What proof would you need? (2)

[Keachian]

You have wasted an entire post on woffling on with your most humble and worthless opinion backed up by no more than hot air. Well done!

Condescension and baseless rhetoric.

Perhaps when I come back tomorrow I'll find someone with something intelligent to say. Prog was doing good..Hopefully I'll find his reply then....but I've got to go.....

Oh I'll get on it

Evolutionists love a good story. They have plenty of them, and like any good story teller they can make it up as they go along.....

Yep, love me a good yarn, not as much as Cupid Dave though as I'm finding out.

 

[Huram Abi]

Um, cupid Dave's a creationist, in that he's taking evidence and interpreting it through Genesis. Hence the whole 22 extinct species are the decendants of Adam.

He identifies himself as a theistic evolutionist, though through a very narrow and tortured perspective of what that entails.

Like many things he likes to discuss, he's formed an opinion on theistic evolution without fully understanding what it is.

 

[someguy14]

Love is the foundation of all, friend.

 

[Huram Abi]

That is pleasant. I will receive it.

 

[Keachian]

Actually I support all my assertions with evolutionary twoddle

I haven't seen any "evolutionary twoddle" that you understand enough to assert anything.

The point being of course that evolutionists have no idea. It is all based on the assumption of common descent

I would disagree. What proof do you have of this accusation?

This is the best line you evos put up to butt cover. Indeed new information is meant to support the status quo, not change it, sometimes dramatically. All you lot have is a theory in evolution itself with no predictive capability.

Really? That's not how I understand the scientific method and indeed it is the antithesis of what falsification is

And that still shows evo researchers have no idea what they are talking about.

Really, how? Oh it's your biased objection that humans shouldn't be considered animals right?

We have similarities to a banana so that means absolutely nothing

We have far more similarities to the other Great Apes, see that's the whole idea of the nested hierarchy and taxonomic classification in general, before evolution came on the scene we were already using the nested hierarchy to classify life.

Because I get sick of simplistic replies like " I can prove evolution because man is classed as an ape so they are an ape". We are an ape only because evos put us there on the assumption of common ancestry.

That is OK because they also do not know what they are talking about regardless of their education. Proof..150 years of sprooking we evolved from a knucklewalking chimp like ancestor with the irrefuteable evidence to support it that only an idiot would not accept and understand....now down the shute and in the garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past. Does this old war cry sound familiar?????

So what makes you any more qualified?
So because you have decided the theory of evolution denies the theology of the soul or the theology of salvation you do not accept it. None of science makes any statement on either of these and whether we were formed of the ground or evolved from earlier primates makes no difference to either of these.

And neither were they on the way to becoming human. Lucy is supposedly a hominid which was the great lynchpin of humanity...until you found apes were bipeds before mankind.

Why isn't bipedalism in both just as important? Bipedalism as I've said before is a trait of all great apes the development of this is crucial to understand how the great apes are differentiated from the rest of the primates and even the rest of most of the animal kingdom iirc the only other animal which has this is kangaroos and bears, though bears prefer quadrupedalism.

I am not head strong at all. You are headstrong for putting faith in researchers that call you an ape without paying any attention to observation. The hallmark of humanity is higher reasoning ability, abstract thought and sophisticated language. Apes do not display these traits. Neither do humans display a fur coat. The differences would be obvious if researchers were not so desperate to turn man into an ape.

I put faith in no man apart from Christ. On the topic of fur coat what of humans suffering from Hypertrichosis?
Abstract thought imo is only a small step away from the ability to devise and use tools, we have seen tool use in chimpanzees Chimpanzee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On Language we have taught chimpanzees sign language, if that's not sophisticated then please tell me (see further down the wiki page) the chimpanzee who was taught did teach other chimpanzees, this further shows abstract thought, the ability to learn and teach encapsulates imo all of the abstract thought that humans have.

Too bad we are made from dust and not the bone of an ape.
Yes I butted in again but you decided to talk here rather than respond to me.
I did repond to you and then thread was closed

The thread is still open and I've addressed your dust objection above

Why don't you take a crack at a definition of a human/chimp intermediate?

There are things in between humans and chimps? Nope, that's not what evolution says, rather it says that both chimps and humans were descended from the same ancestor at some point in the past our ancestors were separated from the ancestors of chimps, then as both groups developed we became different enough that we are now also separated by genetics

 

[cupid dave]

Evolutionists love a good story. They have plenty of them, and like any good story teller they can make it up as they go along.....

Yep, love me a good yarn, not as much as Cupid Dave though as I'm finding out.

