Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?

[abu afak]

Stupid. I can train a monkey to copy and paste on a computer but can't train one to read and then explain what they've read in order to present an argument. How can they have evolved into humans?

I completely understand what I posted, and highlighted, in various ways, the crucial parts.

What we have here is you being your usual Disingenuous, to AVOID answering those simple passages.
Any answer?
No.

Let me elaborate on those points.
Science doesn't deal in "Proofs". Only math has Proofs.
Science deals in Theories, that is, NOT the same definition as the casual use of the word.
This ("only a theory") is the number One fallacy of Ignorant Creationists.
That is why an authoritative Citation was needed.
Theories, affirmed over time, are Facts. (see my last)
Any Answer?
NO.

Many other theories are also accepted FACT but not "Proven." (false burden).
Evolution was proposed 160 years ago and every new science in that technically explosive period has either been consistent with it, or outright helped confirm it. Isotopic dating, DNA Regression analysis, etc. And of course, Tens/Hundreds of thousands more fossils. Any of which if found in the wrong place could have busted it.
Any Answer?
NO.

Let me further say, and as well as you dodging the points in my last by dismissing them as copied, I will further pin you to the wall, and this will be over in no more than two more posts because I do fully understand evolution and more importantly... your semantic and disingenous/fallacious responses.

In fact, it's already over because couldn't answer what I "copied" and then explained.
You already HAD to Dodge some basic concepts that Bust your Disingenuous God-saving beliefs by dismissing them as "copied".

Now you are going to dodge my elaborations, or grenade the discussion with ie, faux indignance, because you have no answers.
I've seen hundreds of you, so I make quick work of the nonsense.
Debate is/Was not an option for you.
``

 

[abu afak]

Thank you for your answer. I rather read someone's own answer as it states why they believe it and shows whether someone can explain something they've read in a cogent manner. My reply would be I do not see how the apes followed a different evo path.

So
1. You reject valid authority and try to make this an opinion contest.
2. Argument from Ignorance.
Just because you cannot or will not understand something is not valid deduction.

I watch nature documentaries and see the monkeys, chimps and apes are still the same from 25-years ago, and have not read any articles that say they are different.

No one claims monkeys, chimps and apes change in 25 years!!
Ridiculous/Preposterous argumentation.
(your personal TV observation ! ! ! is also the fallacious 'Argument by Anecdote', rather than major known facts!)

But they have changed and still are, as are ALL creatures constantly.
ie
Chimps have Two separate Species, each with 2 subspecies/races. (4)
Gorillas also have Two separate non-interbreeding Species, which include 6 or 7 subspecies/Races.
So they ALREADY and demonstrably changed and diverged over time.
That's how speciation starts and progresses in ALL life.

All your posts contain GIANT premise errors and/or gaping Ignorance, and/or disingenuity.

Con't for one last point.
`

 

[abu afak]

In other words, we need more than fossil evidence to show how ape humans could exist.

How so?
It's just an assertion of yours withOut basis.
We already have that Evidence.
We already have many finds and degrees of 'Ape-Men'
The latest, of course, has features of Both.
ie

Remains of Humanlike Ancestors Found in South Africa
Discovery of bones of previously unknown species deep in a cave raises questions about origins of ritual burial, self-awareness
Remains of Humanlike Ancestors Found in South Africa - WSJ
By Robert Lee Hotz
Sept. 10, 2015
Slideshow and Video

...In life, these creatures were long-legged, lightweight and lithe, standing a little over five feet tall, the scientists concluded. They had surprisingly modern hands and feet, yet a primitive flattened pelvis and a tiny brain barely one third that of a modern human. All in all, they seemed designed for striding with a modern gait and, possessing unusually long curved fingers, perhaps adapted for rock climbing as well, the scientists said.

“We had a combination of features that we had never seen in a single species before,” said Caroline VanSickle, a biological anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin who helped analyze the bones. “It is just so weird.”

Most likely, the bones don’t belong to a direct human ancestor, but represent one of Nature’s early Experiments in the human form, experts said.

Several disputed the claim that the fossils belong to a new species. Jeffrey Schwartz, a paleo-anatomist at the University of Pittsburgh, said the remains are probably a mix of early human varieties, including a primitive species called Homo erectus that has been known for more than a century.

