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.
Those are to be expected --- I've been called those as well.I got news for you dear one, I've been called a liar a fool and worse on here.
You can't tell the dentist you've been flossing when you really haven't. He's going to call you a liar.Those are to be expected --- I've been called those as well.
The L Ron Hubbard one kinda stung, though ---
Yes, and not to lie, but to show future dentists that the other 18 fillings were embedded there already without a history of cavities!No doubt the dentist will write in your documentation that you had 2.
Yes, and not to lie, but to show future dentists that the other 18 fillings were embedded there already without a history of cavities!
You could teach genetics without natural history and you would be better off without Darwinism leaching off of it. This isn't about creationism vs science, I've never heard a creationist say a negative thing about Mendelian Genetics. The problem is that Darwinism has been unnaturally blended with Genetics and this kind of intellectual comingling could only have one purpose, poison the well for Christians. There is a simple reason for wanting to do this, it's because Christian scholars dominated European academics and sciences for a thousand years. The modern secular clerics attack theistic reasoning because they are threatened by it.
No, it's not a common homology argument. You have no idea what the argument regarding homology is, apparently.That's not just the popular press it's a common homology argument that never impressed me in the first place. Sure it's not a base to base comparison since it's a gap in one that exists in the other genome. The substitutions and indels are really just differences and I never said the scientists were wrong.
No, as has already been explained to you again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again is that 98% for base substitutions is still correct.What it means is that the old saw of 98% is wrong.
It has nothing to do with no questioning the evidence. It has to do with what kind of evidence supports the argument in the first place, something you have yet to come to terms with. You are building a strawman of the argument for common descent.Now as to what implications this might have for human/chimp common ancestry I'm thinking, not much. TOE has demonstrated again and again that no matter what the actual evidence universal common descent cannot be questioned.
Point 1 that shows you have no idea what you are talking about.We are told that our dna is virtually identical and it's not.
Point 2 that shows you have no idea what you are talking about.We are told the human brain and the chimpanzees is virtually identical even though the human brain is three times the size.
Point 3 that shows you have no idea what you are talking about. You're out.We are told that this all happens over millions of years and yet it happens suddenly a couple of millions or years ago with no explanation for the molecular mechanisms responsible.
The skulls of human ancestors are not chimpansee skulls. Even a casual glance at the skull of a chimpansee and that of a human ancestor shows that. You have no idea what you are talking about.Everytime and chimpanzee skull is dug up in Africa or Asia it's immediately celebrated as one of our ancestors. The myth of the stone age ape man continues.
Everytime and chimpanzee skull is dug up in Africa or Asia it's immediately celebrated as one of our ancestors. The myth of the stone age ape man continues.
Well, I dunno. He DID say "Everytime and chimpanzee skull is dug up....."
If that were part of a legal document the lawyers would have a grand old time arguing what if anything that means. "Everytime" isnt even a word, and the "and" makes no sense. So there is plenty of room for getting out of the responsibility for saying something false. If he would care to amend it so that is reads "Every time that a chimpanzee skull is found....." then we'd know what he meant.
If he then would say that it is just being sarcastic with no claim that there is any literal truth to it, then we could just drop it with the request that he not say things he doesnt mean. It does cause a lot of confusion when people dont just stick to plain statements. So far though, he seems to want to stand by it (whatever it is that he acutally meant by what he said)
So Mark- would you like to state in correct English what you meant by that statement? Hate to call you a humbug over a mere misunderstanding.
mark, want to play a game? please list which of these skulls are human, and which of these are chimpanzee skulls
You don't seem to understand, I have studied this in depth for years. I am not your intellectual inferior and your condesending attitude betrays a false confidence in your false assumptions.
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
The molecular mechanisms capable of accomplishing this dramatic evolutionary feat remain a complete mystery to the scientists who study it, yet none dare question it as fact.
Every time a fossilized skull of an ape in Africa is unearthed it is immediately celebrated as one of our ancestors. To date none of the skulls dug up in Africa are identified as Chimpanzee ancestors
0
It doesnt really matter how many years a person claims to have studied something if they didnt learn much.
With regard to condesencion, read back and see who started in on name calling and condesencion. If you dont like it dont do it. Dont call names, that is for grade school, please.
All your assumptions are false, which of course is the source of your false confidence. You start out trying to prove a myth, that makes it tough.
