Astridhere
Well-Known Member
- Jul 30, 2011
- 1,240
- 43
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
No actually SHE is asking you to defend your science which apparently you lot are unable to do.
Upvote
0
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.
I think she is using the standard creationist technique of pointing to contoversies in determing how many different species the transitional fossils fall into as an indication that there are none. Its a dumb argument, but one often used along side of "X is just an ape and Y is just a human."
Look at the title of the thread, Astrid. What does it say?
I am asking you what features a fossil would need in order for YOU to accept it as transitional. I have given my requirements. Now it is your turn. Don't cop out.
Why does that prevent them from being transitionals?
Why does that prevent Sediba from being transitional?
You have claimed that they are NOT transitional. Where have you presented the criteria that you are using to determine this? Nowhere. I it quite obvious that there is no fossil that would ever fit your criteria, because you have none. You have dogmatic beliefs, not a defensible argument.
I did not request a picture.
You have gone on and on about my/creationists describing an intermediate human. However you are unable to articulate what a transitional fossil should like yourself.
How do you know if any fossil is transitioning from a common ancestor, which you have no idea about, into either an ape or human?Further to that we all know how valid your sketchings are after the initial misrepresentations of Neanderthal were falsified by DNA.
So let's look at this guy. I think it is Homo Habilis.
Homo Habilis skull.
Ardi's skull above
Above demonstrates how skulls are reconstructed to suit whatever evolutionists believe as flavour of the month.
Above female Bornean Orangutan. Orangs have more morphology in common with humans than chimps.
Now you explain what you are saying demonstrates the transition from some unknown ape to Ardi to Lucy to Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus to mankind.
How do you know these above are not simply apes or modern day ape ancestors? We know about convergent evolution, parallel evolution, Lluc had flat facial features 12 million years ago and indeed a female Bornean Orangutan skull looks more human than most of your erectus and habilis skulls.eg no sagital keel.
Where is the demonstration of human ancestry given even Turkana Boy, Homo erectus/ergaster, looks just the same as the rest?
Now don't cop out of this Loudmouth. Can you or can you not articulate, as to what makes any of these transitional from a common ancestor of chimps and humans you have no description of, to mankind and modern day chimps? How does the fossil record support ancestry to chimp like and ancestry to nothing like a chimp?
No actually SHE is asking you to defend your science which apparently you lot are unable to do.
Loudmouth....This is where you abandoned the disussion. It was after you demanded a description from me of an intermediate, when you yourself are unable to articulate a description yourself . . .
You do not know what the common ancestor looked like.
Instead you posted a representative picture which has the value of zilch as the Habilis skull looks just like Ardis skull, sketches are flawed... and there is no evolution.
Small diffferences are similar to individual differences in any species. Dentition and jaws are related to environment and diet.
Now stop goosing around and explain why these skulls above demonstrated no more than variation within race or breed.
There is no evolution.
There is no brain expansion,
There is also no need for pages and pages and libraries of bull when quite clearly they are all the same.
Here we go again the same old same old asides, ignorance and evasion.
The criteria I used to demonstrate this is to put the bloddy fossils up along side each other that demonstrates they are all alike. You lot come up with all sorts of woffle when all one has to do is open their eyes. It is up to you lot that reckon you know so much to refute me. You haven't.
Setting two things next to each other, seeing that they share some similarities, and saying 'Yup, they're the same thing' is not a criterion. I could put a lime, a citron, and an orange next to each other, and they would share many more features than not. Yet this does not make them the same species. Your criterion racks rigor, so it fails.The criteria I used to demonstrate this is to put the bloddy fossils up along side each other that demonstrates they are all alike.
I have articulated it in several posts now. Here is a quote from a post just a few above this one:
"H. erectus has chimp-like features that no modern human has. H. erectus has modern human features that no chimp has. H. erectus is transitional. Consider it defended."
Well that's great. You have just offered a description that falsifies all your proposed ancestors. Why? Because the common ancestor is not chimp like. Therefore if erectus is actually chimp like in any way then it is more likely to be the ancestor of a chimp. Alternatively orangs have more traits in common with mankind than a chimp.
As you see in the fossil skulls presented they are all the same. Ardi's skull may be smaller. However comparatively Ardi, Afarensis, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus all have skulls that show no less similarity to each other than the variation is race we onserve today.
