.

Evos can provide as many opinions and convolutons they wish to provide and they still will not get a stupid half wit of a primate devoid of sophisticated speech and a small neural canal that are highly sexually dimorphic like a gorilla to complete the complex task of fire lighting nor raising dependent offspring.

What proof do I need to change my view? Some robust science and some plausible scenarios behind evolutionists claims would be a good start.

Evolutionists really should wake up to the fact that their psuedo science is based on non plausible scenarios that no reasoning person should attribute merit to.

The Theory of Evolution is the most scrutinised and peer reviewed theory of all time. It has passed every time with flying colours and yet a sheila from down under knows better by using Cartoon science to dismiss ToE! Yeah right!

Astridhere · Feb 2, 2012

mzungu said:
The Theory of Evolution is the most scrutinised and peer reviewed theory of all time. It has passed every time with flying colours and yet a sheila from down under knows better by using Cartoon science to dismiss ToE! Yeah right!

Is that so? Evolutionists have been sucked into their own myth.

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/bi...files/1836.pdf

Indeed what you have is little genetic similarity at all, DNA that contradicts the morphological similarity with orangs being more akin morphologically to humans than chimps, non plausible scenarios about fire lighting half wits, 150 years of changing views and falsifications and researchers that are so desperate to support common ancestry that they are prepared to misrepresent anything.

Evolutionary peer review and consolidation is no more than the consolidation of the bewildered that also agreed mankind evolved from chimp like creatures only to be overthown by one single fossil as has happened many times.

Any non plausible scenario and misrepresentation is only seen as having merit by those sucked in by the evolutionary paradigm.

What proof would you need? (2)

Well-Known Member

INVICTUS

cupid dave

Guest

Newbie

Wanderer

cupid dave

Guest

Huram Abi

Guest

Well-Known Member

Godspeed, Spacebat

On Sabbatical

INVICTUS

INVICTUS

Well-Known Member

cupid dave

Guest

cupid dave

Guest

cupid dave

Guest

cupid dave

Guest

Well-Known Member

INVICTUS

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency