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 take it you don't have a basis for believing Jesus walked on water, healed the sick and raised the dead?I do, but I accept you have a basis to believe in them (the Bible), therefore I do not consider them as absurd as claiming that Adam spoke English.
I really don't think you're afraid to answer any question I put forth.
I agree.There's no point in not answering, really. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
I take it you don't have a basis for believing Jesus walked on water, healed the sick and raised the dead?
So I'll ask you again: Are those claims equally absurd to you?
So did he ride a horse or a camel? did he prefer meat or potatoes? did he speak English or Hebrew? what's the difference?There is nothing in the Bible (or in history) that indicates Adam spoke English.
I agree.
Now if everyone else thought like you do, I wouldn't have to put forth so many challenges.
My Apple Challenge, which I consider the most important post I ever made here,* was given to me in answer to prayer, IMO.Well, to be fair, your challenge threads are designed to try to trip "us" up so you can claim victory.
IT'S A TRAP!
I take it you don't have a basis for believing Jesus walked on water, healed the sick and raised the dead?
So I'll ask you again: Are those claims equally absurd to you?
My Apple Challenge, which I consider the most important post I ever made here,* was given to me in answer to prayer, IMO.
* Other than posts that have the Gospel embedded in them.
[/color]
They were part of the same sediment from the same area. Also, why don't we find modern human skulls in these sediments? Care to explain?
Yes. If you found a human skull on the basis of your theory it would be classified as earlier for no other reason than supposition.
[/color]
Again, you are erecting a strawman while ignoring the transitional features in the fossils. Why is that? Why even discuss H. erectus any further when you will turn around and ignore the fossil evidence once it becomes problematic?
So that means Ardi could be a human ancestor? Ardi could be anything
Why can't you answer the question? What is the difference between a horse and a mammal? You keep trying to separate humans and apes when humans ARE apes. Humans are apes only because you have made yourself into one by a classification with common ancestry at its base. A human and a horse a different kinds. The fact that evos propose a placenta poofed into existence on its own is nothing more than laughable
1. Not all ERV's are deleterious. That does not answer HOW a whole viral sequence crossd the germ line in line with current research and was not lethal
2. ERV transmission only requires the transfer of the viral DNA which every retrovirus does as a part of its replication cycle.So what?
3. How can ERV's be both deleterious and beneficial for placental attachment? Talk about woffling. No it is evos woffling on about hte impossible
So you are saying that H. erectus and H. sapiens could be the same species? NO
[/color]
Then you should be able to show me the intermediates between chihuahuas and this supposed progenitor. Where are they? Wolf, which is not an intermediate anything..just a dog.
Let's see:
"Through an analysis of the skull, teeth, pelvis, hands, feet and other bones, the researchers have determined that Ardipithecus had a mix of "primitive" traits, shared with its predecessors, the primates of the Miocene epoch, and "derived" traits, which it shares exclusively with later hominids."
Meet Ardipithecus Ramidus - Early Hominid Common Ancestor Was Neither Chimp Nor Human, Says Study
So Ardi had a mix of primitive features (some of which are still seen in chimps) as well as derived features found in the hominid line. Hmm, sounds like the exact mixture of characteristics that my definition calls for.
Derived traits are not chimp traits, I am not a knucklewalker. Are you? Indeed the info below demonstrates all evo assertions are no more than woffly flavour of the month. Indeed evos have stuffed 'traits' up with finding of early humans being apes and orangs. See below
[/color]
Then why do you object to H. erectus being called transitional when it has a mixture of chimp-like and human-like features? Either you agree with the definition and agree that H. erectus is transitional or you are using a different definition.
You lot have no idea what transitional means. Fraudulent reconstructions are not the basis for anything other than desperation.
There really isn't anything more to discuss at this point. When you reject one fossil becuase it is more like other apes than modern humans, and then reject another fossil because it is more like modern humans than other apes, it is very apparent that no evidence will convince you.[/quote]
There is alot more to discuss about this point, actually. Turkana Boy changed many creationists thinking about Erectus. This is about the only major change in the basic thinking of the various creationist camps.
What everyone needs to remember is that Turkana Boy's Boys pelvis was reconstructed from fragments. Reconstuctions are based on evolutionary thinking at the time and the representations can change with a change in thinking just like that.
A new erectus female pelvis has been discovered. This specimen was more intaact and complete than the misaligned pelvis of Turkana Boy.
....and Guess what? There will will soon be a change in the reconstruction of Turkana Boys pelvis based on this new find.
Clearly, something is amiss. The body size dimorphism seems reasonable, but the pelvic shape suggests extreme behavioral dimorphism as well (males were out running long distances while the females waddled around bearing children at home). This may be reasonable, but it may not be. Other Homo erectus specimens, like the ones from Dmanisi provide evidence that small body size in erectus was not unusual. Perhaps our reconstruction of the Turkana pelvis requires modification, as it seems to be an outlier.
The New Homo erectus pelvis from Gona « A Primate of Modern Aspect
So far Erectus has shrunk by 20cm and now Turkana Boys pelvis will require modification.
In this article below we see Simpson suggest that Turkana Boys pelvis was damaged.
But Simpson says Turkana boy's pelvis was damaged and the restoration of a near-complete female pelvis from Gona, Ethiopia, changes this picture.
Human ancestors had big-brained babies › News in Science (ABC Science)
I would now like to point you to this article. The reason why I use this article is because I am able to speak through the words of very well credentialed researchers that are evolutionists to add weigh to the credibility of what I am saying.
