What proof would you need? (2)

[Huram Abi]

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

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.

 

[Keachian]

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.​

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%

 

[CabVet]

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.​

And to this post, I respond with this quote:

Denial is not evidence.

 

[Huram Abi]

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.

.

If you would stop interjecting false claims, even subtly, in between the lines of your appeals to authority, stop altering the original context of these authorities, and stop implying that these authorities came to the same conclusions you do, you wouldn't need to be corrected.

You discredit yourself. I just acknowledge your incredulity.

 

[Mikecpking]

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.

I would like to see you stand up against Ken Miller.

Ken Miller on Human Evolution - YouTube

 

[cupid dave]

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.

Hahaaaaa...

You are getting ridiculous now.
Changing your statement but still wrong.



Clearly the work and evidence produced by Wegener supported a Pangea which by definition was surrounded by only one ocean.


The ancients in 1362BC knew full well that there were many other oceans and sea clearly not "collected together into one place" at that time.

Your childish position is that you will oppose anything I post to the point of being silly.

 

[Huram Abi]

I haven't changed my statement. I stand by it.

YOU claim that his work proves that "all the waters were collected into one place" Biblically, this is followed by "and the dry land appeared."

We've already established that dry land appeared long before pangea, so the two are not the same thing.


What you imply is that Wegener's work supports YOUR position that Pangea represents this biblical event.

It doesn't. You can't demonstrate that it does, which is why you resort to "LOL" "Hahaaaa" "Lame" "Childish" and "silly" in your comments which are emotional appeals, and more directly, ad homs.


My point is that Wegener's work does not support the genesis account. You equivocate Pangea to "waters under heaven collected." I don't.


So when you claim that Wegener supports "Pangea" what you mean is the geneisis account, and, sorry to burst your bubble, it simply doesn't.


Get over it.

 

[Huram Abi]

Your childish position is that you will oppose anything I post.

That simply isn't true.

Your comments on the foxes becoming dogs, while not relevant to the discussion, are not under scrutiny by me. I've left them alone because there isn't anything significantly wrong with them. And your "7 Plates," though technically wrong, there is some truth to them, so I don't confront your position there, even though it is a mistake.

I oppose your wild inaccuracies. It isn't personal.

If you haven't noticed, I oppose Astrid, too, and AV on occassion. On what issues? When their science is wrong.


That's it. As I've said before, get the science right and I'll have nothing to oppose.

 

[Zaius137]

Apparently I’m not the only one with an apes head on a human body. But I could ask why a complete human body would evolve but the head remains apelike?

Actually the head of the Turkana boy (Homo erectus/Ergaster) does not look as apelike as talkorigins website would have everyone believe.

KNM-WT 15000 (Turkana Boy)

The actual picture of the skull…

http://www.mesacc.edu/dept/d10/asb/origins/hominid_journey/pictures/ergaster3.jpeg

I believe that the head on talkorigins is either KNM-Er 1470 or the KNM-ER 1813 (both found in or near the same location) but not the Turkana boy (KNM-WT 15000). The brain cavity of Turkana boy is about 880 ccm (and that of an 8 year old child), when fully grown the brain displacement could be in the range of 1000 ccm., fitting the lower end range of brain size for Homo sapiens.



Remember mean brain sizes in humans have little to do with intelligence.. You evolutionists just get over it.

“At an average of about 973 cm3,41 the brain size of erectus is smaller than the average, of about 1,350 cm3,42 for living humans. The cranial capacity range for erectus (727–1,251 cm3) listed by Rightmire43 is in the lower end of the broadest definition of the modern-human range (700–2,200 cm3) given by Molnar.44 However, Molnar gave no source for the lower limit (700 cm3),45 and so the lowest brain size on record for a normal adult is possibly a Melanesian with a cranial capacity of 790 cm3.46

44… Molnar, S., Races, Types, and Ethnic Groups, Prentice-Hall Inc., NJ, p. 57, 1975.

46….Jue, D.S., Cranial capacity and endocranial casts, Journal of Creation 4:56, 1990”

Fossil evidence for alleged apemen—Part 1: the genus Homo

Further more I believe that some human diversity was lost during the flood of Noah. This would constitute a genetic bottle neck just like the ones claimed in evolution. My conclusions may differ with other creationists but I am convinced that the Turkana boy is fully human.

Archeology with artistic license…

I truly believe that the most beneficial class that the Paleoanthropologist takes in school is art class. Take any human skull hand it over to that crowd and whala you have an ape.

“whala a bastardized english version of the French word "voila" meaning "there it is" Often used by morons in an attempt to sound more intelligent than they are”
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?​term=whala

 

[Huram Abi]

Why don't you ask this guy:

 

[Keachian]

Actually the main reason we talk about brainsize is because of this nifty increase we've found over time

 

[Zaius137]

Why don't you ask this guy:

Funny…..

 

[Zaius137]

Actually the main reason we talk about brainsize is because of this nifty increase we've found over time

This only works when common ancestry is assumed… not so neat.

 

[Keachian]

This only works when common ancestry is assumed… not so neat.

well no, that's information pure information, what conclusions can you get from that information?

 

[Zaius137]

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).

 

[Keachian]

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?

 

[Zaius137]

Yes I can see what the graph does. What reasons could there be for the evidence that the graph shows us?

There are humans generally above 600 ccm and there are apes generally below 600 ccm (creationist view). Any interoperation beyond the raw data is in the individuals world view.

 

[Keachian]

Any interoperation beyond the raw data is in the individuals world view.

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.

 

[Zaius137]

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.

Who said the data doesn’t mean anything. My world view (consistent with the direct observations) leaves out common descent.

 

[Astridhere]

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%

Actually, if you cared to read the article I posted, it speaks to various evolutionary researchers comments including the Max Plackt Institute.

Indeed how does one quantify deletions of huge genomic regions, insertions, duplications? These are ignored in comparisons.