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 agree you have shown us that all the fossil evidence we thought we had is nonsense, so please tell us why we should now start to believe in a God, where is the evidence for a God? and which of the thousands of Gods should we believe in?All you are doing is avoiding published research and refusing to defend your fossil evidence for human ancestry.
The One that Created you and knew you before you were born.which of the thousands of Gods should we believe in?
R U an expert on Thor? Have you even read Greek Mythology?That would be Thor.
Some of us gave that up 1,200 years ago.Oh my, Thor is not from Greek mythology, he is the Norse god of thunder.
Some of us gave that up 1,200 years ago.
I agree you have shown us that all the fossil evidence we thought we had is nonsense, so please tell us why we should now start to believe in a God, where is the evidence for a God? and which of the thousands of Gods should we believe in?
It would be that simple. But creationism is not supported. In fact, it has been falsified. It did not happen. At least not in the way a literal interpretation of the Bible would predict. There isn't a global sediment layer left from a flood. The genealogy of the world's population cannot have come from one family. Nor can it have come from just two people as the originators. And lastly, even if you falsify everything that science claims today a reasonable man still does not turn to magic.You are confusing religion with science. Is it not evolutionists that constantly complain of bible quoters using the bible for evidence. Well I do not and evos still whine.
The obvious leap of reasoning is that if creation is supported and evolutionist naturalism is falsified, then a God, by any name, must have created. It is that simple.
That's incorrect. The writers of the Bible had just as much of a horse in the race as the authors of books about Bigfoot have in the race. Money. The Bible as a spiritual text stands alongside the Koran and other such texts. It's priests and such gained followers who supported them. Those that could claim that "Jesus slept here" gained tourist dollars. Constantine gained an empire. Your claim is ... false.I believe in the God of the bible because the writers did not seek glory and fortune for themselves and in this aspect the bible as a spiritual text stands alone.
So you claim.Glory and fortune is what all other spiritual leaders seek that suggest they are tapped into their God and have a direct line to Him.
Uh huh...However this is not so for the bible writers, regardless of all the intelligencia about whom wrote what and when......This in itself is miraculous...
The fossil evidence for human ancestry is just what we'd expect to find. Varying branches of life attempting different designs. I know you're so desperate to discredit it... but you're almost humorous in your radical howling.Thankyou for being in agreeance with the nonsense of your fossil evidence for human ancestry.
We are all primates. We are all apes. After that the categorization is fine detail. What fossil belongs in which niche. Lucy is most assuredly part of our family. Whether that's as an aunt or a cousin isn't really the point. The point is that she's at the table with us at holidays.I also note that USincognito is back and still has had nothing to say about Afarensis not being human, and the arrogant shmoock Dawkins may well be shown to be with more recent research...that is if USincognito still maintains Dawkins thinks Lucy is human and does not wish to recant and save Dawkins credibility, at this stage.
and clearly you have not.R U an expert on Thor? Have you even read Greek Mythology?
Humans ARE apes. Thus what you're saying doesn't quite make sense.Phred here you are again with no words of any substance.
I have already spoken to a human metatarsel that could not belong to an ape. This my dear is data produced by your own.
I don't need to speak to any of it when you speak to magic and what you would expect to find if magic happened. That's also ridiculous. You can't get the basics correct and fail to understand what a classification even IS much less how they come about. So you bandy about terms like "ancestor" and then apply it to the wrong groups.Hence mankind is demonstrated in the fossil record as being here before their supposed ancestors. If mankind was created this is what I would expect to find. Apes do not have arched feet nor human metatarels and Erectus was a waddler. You have not spoken to any of it.
Not even a nice try. But like I said, even if every single piece of research were falsified that would not support creation. By the way, the word is "metatarsal". One other thing, every one of your posts contain spelling errors. That also supports that you're just a touch out of sync with reality and perhaps a high school education.You hang around gobsmacked and then implore ignorance when you post. Hence not only does this metarsel demonstrate that evo researchers have no idea what they are talking about, it also supports creation.....
