What proof would you need? (2)

[Astridhere]

Denying a view doesn't exactly construct one, or do we just take it as read that you're an OEC that accepts some parts of evolution?

Darls, how about staying on topic. If you cannot defend your erectus scenario against mine there is no point going elsewhere with you.

You are side winding and trying to go off topic in the hope you score some irrelevant point.

I am challenging your view against my view and so far none of you have done anything more than present smart replies, ridicule and non related questions about asides. You lot go on about 'all' the evidence yet are unable to speak to one little facet of it.

Your TOE is supported by such nonsense as the scenarios and interpretations you put around what you find. I am looking at one, Erectus. Now defend it.

If you can't defend your scenarios then stay out of it and let someone have a go that can.

Evolutionists have misrepresented and humanized erectus to the hilt. Unfortunately for you your interpretations make no sense as I have demonstrated.

Just how does a creature without the superior reasoning ability and the abstract thought of modern man work out how to make fire and control it. Have you ever tried? Do you know what woods to use for either stick? Have you had a go at making fire from flintstone? Then there is the use of dried grasses or some ignition and blowing etc etc. Have you any idea what a complex task it is?

Now erectus, including Turkana Boy is a wide hipped, short waddler, with a small neural canal, extra verterbra like an ape, lacks sophisticated language, along with huge sexual dimorphism like a gorilla.

Was the new born still clinging to mum or do you suggest this erectus creature actually held the babe in arms and knew to feed it regularly. There is nothing in the middle. One of your researchers has suggested erectus babies were born fully dependent and grew up quickly more like an ape. However, even this nonsense, does not explain how a furrless mother had the intelligence and capacity to nurture a totally dependent neonate, that unlike a non human ape, is not able to cling to mum anymore and seek a nipple when hungry. Mum has to know how to nurse the infant herself and care for the baby herself.

Erectus with the lower brain capacity is unable to complete these tasks, just like a human mother sufficiently cognitively challenged cannot take care of a neonate adequately. That is an observation.

I am saying that your humanized erectus is nothing more than a non human ape, regardless of bipedalism, which has been around for 20my according to some evo researchers.

I allege Turkana Boy with its whackey pelvis, now about to undergo a pelvic reconstruction, is a total misrepresentation, reconstructed from bones and fragments scattered over a 1250 cubic meters of dirt. He has morphed from a 6'1" athlete to a 5'4" waddler with huge sexual dimorphism. Now you lot have to come up with new scenarios to replace the falsified so called 'evidence' you have rammed down creationists throats for years in Turk the tall athlete. eg the long femoral head and narrow pelvis means an athelete, is all rubbish and headed for that great evolutionary rubbish bin of falsified flavours of the month.

If you cannot defend one of the most studied fields of evolution there is no point offering a reply.

Now, do you have something to say about this or are you going to resort to some simplistic response like bringing up everythig else except the matter at hand.



.

 

[Psudopod]

Your TOE is supported by such nonsense as the scenarios and interpretations you put around what you find. I am looking at one, Erectus. Now defend it.

The TOE does not stand or fall on Erectus. If Erectus is somehow shown not to be in the human line, this has no effect on the theory of evolution.

Just how does a creature without the superior reasoning ability and the abstract thought of modern man work out how to make fire and control it. Have you ever tried? Do you know what woods to use for either stick? Have you had a go at making fire from flintstone? Then there is the use of dried grasses or some ignition and blowing etc etc. Have you any idea what a complex task it is?

Fire use in erectus doesn't seem to be very wide spread, there's only a few examples that seem to point to it, so I'm not sure why this is such a big deal. Fire does occur naturally and by accident, given the tool use in chimps, its not unfeasible that one tribe of erectus may have learnt how to start fires. It's certainly far from an impossible senario.

Was the new born still clinging to mum or do you suggest this erectus creature actually held the babe in arms and knew to feed it regularly. There is nothing in the middle. One of your researchers has suggested erectus babies were born fully dependent and grew up quickly more like an ape. However, even this nonsense, does not explain how a furrless mother had the intelligence and capacity to nurture a totally dependent neonate, that unlike a non human ape, is not able to cling to mum anymore and seek a nipple when hungry. Mum has to know how to nurse the infant herself and care for the baby herself.

Plenty of mammals manage to feed their infants without them clinging on and seeking the nipple themselves. It is not an either or situation.

I am saying that your humanized erectus is nothing more than a non human ape, regardless of bipedalism, which has been around for 20my according to some evo researchers.

