What proof would you need?

[sandwiches]

What a beautiful outlook on life -- isn't nature wonderful?

C'est la vie. It isn't always unicorns and genocidal floods, AV.

 

[cupid dave]

Chromosome 2 has been implicated in intelligence. If I were of your faith I would play that card because I have not seen any research that implies CH2 is related to the womb. As I said, if you have research to back this up that I am unaware of, I would be happy to see it.

Cupid Dave, you are entitled to believe what you want. People can believe in gobblins. The point being can you support your stance. Evolutionists now say Afarensis is a chimp. This is one of your 22. You would now need to mount an argument at least that supports Dawkins, a leading researcher, is wrong.

You could run with my evidence that suggests evo researchers have no idea but that is kinda weird if you are backing evolution in general but want to put your own slant on it.

You do not have to worry about the scientists or people that believe in evolution or creation because fortunately God knows what he is doing and He won't doom anyone just because of this debate.

You see evos do not care. They are used to these falsifications of previously irrefuteable evidence. It does not matter so long as someone comes up with some story to save the day and has nothing to do with creation.

I on the other hand have demostrated in Lucy and all her humanity being a chimp, that your researchers have no idea what they are talking about most of the time when discussing these fossils or dating.

I have spoken to the human metatarsel attributed to Lucy as evidence that mankind was here before their supposed ancestors. That is called support for ones view.

Check out the dating....

In 1996, scientists dated Homo erectus fossils found at these sites to about 35,000 - 50,000 years ago, based on the dating of associated animal fossil teeth.

The first two, U-series and ESR (Electron Spin Resonance), applied to fossil teeth as in the earlier 1996 tests, yielded dates approaching 143,000 years. The third methodology, argon-argon, was applied to pumice material, a light, porous volcanic rock found within the sediments. The results of this application yielded relatively precise dates around 550,000 years. Project scientists posit different plausible theories or possibilities that might account for the enormous gap between the dates obtained from the first two techniques and that of the argon-argon,...

Human Ancestor in Indonesia Died Out Earlier Than Once Thought | Popular Archaeology - exploring the past

See...

Anyway....

Really what you need to do is put some research or fossil evidence behind your claims....Which apes became Seth in the fossil record etc. What research supports ch2 and wombs etc....


You can't just say that CH2 did this or that to the womb because that actually sounds worse than what evolutionists generally present.... At least evos come up with some non plausible scenario to back up their claim. Eg human feet on Lucy....totally non plausible but ..hey.. at least they put up something that carried the story for a few years...

My pojnt is that either way, evolutionists and fundamentalists both agree on basically 22 links in the genealogy in the ascent of Modern man.

The evolutionists say these "men" lived hundreds of thousands of years and you guys say they lived 930 years.

Bill Maher ridicules the Bible by laughing at you guys, because you do not help me point out the similarities on both sides.

 

[CabVet]

My pojnt is that either way, evolutionists and fundamentalists both agree on basically 22 links in the genealogy in the ascent of Modern man.

The evolutionists say these "men" lived hundreds of thousands of years and you guys say they lived 930 years.

Bill Maher ridicules the Bible by laughing at you guys, because you do not help me point out the similarities on both sides.

That's because there are no similarities on both sides. Trying to twist the Bible to fit science is worse than accepting it as it is. The Bible (and any other religious text) requires that you have faith in it. If you try to twist something to fit another model you don't have faith in it as it is.

 

[cupid dave]

That's because there are no similarities on both sides. Trying to twist the Bible to fit science is worse than accepting it as it is. The Bible (and any other religious text) requires that you have faith in it. If you try to twist something to fit another model you don't have faith in it as it is.

Give me one example of this "twisting."

 

[CabVet]

Give me one example of this "twisting."

Sure, you want just one example? Here:

Get this book on Amazon: The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two (22) Species of Extinct Humans.

?
The Three Racial Stock Theory suppprts Gen 5:32, doesn't it?


32And Noah is a son of five hundred years, and Noah begetteth Shem, (Mongoloids), Ham, (Negroids), and Japheth, (Caucasians).

 

[cupid dave]

Sure, you want just one example? Here:

Its not a twist.

Its just different from your explanation how men lived 950 years instead of 950 thousand as they underwent gradual changes in their physical and mental capabilities.

