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.
But for those of us who do, ignorant means they disagree with you.
That's why the late Henry Morris is "ignorant", as well as the staff at I.C.R, and Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, and on and on...
Eyes ignit.
OK, I bow out. You guys are ignorant about ignorant means, and not worth talking to. If you accuse someone of ignorance, it is up to you to prove it.He was, and remains correct. As he, I and others have pointed out, you are ignorant of what actually constitutes science, what evolutionary theory claims and does not claim, and what actually appears in science text books when it comes to evolution. If that were not the case you wouldn't keep whining about "people talking mean to you" and just present evidence of your experience, knowledge and/or expertise on the subject.
Look, let me give you some advice on several levels. If you have to make claims about something then can't back up those claims. If you gripe about rudeness or bullying or whatever when people challange your assertions instead of defending them. If you claim to have a deep understanding of a subject, but exhibit a complete lack of or misunderstanding of a subject... the problem is not with everybody else... it's with you.
Sfs doesn't pull out his handfull of trump cards very often, so if he does, the average reader of this forum can understand that the person he's responding to is in way over their heads when it comes to claims of understanding of evolution and specifically genetics.
The fact that you continue to make yourself the subject of discussion and not the evidences that have been presented only make it all the more obvious that you're in way over your head and it's time to acknowledge that or bow out of the discussion.
If that's all they accuse you of, Tim -- they're basically ignoring you.If you accuse someone of ignorance, it is up to you to prove it.
I don't know what it means to "take care of the creationism." Is it a lost puppy?
He was, and remains correct. As he, I and others have pointed out, you are ignorant of what actually constitutes science, what evolutionary theory claims and does not claim, and what actually appears in science text books when it comes to evolution. If that were not the case you wouldn't keep whining about "people talking mean to you" and just present evidence of your experience, knowledge and/or expertise on the subject.
Look, let me give you some advice on several levels. If you have to make claims about something then can't back up those claims. If you gripe about rudeness or bullying or whatever when people challange your assertions instead of defending them. If you claim to have a deep understanding of a subject, but exhibit a complete lack of or misunderstanding of a subject... the problem is not with everybody else... it's with you.
Sfs doesn't pull out his handfull of trump cards very often, so if he does, the average reader of this forum can understand that the person he's responding to is in way over their heads when it comes to claims of understanding of evolution and specifically genetics.
The fact that you continue to make yourself the subject of discussion and not the evidences that have been presented only make it all the more obvious that you're in way over your head and it's time to acknowledge that or bow out of the discussion.
Both Chimpanzees and Bonobos fashion tools and they are tree climbers. There is no need to humanise any ape since humans are also apes. We belong to the African Apes and there is nothing you can say that can change this unless you can come up with empirical evidence that will counteract and refute DNA evidence that shows we are apes and our closest relatives are chimpanzees and bonobos..Take a look and see that the thumb is ridiculously long, even longer that a human thumb compared to the other digits yet researchers say this creature may have made tools. Once again your researchers try to humanise a tree climbing ape as they did Ardi, Lucy & erectus.
No it actually means.... ignorant.But for those of us who do, ignorant means they disagree with you.
Henry Morris was certainly ignortant about geography and the earth's history. One wonders why he wrote a book about such topics.That's why the late Henry Morris is "ignorant", as well as the staff at I.C.R, and Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, and on and on...
Agreed!Eyes ignit.
Foot webbing is unlikely to be preserved, so why are you surprised it was not found with these fossils? ALso, tail drag marks are not necessarily preserved either, assuming the tail would be dragged in the first place. Tell us about the mammals and reptile fossils that show God created them during the Cambrian. Just one, please.Fully terestrial tetrapods have been dated to 395mya, with no foot webbing, as well as many other devonian tetrapods that have been found. Some do not have tail drag marks indicating no tail. Some preceed tiktaalic by 18my. This is evidence that some terrestrial kinds were created just after a creative period in the Cambrian.
Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal : Nature News
Devonian Times - Tetrapod Trackways
How do you translate "bird-like" into "modern bird?" So you think we are too dumb to tell the difference? Besides, many dinosaur prints are bird-like, but you don't seem to think anything of that!Modern birds footprints have been dated to 212mya and precede dinosaurs. Birds were alive and well 212mya and flourishing as they were created after the creatures of the sea and before the land animals.