Well, nothing that you want to hear or can understand.Evolutionists like nothing better than to go around in circles and chase their tail. They have 150 years of it and are very refined and talking much and saying nothing. You have had absolutely nothing of substance to say..absolutely nothing..
I do ignore how you cherry-pick evidence to support your desire to see us all created. Because you have an obvious bias. For all your ploys at pretending that you are scientifically based what you are is Biblically based. You just find bits and pieces of science that support what you want to say regardless of the context. You'll excuse me if I don't take your critique of my credibility to heart. And the word is "waffling".All you do is chase your tail, ignore what I do provide then persist in rampant woffling as a demonstration of your credibility.....
I think he might just be busy with the holidays.Best of all is seeing USincognito, Dawkins mate... head for the hills....
Australopithecus afarensis shows traits that are halfway between non-human ape and hominid. So how in the world did you manage something that nobody else has been able to do?I have provided evidence that Lucy is not human.
Waffle, chute and sitting. Lucy belongs in our family tree. I haven't read enough to categorically state whether that's as a direct ancestor or a branch but she's a hominid. No doubt. In your zeal to find out that mankind doesn't have ancestors you overlooked the possibility that you're simply wrong.All Lucys' humanity, that evos woffled on about, is down the shute and up a tree, and not sititing on a human branch either I may add.
Humans ARE apes. Thus what you're saying doesn't quite make sense.
To clarify:
Hominoidea
Here we go again.. How many times have I said that classifying a species according to a classification system you evos invented is not evidence of anything. If you bothered to actually look at the differences you would clearly see that sophisticated language, higher reasoning ability, abstract thought, lack of a furry coat, 30% differences at least in the Y chromosome, insertions and deletions and genetic homoplasy that means human and chimp DNA is not the same at all, the 10% larger chimp genome, the differences in genome surface composition, the differnces in hot spots, the differences in expression would clearly separate mankind from beast if you evolutionists were not living in a dream world.
- humans (genus Homo)
- chimpanzees (genus Pan)
- gorillas (genus Gorilla)
- orangutans (genus Pongo)
This is the modern-day grouping that you refer to when you say, "ape". Specifically these are the "great apes". The lesser apes are the gibbons. From what I understand there are three common uses of the term "ape": non-biologists may not distinguish between "monkeys" and "apes", or may use "ape" for any tailless monkey or nonhuman hominoid, whereas biologists traditionally used the term "ape" for all non-human hominoids, or the non-human apes.
Yeah we all know what the flavour of the month states. Too bad I have demonstrated it to be all crap. Ardi has redrawn your tree to a new flavour of the month
So if you're going to be specific and pretend to be scientific please, what do you mean?
I use your own evidence to demonstrate you lot have no idea what you are talking about. eg human feet on apes. I also use your own research to demonstrate even biased woffle still supports creation better than evolution eg Human metararsel
I don't need to speak to any of it when you speak to magic and what you would expect to find if magic happened. That's also ridiculous. You can't get the basics correct and fail to understand what a classification even IS much less how they come about. So you bandy about terms like "ancestor" and then apply it to the wrong groups.
No magic in the science I use as support other than the whole lot of of your evo science being nonsense..that is
Not even a nice try. But like I said, even if every single piece of research were falsified that would not support creation. By the way, the word is "metatarsal". One other thing, every one of your posts contain spelling errors. That also supports that you're just a touch out of sync with reality and perhaps a high school education.
My spelling errors do not bolster your stance lovey. I am telling you to either defend your stance with more than woffle or sustain from further tail chasing and challenges I have already more than adequately dealt with.
Well, nothing that you want to hear or can understand.
Then refute the research I posted that clearly states Lucy has chimpanzee traits, which BYW the common ancestor does not have eg Ardi
I do ignore how you cherry-pick evidence to support your desire to see us all created. Because you have an obvious bias. For all your ploys at pretending that you are scientifically based what you are is Biblically based. You just find bits and pieces of science that support what you want to say regardless of the context. You'll excuse me if I don't take your critique of my credibility to heart. And the word is "waffling".