Specifically, the chimp-like features are a smaller cranium and pronounced eye brow ridges. The human-like features are the pelvis and pretty much the rest of the skeleton past the head. H. erectus has a mixture of chimp-like and human-like features which makes it transitional.
However in the examples I put up this is not the case. They are all much the same and the brain case is proportionally the same in all of them.
The other evidence from your own researchers that supports my claim as opposed to yours is that Ardi and Lucy have been dethroned and are no longer human ancestors. So even your biased researchers are working out some convolution that demonstrates they do not have the necessary traits to be human ancestors. That leaves erectus. Turkana Boy's skull is just the same as the rest.
There is my definition and articulation. Now it is your turn. Don't cop out.
What you should be putting up is that you do not know. That is actually the truth. I cannot use chimp like features at all as Ardi, if he is anything like an ancesor at all, is not like a chimp at all. This is just one of the reasons you have an evolving door of human ancestors. Evos speculate so much based on absolutly no knowledge. It is actually impossible to describe an intermediate without knowing what skull shape the common ancestor had as a comparison.
I am happy to stick with your definition of transitional as it falsifies all your presented fossils as human ancestors. Anything chimp like cannot be a human ancestor as the one thing evolutionary researchers maintain is that the common ancestor was NOT like a chimpanzee.
But I do know what chimps and humans look like, and I know what the fossils look like. Therefore, I can predict that a hominid transitional should have a mixture of chimp and human featuers just like H. erectus has.
Well they cannot becuase chimps supposedly evolved from a creature that indeed looks nothing like a chimp.
Evidence for a lack of evolution please.
Done. I have demonstrated a line of fossils back to Ardi that all lok the same. One cannot see this so called evolving brain case getting bigger at all in comparison to the size of hugely sexually dimorphic creatures. They are all the same. You can see it Loudmouth. It is all a scam.
I guess you are ignoring the differences between humans, other Homo species, and Australopithecines? The differences are pretty obvious.
Show me then. I have put up a line of skulls that demonstrate there is no evolution.
You yourself have admitted that H. erectus is outside of H. sapiens values. That is what makes it transitional. It has chimp-like features that are outside of modern human values, such as the brow ridges and smaller cranium.
However that research said that humans are the outgroup and chimps are in with other apes.
Evidence please.
So you are saying that the Australopithecines have a brain the same size as modern humans, or the same as H. erectus? You would be wrong if you made such a claim.
I am saying that erectus has the same shape braincase as Ardi, Habilis, afarensis. There is no increase. There is no evolution
Show me one H. erectus that is the same as one A. afarensis. Just one.
Says the person who won't answer a single question I ask even when I answer her questions multiple times.
These are all a single species?
Please explain how all of these can be the same species.
Setting two things next to each other, seeing that they share some similarities, and saying 'Yup, they're the same thing' is not a criterion. I could put a lime, a citron, and an orange next to each other, and they would share many more features than not. Yet this does not make them the same species. Your criterion racks rigor, so it fails.
You believe that a man was created by magic from dirt and we are simply progeny of that event.You lot come up with all sorts of nonsense trying to demonstrate mankind evolved from another creature.
Yup. Sorry... you don't get it.Indeed you lot used the same line up to demonstrate mankinds evolution from something like a chimp as well as ancestry to a creature nothing like a chimp eg Ardi.
Right. 6,000 years and magic. I get it. Tiny little mind.That is really all I need to say on the matter.
You really shouldn't try to make fun of what you don't understand.Your researchers get their algorithms out and start crunching traits turned into numbers. What is more close to what they try to figure out. This is all based on the assumption of ancestry. Take the assumption away and what you have is a bunch of apes that resemble each other and mankind that stands alone.
You lot come up with all sorts of nonsense trying to demonstrate mankind evolved from another creature.
No actually SHE is asking you to defend your science which apparently you lot are unable to do.
Haven't we been through this?I guess that's why you ignored the links I provided showing how average cranium size increased over the course of hominid evolution.
I thought you're point was they all looked the same. Obviously they do not. Now you claim none of them look human. Of course none of them look human... they aren't!
Your researchers get their algorithms out and start crunching traits turned into numbers. What is more close to what they try to figure out. This is all based on the assumption of ancestry. Take the assumption away and what you have is a bunch of apes that resemble each other and mankind that stands alone.
