Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 155 (8159 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-21-2014 1:59 PM
58 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Mike Taylor
Post Volume:
Total: 741,552 Year: 27,393/28,606 Month: 2,450/2,244 Week: 564/967 Day: 36/78 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
4546
47
4849
...
72NextFF
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
frako
Member
Posts: 2425
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 691 of 1075 (623024)
07-07-2011 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 677 by Cat Sci
07-07-2011 3:21 PM


How is that NOT a "hairy apey half human"?

Technically its around 98% human


This message is a reply to:
 Message 677 by Cat Sci, posted 07-07-2011 3:21 PM Cat Sci has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 723 by Cat Sci, posted 07-08-2011 10:27 AM frako has not yet responded

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 270 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 692 of 1075 (623026)
07-07-2011 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 671 by Mazzy
07-07-2011 2:51 PM


Dating and evolution
Again I'll repeat that controversy over dates does not mean there could not have been a human chimp split. What the changing dates does mean is that your researchers have no idea what they are talking about and are just playing expensive games with computers and algorithms. Either may be right or neither may be right. Creationists can do the same, and have.

I'm glad to see that you remain open to the idea that there could have been a common ancestor between chimps and us.

I'm sorry to see that you are still having trouble with this common misaprehension about dating and the falsification of evolution. Just because we might not have the exact timing of the split between chimps and us, does not falsify the theory. We have some of the intermediate fossils, we have the DNA. We might not have all the pieces of the puzzle but it is coming together into a coherent picture. It will never be resolved conclusively when it happened and we will never be able to say conclusively which species is our direct ancestor, but we can tell which ones are intermediate between us.

In order to falsify a theory you need positive evidence, not the lack of it.

What makes you think that of the opposing views one of them has to be right? No sorry...what you are seeing is agreement it all evolved and nothing more to support the claim.

Any view in science could be wrong, otherwise it wouldn't be science. Nobody is saying you have to agree with a position. You just have to be able to support your position, either by presenting positive evidence refuting a position or an alternative supported by the evidence. You could be wrong though. You are...only human after all.

10 years ago out went our knucklewalking ancestry, Ardi was our ancestor now he isn't etc etc. For heavens sake do you lot not shudder at the thought of basing any argument on evidence that could be discredited tomorrow.

Any new fossil that supposedly sheds new light on evolution, eg Ardi, will change the dates. This is because fossil classification and assumptions are just one of the assumptive insertion values used in models to get dates.

Disagreements about whether one fossil is ancestral to us or not does not falsify the theory that we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees. As they say, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

To reiterate: Not knowing the exact time that a split occured doesn't mean that the split never happened. We have the evidence that a split occured; it's in the fossil record.

TOE IS ALL BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS... and interpretations of what you often misrepresentatively call evidence.

The FACTS more often support creation. Your theories are all that support evolution...and we know you have plenty of them.

The TOE is just that: a theory, and it will be nothing more. If you wish to present a different position, supported by evidence, then this is the place to do it. Just saying the facts support creation doesn't make it so. You have to present the evidence. Show that your position can be tested and falsified. Use it to make predictions about what we should find in our search of the past and what we might find in the future.

Engage us in dialogue. Show us evidence that falsifies our position. Don't just tell us we're wrong: support it with positive evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 671 by Mazzy, posted 07-07-2011 2:51 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 700 by Mazzy, posted 07-07-2011 11:52 PM DBlevins has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 806 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 693 of 1075 (623035)
07-07-2011 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 683 by Mazzy
07-07-2011 3:37 PM


Re: dates change
My argument better aligns with the EVIDENCE found.

You've posed no argument that aligns with any evidence whatsoever.

All you've done is declare everyone else wrong and yourself right because you believe you 100%.

Your complaint is that the hundreds of millions of scientists sometimes differ in opinion about .000001% of the evidence for evolution.

Meanwhile the Creationists all agree with each other.

Except, that claim isn't true, either.

So, what's left to argue.

You ignore all points and repeat your same made up crap. We point out that you're wrong, provide you with evidence and the education you missed then...

You ignore all the points and repeat you same made up crap all over again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 683 by Mazzy, posted 07-07-2011 3:37 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1085 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 694 of 1075 (623042)
07-07-2011 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 657 by DBlevins
07-06-2011 7:01 PM


Re: Turkana Boy again
Hey, I missed giving a reply to a worthy post.

Please supply the link to the Neanderthal foot. I would like to see if it was found with any other skeleton bits or if it is a reconstruction.