It seems abundantly clear that cupid dave is saying both Genesis and evolution say basically the same thing.
That is, if one will set aside his previous insistence, that some ancient teachings of dead men are ignored.

And, if the atheists who would smash the Bible with science would read Genesis more open minded, they would see there is no real argument against the Bible.

Now Bible people can still believe Genesis in the terms they want.
BUT cupid dave is merely ADDING for educated people an interpretation that is also SATISFACTORY.

 

[Huram Abi]

No, he isn't.

 

[Keachian]

It seems abundantly clear that cupid dave is saying both Genesis and evolution say basically the same thing.
That is, if one will set aside his previous insistence, that some ancient teachings of dead men are ignored.

They don't though a literal reading of Genesis is an incredibly far cry from what I understand of your origins theology.

And, if the atheists who would smash the Bible with science would read Genesis more open minded, they would see there is no real argument against the Bible.

Atheists have far more issues with the Bible than a literal reading of Genesis, they have far more issues with Christianity than that, if you think you are doing a service to the Bible or Christianity please reassess what you are saying, understand what it looks like to both creationists, theistic evolutionists and atheists.

Now Bible people can still believe Genesis in the terms they want.
BUT cupid dave is merely ADDING for educated people an interpretation that is also SATISFACTORY.

How educated are you targeting? I'm an undergrad and I find your interpretation so very unsatisfactory.

 

[Huram Abi]

I find your interpretation so very unsatisfactory.

It's a consensus.

 

[Psudopod]

You've presented a minority view as if it were fact. You can always find people who present an outlying view, even amongst genuine scientists, those who will refuse to accept what the evidence shows. The fact that they have this opinion doesn't make it reality.

[quote=astridhere]Oh rubbish...These scientists only disagree that morphology should not over ride DNA. They have not problem with the comaprison

[/quote]

No it is not rubbish. You can find any number of scientists who have tenatiously held opinions that are not backed up by evidence - look at Pauling and vitimin C for example.

I'm not sure what you mean by your second statement, because that is precicely what they are proposing - that the comparision of morphology between humans and orangs overrides the genetic comparison between humans and chimps.

If they are chimp / gorrilla ancestors, why do they show human traits?

What are human traits. You may like to go back and see to save the circular carry on of my having to repeat everything a thousand times because some evos have the memory retention of a worm.. You lot have no idea what human traits are anymore.

No, because I can't just look in the mirror and see all the traits I have, such as small canines, bipedal motion, no cranial ridge, wide pelvis etc, that do not appear in chimps, oh no! The history of when these appeared may not always be clear, but it's crazy to claim we do not know what human traits are: there are lots of humans out there to look at.

That is journalism, and pretty poor journalism at that.

Oh woffle... The falsification of our knucklewalking ancestry demonstrates that widely accepted common knowledge can be rubbish..and it is

Again, not woffle. The source you linked to was not scientific, but a peice of journalism, and a poor one at that. No decent source would make comments like this "comparative studies published in 2009 ruled out the possibility that she was an ape."

No it wouldn't. The genomic comparisions are completely independent. And even if it does turn out that humans are closer to orangs than chimps, that in no way falsifies evolution. Even the wikipedia article you copied provides a mechanism for how it could come about.

Oh garbage. You obviously do not know about bootstaps and that is just for starters...

Go on then, explain how the morphology of orangs changes what we know about human and chimp genetics.

Perhaps if you understood evolution a bit better you would. You certainly would stop trying to falsify it by talking about a specific point in human evolutionary history. Even your sources show that what you are trying to argue in no way affects evolution

I appear to know more about it than you

So why do you make comments like:

"
Then there is drosophila experiments. You have done many things with these like get them to grow legs off their heads, grow a set of useless wings, found that advantageous alleles come with a disadvantage like less resistence to starvation and low birth weight, try to set an allele for accelerated development which did not fix in a population over 600 generations that is equivlent to 12000 human years. Evolutionary researchers can observe adaptation and give new names to that variation. However, fruit flies remained fruit flies."

"Evolutionists extrapolate and speculate that these adapations will morph a mouse deer into a whale or an ape into a human, a bacteria into an elephant. "

and

"Do you think island fauna like lizards will morph back to some kind of fish with rising sea levels or to escape prey?"

All these comments show a lack of understanding of evolution. The fact you focus on human natural history as if this has any validity on the theory of evolution is another indicator. If it does turn out humans evolved from organutans and not chimps, all that would mean is that humans evolved from orangs not chimps. It doesn't make creationism magically true.