“A new species name is not adequately warranted for the Rising Star fossils,” said Tim D. White, an anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley.
[.....]​

Also a reminder human (and other) evolution was anything but 'immaculate' creation, but trial and error/mish-mash, survival of the fittest.
So what was this with some modern human features and some Ape features which succesfully BRED, NOT a 'donkey.'


NALEDI FOSSILS | News
This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?
Scientists have discovered a new species of human ancestor deep in a South African cave, adding a baffling new branch to the family tree.
By Jamie Shreeve, National Geographic
Photographs by Robert Clark
SEPTEMBER 10, 2015

While primitive in some respects, the face, skull, and teeth show enough modern features to justify H. naledi's placement in the genus Homo....

A trove of bones hidden deep within a South African cave represents a new species of human ancestor, scientists announced Thursday in the journal eLife. Homo naledi, as they call it, appears very primitive in some respects—it had a tiny brain, for instance, and Apelike shoulders for climbing. But in other ways it looks remarkably like modern humans. When did it live? Where does it fit in the human family tree? And how did its bones get into the deepest hidden chamber of the cave—could such a primitive creature have been disposing of its dead intentionally?

This is the story of one of the greatest fossil discoveries of the past half century, and of what it might mean for our understanding of human evolution.
[........]​

Who Dat?

abu afak/mbig
`

 

[LittleNipper]

Are We Ape-men or Were We Created in God’s Image?
By Bob Knopf

If we ask ourselves the question: “Who Am I?” An Evolutionist must answer that they are a mutation, a happenstance, a mistake, a random descendant from primordial slime, who’s great, great granddaddy was an ape. (Can you really believe someone who claims that this is there heritage?)



However, a Bible-Believing person should answer that they are a specially created child of the Almighty God, created in God’s image, for God’s special purpose. Just imagine the impact these two different viewpoints would have on a person’s life.



The Bottom Line: Ape-Men Never Existed. All archeological and fossil finds claiming to link man to apes are either 100% ape or 100% man. There is no evidence to the contrary. There is no evidence to support that humankind evolved from apes. The ape-men names we’ve all heard about have been shown scientifically to be either pure man or pure ape.



If I said to an Evolutionist, “The only people who may have descended from an ape, are people stupid enough to believe in Evolution.” – Would they get upset with me? You bet. Because deep down, we all know we didn’t descend from an ape. Our inner “truth detectors” tell us that we are something special.


Here’s just a few of the attempts to try to show that mankind evolved from apes. These have been featured in science books over the last decades, but they are not based on science, but on man’s attempt to prove a faulty theory: the theory of Evolution.



Nebraska Man – Artwork of “Nebraska Man” shows Mr. and Mrs. Nebraska Man, smaller than us today with stooped shoulders, a muscular build, and with hair all over the body. Their features are illustrated as half ape/half man. They are often shown carrying a club. Their drawings, museum displays and life story was obtained from the finding of one tooth. The tooth has now been determined to be a pig’s tooth. Nebraska Man was a pig.



Piltdown Man – Piltdown Man was declared the missing link even before he was studied. Then, some 30 yrs later he was found to be an outright fraud. A human skull was sanded and an ape jaw bone was fitted to it; both were treated with acid to make them look old, and then they were “rediscovered.” Piltdown Man was a hoax.



“Stone Age” Neandertal Man – The first “Neandertal Man” was found in a cave in Neander Valley, Germany in 1856. He had a curved spine. Now 300 + have been found and most of the backs are straight. The original specimen had arthritis and a vitamin D deficiency. Neandertal Man is now classified as Homo sapiens (that’s us), not as a “missing link.” Also, in archeological digs, we have now found aerodynamic spears, jewelry, and sophisticated ornaments used by Neandertal Man. They had a religion, and buried their dead with flowers. We have found stone axe blades made of carborundum, the second hardest mineral on earth. The blades had been polished by diamonds, the hardest mineral on earth. If we gave Neandertal Man a haircut and clothes, we couldn't tell them apart from ourselves. Unlike the "cavemen" guys we see on the TV commercials, they'd look exactly like us.



