Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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????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
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.
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.
Denial is not evidence.
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.
.
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.
What evidence did he provide that shows that "all the water under heaven was collected"?
THAT is your claim. And you will not find a substantiation of it in Wegener's book.
Sorry. You can't mince your words here. What Wegner did and what you CLAIM he did as you define it are not the same thing.
Your childish position is that you will oppose anything I post.
well no, that's information pure information, what conclusions can you get from that information?
I would not particularly disagree with the graph in general (what selection of specimens is a big question) but you might note that there seems to be two distinct plateaus in the data. Green and blue fall inside normal human variation (humans still fall in this green region today). Red and yellow below 600 ccm are clearly apes (as measured today).
Yes I can see what the graph does. What reasons could there be for the evidence that the graph shows us?
I'd disagree, and in fact by telling me basically that this data doesn't really mean anything you are actually expressing a predisposed worldview.
That quote actually only comes from creationist comments, originating here:
Darwin's Failed Predictions - A Response to PBS-NOVA's "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial"
Possibly from here as well but I don't have a subscription to check it out:
Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?