Remeber that a day to the lord is like a thousand year to us.
And reflect on the need to argue that people did live to almost a 1000 once whem there is no evidence this is possible.

 

[CabVet]

Its not a twist.

Its just different from your explanation how men lived 950 years instead of 950 thousand as they underwent gradual changes in their physical and mental capabilities.

Remeber that a day to the lord is like a thousand year to us.
And reflect on the need to argue that people did live to almost a 1000 once whem there is no evidence this is possible.

It is not what the Bible says, therefore it is a twist.

 

[USincognito]

GO BUY THE BOOK

Not only did he buy the book, he showed you a picture of himself holding the book and standing next to Dawkins, himself.

Plus, he posted the actual pages of the book that mentioned A. Aferensis to show that your claim about what Dawkins wrote is wrong.

It's clear we're not dealing with someone who has a firm grasp on reality apparently.

Time for the iggy list I guess.

Maybe she can redeem herself by posting an acknowledgement of these facts instead of continuing to ignore them and posting that debunked Wiki article section for a 5th time.

I won't be holding my breath.

 

[Astridhere]

It's clear we're not dealing with someone who has a firm grasp on reality apparently.

Time for the iggy list I guess.

Maybe she can redeem herself by posting an acknowledgement of these facts instead of continuing to ignore them and posting that debunked Wiki article section for a 5th time.

I won't be holding my breath.

USincognito you offer yourself as someone important. I have my doubts about that.

You ignore facts, because unless I have missed it, you have not responded to other research I offered that is just a good as anything Dawkins has to say anyway.

Further more I will get the book and if you are mistaken you will most certainly hear about it. Indeed it appears Wiki have quite alot of information about this book. If they have misrepresented I will certainly let them know. Better still, why don't you?

The Ancestor's Tale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You have not responded to the other article that also suggests Lucy has no place in the human line. What just handwaving away..again ??????

I am waiting for you to do so. I have an expectation of your refute and already have the ammo ready to deal with you.

Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths

1. Edited by David Pilbeam, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved February 26, 2007 (received for review July 28, 2006)

Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology. This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic scenario.

Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths

I do not need Dawkins or his book. I have published research that also suggests Lucy is not human.

So once again I say to all you evolutionists, your researchers have no idea what they are talking about.

These researchers have humanized Lucy in a desperate effort, as usual, to humanize any ape. These 'human' finds have made quite a name for some researchers. Lucy and all her humanity is not human and not in the human line. Lucy and all the woffle about pelvis and her beautiful human feet is all woffle.

The ramal morphology of this ape, afarensis, is akin to a gorilla. Homoplasy you will likely suggest. That is another one of those butt covering terms you lot come up with to woffle on about how a creature that looks like a gorilla, is not a gorilla. The stupidity of your psuedo science is obvious. I am sure this lot have been so mesmerized by fame and brainwashing that I am sure they are not aware of their stupidity.

You lot woffle on about derived or primitive or homoplasic. What the heck would any of these wofflers know? You have no idea what the common ancestor may or may not look like. What you think you know is that Ardi was no more chimp like than she is to any other ape.

You have stuff all ancestral fossil for chimps or gorillas. You have some for orangs. So of all the apes the one that shares the most morpholgy with mankind is the one you actually have some ancestry for and can find no others. This makes no more sense than Alice in Wonderland.


Ar Ramidus morphology is almost identical to a chimpanzee. Do evolutionists see a chimpanzee ancestor? Of course not. Ardi is meant to be some human ancestor because this spot is closer to that spot. Then of course Ardi was knocked of his perch as was Lucy. What a heap of nonsense.

Evolutionary researchers will not let real science and observation get in the way of a good story.

 

[USincognito]

Unless, somewhere in that wall of giant, self-congratulatory wall of text were the words, "US, sorry, I shouldn't have realized that when you posted screen caps of the actual pages of The Ancestor's Tale plus a photo of you holding the book standing next to Dawkins himself clearly I was wrong for continuing to quote the same incorrect Wikipedia article", you have nothing of interest to say to me.

 

[Astridhere]

Unless, somewhere in that wall of giant, self-congratulatory wall of text were the words, "US, sorry, I shouldn't have realized that when you posted screen caps of the actual pages of The Ancestor's Tale plus a photo of you holding the book standing next to Dawkins himself clearly I was wrong for continuing to quote the same incorrect Wikipedia article", you have nothing of interest to say to me.