Ancient bird-like footprints found - 26 June 2002 - New Scientist
Figure[bless and do not curse]1 : Bird-like fossil footprints from the Late Triassic : Nature
2 Scientists Say New Data Disprove Dinosaur-Bird Theory - NYTimes.com
The question of direct ancestors" is always a difficult one to answer. The fact is we have so many hoiminid fossils, that it makes it even harder to dtermine which, if any, are on the direct line to modern humans. I wonder why that is?You have Ardi, Lucy and erectus being challenged by some researchers as being direct human ancestors.
Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths
Ardi: Scientists Challenge Human Ancestor Connection - TIME
Until recently. so...???You have a 3.5ft curved fingered ape being responsible for full sized adult human Laetoli footprints as australopithecus was not found with any foot bones until recently.
Why should transitionals have "fully human" footprints?? Would they be transitional if they did?However an australopithecus sediba was found with some ankle bones in tact and your researchers suggest that this specimen dated to 1.97my was still a tree climber and this is displayed in the ankle. They suggest she has hands more like human hands. Neither this ape nor any one of the time left fully human footprints. Take a look and see that the thumb is ridiculously long, even longer that a human thumb compared to the other digits yet researchers say this creature may have made tools. Once again your researchers try to humanise a tree climbing ape as they did Ardi, Lucy & erectus.
Direct ancestor of Homo genus? Fossils show human-like hand, brain and pelvis in early hominin
What does it mean for any evidence to "sit well" for a creationist? No matter what we find it is simply declared "evidence for creation." Tell us... what evidence would you as a creationist not find to be "evidence for creation?"It appears that in actual fact your verterbae phylogeny is out of whack as is your dino to bird theory.
This evidence sits well for me as a creationist but appears to cause a conundrum for evolutionists.
Show us science for your claims then. Show us evidence for "created kinds." Show us that nested hierarchies can be created by something other than genetic descent. Show us chimeras that evolution cannot explain, like pegasi, hydras, manticores, unicorns, etc. Show us the evidence.Rather than suggesting creationists have no science or evidence for their claims I would strongly suggest that evolutionists have no science behind their claims. Rather you have a list of non plausible scenarios and complicated algorithms with debated insertion values, to explain why the evidence for creation is really an evolutionary mystery.
Creationism is based squarely on a literalistic interpretation of scripture, not on scientific evidence. How could you not know that?It may be fun for evolutionists to suggest creationism is not founded on scientific evidence. Unfortunately it is also a sign of evolutionists being way out of touch with a paradigm that they know little about but are more than happy to ridicule.
What creationist paradigm? Or rather, which one? Hugh Ross's old earth creationism, with lots of individual creation events (possibly using existing creatures)? The young-earth paradigm of the ICR, Ken Ham, etc -- and if so, whose version of flood geology? The young-earth paradigm of Kurt Wise, who thinks the evidence points to an old earth but believes in a young earth anyway because the Bible says so? The paradigm of Michael Behe, in which common descent is true but God has in some unspecified way stepped in from time to time to engineer bits of cells? The other paradigm of Michael Behe, in which all of the future history of life was front-loaded into the original cells? The paradigm of many of the other Discovery Institute folks, which consists of refusing to say anything at all about what happened, except it involved an unidentified (wink, wink) intelligent designer? Which of these do you think we should be more familiar with?It may be fun for evolutionists to suggest creationism is not founded on scientific evidence. Unfortunately it is also a sign of evolutionists being way out of touch with a paradigm that they know little about but are more than happy to ridicule.
It may be fun for evolutionists to suggest creationism is not founded on scientific evidence. Unfortunately it is also a sign of evolutionists being way out of touch with a paradigm that they know little about but are more than happy to ridicule.
If that's all they accuse you of, Tim -- they're basically ignoring you.
Did you say something, AVET?
Foot webbing is unlikely to be preserved, so why are you surprised it was not found with these fossils? ALso, tail drag marks are not necessarily preserved either, assuming the tail would be dragged in the first place. Tell us about the mammals and reptile fossils that show God created them during the Cambrian. Just one, please.
Now you are confusing science as being the product of answering your every question rather than presenting 100 years of evolutionary misclassifications and mistakes as evidence.
Rather the data speaks for itself. The findings are fully terrestrial tetrapods 10 million years older than the supposed intermediate tiktaalik, many with no tail marks. The rest is speculation which evolutionary science is full of.
This, like it or not, stuffs your verterbate phylogeny and is solid support for the creation of kinds with NO intermediates.
How do you translate "bird-like" into "modern bird?" So you think we are too dumb to tell the difference? Besides, many dinosaur prints are bird-like, but you don't seem to think anything of that!
What is bird like? Bird like means the footprints stuff your theory so lets try to turn them into dinosaurs. Many researchers now challenge the dino to bird theory. It is not about who is right or wrong. It is about grabbing at straws in a bog of mud.
