Evolution vs. Creation

[Charles Idemi]

DanFromSmithville wrote:

<quoted text>Charles is a quaint little bugbear about anything intellectual. When his posts are inteligible they often refute themselves. He is so out of his own loop he doesn't recognize his self defeating nature.

Poor thinking and thoughts.

[Subduction Zone]

ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:

<quoted text>
Again you make claims of evidence that supports your view but still do not provide any. It is clear that you are just repeating what you have heard and do not posses an understanding of subjects.

Yes, I did. You ignored it. Once again, all fossils to date fit the evolutionary model of the fossil record. That by definition supports the theory of evolution making all fossils evidence for evolution.

Is there some part of that concept that you do not understand?

[ARGUING with IDIOTS]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>I am not too lazy. I gave you simple conditions to meet.

You may not use Gish, but you use just about every other creatard argument that there is out there.

But I will name some of the fossils found: Homo erectus and Australopithecus afarensis come to mind. There are many others. Do a Google search on them.

Wow, you can post names. Impressive.

You think that proves evolution?

You're an idiot, here's your sign!

[macumazahn]

NikkiShae wrote:

<quoted text>
Christian in his own right? So the individual can conclude himself a Christian outside of the establishment? Interesting. You just ripped down the principle foundation of the faith.

Boom!

And likewise "Kaboonngg!"

You nailed 'im.

[NikkiShae]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text>No. What i meant was that, God almighty, is the final judge not man.

How does one judge his very creation. At best he can only critique himself. Ever have an ant farm? Did it piss you off when the ants didn't build an alter to praise you? Did you burn them to quell your dissatisfaction in yourself. Did you fight with SZ'S spaghetti monster in some morbid display of good and evil?

[Subduction Zone]

IDIOT wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, you can post names. Impressive.
You think that proves evolution?
You're an idiot, here's your sign!

No IDIOT, can't you follow along. I told Mav I would not give her links. She continued to challenge me and said I could not even name two of the 24 some hominid species, I compromised and gave her two names. I could give more, or I could give a link to an article that lists many of them.

[ARGUING with IDIOTS]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>Yes, I did. You ignored it. Once again, all fossils to date fit the evolutionary model of the fossil record. That by definition supports the theory of evolution making all fossils evidence for evolution.

Is there some part of that concept that you do not understand?

Just making the claim, proves nothing. What are you afraid of?

[NikkiShae]

macumazahn wrote:

<quoted text>Boom!

And likewise "Kaboonngg!"

You nailed 'im.

;)

[MazHere]

DanFromSmithville wrote:

<quoted text>Maybe they aren't providing links because they are talking about references from books. Not everything is linked to the web. Duh.
You sound like a lunatic. Here are some links for you.
www.health.gov.au/mentalhealth
www.mhca.org.au/
www.mentalhealth.org.au/

Sunduction zone you are a high scorer in the evolution/creation debate and you are a boofhead.

Here stupid, knock yourself out. You can't even source your own material and are a sad example of an evolutionist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_huma...

Which of the few credible fossil finds or single bones would you like to discuss.

Perhaps Turkana Boy, the shrinking erectus, that morphed from a strapping athlete to a short 5'3" with a misrepresentative pelvis in need of reconstruction overnight, would be one..

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/erectus/g...

[Subduction Zone]

ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:

<quoted text>
Just making the claim, proves nothing. What are you afraid of?

Actually it does. It shows there is evidence for evolution.

Do you not understand why the fossil record agreeing with the evolutionary model is evidence for evolution? Did you not see the definition for scientific evidence? This is pretty simple stuff, I don't know if I can break it down any further for you to understand.

[MazHere]

Oh BTW Dan from smithville you are an incompetent evolutionist as well.

The reason these evos don't post links is most likely because they don't know how to or really have no idea what they are talking about.

[ARGUING with IDIOTS]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>Actually it does. It shows there is evidence for evolution.

Do you not understand why the fossil record agreeing with the evolutionary model is evidence for evolution? Did you not see the definition for scientific evidence? This is pretty simple stuff, I don't know if I can break it down any further for you to understand.

I know you can't explain it, I was just waiting for you to admit it.

[Subduction Zone]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
Sunduction zone you are a high scorer in the evolution/creation debate and you are a boofhead.
Here stupid, knock yourself out. You can't even source your own material and are a sad example of an evolutionist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_huma...
Which of the few credible fossil finds or single bones would you like to discuss.
Perhaps Turkana Boy, the shrinking erectus, that morphed from a strapping athlete to a short 5'3" with a misrepresentative pelvis in need of reconstruction overnight, would be one..
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/erectus/g...

It is getting very late for me, almost 1:00 AM so I will probably continue this in the morning, but how about the two I mentioned. Or maybe you would like to discuss others.

And so what if H. eretus shrank a bit. It does not seem to concern your writer. Part of the reason that science has peer review is so that mistakes are corrected. Not like your silly book that is supposedly right all of the time and yet can be shown to be wrong hundreds of times.

Take A. afarensis. The famous find Lucy, was over 40% of a skeleton. Other A. a.'s have added even more to the skeleton. Do you think that experts cannot identify a fossil from a single bone? I don't know. That was not my field and I know that I could not do it. But I would not say that it is impossible. Given time and practice is seems possible to me. I remember reading a book on a persons quest to become a surgeon. To help familiarize himself with anatomy he and friends would take a bone from a bag throw it through the air to a colleague who would catch it and put it in another bag. From the short spinning moving glimpse of the bone the doctoral candidate had to identify it. And we are not talking just easy bones like the femur. Specific metatarsels and metacarpels had to be identified in flight.