You have wasted an entire post on woffling on with your most humble and worthless opinion backed up by no more than hot air. Well done!

You dismiss all my points as rubbish or woffle without valid explanation, and finish off by being rude and condecending, and it's me you are saying well done to? There's an appropriate bible verse that comes to mind, something about motes and beams?

 

[Huram Abi]

Pongo clade is where I'd put my money.

 

[Loudmouth]

I predicted Turkana Boy, yiur prize specimen, would undergo a reconstruction and so he has. Unknown to me it had already occured. Gee I am good! I just knew the Gona fossil would unhinge Turkana Boy.

The reconstruction is still more human-like than the pelvis of any living ape. That makes H. erectus transitional. H. erectus is STILL transitional. That is what you keep trying to hide behind your rhetoric, but it is still there.

The thing I like best about you lot trying to humanize an ape is that your reconstructions can change in light of new data like the Gona female erectus pelvis.

The reconstruction is still more human-like than any other ape or hominid species. That makes it transitional.

Turk has shrunk to 5"4' and some researchers say shorter, stout build, very wide pelvis instead of hte nice little athletic one, he has less vertical and shorter processus spinosi mid-thoracally than in humans meaning he was not likely to be standing upright, flaring ilia not suitable for running and more like a wader, very long femoral neck and very horizontal, very low vertebrae, cranio-caudally 2/3 of humans, and he still has an ape head like before.

Humans also have an ape head, because we are apes. Do you really think that throwing the ape label on a fossil somehow negates the transitional features in the fossil? Is that what your argument boils down to? If so, you have missed the mark by a long shot. H. erectus has so many modern human features that many creationists argue that they are modern humans. This is how transitional H. erectus is. Even creationists can't make their mind up.

The Turkana Boy pelvis is also out of whack, and obviously so.

Actually, it is very difficult to tell. There is a pubic process on one side but not the other. This can skew your view of it. Also, I see no way of making this pelvis look more like the narrow pelvis of other apes. Do you? Every feature in that pelvis is more like modern humans than any other ape. That is a fact. That is what makes H. erectus transitional.

Now you have this thing that does not look human at all. In fact Turk has very large acetabula and femoral head (hip joints) much larger that in apes and apiths.

Chihuahuas have a much smaller head than great danes. Does this mean that they are not dogs?

So one find in Ardi changes the whole story that you lot went on a bout for 150 years, not that long ago and now the Gona female has knocked Turkana Boy of his 'human like' pedastal.

Turkana boy is still human like. That has never changed no matter how much you want it to go away. It is so human like that other creationists claim that Turkana boy is a modern human.

 

[Astridhere]

I haven't seen any "evolutionary twoddle" that you understand enough to assert anything.
Researchers ability to reconstruct fossils on the basis of their assumptions is the biggest secret in the evolutionary world. The truth is that these evos can humanize or ape up and fossil as it suits them and flavour of the month

I would disagree. What proof do you have of this accusation?

As anyone can see I put up evidence to support my opinion. You lot rarely contribute more than opinion
Really? That's not how I understand the scientific method and indeed it is the antithesis of what falsification is


Really, how? Oh it's your biased objection that humans shouldn't be considered animals right?

No not right at all but a desperate misrepresentation of what I assert. Evos are good at it.
We have far more similarities to the other Great Apes, see that's the whole idea of the nested hierarchy and taxonomic classification in general, before evolution came on the scene we were already using the nested hierarchy to classify life.

Nested heirarchies are rubbish. Where is your nested hierarchy now that modern birds predate arch. Your mested heirarchies sure do not take the Y chromosme into consideration nor any genomic differences.



So what makes you any more qualified? What makes you qualified. Evo researchers get their credentials off the back of Corn Flakes packets..it seems.
So because you have decided the theory of evolution denies the theology of the soul or the theology of salvation you do not accept it. None of science makes any statement on either of these and whether we were formed of the ground or evolved from earlier primates makes no difference to either of these.
This is the biggest load of faeces ever. I have often stated that ones view on how God created means nothing re salvation.

Seeing as you are also prepared to make it up as you go along I shouldn't bother with the rest of your post.

Theist evolutionsists believe God decided to give an ape a soul..good for you.

Why isn't bipedalism in both just as important? Bipedalism as I've said before is a trait of all great apes the development of this is crucial to understand how the great apes are differentiated from the rest of the primates and even the rest of most of the animal kingdom iirc the only other animal which has this is kangaroos and bears, though bears prefer quadrupedalism.