Astralopithecus (Lucy) – This is the most recent and the most complete ancient “human” skeleton ever found. However, the skeleton is missing most of the skull, shoulders, hands, feet, and knees, which are the key identifiers that separate man compared from ape. The pelvic bone is another good indicator, but Lucy has an ape pelvic bone. After further study, Lucy has now been shown to be a true ape, an extinct type of orangutan, however, our young people today are erroneously being taught that Lucy is proof of man’s evolution from an ape.


Australian Aborigines – For years Australian Aborigines were thought to be living missing links that show our ape ancestry. Thousands of Aborigines were killed for scientific study before scientists realized they were human. It was their more blockish features and primitive culture that made evolutionists believe they may be the missing link. It was also belief in a grossly misguided theory: the theory of evolution.


To date, not one fossil link showing that man descended from apes have been found. They won’t be found because each of us were created by the same Almighty God. Regardless of our color or other features, we were all created in the image of an Almighty God.


Why is this important? Because we need to understand that the Bible is the Holy Word of God. It's perfect and true throughout its entire content. This is important because it tells us about God's Special Promise to Each of Us, and how we can spend eternity with God in heaven.

 

[james bond]

Here's a list of evolution that we have seen. The rest you can say is pseudoscience and BS.

8 Examples of Evolution in Action - Listverse

No that is a list an anonymous person put on the internet. Whoever the author is never says that they are the only examples we have seen.

But certainly they are examples of evolution in action. Which demonstrates that the mechanism of evolution is an observable fact.

It's examples that YOU couldn't provide. It shows how weak your arguments and beliefs are because you have no examples of macroevolution nor ape humans.. The observable fact is you believe in fairy tales and science myths. The fossil evidence is science myths. All of these show natural selection which creation science came up with.

It's why I already claimed victory in this thread for creation scientists.

 

[james bond]

In other words, we need more than fossil evidence to show how ape humans could exist.

How so?
It's just an assertion of yours withOut basis.
We already have that Evidence.
We already have many finds and degrees of 'Ape-Men'
The latest, of course, has features of Both.
ie

Remains of Humanlike Ancestors Found in South Africa
Discovery of bones of previously unknown species deep in a cave raises questions about origins of ritual burial, self-awareness
Remains of Humanlike Ancestors Found in South Africa - WSJ
By Robert Lee Hotz
Sept. 10, 2015
Slideshow and Video

...In life, these creatures were long-legged, lightweight and lithe, standing a little over five feet tall, the scientists concluded. They had surprisingly modern hands and feet, yet a primitive flattened pelvis and a tiny brain barely one third that of a modern human. All in all, they seemed designed for striding with a modern gait and, possessing unusually long curved fingers, perhaps adapted for rock climbing as well, the scientists said.

“We had a combination of features that we had never seen in a single species before,” said Caroline VanSickle, a biological anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin who helped analyze the bones. “It is just so weird.”

Most likely, the bones don’t belong to a direct human ancestor, but represent one of Nature’s early Experiments in the human form, experts said.

Several disputed the claim that the fossils belong to a new species. Jeffrey Schwartz, a paleo-anatomist at the University of Pittsburgh, said the remains are probably a mix of early human varieties, including a primitive species called Homo erectus that has been known for more than a century.

“A new species name is not adequately warranted for the Rising Star fossils,” said Tim D. White, an anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley.
[.....]​

Also a reminder human (and other) evolution was anything but 'immaculate' creation, but trial and error/mish-mash, survival of the fittest.
So what was this with some modern human features and some Ape features which succesfully BRED, NOT a 'donkey.'


NALEDI FOSSILS | News
This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?
Scientists have discovered a new species of human ancestor deep in a South African cave, adding a baffling new branch to the family tree.
By Jamie Shreeve, National Geographic
Photographs by Robert Clark
SEPTEMBER 10, 2015

While primitive in some respects, the face, skull, and teeth show enough modern features to justify H. naledi's placement in the genus Homo....