As the forum can see you have made no response to my other research.

If you really were someone important you would have something intelligent to say. You do not....as everyone can see.

You are still harping on Dawkins and I do not need Dawkins to make my point.

Further to that if Wiki was so misrepresetative why wouldn't you be keen to set them straight? Wiki is easy to contact. I most certainly would be contacting them if my mate or I was misrepresented.


I hope you are correct actually. Do you know why? Because if Dawkins thinks Lucy or Ardi is in the human line then Dawkins has been shown to be the arrogant shmook he is by more recent research.

"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."

“Researchers have to stop publishing papers that say, essentially, ‘This fossil is an early hominid, so suck it up and accept it,’” Wood says. “Nature and Science could change this practice overnight if they wanted to.”

Human Ancestors Have Identity Crisis - Science News

Clearly evolutionary researchers have no idea what they are talking about and will not allow real science and observation get in the way of an ancestors tale or a ridiculous story.

 

[Astridhere]

My pojnt is that either way, evolutionists and fundamentalists both agree on basically 22 links in the genealogy in the ascent of Modern man.

The evolutionists say these "men" lived hundreds of thousands of years and you guys say they lived 930 years.

Bill Maher ridicules the Bible by laughing at you guys, because you do not help me point out the similarities on both sides.

Evolutionists cannot agree on anything. See above post.

 

[Herman Hedning]

“Researchers have to stop publishing papers that say, essentially, ‘This fossil is an early hominid, so suck it up and accept it,’” Wood says. “Nature and Science could change this practice overnight if they wanted to.”

Human Ancestors Have Identity Crisis - Science News.

“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.

Scientists disagree about stuff! In other news, water is still wet ...

 

[Astridhere]

USincognito you offer yourself as someone important. I have my doubts about that.

You ignore facts, because unless I have missed it, you have not responded to other research I offered that is just a good as anything Dawkins has to say anyway.

Further more I will get the book and if you are mistaken you will most certainly hear about it. Indeed it appears Wiki have quite alot of information about this book. If they have misrepresented I will certainly let them know. Better still, why don't you?

The Ancestor's Tale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You have not responded to the other article that also suggests Lucy has no place in the human line. What just handwaving away..again ??????

I am waiting for you to do so. I have an expectation of your refute and already have the ammo ready to deal with you.

Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths

1. Edited by David Pilbeam, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved February 26, 2007 (received for review July 28, 2006)

Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology. This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic scenario.

Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths

I do not need Dawkins or his book. I have published research that also suggests Lucy is not human.

So once again I say to all you evolutionists, your researchers have no idea what they are talking about.

These researchers have humanized Lucy in a desperate effort, as usual, to humanize any ape. These 'human' finds have made quite a name for some researchers. Lucy and all her humanity is not human and not in the human line. Lucy and all the woffle about pelvis and her beautiful human feet is all woffle.

The ramal morphology of this ape, afarensis, is akin to a gorilla. Homoplasy you will likely suggest. That is another one of those butt covering terms you lot come up with to woffle on about how a creature that looks like a gorilla, is not a gorilla. The stupidity of your psuedo science is obvious. I am sure this lot have been so mesmerized by fame and brainwashing that I am sure they are not aware of their stupidity.

You lot woffle on about derived or primitive or homoplasic. What the heck would any of these wofflers know? You have no idea what the common ancestor may or may not look like. What you think you know is that Ardi was no more chimp like than she is to any other ape.

You have stuff all ancestral fossil for chimps or gorillas. You have some for orangs. So of all the apes the one that shares the most morpholgy with mankind is the one you actually have some ancestry for and can find no others. This makes no more sense than Alice in Wonderland.


Ar Ramidus morphology is almost identical to a chimpanzee. Do evolutionists see a chimpanzee ancestor? Of course not. Ardi is meant to be some human ancestor because this spot is closer to that spot. Then of course Ardi was knocked of his perch as was Lucy. What a heap of nonsense.

Evolutionary researchers will not let real science and observation get in the way of a good story.

Come on USincognito, show me what you're really made of. Respond to this research above...or will you just keep woffling on about a book that may be outdated by more recent research and remain in denial

Ardi does not have many traits shared by modern apes.

If a fossil has chimp traits could it be a chimp ancestor? Of course not. It must be human.

If a fossil has gorilla traits could it be a gorilla ancestor? Of course not. It must be human.

