Creationists

[koshergrl]

Semantics indeed.

Why do you always illustrate the thing you're bitching about?

 

[InDoctriNation]

Semantics indeed.

Why do you always illustrate the thing you're bitching about?

Nice try, but your belief that science should be able to prove something is not just an error in semantics, but on your part a fundamental misunderstanding of what science can and should be able to demonstrate. Now would you care to address your ignorance on the scientific method, or are you going to deflect again?

 

[koshergrl]

Semantics. I show you lie, and you piss and moan about whether I understand the term "science".

I do. And I used it correctly. Science is knowledge gained by observation, and it is by this that things are proven.

So when I say "the science proves" or "the science does not prove" I mean that what has been observed either verifies or doesn't.

So please tell me, why is it that you complain so loudly about "semantics" and "deflection" while you are, in the same breath, engaged in an argument over semantics and deflecting for all you're worth?

Meanwhile, lest we forget...your only other contribution to the conversation are..well, lies.

Oh I get it, you're trying to cover that up.

 

[InDoctriNation]

No, you unfortunately don't understand what science or the scientific method is if you think anything can be proven through science. Inductive reasoning, the basis of the scientific method, cannot conclusively prove anything.

Show me where I have lied in this thread. You seem to be obsessed with pointing out that people have been lying, while I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you must just be ignorant. Why do you assume the worst in people?

 

[Youwerecreated]

So what is the evidence that we evolved from homo erectus ?

Did they test their DNA ?

Was this a half human half apelike creature ?

Was this creature human or ape ?

Who is claiming that we evolved from homo erectus?

I don't know if they (whoever you mean by that) tested their DNA. I'm sure you could find out the answer to this question with a cursory search if you are so inclined.

What do you mean by half human half apelike creature? Seems like a dishonest, oversimplified question to me, and thus not worth anyone's consideration.

How do you explain the existence of creatures like homo erectus in light of the Bible? Were they taken onto the arc? Were neanderthals and australopithecus there as well? What happened to them and why does the Bible make no mention of their existence?

Earlier drock and I am not sure who else made the claim that was the common ancestor between humans and chimps. The answer is no they did not test their dna.just comparing bone structures will not prove such a thing. Neanderthals were humans not sure if they were destroyed in the flood or whether they were humans with poor genetics and eventually interbred to the point of extinction. I would say they were people that were outcasts and destroyed in the flood.

 

[Dragon]

Earlier drock and I am not sure who else made the claim that was the common ancestor between humans and chimps.

No, that would be much further back. H. erectus is probably the immediate ancestor of modern humanity on the hominid line.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Another lie, you said science says chimps are our ancestors, which is either flat out ignorance or a lie. I think it's ignorance.

I've given you links, and you ignored them. So please stop asking me for links. The links I provide have the scientific answers, so if you actually want a scientific answer to your question (which you don't) go back and read the links.

Who are you calling a liar ? Who is ignorant ?

published in early 2007 challenges this notion.

Published in PLoS Genetics, the article suggests that the human-chimpanzee split may have been about four million years ago, around the time when Lucy, a bipedal relative of humans, was running around. Just last year, another paper described evidence of interbreeding between proto-humans and proto-chimpanzees more recently than 5.4 million years ago, an event that would not be uncommon when two populations are slowly splitting into two distinct species.


“Someone told me that human beings have been around for only 60 thousand years. This is shorter than I thought. Is this true? Where did we come from?” » Scienceline

Why don't you educate yourself before you call people liars.

A species being around longer doesn't mean they're ancestors, you liar.

I provided a link that already shows the family tree and which species of ancestors of which, but of course you ignored it. Hence why I'm done providing links for you.

so much for the evolutionary tree ? how can an animal that we are supposedly related to and was around longer then us not be an ancestor?

 

[InDoctriNation]

So what is the evidence that we evolved from homo erectus ?

Did they test their DNA ?

Was this a half human half apelike creature ?

Was this creature human or ape ?