Haven't we been through this?
Well that's great. You have just offered a description that falsifies all your proposed ancestors. Why? Because the common ancestor is not chimp like.
As you see in the fossil skulls presented they are all the same.
However in the examples I put up this is not the case. They are all much the same and the brain case is proportionally the same in all of them.
The other evidence from your own researchers that supports my claim as opposed to yours is that Ardi and Lucy have been dethroned and are no longer human ancestors.
What you should be putting up is that you do not know. That is actually the truth. I cannot use chimp like features at all as Ardi, if he is anything like an ancesor at all, is not like a chimp at all.
Anything chimp like cannot be a human ancestor as the one thing evolutionary researchers maintain is that the common ancestor was NOT like a chimpanzee.
Well they cannot becuase chimps supposedly evolved from a creature that indeed looks nothing like a chimp.
I have put up a line of skulls that demonstrate there is no evolution.
I am saying that erectus has the same shape braincase as Ardi, Habilis, afarensis.
The point of course being that none of them look human or even nearly human.
QV starting here please:I'm sure we have.
Without looking, I think God calls some of them "wonderful diseases" -- (meaning so severe, they produce wonderment).
The only one I know by name is called the 'burning ague', which supposedly produced a diminished skull.
I thought we "paralleled" the apes?
You believe that a man was created by magic from dirt and we are simply progeny of that event.
As I have formerly stated, when evolutionists cannot defend themselves with science they resort to talking about philosophies. As a matterof fact mankind is made of the elements found in dirt and the bible writers knew it before your scientists.
I accept that we are progeny of a long line of living beings. A very, very long line. The one thing we all have in common is that our parents lived long enough to give birth to us. Now go backward in time. Go back. Your grandparents... follow the line. How far back can you imagine? Double it. Keep going. Person after person fighting to survive. Eventually not living in towns or houses but living around fires. Perhaps in caves.
You accept you are an ape. You are welcome to continue. You accept a revolving door of human ancestors. You accept what you are told and follow blindly like sheep to the slaughter.
Now... here's the thing. I know you don't believe it. Frankly, that's your loss. The earth is over four and a half BILLION years old. As we make fossil finds back in time we stop finding human fossils. Why? Why aren't they around? As the fossils get older they get... different. Did a god just create different animals at different times and then erase them and start over again and again and again? Or... did life just change? Are the fossils we find at different times in the past simply our ancestors, or the ancestors of the life we see around us? Or... perhaps just ancestors of life that has gone extinct?
Bla bla. God used stages of creation and this is reflected in the fossil evidence eg Cambrian explosion. I suppose you think I have never heard this.
I accept that the men who lived in those caves, they were my ancestors. Tens of thousands of years before your myth says they were to have been there. And before them came other life. As you keep doubling the span that you can conceive of you start to see how life can change. How the fossils we find are the ancestors of life that exists today. And that's what we have in common. All our ancestors lived. They didn't die as children, they didn't get eaten, they didn't die a million different ways before they had kids.
Good for you. As I said you will believe whatever you are told no matter how ridiculous as long it has an evolutionary base eg human feet on 3.5ft curved fingered arboreal apes.
The fact that you can't accept evolution just shows you can't open your mind to such astounding panoramas as this. The vast history of millions of years containing trillions of generations of life.
The fact that you cannot defend your science adequately demonstrates whom has the upper hand here.
Ok... your loss.
Yup. Sorry... you don't get it.
It apears I get it better than you because the evidence supports creation not evolution
Right. 6,000 years and magic. I get it. Tiny little mind.
No you have the timy mind and do not realise the flaws in your dating methods let alone the bias in your algorithmic nonsense.
C14 in diamonds strongly supports young earth - two or three . net
Radioactive Dating Method âUnder Fireâ - Answers in Genesis
Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth Is Old? - Answers in Genesis
You really shouldn't try to make fun of what you don't understand.
What appears to be the most pitifull about you evos is that you continue to waddle along life beleiving your own myth that creationists are unable to defend their views, do not understand the non plausible scenarios you offer as evidence, can pull evolutionary assertions to pieces, and provide their own evidence in support of creation that is observed. The fossil evidence we are discussing here is just one example.
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?