So are you claiming that an expert could not identify a species from one bone given enough time to thoroughly analyze it?

[MazHere]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually it does. It shows there is evidence for evolution.
Do you not understand why the fossil record agreeing with the evolutionary model is evidence for evolution? Did you not see the definition for scientific evidence? This is pretty simple stuff, I don't know if I can break it down any further for you to understand.

The is no fossil evidence to support evolution.

The fact that you can quack about it does not make it so.

Which misrepresentation would you like to discuss first.

Shrinking erectus and Turkana Boy,or the single bones and skulls given an entire life story on the back of nothing, perhaps.

Maybe the new sediba with her long thumb. Maybe Ardi or Lucy that nmany evos suggest are chimp or gorilla ancestors.

Maybe you would like to present the erectus that are really apes and bear no resemblance to humanity at all in reality.

Perhaps rudolfensis that the Leakeys stuffed up and had to be redated.

"Don't get me wrong, these are all important finds," said co-author Bernard Wood, University Professor of Human Origins and professor of Human Evolution Anatomy at GW and director of its Center for the Advanced Study of Hominid Paleobiology. "But to simply assume that anything found in that time range has to be a human ancestor is naïve."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/...

You choose, which line of fossil evidence suggests an ape evolved into a man.

[Subduction Zone]

IDIOT wrote:

<quoted text>
I know you can't explain it, I was just waiting for you to admit it.

I can explain it. But not this late at night. How do you explain that one plus one equals two? I can't, not rigorously. You should see the mathematical proof for that, it is a very long one.

Sometimes the simplest of ideas are the hardest to explain. To me what I described was self evident given the definition of scientific evidence. I think I will take that route tomorrow.

IDIOT, your name is very descriptive of you.

[MazHere]

ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:

<quoted text>
I know you can't explain it, I was just waiting for you to admit it.

Well done!!!!

Subductionzone gets his points from posting baseless blather.

He asserts some vague view here on human fossil evidence, then can't name any and just relies on 'oh you know'..deh!

In fact one entire half of the human/chimp split is missing. That is the true state of the fossil evidence.

[MazHere]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
I can explain it. But not this late at night. How do you explain that one plus one equals two? I can't, not rigorously. You should see the mathematical proof for that, it is a very long one.
Sometimes the simplest of ideas are the hardest to explain. To me what I described was self evident given the definition of scientific evidence. I think I will take that route tomorrow.
IDIOT, your name is very descriptive of you.

You can't explain anything.

You boofed out on junk dna, vestigial organs, human ch2, ervs, whale and bird fossil evidence. Now you are going to boof out on the fossils in support of human evolution with one entore half of the story missing entirely from the fossil evidence. Well done you evos!

[ARGUING with IDIOTS]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>Well done!!!!

Subductionzone gets his points from posting baseless blather.

He asserts some vague view here on human fossil evidence, then can't name any and just relies on 'oh you know'..deh!

In fact one entire half of the human/chimp split is missing. That is the true state of the fossil evidence.

They are only interested in mockery and ridicule, not in the honest exchange of ideas.

[MazHere]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>It is getting very late for me, almost 1:00 AM so I will probably continue this in the morning, but how about the two I mentioned. Or maybe you would like to discuss others.
And so what if H. eretus shrank a bit. It does not seem to concern your writer. Part of the reason that science has peer review is so that mistakes are corrected. Not like your silly book that is supposedly right all of the time and yet can be shown to be wrong hundreds of times.
Take A. afarensis. The famous find Lucy, was over 40% of a skeleton. Other A. a.'s have added even more to the skeleton. Do you think that experts cannot identify a fossil from a single bone? I don't know. That was not my field and I know that I could not do it. But I would not say that it is impossible. Given time and practice is seems possible to me. I remember reading a book on a persons quest to become a surgeon. To help familiarize himself with anatomy he and friends would take a bone from a bag throw it through the air to a colleague who would catch it and put it in another bag. From the short spinning moving glimpse of the bone the doctoral candidate had to identify it. And we are not talking just easy bones like the femur. Specific metatarsels and metacarpels had to be identified in flight.
So are you claiming that an expert could not identify a species from one bone given enough time to thoroughly analyze it?

Listen, there is no use wasting space woffling on.

Are you suggesting afarensis is a good example of a fossil that supports human evolution or are you just ranting?

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.

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/16/6568.abstr...

http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewt...

What leads you to still suggest that Lucy is a human ancestor as opposed to a chimp ancestor in light of the above recent research from 2006?

I can quote other reseaerchers that doubt the validity of afarensis being in the human line eg Dawkins in An Ancestors Tale, but what makes you think she should stay there other than some evos say she should?

[Subduction Zone]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
Listen, there is no use wasting space woffling on.
Are you suggesting afarensis is a good example of a fossil that supports human evolution or are you just ranting?
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.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/16/6568.abstr...
http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewt...
What leads you to still suggest that Lucy is a human ancestor as opposed to a chimp ancestor in light of the above recent research from 2006?
I can quote other reseaerchers that doubt the validity of afarensis being in the human line eg Dawkins in An Ancestors Tale, but what makes you think she should stay there other than some evos say she should?

Yes, Lucy is still our ancestor. Both of your articles support that. The jaw that is somewhat gorilla-like is a minor part of its body. The fact that Lucy and others walked upright is still much more significant than that observation.

Once again Mav, don't you even read the articles that you link? The second one explains why Lucy is still considered to be our ancestor. Do you need me to do a copy and paste of your own link? How embarrassing.