Let's remember that a perfectly human 4th metatasal was found dated to 3mya. This was attributed to Lucy. Ardi is sketched with ape feet. So within the space of 1my ape feet poofed into human feet. I'll bet you have a plethora of debated excuses for the 'accelerated evolution' of ape to pretty little human feet.

I haven't got heaps of time right now. However have a read of this.

http://english.pravda.ru/...02-2011/116954-human_foot_bone-0

Most creationists accept Neanderthal as human. However I have some skepticism. I am thinking at best they are nephalim. At least they are just another variety of ape that accrued environmental adaptations to diet and climate etc. I'd like to have a closer look at the link to Neanderthal feet.

The DNA comparisons, are rubbish. We have 75% DNA in common with a nematode. Neanderthal/human comparisons have been put at 99.5%, 99.9%. I do not think they have any clue how to tell one 'kind'of FOXP2 from another and their biased models will basically give them whatever they want or they will repeat calculation until the insertion values yeild the so called results they require.

According to this link below Neanderthals should be ape men as they are half way in sequence positions between chimp and ape. However according to other research and current thinking they are human with the same FOXPs gene. It is just all incredible Besides the chimp gene has 10% more DNA and has a total of 30% differences (Wiki Chimpanzee Genome Projest) when deletions and folds are considered, and then there is the remarkable difference in the chimp/human Y chromosome comparison. As I said your percentage comparisons are incredible in that they are non credible.

http://au.images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3...-

I also believe, (and have posted links) there are flat footed apes, flat faced apes and monkeys, monkeys with rounded skull caps, homoplasy and homology of same traits popping up in distantly related species. One, evo or creationist can draw any inferences they want, that suits, really.

In my opinion... what evolutionists actually propose as evidence for evolution is a mosaic of variations of ape, monkey etc as well as any non-human primate variations that have lived over the past 5 million years or so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 657 by DBlevins, posted 07-06-2011 7:01 PM DBlevins has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 695 by Nuggin, posted 07-07-2011 10:57 PM Mazzy has responded
 Message 696 by Nuggin, posted 07-07-2011 11:00 PM Mazzy has responded
 Message 697 by Coyote, posted 07-07-2011 11:04 PM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 699 by Taq, posted 07-07-2011 11:39 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 806 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 695 of 1075 (623043)
07-07-2011 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 694 by Mazzy
07-07-2011 10:35 PM


Try again Mazzy
The DNA comparisons, are rubbish. We have 75% DNA in common with a nematode.

That's not an argument. That's an assertion.

Assuming you are right with the "75%", how does that make DNA comparisons rubbish?

You don't get to make blanket statements if you can't support them with any sort of argument.

Try again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 694 by Mazzy, posted 07-07-2011 10:35 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 702 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 12:04 AM Nuggin has responded
 Message 711 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 3:44 AM Nuggin has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 806 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 696 of 1075 (623044)
07-07-2011 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 694 by Mazzy
07-07-2011 10:35 PM


Think then post
In my opinion... what evolutionists actually propose as evidence for evolution is a mosaic of variations of ape, monkey etc as well as any non-human primate variations that have lived over the past 5 million years or so.

So, your "argument" is that evolution can't be real because there is 5 millions years worth of evidence supporting evolution.

Has anyone explained to how debate works? Claiming that your opponent is wrong because they have evidence which proves they are right isn't exactly the strongest argument you can make.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 694 by Mazzy, posted 07-07-2011 10:35 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 725 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 3:04 PM Nuggin has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4818
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 697 of 1075 (623046)
07-07-2011 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 694 by Mazzy
07-07-2011 10:35 PM


Creationist nonsense
I haven't got heaps of time right now. However have a read of this.

http://english.pravda.ru/...02-2011/116954-human_foot_bone-0

An article by Brian Thomas, M.S. How quaint. Isn't he a major author for the Institute for Creation Studies? And you think that scientists are going to be impressed by anything that appears on that website? Have you read their Tenets of (Scientific) Creationism? They are doing religious apologetics, the exact opposite of science.

Most creationists accept Neanderthal as human. However I have some skepticism. I am thinking at best they are nephalim. At least they are just another variety of ape that accrued environmental adaptations to diet and climate etc. I'd like to have a closer look at the link to Neanderthal feet.

There is no such thing as "nephalim" and as for Neanderthal, you have no right to hold any opinions whatsoever. Your posts have established that quite clearly.

The DNA comparisons, are rubbish. We have 75% DNA in common with a nematode. Neanderthal/human comparisons have been put at 99.5%, 99.9%. I do not think they have any clue how to tell one 'kind'of FOXP2 from another and their biased models will basically give them whatever they want or they will repeat calculation until the insertion values yeild the so called results they require.