I can refute any taxon you care to mention. Start a new thread and let's go....
I think he might just be busy with the holidays.
Australopithecus afarensis shows traits that are halfway between non-human ape and hominid. So how in the world did you manage something that nobody else has been able to do?
You mean your silly researchers have made Lucy out to be so. That was great when she was a human ancestor. She isn't and I have produced the evidence to back myself up. Clearly you, USingonito & Loudmouth are unable to wiggle your little butts out of this one..so you ignore it, try to lurk around every aside like spelling mistakes and resort to tail chasing....
Rememer this? or is your retentive memory challenged in some way?
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 am still waiting for Loudmouth to address the whackey pelvis of Turkana Boy after he threw of to it possibly being a mix of individuals. I as stilkl waiting for US to have something to save Dawkins and now I have you flatly refusing to defend your fossils with any more than your opinion.
Waffle, chute and sitting. Lucy belongs in our family tree. I haven't read enough to categorically state whether that's as a direct ancestor or a branch but she's a hominid. No doubt. In your zeal to find out that mankind doesn't have ancestors you overlooked the possibility that you're simply wrong.
You still have said nothing of substance let alone say anything that looks like a refute
Lufengpithecus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bipedalism and reduced pelvis are not human traits anymore pal... In fact you lot have no idea anymore...so there goes your classification system....You lot make it up as you go along the same as any good storyteller.....
Evolutionists do not let real science and observation stand in the way of a good story.
I don't know why you are bringing up Lufengipithecus now? Probably because of a somewhat uncertain classification? You are aware that the only fossils we have of Lufengipithecus are skulls and parts of skulls? It is somewhat difficult to discern bipedalism or pelvis shape from that.
Astridhere, it's obvious you feel comfortable believing in magic.
I believe in the power of God. You believe in apes with human feet.
My story is much more plausible than yours.
You also happen to be someone unable to refute me.
Humans are biologically classified as apes.
I have already been here. Why don't you lot of 'do drop ins' go back a couple of pages and have a look. In fact you only have to go back to my last post. However that would mean you would actually have to think! You lot have invented the taxonomic system and it changes eg Homininae. Then you use you own unrelaible and knee jerk system to call mankind an ape and think this is the basis of evidence. You obviously have no idea what evidence looks like, because none of you have offered any more than ridicule and evasion and a strong desire to demonstrate how ignorant an evolutionist can be.
If you want to actualy look like you have something to say, why don't you refute me intead of ignoring the support I provide. When you ignore and just contunue to quack you cannot blame me for feeling I have won the day.
One example you may like to ignore that provides more than your quacking....
I have spoken to the 97% similarity for inclusion into Homininae. This is now defunct by research noting a 6-8% difference in Mtdna...meaning chimps should no longer be regarded as homininae. Refute that if you want to add anything intelligent as opposed to ignorance and quacking.
Yup! You have a story, I have millions of published research papers from many independent fields of science all supporting evolution. Keep telling your story, there are many ignorant people you can still fool.
Yep and your research papers provide flavour of the month and this is all, just like you had irrefuteable proof we evolved from knucklewalkers, now falsified and residing in the great garbage bin of evolutionary delusions with LUCA killed by HGT, bipedalism tied to brain size, junk dna that was run into creationists now refuted by functionality etc etc etc. Now we know who the real knucklewalkers are and they happen to be your researchers.
Your research better supports creation then evolution, as biased as it is. I am speaking to some right now in that chimps should be taken out of homininae because they do not meet the criteria......meaning mankind stands alone....That is called support as opposed to quacking and woffling....
"Denial"is not a river Egypt.
Denial is making smart butt and delusional comments and not being able to refute anything I have said. Quacking belongs to ducks. How about demonstrating the human trait I hope you have which is higher reasoning ability for a change? That would be a nice change!
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?