A trove of bones hidden deep within a South African cave represents a new species of human ancestor, scientists announced Thursday in the journal eLife. Homo naledi, as they call it, appears very primitive in some respects—it had a tiny brain, for instance, and Apelike shoulders for climbing. But in other ways it looks remarkably like modern humans. When did it live? Where does it fit in the human family tree? And how did its bones get into the deepest hidden chamber of the cave—could such a primitive creature have been disposing of its dead intentionally?

This is the story of one of the greatest fossil discoveries of the past half century, and of what it might mean for our understanding of human evolution.
[........]​

Who Dat?

abu afak/mbig
`

I presented an argument against humans evolving from monkeys (from Prof. Owen Lovejoy to wrong savannahs to no ape humans today). An argument is a statement where propositions are made and evidence is presented in support of the proposition. An assertion is where someone states something as fact presenting absolutely no evidence which we creationists have gotten so far. What we usually get is artists reconstructions to make it appear that fossils represent what they are suppose to represent. Homo naledi is one such example. It still isn't considered homo by all including secular scientists. Creation scientists think its an ape since the skeletons point more to an ape. The small cranial capacity, no nose formation, stooped shoulders and body.

 

[Syriusly]

Here's a list of evolution that we have seen. The rest you can say is pseudoscience and BS.

8 Examples of Evolution in Action - Listverse

No that is a list an anonymous person put on the internet. Whoever the author is never says that they are the only examples we have seen.

But certainly they are examples of evolution in action. Which demonstrates that the mechanism of evolution is an observable fact.

It's examples that YOU couldn't provide. It shows how weak your arguments and beliefs are because you have no examples of macroevolution nor ape humans.. The observable fact is you believe in fairy tales and science myths. The fossil evidence is science myths. All of these show natural selection which creation science came up with.

It's why I already claimed victory in this thread for creation scientists.

 

[Syriusly]

They didn't teach that to me when I was in Public school

Of course they did. You just didn't pay attention.

I'm a lot older than you.

Oh, okay, that makes more sense.

In his school they learned to repair wagon wheels.....

 

[Syriusly]

Among the living primates, humans are most closely related to the apes, which include the lesser apes (gibbons) and the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans). These so-called hominoids — that is, the gibbons, great apes and humans — emerged and diversified during the Miocene epoch, approximately 23 million to 5 million years ago. (The last common ancestor that humans had with chimpanzees lived about 6 million to 7 million years ago.)

Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Liked

Science absolutely DOES NOT back up the Bible

Creation science thinks those fossils were apes, not ape humans nor any common ancestor. Besides, today's apes would have evolved the same way and we would have ape humans. However, we can't have ape humans beyond one generation. Evos make up stuff in order to fit their theories. They already committed fraud in regards to apes to humans with fossils, so they lost real science cred. Thus, science backs up the Bible in that God created adult humans, creatures and plants. If we saw evolution like what the evos say, then it would be different but all they got is fossils they made to fit their hypothesis.

Total nonsense.

Here is some reality
The emergence of humans

Ha ha. It not reality, but theory. That website is where I learned evolution and is from my alma mater. Around 2011, I started to question some of its findings such as evolving from apes. Then I learned what the Bible stated from 2012. And I compared the two. The Bible version and creation science came out on top.

If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours? Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you.

If it's reality, then why are apes still walking on fours? Please answer my question in your own words instead of links and others do the work for you​

Because the apes (chimps, gorillas, orangs, etc) have followed a different evolutionary path. Chimps still knuckle walk because they have remained creatures of the jungle and spend a lot of time in trees. Same for orangs. We humans left the jungle as climate changes led to loss of forests and more areas of grasslands and savannah. Natural selection favored those that adapted to the changing conditions and we evolved. A more upright posture, freed hands, larger brains, homo sapiens.

And there are lots of links available that explain it much better than I can.

Thank you for your answer. I rather read someone's own answer as it states why they believe it and shows whether someone can explain something they've read in a cogent manner. My reply would be I do not see how the apes followed a different evo path. In fact, the evo scientists say that apes became upright due to female apes more willing to mate with food providers and that was why they became more erect. It is easier to gather and carry foods by walking upright. The grasslands and savannah hypothesis has been replaced due to criticism from creation scientists and others.

