What proof would you need? (2)

[Astridhere]

I ignored you first because your post was rambling on and on. Hence, I didn't bother replying to each ramble.

quote]

The irony.

You may evade the point as much as you like with as many asides and flavours of the month you wish to present and still none of it demonstates that any of these evolutionary researchers have any clue what they are talking about.

You should have a look at that ancestors tale. It's a hoot!

Dawkins has stated that parts of his genome are closer to a chimp than to another human. What a hoot! The book is great in that it sets out the cracker nonsense evolutionists evoke in straw grabbing for common ancestry.

Lucy and all the rubbish you lot go on with in relation to her humanity and she is seen by many as a chimp ancestor...another hoot!

If this post I ignored is so important and you believe you have actually come up with something novel, then please requote it. I'll entertain you. However if it is the same old thing, facing off flavour of the month that has not been observed or mythical extrapolations of same then it will be a waste of our time.

If these researchers did in fact know what they were talking about new finds and genomic data would not send every piece of evidence you lot hold up as support for evolution down the dunny. They have not got it right and will never get it right because the theory of evolution is based on the false assumption of common ancestry. The more you find the more confused they will become and as far as common ancestry goes that is exactly what is happening. More questions, No answers.

 

[USincognito]

since when were chimpanzees exclusively quadrupedal? Or for that matter most Apes?

Chimpanzees are obligate quadrupeds. That's determined by the placement of the foramen magnum relative to the skull and spine. That doesn't mean they're exclusively quadrupeds like hoofed animals for example.

It's the placement of the foramen magnum in Taung Child that answered the bipedalism first/brain first question and tells us all sorts of things about evolution in Australopithecines.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

You may evade the point as much as you like with as many asides and flavours of the month you wish to present and still none of it demonstates that any of these evolutionary researchers have any clue what they are talking about.

You should have a look at that ancestors tale. It's a hoot!

Dawkins has stated that parts of his genome are closer to a chimp than to another human. What a hoot! The book is great in that it sets out the cracker nonsense evolutionists evoke in straw grabbing for common ancestry.

Lucy and all the rubbish you lot go on with in relation to her humanity and she is seen by many as a chimp ancestor...another hoot!

If this post I ignored is so important and you believe you have actually come up with something novel, then please requote it. I'll entertain you. However if it is the same old thing, facing off flavour of the month that has not been observed or mythical extrapolations of same then it will be a waste of our time.

If these researchers did in fact know what they were talking about new finds and genomic data would not send every piece of evidence you lot hold up as support for evolution down the dunny. They have not got it right and will never get it right because the theory of evolution is based on the false assumption of common ancestry. The more you find the more confused they will become and as far as common ancestry goes that is exactly what is happening. More questions, No answers.

How can you expect to take you seriously if you (a) don't even try and understand what people who know more than you do about the subject are telling you (b) insist that your ideas are correct even though you haven't tried to understand what you are being taught (c) maintain that you know more than every expert in the field and (d) blatantly ignore or deliberately misunderstand (one can only hope it's deliberate) any feedback that disagrees with you?

This is why people give up on trying to have a constructive exchange with you. It isn't because you have come up with objections that could overturn 150 years of science, it is because you don't show any signs of being capable of or wanting to understand or learn what is wrong with your ideas even when it is explained slowly to you in words of one syllable. The fault is yours. You can only expect so much indulgence from people before they decide that they are wasting their time, effort and knowledge, and move on to someone else more interesting.

 

[Astridhere]

How can you expect to take you seriously if you (a) don't even try and understand what people who know more than you do about the subject are telling you
Apparently these boofheads you call evolutionary researchers do not know more than me, they just like to think their convolutions actaully mean something. They do not. They have heads full of twoddle and call that knowledge.

(b) insist that your ideas are correct even though you haven't tried to understand what you are being taught
Here you indicate I CAN THINK FOR MYSELF. Thanks.

Your unstable theory is a joke and a mess of contradictions with butt covering excuses to save itself from zombification. I understand that perfectly well.