No one is claiming Erectus is a modern human, that's why it's erectus not sapiens.

allege Turkana Boy with its whackey pelvis, now about to undergo a pelvic reconstruction, is a total misrepresentation, reconstructed from bones and fragments scattered over a 1250 cubic meters of dirt. He has morphed from a 6'1" athlete to a 5'4" waddler with huge sexual dimorphism.

When has Turkana boy been described as 6'1"? And do you understand what sexual dimorphism actually means?

 

[Keachian]

Darls, how about staying on topic. If you cannot defend your erectus scenario against mine there is no point going elsewhere with you.

I've said before that Erectus isn't what the topic is so you're just as much off topic as my questions about what you actually believe are.

I am challenging your view against my view and so far none of you have done anything more than present smart replies, ridicule and non related questions about asides. You lot go on about 'all' the evidence yet are unable to speak to one little facet of it.

Yes shouting, ignoring our answers and then repeating your already disproved views is really challenging. Well actually yes it is because we have to go over and over the same things because your head's in the sand.

Your TOE is supported by such nonsense as the scenarios and interpretations you put around what you find. I am looking at one, Erectus. Now defend it.

Sure why not, please note however that I'm not a scientist nor do I claim to be one and my understanding may be far from current.

Evolutionists have misrepresented and humanized erectus to the hilt. Unfortunately for you your interpretations make no sense as I have demonstrated.

Unsubstantiated and over the top.

Just how does a creature without the superior reasoning ability and the abstract thought of modern man work out how to make fire and control it. Have you ever tried? Do you know what woods to use for either stick? Have you had a go at making fire from flintstone? Then there is the use of dried grasses or some ignition and blowing etc etc. Have you any idea what a complex task it is?

Well me being modern man and all just use matches/lighter I've seen chimps be trained to use these, that's where fire comes from right?

Now erectus, including Turkana Boy is a wide hipped, short waddler, with a small neural canal, extra verterbra like an ape, lacks sophisticated language, along with huge sexual dimorphism like a gorilla.

From my understanding Turkana Boy, represents just that a juvenile, don't our juveniles also display "short waddler" characteristics? Lack sophisticated language?

Was the new born still clinging to mum or do you suggest this erectus creature actually held the babe in arms and knew to feed it regularly. There is nothing in the middle. One of your researchers has suggested erectus babies were born fully dependent and grew up quickly more like an ape. However, even this nonsense, does not explain how a furrless mother had the intelligence and capacity to nurture a totally dependent neonate, that unlike a non human ape, is not able to cling to mum anymore and seek a nipple when hungry. Mum has to know how to nurse the infant herself and care for the baby herself.

"Chimpanzees have a long mother-infant dependency period where infants will nurse on their mothers for 5 years and stay with their mothers several more years learning to care for younger siblings." Orangutan and Chimpanzee Facts and Characteristics

You are also suggesting that the ability to find the breast and the body hair attributes that you are complaining about just switched, in doing so you demonstrate that you don't understand population drift, which is a demonstrable fact in the TOE (look at ring species)

Erectus with the lower brain capacity is unable to complete these tasks, just like a human mother sufficiently cognitively challenged cannot take care of a neonate adequately. That is an observation.

Well seeing as how chimpanzees are able to do it, I don't see how Erectus who has a larger brain capacity is suddenly unable to. Chimpanzees :

I am saying that your humanized erectus is nothing more than a non human ape, regardless of bipedalism, which has been around for 20my according to some evo researchers.

Well of course Homo Erectus is a non human ape, every ape that is not Homo Sapiens is considered a non-human ape.

I allege Turkana Boy with its whackey pelvis, now about to undergo a pelvic reconstruction, is a total misrepresentation, reconstructed from bones and fragments scattered over a 1250 cubic meters of dirt. He has morphed from a 6'1" athlete to a 5'4" waddler with huge sexual dimorphism. Now you lot have to come up with new scenarios to replace the falsified so called 'evidence' you have rammed down creationists throats for years in Turk the tall athlete. eg the long femoral head and narrow pelvis means an athelete, is all rubbish and headed for that great evolutionary rubbish bin of falsified flavours of the month.

Turkana Boy is not representative of all of the species Homo Erectus, neither is he representative of all of the fossils we have found which range in height from 4'9" to 6'1" the shortest being those specimen found in Indonesia and the tallest found in Africa(not Turkana)

 

[Keachian]

Also from that information on the height range of Erectus it is rather similar to our own don't you think?

 

[mzungu]

Your TOE is supported by such nonsense as the scenarios and interpretations you put around what you find. I am looking at one, Erectus. Now defend it.

If you can't defend your scenarios then stay out of it and let someone have a go that can.