Becoming Human: The Evolution of Walking Upright | Science | Smithsonian

I watch nature documentaries and see the monkeys, chimps and apes are still the same from 25-years ago, and have not read any articles that say they are different. Why wouldn't they walk upright if it makes carrying food easier and mating is important? Moreover, we have learned that evolution happens rapidly, not over long periods of time. We have seen species change their physiology due to urban development. I think a good comparison to what you believe happened to apes in the past is the horse and the donkey mating to produce a mule. The mule cannot reproduce, but can only exist through hybridization. Same with ape humans, but our social mores forbid the existence of ape-humans. In other words, we need more than fossil evidence to show how ape humans could exist.

Isn't it fascinating how you can post links to something like the Smithsonian and not display the slightest hint that you either read the link or understand it?

 

[Syriusly]

In other words, we need more than fossil evidence to show how ape humans could exist.

How so?
It's just an assertion of yours withOut basis.
We already have that Evidence.
We already have many finds and degrees of 'Ape-Men'
The latest, of course, has features of Both.
ie

Remains of Humanlike Ancestors Found in South Africa
Discovery of bones of previously unknown species deep in a cave raises questions about origins of ritual burial, self-awareness
Remains of Humanlike Ancestors Found in South Africa - WSJ
By Robert Lee Hotz
Sept. 10, 2015
Slideshow and Video

...In life, these creatures were long-legged, lightweight and lithe, standing a little over five feet tall, the scientists concluded. They had surprisingly modern hands and feet, yet a primitive flattened pelvis and a tiny brain barely one third that of a modern human. All in all, they seemed designed for striding with a modern gait and, possessing unusually long curved fingers, perhaps adapted for rock climbing as well, the scientists said.

“We had a combination of features that we had never seen in a single species before,” said Caroline VanSickle, a biological anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin who helped analyze the bones. “It is just so weird.”

Most likely, the bones don’t belong to a direct human ancestor, but represent one of Nature’s early Experiments in the human form, experts said.

Several disputed the claim that the fossils belong to a new species. Jeffrey Schwartz, a paleo-anatomist at the University of Pittsburgh, said the remains are probably a mix of early human varieties, including a primitive species called Homo erectus that has been known for more than a century.

“A new species name is not adequately warranted for the Rising Star fossils,” said Tim D. White, an anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley.
[.....]​

Also a reminder human (and other) evolution was anything but 'immaculate' creation, but trial and error/mish-mash, survival of the fittest.
So what was this with some modern human features and some Ape features which succesfully BRED, NOT a 'donkey.'


NALEDI FOSSILS | News
This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?
Scientists have discovered a new species of human ancestor deep in a South African cave, adding a baffling new branch to the family tree.
By Jamie Shreeve, National Geographic
Photographs by Robert Clark
SEPTEMBER 10, 2015

While primitive in some respects, the face, skull, and teeth show enough modern features to justify H. naledi's placement in the genus Homo....

A trove of bones hidden deep within a South African cave represents a new species of human ancestor, scientists announced Thursday in the journal eLife. Homo naledi, as they call it, appears very primitive in some respects—it had a tiny brain, for instance, and Apelike shoulders for climbing. But in other ways it looks remarkably like modern humans. When did it live? Where does it fit in the human family tree? And how did its bones get into the deepest hidden chamber of the cave—could such a primitive creature have been disposing of its dead intentionally?

This is the story of one of the greatest fossil discoveries of the past half century, and of what it might mean for our understanding of human evolution.
[........]​

Who Dat?

abu afak/mbig
`

I presented an argument against humans evolving from monkeys (from Prof. Owen Lovejoy to wrong savannahs to no ape humans today). An argument is a statement where propositions are made and evidence is presented in support of the proposition..

Odd argument to present.

That is like me presenting an argument that the Sun doesn't rise in the West.

No one is arguing that humans descended from Monkeys.

But Creation Cultists keep talking about it.

 

[abu afak]

In other words, we need more than fossil evidence to show how ape humans could exist.