Because you neither understand the methods used in DNA analysis, nor would you allow yourself to accept any results of those analyses which contradict your a priori religious beliefs, your opinion is worthless.

According to this link below Neanderthals should be ape men as they are half way in sequence positions between chimp and ape. However according to other research and current thinking they are human with the same FOXPs gene. It is just all incredible Besides the chimp gene has 10% more DNA and has a total of 30% differences (Wiki Chimpanzee Genome Projest) when deletions and folds are considered, and then there is the remarkable difference in the chimp/human Y chromosome comparison. As I said your percentage comparisons are incredible in that they are non credible.

http://au.images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3...-

I know you find all of this incredible and confusing, but your continued attempts, in spite of this, to argue the subject just expose your lack of knowledge. You are seeing everything through genesis-colored glasses and that is leading you to misrepresent, ignore, or deny a lot of facts that have been repeatedly verified. That's no way to do science. But then, you aren't even pretending to do science any longer, are you?

I also believe, (and have posted links) there are flat footed apes, flat faced apes and monkeys, monkeys with rounded skull caps, homoplasy and homology of same traits popping up in distantly related species. One, evo or creationist can draw any inferences they want, that suits, really.

Your belief is of no consequence. It is what the evidence shows that matters. You have repeatedly shown that you don't care about evidence: you just twist it any old which way until it suits your fancy. We might do better debating a child, as a child is usually eager to learn; you have shown no such ability.

In my opinion... what evolutionists actually propose as evidence for evolution is a mosaic of variations of ape, monkey etc as well as any non-human primate variations that have lived over the past 5 million years or so.

Monkeys split off millions of years earlier, and don't enter into this scenario at all. So much for your opinion.

By the way, you should end all of your posts with "Amen!" as they are pure religious apologetics, the exact opposite of science.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 694 by Mazzy, posted 07-07-2011 10:35 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 5369
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 698 of 1075 (623047)
07-07-2011 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 667 by Mazzy
07-07-2011 2:07 PM


Re: Percy Beware!
What my statement alludes to is that if researchers cannot agree on what the evidence says out of 2 or more competing ideas effectively what you have is no evidence at all.

The scientists do agree that H. erectus et al. are transitional. They also agree that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. So you accept this as well, do you not?

Also, you have yet to tell us what criteria you are using to determine if a fossil is transitional or not? So what are those criteria?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 667 by Mazzy, posted 07-07-2011 2:07 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 5369
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 699 of 1075 (623050)
07-07-2011 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 694 by Mazzy
07-07-2011 10:35 PM


Re: Turkana Boy again
Most creationists accept Neanderthal as human.

Some creationists accept H. erectus as human. Some do not. Some accept H. habilis as human. Some do not. If you are looking for inconsistencies look no further than creationists and how they categorize transitional hominids. Here is a good rundown of just how inconsistent creationists are. They can't seem to decide if these transitional hominids are human or not human. I guess that is probably the best evidence for their transitional nature yet.

The DNA comparisons, are rubbish. We have 75% DNA in common with a nematode.

Even if that percentage is accurate, why does this make DNA comparison's rubbish? Of course we share DNA in common with nematodes. We are the same kind as nematodes, the animal kind. We share a common ancestor with nematodes.

Also, could you be specific as to which nematode species you are referring to? There are 28,000 nematode species, after all.

However according to other research and current thinking they are human with the same FOXPs gene.

They may be humans, but they are not anatomically modern humans (i.e. H. sapiens). You seem to think that if both the wolf and chihuahua are called dogs that this means that a chihuahua is a wolf. You need to brush up on your taxonomy.

According to this link below Neanderthals should be ape men as they are half way in sequence positions between chimp and ape.

That's like saying that a dachsund is halfway between a great dane and a chihuahua. Neanderthals, humans, and chimps are all apes. They are also cousins, none being direct descendents or ancestors of the others. Humans did not evolve from chimps. They evolved from a common ancestor with chimps just as great danes, dachsunds, and chihuahuas all descended from a common ancestral dog. Or perhaps you could describe what a chihuahua dog would look like? That is how silly you sound when you ask for a description of an ape man.

In my opinion... what evolutionists actually propose as evidence for evolution is a mosaic of variations of ape, monkey etc as well as any non-human primate variations that have lived over the past 5 million years or so.

So what variations would be consistent with a transitional hominid between humans and our common ancestor with chimps?

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 694 by Mazzy, posted 07-07-2011 10:35 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1085 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 700 of 1075 (623053)
07-07-2011 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 692 by DBlevins
07-07-2011 7:06 PM


Re: Dating and evolution
Many of you keep going on about my not presenting evidence to support my position. Do you think if you say it enough times it may actually deny the science I have put behind my claims. Well it won't!