Moving from false assumptions to false statements of fact we have:
"Everytime and chimpanzee skull is dug up in Africa or Asia..."
I see you fixed your spelling and now say "every time" rather than everytime" and changed your story so that now it is "every time an APE" (rather than chimpanzee); so good, you corrected that falsehood. And changed if from "dug up" to "fossilized".
You persist in others, such as that ALL fossilized ape skulls are taken as human ancestors, where a number of hominid types and other apes have very clearly not been classified that way. Collections have lots of them, and there are plenty of research papers. Why are these things your years and years of study missed?
As for this....“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
I agree. Just, nobody in the world wide conspiracy of narrow minded atheistic rats-in-a-maze, devil controlled SCIENTISTS, all of whom have a secret way of identifying creationists so they can reject their work, none of whom "dare" to challenge the (imagined by you) orthodoxy seems to think anyone has even come close.
How about this. Instead of your big document dump of mixed preaching, pseudoscience, half facts, personal remarks, and outright fabrications, why dont you just come up with one little fact? Boil it down to one uncluttered idea. Can you do that?
Show me one example of a chimpanzee skull that has not been identified as one of our ancestors. You want to move onto facts. FACT, there are no chimpanzee ancestors represented in the natural history museums during the period ranging from 4mya to modern times. Prove me wrong or eat your cake without complaining you don't have any.
When I said 'APE' I was mistaken, there are gorrila fossils being dug up from time to time. As far as the pedantic semantical attempt at an attack it's as weak as the rest of you ad hominem attacks.
Before I waste my time making a detailed retort to this flaggrant flame answer a single question. What is the most distinct difference between a chimpanzee and gorrilla skull?
Creationists don't get publish and the few ID scientists who have been published were ruined in academia unless they had tenure.
Have a nice day
Mark
The molecular mechanisms capable of accomplishing this dramatic evolutionary feat remain a complete mystery to the scientists who study it, yet none dare question it as fact.
To date none of the skulls dug up in Africa are identified as Chimpanzee ancestors even though they about the same size, except that some of them are larger.
The law of parsimony (Ockham's razor) is a rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly.
Since the molecular basis for human evolution is unknown the miraculous interpolation remains the simplest explanation consistent with normative Biology.
With a cranial capacity nearly three times that of the chimpanzee the molecular basis for this giant leap in evolutionary history is still almost, completely unknown.
Changes in brain related genes are characterized by debilitating disease and disorder and yet our decent from a common ancestor with the chimpanzee would have had to be marked by a massive overhaul of brain related genes.
I'll just check and see how well you've doneThis hall of skulls jpg is used by the TO propaganda to create a homology illusion. When you look closer at the actuall skulls, and I have, the real differences start to jump out at you. If you only knew how many times I have debunked this empty attempt at viable proof.
(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
Chimpanzee of course, see image above for specific morphological differences.
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My Chimpanzee ancestor
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My Chimpanzee Ancestor
From the Smithsonian's article on Homo habilis:
An arbitrary lower limit had been set between 700cc and 800cc as the cutoff for the genus Homo. With an estimated cranial capacity of 680cc, Leakey and his colleagues chose to lower this number to 600cc...they chose a behavior- the ability to make stone tools-to help place OH 7 in Homo. This point relied on stone tools found in the same geologic horizon as the fossils.Raymond Dart who's Taung Child had long been considered a chimpanzee skull came the suggestion for a name for the stone age ape man myth, Homo habilis. Chimpanzee ancestor.
Chimpanzee ancestor
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
I like this game, now it's my turn to play. What is the molecular mechanism responsible for this giant leap?
You don't seem to understand, I have studied this in depth for years. I am not your intellectual inferior and your condesending attitude betrays a false confidence in your false assumptions.
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
I have nothing to lie to you about,
You ever heard the expression turn the other check, it doesn't mean what you think. When Jesus was on trial before the High Priest he told him plainly that he was the Son of God. When you lied in court (bear false witness) you could be slapped by another wittness but they then had to prove your lieing. When Jesus said this one of the slave smacked him, Jesus just says now present your evidence.
The idea behind turning the other check is to keep telling the truth even when they keep calling you a liar and can't prove it. Now if you want to prove me a liar then show me a single exception or you and your cohort can continue to stroke one anothers egos with your false accusations.
I've played this game before, this ones a slam dunk.
Have a nice day
Mark
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?