Human Ancestors Have Identity Crisis : Discovery News
Wood and Harrison, Hawks and Kivell in this article suggest...
"Others welcome Wood and Harrison's warning. An upright stance and other features once considered hominid signatures evolved independently in many ancient primates, remarks anthropologist Tracy Kivell of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany."
This is what White has to say in refute to them..
"With no new data, no new ideas, no new methods, no new hypothesis, no new experiments, no new fossils, not even a new classification, this paper will leave everybody wondering what's happened to the peer review process at Nature," White says.
Here we see White wanting the complete bamboozing story, that none of you even have at present anyway, and new classifications as a basis to undermine what Wood and Harrison OBSERVE.
Let's not also forget that the article passed through Nature's peer review process to be published and therefore was supported in majority by the reviewers.
This was similar to what some evos put to me with my skull demonstration in wanting some psuedo scientific woffle as the basis of my claims and denying simple and robust observation. Hence my posting signature is supported.
So evolutionists had Ramapithecus and Oreopithecus, that also had some so called 'human traits; that were really either orangs or apes and not human at all. The of course there is this recant of the Dikika fossil, 3.3myo, that was human and is now just an ape.
http://knol.google.com/k/a-new-look-at-the-hominoid-skeleton-from-dikika-ethiopia#
Dawkins thinks Ardi is a gorilla ancestor. Harrison and Wood also suggests that Ardi branched out into many homonids
Ardi's remains show many similarities to ensuing hominids in East Africa, White adds. He lumps all proposed early hominids into an Ardipithecus genus that evolved into the Ardipithecus genus by 4.1 million years ago. In contrast, Wood and Harrison suspect that early hominids -- whatever their identities -- branched out in many different evolutionary directions.
If the common ancestor looked Ardi-like then chimpanzees went from the sketch of an almost human like ape to a chimpanzee with curved fingers.
You have a partially complete fossil of Afarensis, Lucy and Lucy's child Salem. These demonstrate curved fingers. Suspiciously these again had no feet. You have the Laetoli footprints and a human metatarsel as the reason for putting human feet on Lucy and this was not expected until these finds. Lucy at that time had a presumed mix of human and ape feet.
Perhaps Ardi and Lucy were apes 'evolving' into chimps.
The African primate known as Ardi and a couple of other fossil creatures widely regarded as early members of the human evolutionary family -- or hominids, for short -- may really be apes hiding in plain sight, two anthropologists say.
http://news.discovery.com/human/human-ancestors-apes-110217.html
So here we have well credentialled evo researchers agreeing with one of my statements.
Then you have Turkana Boy, a crushed and non colocated fossil that has been reconstructed to appear as human as it needs to be to align with current thinking. Turkana Boy was reconstructed by the Leakeys that also grossly misrepresented Rudlofensis.
John Hawks speaks to the digital imaging and all the convolutions used to base a reconstruction on.
The Ardipithecus pelvis | john hawks weblog
This is what Hawks reckons
Lovejoy and colleagues 2009a argue that the proximal ulna morphology is consistent with this form of locomotion also, like earlier Miocene apes and monkeys. Ardi’s long apelike ischia retain the long hamstrings lever arm necessary for powerful hindlimb extension in a flexed, quadrupedal position. And although apes do not have anteriorly-flaring ilia, monkeys do.
I assert that Turkana Boy's pelvis could just as easily be reconstructed to reflect an apes pelvis or any other pelvis as required and does not prove anything. Rather evolutionists have put an ape head on a reconstructed body in line with flavour of the month and that demonstrates the non credibility of the reconstruction.
Turkana Boys pelvis is a fraud. Researchers now have a supposed female erectus pelvis that was found on its own and more complete but has also been reconstructed.
Also I cannot find an indexing of the other fossils found along side Turkana Boy, only vague mentions. I'd say Turkana Boy is a reconstruction of many species, possibly fully ape and fully human thrown together and reconstructed to produce an ape head on an body becoming human in line with current thinking but not necessarily a credible reflection of reality.
So what you have evidence of in Erectus is a mess on the back of this new find. Evos have found huge sexual dimorphism, an extra verterbra like an ape, long arms not much shorter than Ardi's huge pragnathism and could be a mix of species rather than one individual.
Mankind is defined by higher reasoning ability, abstract thought and sophisticated speech not a pelvis about to be reconstructed to align with flavour of the month. Turkana Boy demonstrates none of these clearly human traits and is therefore an ape like the rest.
So you can question everything?Wait, water went to Neptune? Noah lived in NJ, really? I want to go back to the old days when people had "conservative" interpretations of the Bible.
My 'point' was using your user title against you.Yes, even the theories of gravity and evolution. Questioning doesn't mean I will reject them, it just means I will test them. Your point?
My 'point' was using your user title against you.
I find it rather odd that someone that says 'question everything' would want to go back to the days of 'conservative interpretations'.
I realize that higher aceldama teaches you guys to question everything, and that nothing is set in stone -- but when you apply that philosophy to the Bible, it's time for a reality check; and your ivory towers mean NOTHING, and your doctorates become just a slab of carbon-based waste paper.
Google is your fiend.EDIT: The first time I saw it, I thought it was a misspelled, but now that you use it again, I am wondering, what do you mean by "aceldama"?
Oh, now all of a sudden degree means something?Oh, that's a low blow...
Yes, even the theories of gravity and evolution. Questioning doesn't mean I will reject them, it just means I will test them. Your point?
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?