How so?
It's just an assertion of yours withOut basis.
We already have that Evidence.
We already have many finds and degrees of 'Ape-Men'
The latest, of course, has features of Both.
ie

Remains of Humanlike Ancestors Found in South Africa
Discovery of bones of previously unknown species deep in a cave raises questions about origins of ritual burial, self-awareness
Remains of Humanlike Ancestors Found in South Africa - WSJ
By Robert Lee Hotz
Sept. 10, 2015
Slideshow and Video

...In life, these creatures were long-legged, lightweight and lithe, standing a little over five feet tall, the scientists concluded. They had surprisingly modern hands and feet, yet a primitive flattened pelvis and a tiny brain barely one third that of a modern human. All in all, they seemed designed for striding with a modern gait and, possessing unusually long curved fingers, perhaps adapted for rock climbing as well, the scientists said.

“We had a combination of features that we had never seen in a single species before,” said Caroline VanSickle, a biological anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin who helped analyze the bones. “It is just so weird.”

Most likely, the bones don’t belong to a direct human ancestor, but represent one of Nature’s early Experiments in the human form, experts said.

Several disputed the claim that the fossils belong to a new species. Jeffrey Schwartz, a paleo-anatomist at the University of Pittsburgh, said the remains are probably a mix of early human varieties, including a primitive species called Homo erectus that has been known for more than a century.

“A new species name is not adequately warranted for the Rising Star fossils,” said Tim D. White, an anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley.
[.....]​

Also a reminder human (and other) evolution was anything but 'immaculate' creation, but trial and error/mish-mash, survival of the fittest.
So what was this with some modern human features and some Ape features which succesfully BRED, NOT a 'donkey.'


NALEDI FOSSILS | News
This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?
Scientists have discovered a new species of human ancestor deep in a South African cave, adding a baffling new branch to the family tree.
By Jamie Shreeve, National Geographic
Photographs by Robert Clark
SEPTEMBER 10, 2015

While primitive in some respects, the face, skull, and teeth show enough modern features to justify H. naledi's placement in the genus Homo....

A trove of bones hidden deep within a South African cave represents a new species of human ancestor, scientists announced Thursday in the journal eLife. Homo naledi, as they call it, appears very primitive in some respects—it had a tiny brain, for instance, and Apelike shoulders for climbing. But in other ways it looks remarkably like modern humans. When did it live? Where does it fit in the human family tree? And how did its bones get into the deepest hidden chamber of the cave—could such a primitive creature have been disposing of its dead intentionally?

This is the story of one of the greatest fossil discoveries of the past half century, and of what it might mean for our understanding of human evolution.
[........]​

Who Dat?

abu afak/mbig
`

I presented an argument against humans evolving from monkeys (from Prof. Owen Lovejoy to wrong savannahs to no ape humans today). An argument is a statement where propositions are made and evidence is presented in support of the proposition. An assertion is where someone states something as fact presenting absolutely no evidence which we creationists have gotten so far. What we usually get is artists reconstructions to make it appear that fossils represent what they are suppose to represent. Homo naledi is one such example. It still isn't considered homo by all including secular scientists. Creation scientists think its an ape since the skeletons point more to an ape. The small cranial capacity, no nose formation, stooped shoulders and body.

That's it!
You Filthy deluded POS.
I put up tons of material (3 posts) Debunking everything you've said on the last few pages.
You Only out up two pictures and a condensed (and alleged) hearsay (and personal) opinion on the taxonomy of Homo Naledi, with NO link/source.

Nothing on your IDIOTIC take, and one of your (and others here) main bases for rejececting evolution : that it's "only a theory".
NOTHING on the Huge difference between casual use of 'theory' (conjecture) and Scientific Theory: a well substantiated idea using facts and information tested over time.
Another source Wiki:

....The definition of a scientific theory (often contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". In everyday speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] the Opposite of its meaning in science. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of "prediction" in science versus everyday speech, where it denotes a mere hope..."

​

NOTHING on my rebuttal of your Idiotic (paraphrase) "I watch nature programs and monkeys/apes/chimps" haven't changed in 25 years"
vs my pointing out the many separate Species and subspecies within Each.
While you expect evolution in a complex creature in less than it's average lifespan, instead of great periods of time.
You're a total Bio-illiterate and logic challenged.