(c) maintain that you know more than every expert in the field and
Oh you mean the researchers that keep falsifying each others theories and discrediting each other. Yes I hope I am better than they. For starters I am not intoxicated and inculcated to accept ridiculous non palusibility and contradictions as reality and that is a great start.

(d) blatantly ignore or deliberately misunderstand (one can only hope it's deliberate) any feedback that disagrees with you?

Flavour of the month will never be evidence, and feedback based on flavour of the month and 150 years of instability should be disagreed with. Everything you 'know' will again head for that great garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past. Past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour, hence all you 'know' about 'how it all evolved' and why will soon again turn to dust. Not accepting the non plausible readily is one of the hallmarks of a reasoning mind, a trait lost by evolutionary intoxication.

This is why people give up on trying to have a constructive exchange with you. It isn't because you have come up with objections that could overturn 150 years of science,(you mean 150 years of falsifications and instability) it is because you don't show any signs of being capable of or wanting to understand or learn what is wrong with your ideas even when it is explained slowly to you in words of one syllable. The fault is yours. You can only expect so much indulgence from people before they decide that they are wasting their time, effort and knowledge, and move on to someone else more interesting.
They give up because in actual fact none of them have any more than nonsense and contradictions to offer against my well reasoned arguments based on observation. Nor can they, or you, offer any more than flavour of the month likely headed for the rubbish bin

Well after that little rant, Mr Strawberry, I'd say you are unable to refute me in any way and seek your jollies for the day on posting ridicule as your best defence. Too bad ridicule and empty words have no scientific base.

There are no human/non-human ape intermediates, lovey, and the distorted, biased, misrepresented, non plausible scenarios evolutionists have to offer still do not present any evidence for human ancestry to any non human ape.

No human to non human ape intermediates = Proof of creation

Mess and contradiction for over 150 years = Falsification of TOE.

It is that simple, so I do not expect evolutionists to be able to deal with it. Evos talk about parsinomy then go ahead and complicate every evidence for creation with convoluted, and ridiculous myths eg half wits caring for dependent babies and lighting fires that none of you have dealt with as yet. ..As opposed to the obvious evidence that erectus/ergaster were just hairy, non human apes of various varieties.

 

[Astridhere]

Chimpanzees are obligate quadrupeds. That's determined by the placement of the foramen magnum relative to the skull and spine. That doesn't mean they're exclusively quadrupeds like hoofed animals for example.

It's the placement of the foramen magnum in Taung Child that answered the bipedalism first/brain first question and tells us all sorts of things about evolution in Australopithecines.
Rubbish. You have apes like Taumi that are speculated to be bipedal, hence the position of the foramen magnum is no indication of humanity.

The data were used to test the hypothesis that BSBIP and BSBIC measurements do not sufficiently distinguish P. troglodytes from hominids. While basion to biporion (BSBIP) does not effectively distinguish P. troglodytes from Plio-Pleistocene hominids and humans when used univariately, basion to bicarotid (BSBIC), when used univariately or bivariately with BSBIP, can be used to test whether or not an unknown specimen is a hominid. These results are used to evaluate the hominid status of Ardipithecus and Sahelanthropus.

Foramen magnum position variation in Pan troglodytes, Plio-Pleistocene hominids, and recent Homo sapiens: implications for recognizing the earliest hominids. | Mendeley

As you see above, it takes convolutions and algorithmic magic, as the only means of maintaining your myth. You have bipeds around for more than 8my and likely 20my in the orang.


This nonsene of the positioning of the foramen magnum being indicative of humanity is just that, algorithmic nonsense.

A new hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad, Central Africa : Article : Nature
Position, shape and direction of... [Ital J Anat Embryol. 2007 Jul-Sep] - PubMed - NCBI

Even your mate Dawkins suggests, and many others, that chimps may well have, perhaps/maybe, decendent from from human like bipeds.

What! No apology for the ridicule you aimed at me over Dawkins?