As recently as today I spoke to a 4th metatarsal that was dated to 3my. THIS IS DATED AND SUGGESTED BY YOUR SCIENTISTS.

It is THEORISED that this bone belongs to Lucy's kind. I say it is evidence of modern mankind being alive and well 3mya, by your dating methods anyway, and living around apes that were arboreal as well as many other non human primates.

http://www.newscientist.com/...ist-that-shows-lucy-wasn.html

It may occur to you to separate fact from fiction. The bone is the fact and it is akin a modern human metatarsal and dated by your own to 3mya. The fiction is that it belongs to a 3ft arboreal species with the anatomy of the hands, feet and shoulder joints (no feet found) that show at east a partly aboreal life, with a small chimp sized brain to boot.

"There is considerable debate regarding the locomotor behaviour of A. afarensis. Some believe that A. afarensis was almost exclusively bipedal, while others believe that the creatures were partly arboreal. The anatomy of the hands, feet and shoulder joints in many ways favour the latter interpretation. The curvature of the finger and toe bones (Phalanges) approaches that of modern-day apes, and is suggestive of their ability to efficiently grasp branches and climb. Alternatively, the loss of an abductable great toe and therefore the ability to grasp with the foot (a feature of all other primates) suggests that A. afarensis was no longer adapted to climbing.[5]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis

The problem with your statement 'To reiterate: Not knowing the exact time that a split occured doesn't mean that the split never happened. We have the evidence that a split occured; it's in the fossil record." is that there actually isn't anuy evidence in the fossil record. No you do not have evidence the split occured at all, because you have stuff all chimp fossil evidence of ancestry to anything and only a stack of excuses as to why. For all you know most of the skulls you show that are meant to show the decent of man from ape are likely the decent of ape from ape.

Neither creation nor evolution can be falsified, so you are asking more of me than even evolutionists can provide to support their stance.

I say the 3myo metatarsal your researchers found is human because your own researchers suggest it is like a modern human 4th metatarsal. I say LUCY is an ape because there is evidence that she is partly arboreal, which hunans are not. You have not found colocated feet. Therefore I have scientific support to suggest my assertion that LUCY and other Australopithecus were a variety of flat footed or arboreal ape and nothing more than that. I say the bone belongs to a human and there is nothing to prove it wasn't other than your own assumptions.

If modern humans with arched feet were here 3mya then all the other so called homo fossils are likely apes, monkeys, Llucs flat faced decendants or some other non human primate.

Like the common evo excuse of no fossil means they are yet to be found, I theorise that fossils of modern man have yet to be found. OR have been found but have been misdated due to necessity and the obvious flaws in using the fossil to date the strata.

So you see I can use science to back my theory just like you guys can put up your interpretations.

You again have the misaprehension that changing dates means anything more than your researchers have no clue. Having no clue does not disprove anything. Running along side that is it also does not prove or support anything other than your researchers can change the date to suit whatever and this is your irrefuteable science.

Look at this for a taste of nonsense.....

"Two recently published papers describe nuclear DNA sequences that were obtained from the same Neanderthal fossil. Our reanalyses of the data from these studies show that they are not consistent with each other and point to serious problems with the data quality in one of the studies, possibly due to modern human DNA contaminants and/or a high rate of sequencing errors."

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/infooi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030175

My evidence is no worse that this above, that is swallowed up by the shovel full even though it makes no sense.

"While the authors are a bit cautious, saying that the whole genome of the Neandertal will provide much more resolution in comparing FOXP2 genes, I do want to point out that this new finding messes up the results of Pääbo, who showed that the mutations in FOXP2 in modern humans were very recent, maybe less than 200,000 years ago in 2002. The authors kinda sorta challenge Pääbo’s conclusion,"
http://anthropology.net/...he-language-gene-as-modern-humans

Much of your research demonstrates even further that your researchers have no clue. That does not mean TOE is disproven. It does mean you have nothing that vaguely looks like solid evidence. The scientific support I provide for my assertions is at least as good as this mess you call support for evolution !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 692 by DBlevins, posted 07-07-2011 7:06 PM DBlevins has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 701 by Taq, posted 07-08-2011 12:03 AM Mazzy has responded
 Message 718 by Percy, posted 07-08-2011 7:58 AM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 5369
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 701 of 1075 (623055)
07-08-2011 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 700 by Mazzy
07-07-2011 11:52 PM


Re: Dating and evolution
As recently as today I spoke to a 4th metatarsal that was dated to 3my. THIS IS DATED AND SUGGESTED BY YOUR SCIENTISTS.

