15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[Grumblenuts]

Extinct. Out-competed at some point.
Like Neanderthals and Denisovans.
That's why we have/NEED ..... FOSSILS!
Numerous 'tweeners!

and evo was Not a straight line.
There was plethora/WEB of Man/apes, hominids, etc. who, as you know, would Hump/**** anything.
So all manner of results were possible... and we keep finding them.
NO Design obviously, just a trial and error F***-fest for a few million years.
and we are still evolving, our brain cavities getting bigger, and more.

and were it not for modern travel, the human subspecies/races would have gotten more and more distinct and become separate species.
That's how it happens.
And that's what we see on other less mobile species that get truly blocked by rivers, mountains, or oceans.

`

Ah, the good old days.. I remember them well.. Back then the gods just said, "Bee like the fruit fly. Go forth, stinger thrust proudly forward, and multiply!"

 

[abu afak]

Buh, buh, buh we still got those monkeys. It means the ape-human should still be around, but no one is looking for it. They never found its fossils either.

I think you and your scientists have had enough time, so can I just assume it never existed and that's why you can't find one today even though its other ancestors are living today. Besides, some other people believe that there are prehistoric creatures alive today and have found them. That fits the theory that the fossil layers are the locations of where the poor animals died and not time. The time was another athiest science paper that they made up. Can you produce that one?

Again you in-denial Freak, we have the actual Fossils of their bodies.
Like Neanderthals, Denisovans, but they are not alive either.

From #3 of the title article!

"....These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in the Grants' studies of evolving beak shapes among Galpagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms—such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization—can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries.
For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows.
But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly."..."

`

 

[james bond]

Heh. I just got my biggest critic to admit that he has no observable evidence for macroevolution while the chimps, gorillas and chimps being alive today back up creation. He won't be able to produce a paper relating the ape-human to long time either because there is/was no ape-human and no long time.

 

[james bond]

From #3 of the title article!

"....These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in the Grants' studies of evolving beak shapes among Galpagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms—such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization—can drive profound changes in populations over time.

Ad hominem attacks. A sure sign that the poster is lying through his teeth!

He just backed up my theory that ape-humans aren't around anymore. They never were. On the creation side, we were able to produce the early ancestors are still around. Thus, the missing link isn't really missing. Observable evidence that you've all seen my friends.

Otherwise, can some other evo/atheist explained what happened to the missing link, i.e. what evidence do we have for it? I keep saying evolution has nothing observable nor testable. At least, find me the paper that explains the long time. Even an article that made you believe in the long time. Do you see how they were able to pull over the fools' eyes?

 

[abu afak]

Ad hominem attacks. A sure sign that the poster is lying through his teeth!

He just backed up my theory that ape-humans aren't around anymore. They never were. On the creation side, we were able to produce the early ancestors are still around. Thus, the missing link isn't really missing. Observable evidence that you've all seen my friends.

Otherwise, can some other evo/atheist explained what happened to the missing link, i.e. what evidence do we have for it? I keep saying evolution has nothing observable nor testable. At least, find me the paper that explains the long time. Even an article that made you believe in the long time. Do you see how they were able to pull over the fools' eyes?

So you immediately took FAUX offense so you didn't have to answer the bolded, meaty rest... and didn't quote it either you in denial Freak:
How DISHONEST.
Try again:

"""The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to Verifiable Predictions about future discoveries.
For instance, Evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly Five Million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a Succession of hominin creatures with features progressively Less apelike and More modern, which is Indeed what the Fossil Record shows.
But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly."..."

`

 

[james bond]

While primitive in some respects, the face, skull, and teeth show enough modern features to justify H. naledi's placement in the genus Homo. Artist Gurche spent some 700 hours reconstructing the head from bone scans, using bear fur for hair.
PHOTOGRAPH BY MARK THIESSEN, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC

[.....]
"...Delezene’s own fossil pile contained 190 teeth—a critical part of any analysis, since teeth alone are often enough to identify a species. But these teeth weren’t like anything the scientists in the “tooth booth” had ever seen. Some features were astonishingly humanlike—the molar crowns were small, for instance, with five cusps like ours. But the premolar roots were weirdly primitive. “We’re not sure what to make of these,” Delezene said. “It’s crazy.”

The same schizoid pattern was popping up at the other tables. A fully modern hand sported wackily curved fingers, fit for a creature climbing trees. The shoulders were apish too, and the widely flaring blades of the pelvis were as primitive as Lucy’s—but the bottom of the same pelvis looked like a modern human’s. The leg bones started out shaped like an australopithecine’s but gathered modernity as they descended toward the ground. The feet were virtually indistinguishable from our own.