Seriously USincognito, in your desperation to find human ancestors you lot have demonstrated beyond doubt that none of you have any idea what you are talking about.

It is also good to see Herman has nothing to say about this research either. Evolutionists scamper to any aside and are unable to defend themselves.

Evo researchers will never let real science and observation get in the way of a good story.

 

[Fastener]

Come on USincognito, show me what you're really made of. Respond to this research above...or will you just keep woffling on about a book that may be outdated by more recent research and remain in denial.

All of the research is wrong and evolution is wrong, now tell us why your religion is right.

In fairness I don't really expect you to answer that.

 

[Astridhere]

All of the research is wrong and evolution is wrong, now tell us why your religion is right.

In fairness I don't really expect you to answer that.

In all fairness I have demonstrated that all this humanity you lot have attributed to Afarensis and Adri is no more than nonsense.

You do drop ins come in with nothing to say and think that appears clever and you are making some point. All you are doing is avoiding published research and refusing to defend your fossil evidence for human ancestry.

I am not defending any religion. I have demonstrated that even with the biased nonsense you lot come up with, the biased data is still more supportive of creation than evolution.

If a fossil has chimp traits could it be a chimp ancestor? Of course not. It must be human.

If a fossil has gorilla traits could it be a gorilla ancestor? Of course not. It must be human.



A human metatarsel dated to 3.6mya could not belong to a chimp or gorilla ancestor despite all the woffle about pelvis and bipedalism. Reduced facial features go back in apes 12my in Lluc, according to evo researchers that have no idea what they are talking about. I have produced evidence of the Gona female erectus fossil that demonstrates female erectus was a waddler 1.2mya. Waddlers do not leave perfectly human footprints, and neither could afarensis, with a human arch and perfectly human gait as the metatarsel and human footprints 1.7myo demonstrates. I have evidence that mankind predates their proposed ancestors, and there are no intermediate human/apes, only ape to ape. This evidence supports a creationist prediction and also demonstrates mankinds sudden appearance in the fossil record as it should....

The fact is the obvious alludes evolutionists in their desperation as my previous post demonstrates.

You can reply in posts of denial. The sad truth is that none of you are able to effectivly restore the credibility behind anything you say.

I have evidence to support creation. I have evidence to demonstrate evo researchers have no idea what they are talking about. I have USincognito (the self purported expert and mates with an outdated researcher) in avoidance mode.

You have woffle, non plausible scenarios, researchers that have no idea what they are talking about, apes with human feet, no ancestors to support chimp or gorilla ancestry and a mess to support evolution.

...and you are unable to do any better than speak to asides in an attempt to appear to have something to say, rather than defend your fossil evidence which is what you should be doing......

I believe I have the upper hand.

 

[cupid dave]

Evolutionists cannot agree on anything. See above post.

Well they agree that the line of human ascent numbers about 22 species and certainly not one nor one hundred.

In that, they are comparable to what Genesis says were lur ancestors before the flood out of Africa 40,000 years ago.

 

[cupid dave]

That's because there are no similarities on both sides. Trying to twist the Bible to fit science is worse than accepting it as it is. The Bible (and any other religious text) requires that you have faith in it. If you try to twist something to fit another model you don't have faith in it as it is.

Yes, this is a reasonable point because the hypothesis that the two lists of 22 names/species/kinds of men are actually the same needs some confirming piece of evidence to demonstrate that it is more than a hypothetical coincidence, but a viable Theory to be taken seriously.

So consider that recent paleontology claims that modern man carries Neandertahl Genes which confirm that early Homo sapiens intermarried with the Neanderthals:

(The Jewish priests remembered all these details because they coded their hands)




Gen. 6:4 There were giants, (Homo Erectus of Methusaelian and Methuselahian kinds according to the bible), in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God, (that line of ascent which would not become extinct, Methuselahian links, through Seth, i.e.; Modern Homo Erectus), came in unto the daughters, (the sister species of Tubal-cain, Naamahians, a late stage Neanderthal type), of men, ("daughters" of the previous adaptation of the Methusaelian line of Cain, i.e.; Homo antecessor, derived through the line of Cain), and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men, (Neanderthals), which were of old, (powerful) men of renown (physical strength).

 

[Huram Abi]

Well they agree that the discovered hominids numbers specifically 26 species and certainly not one nor one hundred.