If Lucy was a biped with all that humanity tucked away in her lower body, yet was a chimp or gorilla ancestor as suggested, then any traits related to bipedalism and reduced pelvis is obviously no more than straw grabbing by researchers that speak to these. These evo researchers really have no idea but are hell bent on supporting the impossible by any desperate means available.

 

[pgp_protector]

Astridhere For the love of God, learn how to edit quotes.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7626981/

 

[Astridhere]

pgp for the millionth time, I know how to use the multi quote function, but my PC just won't have it.

You do not have to reply paragraph by paragraph. I am smart enough to make the connections myself.

..of course, that is, if you actually have something to say.....

 

[Tinker Grey]

Really?

You can trouble yourself to do [color=red][/color] over and over but your "computer" can't handle [quote][/quote] over and over?

 

[Astridhere]

Really?

You can trouble yourself to do [color=red][/color] over and over but your "computer" can't handle over and over?

I love it when evos zero in on sidewinds and meander down the road of nothingness because it demonstrates clearly you have nothing of sustance to add.

 

[Astridhere]

The data were used to test the hypothesis that BSBIP and BSBIC measurements do not sufficiently distinguish P. troglodytes from hominids. While basion to biporion (BSBIP) does not effectively distinguish P. troglodytes from Plio-Pleistocene hominids and humans when used univariately, basion to bicarotid (BSBIC), when used univariately or bivariately with BSBIP, can be used to test whether or not an unknown specimen is a hominid. These results are used to evaluate the hominid status of Ardipithecus and Sahelanthropus.

Foramen magnum position variation in Pan troglodytes, Plio-Pleistocene hominids, and recent Homo sapiens: implications for recognizing the earliest hominids. | Mendeley

As you see above, it takes convolutions and algorithmic magic, as the only means of maintaining your myth. You have bipeds around for more than 8my and likely 20my in the orang.


This nonsene of the positioning of the foramen magnum being indicative of humanity is just that, algorithmic nonsense.

A new hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad, Central Africa : Article : Nature
Position, shape and direction of... [Ital J Anat Embryol. 2007 Jul-Sep] - PubMed - NCBI

Even your mate Dawkins suggests, and many others, that chimps may well have, perhaps/maybe, decendent from from human like bipeds.

What! No apology for the ridicule you aimed at me over Dawkins?

If Lucy was a biped with all that humanity tucked away in her lower body, yet was a chimp or gorilla ancestor as suggested, then any traits related to bipedalism and reduced pelvis is obviously no more than straw grabbing by researchers that speak to these. These evo researchers really have no idea but are hell bent on supporting the impossible by any desperate means available.

Where are the old timers, instead of the do drop ins with drop dead comments.

I want USincognito here to eat humble pie.

 

[mzungu]

Where are the old timers, instead of the do drop ins with drop dead comments.

I want USincognito here to eat humble pie.

Yes dear, some tea perhaps?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Well after that little rant, Mr Strawberry, I'd say you are unable to refute me in any way and seek your jollies for the day on posting ridicule as your best defence. Too bad ridicule and empty words have no scientific base.

There are no human/non-human ape intermediates, lovey, and the distorted, biased, misrepresented, non plausible scenarios evolutionists have to offer still do not present any evidence for human ancestry to any non human ape.

No human to non human ape intermediates = Proof of creation

Mess and contradiction for over 150 years = Falsification of TOE.

It is that simple, so I do not expect evolutionists to be able to deal with it. Evos talk about parsinomy then go ahead and complicate every evidence for creation with convoluted, and ridiculous myths eg half wits caring for dependent babies and lighting fires that none of you have dealt with as yet. ..As opposed to the obvious evidence that erectus/ergaster were just hairy, non human apes of various varieties.

Thank you for proving every point I made correct. Irony isn't on your radar apparently.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Where are the old timers, instead of the do drop ins with drop dead comments.

You have had it explained to you why they have mostly given up on you as a hopeless pupil. Seemingly you are incapable of understanding this either.