Listen pal, there is no use squirming about this. Your own evo researchers now know that bipedalism is not a human trait. Deal with it.
I put faith in no man apart from Christ. On the topic of fur coat what of humans suffering from Hypertrichosis?
Abstract thought imo is only a small step away from the ability to devise and use tools, we have seen tool use in chimpanzees Chimpanzee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On Language we have taught chimpanzees sign language, if that's not sophisticated then please tell me (see further down the wiki page) the chimpanzee who was taught did teach other chimpanzees, this further shows abstract thought, the ability to learn and teach encapsulates imo all of the abstract thought that humans have.
Oh garbage, apes use simple tools now and they are obviously not human, Here again is the prattle that tries to make even modern apes into humans. An ape cannot praise God, nor understand right from wrong. It is that simple.

The thread is still open and I've addressed your dust objection above
You have addressed nothing at all. You like to think you have.

There are things in between humans and chimps? Nope, that's not what evolution says, rather it says that both chimps and humans were descended from the same ancestor at some point in the past our ancestors were separated from the ancestors of chimps, then as both groups developed we became different enough that we are now also separated by genetics
Oh..I supose you think this is the first time I have heard this

The thing is evolutionary researchers that you bow down to and do homage to are blind boofheads.

These are able to reconstruct any shattered fossil into whatever they think it should be. We have clearly seen this in the misrepresention of rudolfensis by the Leakeys and we see it clearly in the false reconstruction of the Turkana Boy pelvis and stature.

You lot need to find intermediates and so you invent them. You make up all sorts of twoddle like stories about savanah or woodlands and what drove this and that. The Gona pelvis yet again demonstates that all these stories you call science are no more than ficticious and speculative biased nonsense.

Turkana Boy and erectus will never look the same again. These researchers are still arguing on how Turk should be reconstructed. All putting forward their woffley ideas.

Turkana Boy is now short and waddly. The female erectus pelvis is akin to Afarensis with striking similarity except the Gona pelvis is even wider that Lucy's pelvis, which by the way has also undergone many reconstructions to suit flavour of the month.

Such a wide pelvis does not support a human gait

The amplitude of motion of each lower limb would have been either too long or too short to allow the Australopithecus to walk with a human-like contralateral gait.
Paleontology : Ipsilateral vs. contralateral bipedalism

Previous models of Erectus locomotion and the woffle about environmental adaptations in this species "must be revised", and will never look the same again.

http://www.stoneageinstitute.org/pdfs/Gona_PR_English.pdf

Indeed now you have half wits bearing big brained babies and half wits being able to provide the nurturing care a big brained baby requires. For goodness sake, even a human with sufficient cognitive delay is unable to care for a neonate. Yet you lot will suck up a story that an ape headed, half witted waddler can nurture a totally dependent infant to maturity. This is new story of the day and flavour of the month. It is just one non plausible story after another. None of these stories have any basis in what is observed today and factual, let alone using any common sense. Any non plausible story will suffice to sticky tape your theory together.



Turkana Boy, juvenille

Female Bornean Orangutan juvenille

The orang looks more human than Turk.

Turkana Boy is an ape and likely the skull could be reconstructed to appear even more ape like in the hands of creationists. The public believe reconstructions are based on science. They are not. They are reconstructed on the base of an assumption and can be remodelled on a new assumption. It is all woffle and speculation. Not science. Evos have fooled the world with this nonsense.

With a less vertical and shorter processus spinosi mid-thoracally, it is unlikely that Turk even walked upright, let alone have a human gait.

Waddlers do not leave footprints with a human gait and you have them as far back as 3.7mya with the Laetolli footprints and again at 1.7mya. I predict these researchers over the next few years will toddle off and reconfigure Lucy again and many other so called intermediates, to align with this new Gona find. Or they will make up yet another fantastic story to excuse it.

If a fossil has gorilla features could it be a gorilla ancestor? Of course not. It must be human.

If a fossil has chimpanzee features could it be a chimp ancestor? Of course not. It must be human.

Hence no evidence for gorilla or chimpanzee ancestry.


Erectus is an ape. You lot have tried desprately to poof an ape into a human with biased nonsense, misleading and misrepresentative reconstructions, and story telling.

Evolutionary researchers will never let real science and observation get in the way of a good story.

 

[CabVet]

The thing is evolutionary researchers that you bow down to and do homage to are idiots.

I stopped reading there.

 

[Jazer]

I stopped reading there.

It's a valid point: "You make up all sorts of twoddle like stories". Creative writting is an essential part of evolution. They just tend to make up stuff as they go along. The amazing thing is they take it all so serious. They do not seem to hear the laughter of the people from the future joking about what they use to believe back in the good old days of evolutionary theory.