*fixed

 

[Astridhere]

Yes, this is a reasonable point because the hypothesis that the two lists of 22 names/species/kinds of men are actually the same needs some confirming piece of evidence to demonstrate that it is more than a hypothetical coincidence, but a viable Theory to be taken seriously.

So consider that recent paleontology claims that modern man carries Neandertahl Genes which confirm that early Homo sapiens intermarried with the Neanderthals:

Well you can find research in support of hybridization as well as for unlikely they hybridized.

(The Jewish priests remembered all these details because they coded their hands)




Gen. 6:4 There were giants, (Homo Erectus of Methusaelian and Methuselahian kinds according to the bible), in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God, (that line of ascent which would not become extinct, Methuselahian links, through Seth, i.e.; Modern Homo Erectus), came in unto the daughters, (the sister species of Tubal-cain, Naamahians, a late stage Neanderthal type), of men, ("daughters" of the previous adaptation of the Methusaelian line of Cain, i.e.; Homo antecessor, derived through the line of Cain), and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men, (Neanderthals), which were of old, (powerful) men of renown (physical strength).

If you try to tie any theory to evolutionary evidence then you are going to be chasing your tail continually as irrefuteable evidence for evolution winds up in the garbage bin. This is your future.


The reason being the metatarsel I speak to proves that modern mankind was here with Afarensis. The Laetoli footprints are even older than Afarensis. Do you not accept this research or dating or what? Do you think Afarensis now not a human ancestor had human feet anyway? Mabe all the apes had human feet after all they were all bipeds according to evos, not a knuckelwalker amongst them...nor anything becoming so.

Complete Fourth Metatarsal and Arches in the Foot of Australopithecus afarensis

Foot bone shows man's distant ancestor could walk - SFGate

Of course we now know, as I have posted, that Afarensis is no longer a human ancestor according to current research...all that humanity wasted!


Hence, according to your theory, and evo data, these modern humans were already here before Afarensis and erectus. The only species around that evos have is Afarensis around this time.

So if any of this has any credibility, which it doesn't, then effectively I can provide evidence that modern mankind would have looked to creatures like Afarensis and seen she was a curved fingered 3.5ft bipedal ape.

I also suspect that these modern humans would have looked at Erectus with their waddle, recently discovered short stature, ape head, and I reckon clad with fur like any ape, and seen that they were apes.

These, Afarensis and Erectus apes, were not found suitable companions for Adam just because they were bipedal before the fall. This is very obvious in that they do not have higher reasoning ability nor sophisticated language nor abstract thought.

So God creaded Eve. Eve was created based on the 'bone' of Adam. In other words DNA. Of course, she had to be so the two could mate.

The bible states mankind was made from 'the dust', not another ape. This is what gets me most about theist evolutionists. They cherry pick the bible rather than believing an all powerful God would protect His word if it was going make any difference to anyones salvation at all. If God allowed the bible to be corrupted then we may as well throw it away, I reckon.

These do not believe God has the power to create because it is a science we are unable to even comprehend let alone understand. So these base their notions and beliefs on the inadequacy of mans knowledge and deny the power of God. Therefore I wonder if they even believe the miracles in the bible or any of it at all.

So you likely believe in the miracles of the bible, I'd say, yet believe that the scipture that states mankind was made from dust is false or in error. The bible perhaps should have said that the bone of an ape was used to make Adam, rather than the dust......... If it did I would be an evolutionist turning apes into various men, like you.

I can prove that an ape did not evolve into a human because the Y chromosome is as divergent comparatively as a chicken is to mankind. ..and 30% different at least. The chimp genome is 10% larger, has a different surface composition, and is full of insertions and deletions so much so that the genes are actually not 'the same' at all as misrepresented.

I can accept that Neanderthal was nephalim because the DNA is human, yet different. I do accept these are the men of fame, although not all Neanderthal fossil skulls are truly Neanderthal.

So seriously, why do you not believe the words of the bible if you are a theist?

Secondly if your theory is pegged to evolutionary theory then you need to explain what modern mankind was doing here along side Afarensis and looking at an ape. Do you think Adam knew an ape like Lucy was going to become a family member?

Do you think Adam was an ape that talked to God?

You, as an evolutionist should also be speaking to the research I put up as it demonstrates Lucy and all her humanity is an ape and evolutionary researchers have no idea what they are talking about.