A 4th metatarsal does not a species make.

It is THEORISED that this bone belongs to Lucy's kind. I say it is evidence of modern mankind being alive and well 3mya, by your dating methods anyway, and living around apes that were arboreal as well as many other non human primates.

And you are the one complaining about unwarranted reconstructions? Here you are constructing an entire skeleton from a single metatarsal. Has it ever occurred to you that australopithecines and humans could have nearly identical metatarsals?

Neither creation nor evolution can be falsified, so you are asking more of me than even evolutionists can provide to support their stance.

Evolution can be falsified. Just show us a vertebrate that clearly violates the nested hierarchy. A feathered bat would do quite nicely.

If modern humans with arched feet were here 3mya then all the other so called homo fossils are likely apes, monkeys, Llucs flat faced decendants or some other non human primate.

So if I find an animal with an arched foot does that make them human, no matter what the rest of the animal looks like?

You again have the misaprehension that changing dates means anything more than your researchers have no clue. Having no clue does not disprove anything. Running along side that is it also does not prove or support anything other than your researchers can change the date to suit whatever and this is your irrefuteable science.

So please tell us what dating methods they should be using, and what criteria they should be using to determine if a fossil is transitional or not.

My evidence is no worse that this above, that is swallowed up by the shovel full even though it makes no sense.

It is much worse. You are claiming that one can reconstruct a modern human from a single metatarsal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 700 by Mazzy, posted 07-07-2011 11:52 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 706 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 1:14 AM Taq has responded

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1085 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 702 of 1075 (623056)
07-08-2011 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 695 by Nuggin
07-07-2011 10:57 PM


Re: Try again Mazzy
I have supported everrything I have said with scientific backing.

If you are such a smart bunny and know so much, you prove the metatarsal belongs to Lucys kind. You can't any more than you can refute my theory.

TOE is unfalsifiable just like creation and is a faith.

Your ignorance to my posting supportive evidence does not poof your ignorance into the truth, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 695 by Nuggin, posted 07-07-2011 10:57 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 703 by Taq, posted 07-08-2011 12:11 AM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 704 by Nuggin, posted 07-08-2011 12:39 AM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 705 by Nuggin, posted 07-08-2011 12:42 AM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 707 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-08-2011 1:17 AM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 5369
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 703 of 1075 (623058)
07-08-2011 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 702 by Mazzy
07-08-2011 12:04 AM


Re: Try again Mazzy
If you are such a smart bunny and know so much, you prove the metatarsal belongs to Lucys kind.

What evidence indicates that it came from a modern human? Why can't we find a single modern human skull from that time period? Why are skulls from australopithecines the closest thing we can find to a modern human during that time period?

TOE is unfalsifiable just like creation and is a faith.

A feathered bat would falsify the theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 702 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 12:04 AM Mazzy has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 806 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 704 of 1075 (623059)
07-08-2011 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 702 by Mazzy
07-08-2011 12:04 AM


Re: Try again Mazzy
I have supported everrything I have said with scientific backing.

That's not true and you know it.

I gave you a specific example of how you were making blanket statements without bringing any supporting evidence.

Further, you seem to choose "scientific backing" by the word, not the sentence.

What scientific backing do you have for your claims that native Australians aren't people?
What scientific backing do you have that supports the idea that all scientists come to you for the daily updates on which skull belongs to which groups?

So far all we've heard from you is pronouncements and nothing to back them up.

Simply declaring "Erectus is not human" is NOT an argument. It's NOT debate. It's just you being wrong.

We've had plenty of evidence of your ability to be WRONG. What we'd like to see now is if you have the ability to put together an argument AT ALL.

Stop the Gish Gallop, pick ONE THING to be wrong about, and be WRONG about it in paragraph form.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 702 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 12:04 AM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 806 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 705 of 1075 (623060)
07-08-2011 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 702 by Mazzy
07-08-2011 12:04 AM


How to falsify evolution
TOE is unfalsifiable just like creation and is a faith.

To Taq's "feather bat" I'll add the following:

A bunny skeleton in the stomach of a T-Rex
-Or-
ANY animal poofing into existence in a sealed chamber.
-Or-
Any evidence that mutation never occur - EVER.
-Or-
Any evidence that dead things produce more offspring than live things.
-Or-
Any evidence that offspring and the parent share NO DNA.

There's 6 or so ways to falsify evolution.

Tell us, how do we falsify "Jew Wizards use Magic"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 702 by Mazzy, posted 07-08-2011 12:04 AM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
4546
47
4849
...
72NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014