 

[Astridhere]

You have had it explained to you why they have mostly given up on you as a hopeless pupil. Seemingly you are incapable of understanding this either.

Actually all the evolutionists woffle since my erectus challenge has demonstrated is that it has been totally ignored and unchallenged.

As all can see by going back a few pages not any one of you have offered any substantial theory or alternative explanation that aligns with observation.

Hence by default all the garble, ridicule and comics actually do not address my post at all and hence I WIN. I win in that I can offer a creationist paradigm that aligns with ALL the data, as opposed to you lot who haven't produced anything.

Don't feel too bad because the reasonings that your very well credentialed researchers offer, that none of you have found let alone tried to use, are in themselves contradicted by observation. eg half wits cannot raise dependent neonates hence were furry apes. However at least your evo researchers have offered a non plausible explanation as opposed to you lot that have provided no more than Bla, ridicule comics, asides, denial but nothing that looks like reply let alone a refute.

The proof in the pudding is that the old timers have left because they simply cannot refute me nor can they lead the conversation down the garden path until they score a hit.

So you lot of newcomers to my challenge have actually done the same thing and NOT presented any substance what so ever.

Erectus/ergaster are no more human than a modern day gorilla. Your misrepresented fossils, like Turkana Boy, humanized to the hilt, is mess of contradiction, has morphed from athlete to short waddler, requires a pelvic reconstruction to align with the new flavour of the month. Erectus is primitive and hugely sexually dimorphic, lacks higher reasoning ability, abstract thought and sophisticated language, did not have the human FOXP2 gene, and demonstrates no sign of humanity.

Lucy, autralopithecus afarensis, is a chimp ancestor as supported by Dawkins and several other evo researchers and all her sprooked humanity is really no more than a desperate delusion and the same goes for erectus and all the other misrepresented intermediates.

No human link to a common ancestor with chimps = Support for the instant Creation of mankind.

Again I win my point by default and your smart butt comments do not take that away from me.

 

[Keachian]

No human link to a common ancestor with chimps = Support for the instant Creation of mankind.

No that is illogical

We know that evolution implies that all organisms have a common ancestor. You are assuming that there is no common ancestor us with chimpanzees. While this assumption does by the rules of natural deduction imply that evolution did not occur you have yet to prove two things, that your assumption is correct and that no evolution implies special creation.

 

[mzungu]

Actually all the evolutionists woffle since my erectus challenge has demonstrated is that it has been totally ignored and unchallenged.

As all can see by going back a few pages not any one of you have offered any substantial theory or alternative explanation that aligns with observation.

Hence by default all the garble, ridicule and comics actually do not address my post at all and hence I WIN. I win in that I can offer a creationist paradigm that aligns with ALL the data, as opposed to you lot who haven't produced anything.

Don't feel too bad because the reasonings that your very well credentialed researchers offer, that none of you have found let alone tried to use, are in themselves contradicted by observation. eg half wits cannot raise dependent neonates hence were furry apes. However at least your evo researchers have offered a non plausible explanation as opposed to you lot that have provided no more than Bla, ridicule comics, asides, denial but nothing that looks like reply let alone a refute.

The proof in the pudding is that the old timers have left because they simply cannot refute me nor can they lead the conversation down the garden path until they score a hit.

So you lot of newcomers to my challenge have actually done the same thing and NOT presented any substance what so ever.

Erectus/ergaster are no more human than a modern day gorilla. Your misrepresented fossils, like Turkana Boy, humanized to the hilt, is mess of contradiction, has morphed from athlete to short waddler, requires a pelvic reconstruction to align with the new flavour of the month. Erectus is primitive and hugely sexually dimorphic, lacks higher reasoning ability, abstract thought and sophisticated language, did not have the human FOXP2 gene, and demonstrates no sign of humanity.

Lucy, autralopithecus afarensis, is a chimp ancestor as supported by Dawkins and several other evo researchers and all her sprooked humanity is really no more than a desperate delusion and the same goes for erectus and all the other misrepresented intermediates.