“You could almost draw a line through the hips—primitive above, modern below,” said Steve Churchill, a paleontologist from Duke University. “If you’d found the foot by itself, you’d think some Bushman had died.”...
[.....]

This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?

Homo naledi, discovered in a cave near Johannesburg, is a human ancestor unlike any species previously known. The find is arguably one of the most important discoveries in human origins research in half a century. It’s also the most perplexing.

www.nationalgeographic.com

`

Creationists and many scientists think Homo Naledi was a monkey because of its lack of nose, the sloped ape-like face, the jaw, the shoulder, the curved fingers and toes, the rib cage, and flared pelvis. IOW, it should not have the "homo" designation. These are all consistent with an ape variant. This time you natural selection has done you in abu afak.

 

[james bond]

So you immediately took FAUX offense so you didn't have to answer the bolded, meaty rest... and didn't quote it either you in denial Freak:
How DISHONEST.
Try again:

I just did. Your homo was an ape variant. I have ape variants alive today and can find a "homo" naledi. It should just be a Naledi haha.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

An atheist denies [the possibility of the existence of] god and denies normally also all forms of spiritual beliefs - except the own belief not to believe.

Just wrong. The only requirement for atheism is not accepting belief in gods.

 

[abu afak]

Creationists and many scientists think Homo Naledi was a monkey because of its lack of nose, the sloped ape-like face, the jaw, the shoulder, the curved fingers and toes, the rib cage, and flared pelvis. IOW, it should not have the "homo" designation. These are all consistent with an ape variant. This time you natural selection has done you in

Hey Goofy!
The OP article was written in 2002, BEFORE NALEDI was found!
There are Numerous OTHER Tweeners as the article says.

3. So you've now Dodged it TWICE you DISHONEST POS.

4. AND... I also answered you on your fallacious "why they aren't around now." (Neither are Neanderthals or Denisovans)

Try/DODGE it Again you FRAUD.

"""The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to Verifiable Predictions about future discoveries.​

For instance, Evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly Five Million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a Succession of hominin creatures with features progressively Less apelike and More modern, which is Indeed what the Fossil Record shows.​

But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly."..."​

You're a Preposterous Dodging FRAUD
OUTED for the 1000th time.

`

 

[james bond]

Again you in-denial Freak, we have the actual Fossils of their bodies.
Like Neanderthals, Denisovans, but they are not alive either.

I'm not a denial freak. The atheists know I am fair except you because science does not support your brand of evolution. Maybe they are against me because I point out the Bible sends atheists, ags and sinners to the Lake of Fire.

Evolution does not allow for creation science. Right away, I know that evo is a lie and not science. Even the intelligence in the design of creation science shows that God is behind it. The Bible proves it as science backs it and creation up and we find intelligence behind God's design.

What I don't see is "Homo" Naledi. Some of your fossils are apes such as Judy the chimp. The creationists have found that Judy was most likely a chimpanzee. This is a huge blow to evos, especially atheist evos. Thus, it is you that is a DENIAL FREAK and MOFO. Otherwise, there isn't anything for me to deny, but evolution with no observable nor testable evidence. It also has some wrong fossils. Evolution doesn't present any history of humans. This makes it deniable. I wouldn't expect a history of birds from dinos, but creationists found birds living at the same time as dinosaurs. The fossil record backs this up, so half of macroevolution has been proved WRONG. It means you were WRONG, you denialist. Otherwise, show me the history after Judy. Humans who can think will have a history.

I don't think I have to go on about humans from monkeys as the evolutionists have not made their case. I already destroyed half of macraoevolution. This is fact and shows I am a WINNER. That makes you a loser. Sorry.

 

[Hollie]

I'm not a denial freak. The atheists know I am fair except you because science does not support your brand of evolution. Maybe they are against me because I point out the Bible sends atheists, ags and sinners to the Lake of Fire.

Evolution does not allow for creation science. Right away, I know that evo is a lie and not science. Even the intelligence in the design of creation science shows that God is behind it. The Bible proves it as science backs it and creation up and we find intelligence behind God's design.