Who is claiming that we evolved from homo erectus?

I don't know if they (whoever you mean by that) tested their DNA. I'm sure you could find out the answer to this question with a cursory search if you are so inclined.

What do you mean by half human half apelike creature? Seems like a dishonest, oversimplified question to me, and thus not worth anyone's consideration.

How do you explain the existence of creatures like homo erectus in light of the Bible? Were they taken onto the arc? Were neanderthals and australopithecus there as well? What happened to them and why does the Bible make no mention of their existence?

Earlier drock and I am not sure who else made the claim that was the common ancestor between humans and chimps. The answer is no they did not test their dna.just comparing bone structures will not prove such a thing. Neanderthals were humans not sure if they were destroyed in the flood or whether they were humans with poor genetics and eventually interbred to the point of extinction. I would say they were people that were outcasts and destroyed in the flood.

What about all the other early hominid species? Were they all humans as well? The evolution of the location of the foramen magnum in early hominoid species, which is the large opening where the spinal column connects with the skull, would suggest that these other "humans" may not have walked as upright as we do. This is not a trivial skeletal difference. What happened to these creatures? Were they all allowed to perish in the flood?

 

[Youwerecreated]

So what is the evidence that we evolved from homo erectus ?

Did they test their DNA ?

Was this a half human half apelike creature ?

Was this creature human or ape ?

I'll just keep providing the same link over and over again, and you can keep pretending to read people's answers over and over again when clearly you don't.

Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, the 2010 sequencing of the Neanderthal genome indicated that Neanderthals did indeed interbreed with H. sapiens circa 45,000 to 80,000 years ago (after H. sapiens moved out from Africa, but before they separated into Europe, Asia and elsewhere).

Rubbish,they can't prove Neanderthals interbred with any apelike creature. It is clear apes chimps or monkeys cant interbreed with humans that is a stretch of the imagination.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Who is claiming that we evolved from homo erectus?

I don't know if they (whoever you mean by that) tested their DNA. I'm sure you could find out the answer to this question with a cursory search if you are so inclined.

What do you mean by half human half apelike creature? Seems like a dishonest, oversimplified question to me, and thus not worth anyone's consideration.

How do you explain the existence of creatures like homo erectus in light of the Bible? Were they taken onto the arc? Were neanderthals and australopithecus there as well? What happened to them and why does the Bible make no mention of their existence?

Earlier drock and I am not sure who else made the claim that was the common ancestor between humans and chimps. The answer is no they did not test their dna.just comparing bone structures will not prove such a thing. Neanderthals were humans not sure if they were destroyed in the flood or whether they were humans with poor genetics and eventually interbred to the point of extinction. I would say they were people that were outcasts and destroyed in the flood.

What about all the other early hominid species? Were they all humans as well? The evolution of the location of the foramen magnum in early hominoid species, which is the large opening where the spinal column connects with the skull, would suggest that these other "humans" may not have walked as upright as we do. This is not a trivial skeletal difference. What happened to these creatures? Were they all allowed to perish in the flood?

The only humans named were Noah his wife and three sons and their wives. I think evolutionist make a big deal over deformed humans and a bunch of interbreeding monkeys.

 

[Dragon]

However, the 2010 sequencing of the Neanderthal genome indicated that Neanderthals did indeed interbreed with H. sapiens circa 45,000 to 80,000 years ago (after H. sapiens moved out from Africa, but before they separated into Europe, Asia and elsewhere).

Rubbish,they can't prove Neanderthals interbred with any apelike creature. It is clear apes chimps or monkeys cant interbreed with humans that is a stretch of the imagination.

Umm . . . H. sapiens is OUR species. It is not an "apelike creature" -- well, actually I guess that's debatable. But anyway, it's us.

That's who Neanderthals are believed to have interbred with. Not chimps or monkeys.

 

[koshergrl]

"Believed".That's what SOME believe, and, as you are fond of pointing out...BELIEF DOESN'T MAKE IT SO.