Do not confuse not being a scientist with being blind. The bird prints I linked were indistinguishable from todays birds. Again the rest is evolutionary speculation that befuddles clear evidence for creation into some evolutionary mystery.
The question of direct ancestors" is always a difficult one to answer. The fact is we have so many hoiminid fossils, that it makes it even harder to dtermine which, if any, are on the direct line to modern humans. I wonder why that is?
Your researchers have difficulty telling the difference between a human and ape bone today. How much more unlikely is it that they can tell the difference of old withered bones, whilst trying to shovel every find into the human line, only to recant time and time again.
Until recently. so...
???
The point being as of 2mya the only specimen of feet you have shows a tree climber. The 3.6myo human footprints show the non plausibility of these full sized human footprints belonging to any tree climber be it afarensis or erectus. Rather they show mankind dwelled amongst afarensis and erectus and appeared 3.7 mya according to your dating and NOT in an intermediate form but human. The bamboozling and wildly non plausible scenario of curved fingered 3.5ft apes leaving fully human footprints, or half witted erectus making stone huts with a lack of sophisticated language and higher reasoning ability, is not going to give the theory any merit. You need to deal with it!
Why should transitionals have "fully human" footprints?? Would they be transitional if they did?
Just rid yourself of the speculation for a minute and concetrate on the data. The footprints show fully human adult, full sized footprints with a human gait even more human than some flat footed humans now may leave. That is what the data shows. The placing of human feet on a curved fingered 3.5 foot ape, who now is being challenged as a human ancestor, is evolutionists trying to humanise every ape they find.
Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths
What does it mean for any evidence to "sit well" for a creationist? No matter what we find it is simply declared "evidence for creation." Tell us... what evidence would you as a creationist not find to be "evidence for creation?"
Oh how bizzare.The thread ridicules creationists ability to use data. When a creationists does aptly apply data to a creationist paradigm you play this line. Listen up! Some people need to pull their head in a little.
What is more hilarious is your researchers scurrying around inventing the most ridiculous non plausible scenarios to try to make contradicting data fit into an evolutionary paradigm.
Show us science for your claims then. Show us evidence for "created kinds." Show us that nested hierarchies can be created by something other than genetic descent. Show us chimeras that evolution cannot explain, like pegasi, hydras, manticores, unicorns, etc. Show us the evidence.
No..the thread did not request a theory of everything that is better thsn your 100 years of mistakes, controversy and mistakes.
I have applied data to support my creationist views. Now some evolutionists are going to show their hypocricy and request a higher standard evidence than they themselves can supply.
Nested hierarchies are a joke card that you like to play. Where does tiktaalik sit in your nested mess now that he is cast aside as an intermediate. Where do all the creodonta and carnivores mix of bears cats and dogs sit in your hierarchies. These are just flavour of the month.
Back past the family/sub family rank, which in most cases is the comparative kind, all you have is a mess of various species you suggest are related by some silly similarity, despite all you know about homoplasy.
Your researchers invent the criteria based on their predetermined assumptions, apply it, and then herald this as irrefuteable evidence for evolution.
The same goes for chimp/human shared ervs that become endogenous after HGT in the distant past or are functional systems, as your data is demonstrating, that were expessed in the creation.
Creationism is based squarely on a literalistic interpretation of scripture, not on scientific evidence. How could you not know that?
That is a statement made from ignorance. I did not use scripture to demonstrate how recent research supports a creationist paradigm. I have presented data that supports creation. I can provide heaps more. You can only present 100 years of mess, reclassifications and mistakes, eg LUCA recanted & killed by HGT, single cell abiogenesis recanted, Knuckle walking ancestry recanted, junk DNA recanted, brain size tied to bipedalism recanted, the list goes on and on.....
The other thing you present is your inability to tell the difference between scripture and data and how desperate you are to vilify creationists at any cost, even your own credibility
Coming from someone who thought a modern human skeleton was Lucy, who didn't understand neotonous cranial features until it was explained to her, who insisted for two weeks that Salem was Lucy, who thinks 90 million years is "an instant", who thinks Turkana boy is an "ape" despite not being able to provide a reasonable distinction between "apes" and "humans", all the while igoring the fact that apart from his brow ridge, protruding mandible and smaller cranial capacity, he has all the characteristics of genus Homo - I find your 11th inning comments laughable and hardly worthy of serious consideration.
I think the "that's sad" thing is way overrated.
It doesn't communicate something I leap to agree with.
The user of the "that's sad" argument usually loses my support, not gains it.
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?