What I don't see is "Homo" Naledi. Some of your fossils are apes such as Judy the chimp. The creationists have found that Judy was most likely a chimpanzee. This is a huge blow to evos, especially atheist evos. Thus, it is you that is a DENIAL FREAK and MOFO. Otherwise, there isn't anything for me to deny, but evolution with no observable nor testable evidence. It also has some wrong fossils. Evolution doesn't present any history of humans. This makes it deniable. I wouldn't expect a history of birds from dinos, but creationists found birds living at the same time as dinosaurs. The fossil record backs this up, so half of macroevolution has been proved WRONG. It means you were WRONG, you denialist. Otherwise, show me the history after Judy. Humans who can think will have a history.

I don't think I have to go on about humans from monkeys as the evolutionists have not made their case. I already destroyed half of macraoevolution. This is fact and shows I am a WINNER. That makes you a loser. Sorry.

I think atheists and religious people alike understand you’re a dangerous extremist.

There is no such thing as creationer science.

 

[zaangalewa]

Just wrong. The only requirement for atheism is not accepting belief in gods.

And it's a little more what Christians believe than only not to believe in gods. By the way: Did you know that the early Christians were often called "atheists"?

 

[zaangalewa]

I think atheists and religious people alike understand you’re a dangerous extremist.

There is no such thing as creationer science.

I guess he decided to call himself "Christian" because before he did do so never anyone did listen to his obscure ideas about natural science. But now find the believers in science (believers in science are not scientists!) a "Christian" who shows that their own belief in science seems to be better than his belief in science. "Creation" and "nature" are by the way the same. So "evolution" (=biological evolution) - like any other natural law - had been created and existed since the very first moment of the universe. But it also had to "freeze out" first like for example also the 4 known natural forces froze out once. But our problem is that we did find up to now only a very little place where life exists - and it is indeed possible that this little place is in the moment indeed the only place in the whole universe where life exists.

 

[zaangalewa]

I follow your logic,

¿¿My? logic?

but do not agree because there's no faith in it.

Idiots say idiotic things, isn't it?

Sure, faith is the key part of religion but we realize its truth when we are able to confirm it. Thus, our faith goes deeper. I guess it works for atheism the same way from those who put faith in evolution and then atheism. Or maybe its faith in atheism and then they discovered evolution. Regardless, it doesn't matter.

What for heavens sake doesn't matter? People die on totally stupid reasons - also in wars which are made on totally stupid reasons.

However, with agnosticism, where is the faith?

Always nice to hear a good joke!

It doesn't seem to have any. But more to do with rationalization which you think is logic.

Your logic is true logos - but the logic of anyone else is nonsense. Ever thought about what's the difference between hope and vanity or narcissism?

 

[zaangalewa]

Do you know what a gorilla hands are like? I know you said it out of ignorance.

What about first to read something - and afterwards to try to think about what was said - and not to turn always again and again and again around the own ideas about something what never anyone said to you?

 

[zaangalewa]

Do you know what a gorilla hands are like? I know you said it out of ignorance.

I don't have the fur on my arms and back of hands nor opposable thumbs. My fingers aren't as stout and longer. I also have knuckles and my hands aren't made to walk on like a gorillas. His hands are really black or dark while mine are of flesh color.

I think the important part is we both exist at the same time as separate species. Thus, he isn't an ancestor from the past like you believe.

Much more worse and much more concrete: You and the blade of gras here with the name "Mathilda" have a common ancestor.

 

[JoeBlow]

I heard it was with chimpanzees, but whatever. Even if you have the 96% DNA sharing, then where is this ape-human ancestor? We can check what the ape-human has.

What about we still have chimps, gorillas and other monkeys/apes? So why aren't the ape-humans around?

There are plenty of common ancestors, but you'd have to believe in evolution, which you probably don't.

Personally, I think that around a few of hundred thousand years ago, aliens upgraded our DNA, which made us the only species that have our level of intelligence. But that I don't pretend to be proven, just speculation on my part... for now.

 

[zaangalewa]

There are plenty of common ancestors, but you'd have to believe in evolution, which you probably don't.

Personally, I think that around a few of hundred thousand years ago, aliens upgraded our DNA, which made us the only species that have our level of intelligence.

But that I don't pretend to be proven, just speculation on my part... for now.

 

[JoeBlow]

I don't watch videos here. Make your point and support it with the video. Much better, especially for a kraut.

 

[zaangalewa]

I don't watch videos here. Make your point and support it with the video. Much better, especially for a kraut.

Oh by the way: When you will destroy the pipeline Nord Stream 2 and as a reaction we will destroy all other pipelines which transport natural gas from Russia to Europe - is this okay for "you" (=your "we") or do you nuke middle Europe in this case and end 50,000 years history of human beings here in Germany, chimp, US-American one?