No human link to a common ancestor with chimps = Support for the instant Creation of mankind.

Again I win my point by default and your smart butt comments do not take that away from me.

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!

 

[CabVet]

Actually all the evolutionists woffle since my erectus challenge has demonstrated is that it has been totally ignored and unchallenged.

The first challenge actually was to provide evidence for creationism, to which nobody in this forum (or elsewhere) has responded. You can try falsify evolution (which again and again you fail at) as many times as you want, that will not provide evidence for creation by an Abrahamic God.

 

[Psudopod]

What's the non-evolutionary explantion for all mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians being tetrapod?

Dear, this is based on your assumption that tetrapods 'evolved' once. You dating methods and algorithmic magic uses these assumptions as insertion values. You seriously know nothing about algorithms do you?

No, all reptiles, amphibians, birds and mammals are tetrapod is an observation. Even the ones that have lost external legs still have the skeletal structure for them, and occationally actually present atavistic legs. The evolutionary explaination is that all these creatures evolved from an ancient tetrapod ancestor. What's the creationist explanation? God really likes four legs, enough to even hide their vestigal structure in legless creatures?

And yes, I know all about algorthms, I work in IT. We're dicussing biology here though.

For atavistic tails in humans and legs in whales? The blind spot in the eye?

Eyes evolved more than once, much to your researchers dismay again forcing an evolutionary rethink.

They still evolved. And you havn't addressed my question. What is the creationist explanation for these things?

Frogs legs are similar to mankind and they aren't even a mammal.

As we would expect if frogs and humans shared a distant tetrapod ancestor. What's the creationist explaination? Why do we see practically the same bone structure in a bat's wing as we do in a human hand?

Tetrapods have been dated back to 395mya or more, where there were many different tetrapod species about by that time. Your researchers really have no idea past a wish list, really. Indeed 'if' tetrapods evolved more that once, and why wouldn't they, you would have more of a mess than you currently have. The bottom line is all these classifications are nothing more than straw grabs based on a preconcieved outcome, where your algorithms are designed to demonstrate 'common ancestry' not the truth.

You could explain where the classifications are wrong, showing your working rather than just handwaving and asserting "you're wrong!" but I won't hold my breath. You haven't done it with any other classification.

It is all desperation and seeking any straw to save TOE from death.

TOE is a zombie and had died many times. .... The walking dead that refuses to die.

Maybe that's because despite your assertions it continues to make predictions, explain phenomena and have practical applications. Unlike creationism.

 

[Astridhere]

No that is illogical

We know that evolution implies that all organisms have a common ancestor. You are assuming that there is no common ancestor us with chimpanzees. While this assumption does by the rules of natural deduction imply that evolution did not occur you have yet to prove two things, that your assumption is correct and that no evolution implies special creation.

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

You evolutionists cannot defend one basic little challenge on one of the cornerstones relating to human evolution, erectus, in relation to new evidence.

 

[Astridhere]

[/color][/size][/font]

No, all reptiles, amphibians, birds and mammals are tetrapod is an observation. Even the ones that have lost external legs still have the skeletal structure for them, and occationally actually present atavistic legs. The evolutionary explaination is that all these creatures evolved from an ancient tetrapod ancestor. What's the creationist explanation? God really likes four legs, enough to even hide their vestigal structure in legless creatures?

And yes, I know all about algorthms, I work in IT. We're dicussing biology here though.



They still evolved. And you havn't addressed my question. What is the creationist explanation for these things?



As we would expect if frogs and humans shared a distant tetrapod ancestor. What's the creationist explaination? Why do we see practically the same bone structure in a bat's wing as we do in a human hand?



You could explain where the classifications are wrong, showing your working rather than just handwaving and asserting "you're wrong!" but I won't hold my breath. You haven't done it with any other classification.

[/color]

Maybe that's because despite your assertions it continues to make predictions, explain phenomena and have practical applications. Unlike creationism.

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.