 

[CabVet]

It's a valid point: "You make up all sorts of twoddle like stories". Creative writting is an essential part of evolution. They just tend to make up stuff as they go along. The amazing thing is they take it all so serious. They do not seem to hear the laughter of the people from the future joking about what they use to believe back in the good old days of evolutionary theory.

Just repeating what Astrid is saying won't go very far. Got anything original to contribute?

 

[Astridhere]

The reconstruction is still more human-like than the pelvis of any living ape. That makes H. erectus transitional. H. erectus is STILL transitional. That is what you keep trying to hide behind your rhetoric, but it is still there.

A transistion from ape to ape or dead end is a misrepresentation and a part of the convoluted nonsense evos like to go on with

The reconstruction is still more human-like than any other ape or hominid species. That makes it transitional.

It is no more human than Lucy the chimp with all her humanity that is too derived to be human.

Humans also have an ape head, because we are apes. Do you really think that throwing the ape label on a fossil somehow negates the transitional features in the fossil? Is that what your argument boils down to? If so, you have missed the mark by a long shot. H. erectus has so many modern human features that many creationists argue that they are modern humans. This is how transitional H. erectus is. Even creationists can't make their mind up.

It is evo prattle and misrepresentation that have changed creationist minds about erectus and they should change them back. Mankind are classed as apes only because it suits the evo paradigm. In fact our intelligence and sophisticated language alone is sufficient to exclude us from beasts, if evos were not so desperate.


Actually, it is very difficult to tell. There is a pubic process on one side but not the other. This can skew your view of it. Also, I see no way of making this pelvis look more like the narrow pelvis of other apes. Do you? Every feature in that pelvis is more like modern humans than any other ape. That is a fact. That is what makes H. erectus transitional.
Erectus is an extinct ape or transitioning to another variety of ape missing in your fossil record. The pelvis is akin to Lucy, another ape, neither of which had a human gait. Given you lot have turned every ape into a biped, bipedalism is an ape trait now it seems. It is actually all rubbish and I reckon these apes were no more bipedal than some apes are today.


Chihuahuas have a much smaller head than great danes. Does this mean that they are not dogs?

No it means any species or kind can have great variety, like Lucy and Turk both being apes.

Turkana boy is still human like. That has never changed no matter how much you want it to go away. It is so human like that other creationists claim that Turkana boy is a modern human.
No he isn't. and you have yet to demonstrate what human like means these days

You have yet to explain the whackey pelvis. Last we spoke of it your excuse was multiple fossils forgeting of course that Turk is meant to be one individual.. It is not. Let's see if they do better with the next guess.

Turkana boy is not transistional to a short armed biped like Ardi (likely a gorilla), and with a wider pelvis that even afarensis, likely a chimp. Ardi and Afarensis are apes and so is Turk. Turk can be reconstructed to look like whatever you lot wish as flavour of the month. It is that simple. It is unlikely to be the same individual as the whackey pelvis demonstrates.

All Lucy's humanity belongs to apes as does Turks. The humanity in them is all rubbish.

A transistion from ape to ape is not what I am talking about and you know it. Evos like to try to bamboozle the meaning of transitional to imply rubbish. You have no intermediate ape/humans, let alone anything to demonstrate chimp ancestry. That is also clear and simple and what I am talking about. All this talk above in your post is misrepresentative nonsense based on a assumptions that change like the wind...Not science......

 

[Astridhere]

Just repeating what Astrid is saying won't go very far. Got anything original to contribute?

I appreciate Jazers support. One creationist amongst a plethora of evolutionists on the run is fun, but it is much more motivating for me if creationists pop in with support.

 

[Astridhere]

It's a valid point: "You make up all sorts of twoddle like stories". Creative writting is an essential part of evolution. They just tend to make up stuff as they go along. The amazing thing is they take it all so serious. They do not seem to hear the laughter of the people from the future joking about what they use to believe back in the good old days of evolutionary theory.

Hi Jazer. Thanks for being around.

You are correct in that these evos do not hear the laughter brought on by these ever changing stories they like to con themselves into thinking is irrefuteable evidence. Their irrefuteable evidence is about as credible as flavour of the month and Alice in Wonderland.

 

[CabVet]

I appreciate Jazers support. One creationist amongst a plethora of evolutionists on the run is fun, but it is much more motivating for me if creationists pop in with support.

He is not supporting you, he is repeating what you are saying. Support would be if he presented different evidence to strengthen your claims.