'We' Evo's think.....................

Hi Keith

quote:

---

Does this help

---

Thanks for the tip, maybe you could join me in this debate. Usually it's just me versus the multitude [This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-19-2003]

Thanks for the advice Ned (3 options, do I get to gamble)
But I can think for myself. And guess what - Creation fits. Now how about answering the question, was it really so unreasonable?
If you don't like my questions Ned ignore them, It's just my opinion afterall, isn't that the aim of evc? Put yourself in my position.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-19-2003]

quote:

---

I reckon layers and layers will be buried rapidly despite their differences, in a very short time. In years to come the only explanation will be a long process.

---

To the contrary, the available dating information will show that the pile of messages were rapidly deposited due to the catastrophic indifference of Adminnemooseus.AM

catastophic deposition of layers...this prediction could make me a believer------------------
AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

Uh, Mike, could you make clear what questions you are asking again? After that I'll ask just how creation fits with what we know.

Well PRAISE THE LORD! I’m converted to creationism!Creation is clearly true, because here I am, at my desk at 9.15am GMT, and here is a thread that has sprung into existence fully formed. It wasn’t here last night, so it must have. (Mind you, I suppose that means the creator is Zeus... though I see little evidence of the goddess of wisdom having recently visited Mike.)Was there actually a question in here somewhere? Can’t see anything useful to get my teeth into. Mind if I get specific? Thank you, I will.Okay Mike, you have trouble with the line of skulls pic. Righty-ho, maybe we’ll come back to that. But for now, please can you tell me whether the fossil known as KNM-WT 15000 is human, or ape?Here’s all of it: And here’s its skull: (Just for comparison, here’s a modern human skull...) (Incidentally, finding a good lateral pic of a modern skull has been a bugger. Does anyone know of anything better than this one?)Well Mike? Human or ape?TTFN, DT

Nice try at avoiding MY questions and asking your own. As for the 'layers' it was simply 'humour' intended, however I think there's a translation when it reaches you guys -cos people seem to have taken it to heart!
Well, this is nothing to do with my question. I don't know what the chap is, that's not even my point. KNM-WT 15000 is what you call him, that's fine, we can even give him a christian name.I'll even admitt , or let you show us the differences. Infact your photo is much better than 'a line of'. As it works off of one subject. So go ahead , I'll listen. That's funny, because I havent mentioned God or the bible much at all. I mentioned Moses once I think, and even then I wasn't trying to convert anyone.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-20-2003]

I, personally, have not responded because (a) others have already covered the matters -- were you surveying a range of answers or something? -- and (b) in some cases I’ve no idea what you were on about.Perhaps you could expand on this 'Moses and geology' business?And perhaps you could explain what this 'jigsaw phenomenon' is supposed to be? You make much of it, but I sense you don’t really know what it is. That’s okay, neither do I, I’ve never heard of it. Is it perhaps a variation on mosaic evolution? If so, what about that troubles you? Well again personally, I got it. Which is why I have never mentioned it. Which was...? Nope, it's mine. I don't yet know what your point is, so I can’t answer yours. But your answer to my point is that you don't know whether the fossil above is human or ape... is that correct? His first name -- you can't really call it a christian name -- is Turkana. Surname Boy. He's kind of a wild young Turk. First, just to check:
Q: Ape or human?
A: Don't know.Yes?TTFN, DT

quote:

---

This topic seems to be defined such that nothing is off-topic.

---

Kinda. It also looks like it was based on taking an exchange between me and Mr. Hambre seriously.Yikes. I'm pretty sure that's up there with sticking your finger in a light switch, as far as reccomended courses of actions go...

Hey Mike, just thought I'd leap into the fray here...To clarify: 'the past is based on the present'In geology, the Principle of Uniformitarianism(sp? can't remember offhand) states that the processes we see today either occured in the past or are very closely related to those in the past. So if we see erosion caused by a river, say, we can examine that process, observe its effects, and identify ancient rivers as a result.Creationism does not fit geology, Mike. If you think otherwise, come join my thread here: http://EvC Forum: Slightly different evidence for an old Earth -->EvC Forum: Slightly different evidence for an old EarthThe Rock Hound

Could you clarify those questions Mike? You've been rambling a bit and I can't get clear what you are asking.Are you going to get to the meat of any part of this discussion or is it proving a bit much for you?

Sorry Dan, it wasn't a dig at you. I was just ammused by Brad's statement. I should have put this in 'Coffee House', I did not realise this section has changed to evc.

You have kind of answered it already, with the comment about 'undecideds' - if I remember correctly. One thing that confuses me though Ned is you insist on coming back to me despite your unhappiness with the nature of my posts.

Sorry, I should have noticed, you got it because your british, which means you speak Brent. You tell me, it's your find. (they are always trying this 'test the fool' approach') - Remember, I am the foolish creo who cannot think, so you tell me what you think it is.

I am giving you a chance to clarify what you are saying rather than rejecting it all out-of-hand, Mike.In addition, you asked for answers to your questions. I am willing to try to do that (or others will) but I can't if I don't know exactly what they are.By the comment about "undecideds" did you mean the reference to the possibility that some forms would not be for sure on or off the "linkage" to us? That is not the same as not being able to decide if a specimen is human or ape. This is not a distinction which makes sense in this context.In this context and understanding the ToE all specimens not H. sapien are "not human" AND "not ape". All specimens over the last 6 or so Myr are also "not ape". A more resonable question is what genus would they be put in. So are they homo or not? Another resonable question is: Are they in the general homonid line? That is, are they one of the ancestral species or one of the cousin species?If there are transitionals between more "ape-like" specimens and more "human like" then the point is that there will be some that are "undecidables". That is you can't pick exactly where on the continuum they are. Lo and behold, you are stuck in that position regarding our lad Turkana Boy.
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-20-2003][This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-20-2003]