Evolutionists have misrepresented and humanized erectus to the hilt. Unfortunately for you your interpretations make no sense as I have demonstrated.

Just how does a creature without the superior reasoning ability and the abstract thought of modern man work out how to make fire and control it. Have you ever tried? Do you know what woods to use for either stick? Have you had a go at making fire from flintstone? Then there is the use of dried grasses or some ignition and blowing etc etc. Have you any idea what a complex task it is?

First of all Chimps excel high above what humans can achieve in areas such as visual memory; So according to you Chimps are above humans in intelligence? I guarantee you that were I to drop you naked in the middle of a jungle you would not know how to survive let alone light a fire. DNA DOES NOT LIE!!!!
Human Ape | Watch Free Documentary Online

 

[jpcedotal]

It is funny how most atheist would need to see God Himself (OBVIOUS PROOF) in order to give any value to Creationism, but yet require no obvious proof to believe in evolution.

 

[USincognito]

It is funny how most atheist would need to see God Himself (OBVIOUS PROOF) in order to give any value to Creationism, but yet require no obvious proof to believe in evolution.

This statement is devoid of evidence or support, so I'll instead reply with a question - what about theistic evolutionists?

 

[jpcedotal]

This statement is devoid of evidence or support, so I'll instead reply with a question - what about theistic evolutionists?

Fence riders... gotta pick God or the flesh...can't have both.

 

[jpcedotal]

Gotta pick something you can't see and for which there is no evidence over something you can see,
that only makes sense if your brain has been tampered with and damaged.

I have yet to see anything close to evolution, but God is all around me and His Word is in my heart. I will take that damage.

 

[mzungu]

I have yet to see anything close to evolution, but God is all around me and His Word is in my heart. I will take that damage.

So i take it that you have never and shall never seek medical help? You do realise that biology makes no sense without ToE and medicine makes no sense without biology?

 

[mzungu]

They have been told that the above is all lies so there, get out of that, what have you got to say for yourself?

Banging your head up against the wall doesn't even come close to describing what it's like to engage with a creationist.

Nah! Just wait till this technology is available and we shall see who laughs last: "Captain an Earth Atheist warbird is de cloaking".....

BBC News - 'Cloaking' a 3-D object from all angles demonstrated

 

[jpcedotal]

So i take it that you have never and shall never seek medical help? You do realise that biology makes no sense without ToE and medicine makes no sense without biology?

Biology and medicine make perfect sense to me without evolution.

 

[CabVet]

Biology and medicine make perfect sense to me without evolution.

You don't know biology or medicine then.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It is funny how most atheist would need to see God Himself (OBVIOUS PROOF) in order to give any value to Creationism, but yet require no obvious proof to believe in evolution.

Besides the literal mountains of evidence, eh?

 

[Greg1234]

You don't know biology or medicine then.

Louis Pasteur Vs Antoine Béchamp and The Germ Theory of Disease Causation - 1 - La Leva di Archimede (ENG)

If you want to see a rough comparison of what's happening in a sick body, try not cleaning your house for about a year.
​

 

[USincognito]

Oh darls, your big enough to know pretty pictures don't prove anything.

Oooops, except that image was a cladogram demonstrating how the ear structures of Basilosaurids fit neatly within the ear structures of Cetacean evolution. A cladogram created by those people who actually studied the fossils and concluded that Basilosaurid ears were "functionally modern", which you interpreted as "typical" based on whatever Creationist site you read discussing something of which you'd otherwise be utterly unaware.

So who should we trust? Some gal in Oz who can't figure out how to use the quote function, relies on bogus Wikipedia content, continually refers to Au. afarensis as "Lucy", thinks all hominid species should resemble modern H. sapiens and read something on a Creationist website, or the experts who actually studied the fossils and placed Basilosaurids as transitionals between Rhodicetids and modern whales?

If you're not a troll, you're a great Creationist Astrid.

 

[mzungu]

Biology and medicine make perfect sense to me without evolution.

murder by death - YouTube

 

[Psudopod]

Biology and medicine make perfect sense to me without evolution.

What's the non-evolutionary explantion for all mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians being tetrapod? For atavistic tails in humans and legs in whales? The blind spot in the eye?

 

[CabVet]

[/size][/font]

What's the non-evolutionary explantion for all mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians being tetrapod? For atavistic tails in humans and legs in whales? The blind spot in the eye?

Keep going. Antibiotic resistance? Viral adaptation? As Theodosius Dobzhansky once said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".

 

[mzungu]

Keep going. Antibiotic resistance? Viral adaptation? As Theodosius Dobzhansky once said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".

Applause - YouTube