Belief requires faith.

Is this sinking in?

 

[InDoctriNation]

Earlier drock and I am not sure who else made the claim that was the common ancestor between humans and chimps. The answer is no they did not test their dna.just comparing bone structures will not prove such a thing. Neanderthals were humans not sure if they were destroyed in the flood or whether they were humans with poor genetics and eventually interbred to the point of extinction. I would say they were people that were outcasts and destroyed in the flood.

What about all the other early hominid species? Were they all humans as well? The evolution of the location of the foramen magnum in early hominoid species, which is the large opening where the spinal column connects with the skull, would suggest that these other "humans" may not have walked as upright as we do. This is not a trivial skeletal difference. What happened to these creatures? Were they all allowed to perish in the flood?

The only humans named were Noah his wife and three sons and their wives. I think evolutions make a big deal over deformed humans and a bunch of interbreeding monkeys.

So hominid fossils we have discovered that have a different placement of the foramen magnum in the skull are just deformed humans? Interesting that the deformity seems to follow a gradual trend in the fossil record of hominid species. I've never heard of such a deformity occurring naturally in humans, and at such incremental levels of severity. Can you explain that?

 

[Dragon]

"Believed".That's what SOME believe, and, as you are fond of pointing out...BELIEF DOESN'T MAKE IT SO.

Belief requires faith.

Is this sinking in?

I explained that already, KG. No, belief doesn't require "faith," it just requires uncertainty. I will continue to say "I believe that" or "it is believed that" when the evidence isn't 100% conclusive, or when I haven't personally studied it well enough for my own perfect satisfaction (which is the case here, with respect to Neanderthals interbreeding with modern humans).

I may say "it is believed" when there is a great deal of evidence in favor of what I'm saying. In no way, shape or form does this imply, as it does with your own beliefs, that there is NO evidence in favor of what I'm saying.

Is THAT sinking in?

 

[koshergrl]

Well we've come full circle.

What started with unmitigated crap ends with it. Thanks for playing. You're dismissed.

 

[koshergrl]

be·lief/biˈlēf/


Noun:

• An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
• Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

/fāTH/
Noun:

• Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
• Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

 

[Dragon]

Well we've come full circle.

What started with unmitigated crap ends with it. Thanks for playing. You're dismissed.

What incredible arrogance.

You can't dismiss me, little girl. You can only dismiss yourself. Feel free to do THAT if you want.

 

[koshergrl]

No thank you, I'm dismissing you. All you can do is pontificate, lie, argue semantics and quibble over minute variances in the meanings of words. There's really no more to be said.

 

[Dragon]

No thank you, I'm dismissing you. All you can do is pontificate, lie, argue semantics and quibble over minute variances in the meanings of words. There's really no more to be said.

Actually, the only truth in that is that YOU have no more to say. And everything you say about me in this post is actually true of you. For example, every time I use the word "believe" in any post, despite the fact that what I mean by it has been made clear, you trot out the same invalid argument that I'm presenting a faith-based position, merely because of the pure meaningless coincidence of that one word.

You know perfectly well that this is a false argument. You have no excuse for doing it. You are simply lying. And you are lying in this post as well.

You are really a very bitter, nasty little person, you know.

 

[koshergrl]

My only point, and the one point you avoid, is that faith is required of your belief, just as it is of mine, and neither is more valid. Having faith in God does not make me any less intelligent than a person who has faith that we descended from some other species. Not believing that the earth is millions of years old makes me no more ignorant than the person who stupidly proclaims we know without a doubt how old the earth is and how it was formed.

You avoid those points, and instead bounce all over the place, quibbling over nuances in word definitions and claiming to know what others believe.

It's garbage. Pseudo intellectuals always pull this crap, then pat themselves on the back for being more *logical* when in reality all they do is spin a web of logical fallacy, lies and fake science they've picked up off their journeys through wiki, late night tv and a couple of the more rabid lefty talk shows.

That's not science, and it's not worthy of discussion.