What an in-denial and DISHONEST Godist DOPE you are.
You WHIFFED on everything you Dishonest POS.
Everything I took the trouble to post/educate your dumb ass on.

There is Overwhelming Evidence for Evolution, NONE for God/Dog.
`

 

[james bond]

Here's a list of evolution that we have seen. The rest you can say is pseudoscience and BS.

8 Examples of Evolution in Action - Listverse

No that is a list an anonymous person put on the internet. Whoever the author is never says that they are the only examples we have seen.

But certainly they are examples of evolution in action. Which demonstrates that the mechanism of evolution is an observable fact.

It's examples that YOU couldn't provide. It shows how weak your arguments and beliefs are because you have no examples of macroevolution nor ape humans.. The observable fact is you believe in fairy tales and science myths. The fossil evidence is science myths. All of these show natural selection which creation science came up with.

It's why I already claimed victory in this thread for creation scientists.

View attachment 200301

And to raise creation science vs evolution science.

 

[james bond]

This is the kind of things atheist scientists do to apes. Had they actually evolved into humans, then they probably would be walking among us now.

 

[james bond]

In other words, we need more than fossil evidence to show how ape humans could exist.

How so?
It's just an assertion of yours withOut basis.
We already have that Evidence.
We already have many finds and degrees of 'Ape-Men'
The latest, of course, has features of Both.
ie

Remains of Humanlike Ancestors Found in South Africa
Discovery of bones of previously unknown species deep in a cave raises questions about origins of ritual burial, self-awareness
Remains of Humanlike Ancestors Found in South Africa - WSJ
By Robert Lee Hotz
Sept. 10, 2015
Slideshow and Video

...In life, these creatures were long-legged, lightweight and lithe, standing a little over five feet tall, the scientists concluded. They had surprisingly modern hands and feet, yet a primitive flattened pelvis and a tiny brain barely one third that of a modern human. All in all, they seemed designed for striding with a modern gait and, possessing unusually long curved fingers, perhaps adapted for rock climbing as well, the scientists said.

“We had a combination of features that we had never seen in a single species before,” said Caroline VanSickle, a biological anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin who helped analyze the bones. “It is just so weird.”

Most likely, the bones don’t belong to a direct human ancestor, but represent one of Nature’s early Experiments in the human form, experts said.

Several disputed the claim that the fossils belong to a new species. Jeffrey Schwartz, a paleo-anatomist at the University of Pittsburgh, said the remains are probably a mix of early human varieties, including a primitive species called Homo erectus that has been known for more than a century.

“A new species name is not adequately warranted for the Rising Star fossils,” said Tim D. White, an anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley.
[.....]​

Also a reminder human (and other) evolution was anything but 'immaculate' creation, but trial and error/mish-mash, survival of the fittest.
So what was this with some modern human features and some Ape features which succesfully BRED, NOT a 'donkey.'


NALEDI FOSSILS | News
This Face Changes the Human Story. But How?
Scientists have discovered a new species of human ancestor deep in a South African cave, adding a baffling new branch to the family tree.
By Jamie Shreeve, National Geographic
Photographs by Robert Clark
SEPTEMBER 10, 2015

While primitive in some respects, the face, skull, and teeth show enough modern features to justify H. naledi's placement in the genus Homo....

A trove of bones hidden deep within a South African cave represents a new species of human ancestor, scientists announced Thursday in the journal eLife. Homo naledi, as they call it, appears very primitive in some respects—it had a tiny brain, for instance, and Apelike shoulders for climbing. But in other ways it looks remarkably like modern humans. When did it live? Where does it fit in the human family tree? And how did its bones get into the deepest hidden chamber of the cave—could such a primitive creature have been disposing of its dead intentionally?

This is the story of one of the greatest fossil discoveries of the past half century, and of what it might mean for our understanding of human evolution.
[........]​

Who Dat?

abu afak/mbig
`

I presented an argument against humans evolving from monkeys (from Prof. Owen Lovejoy to wrong savannahs to no ape humans today). An argument is a statement where propositions are made and evidence is presented in support of the proposition. An assertion is where someone states something as fact presenting absolutely no evidence which we creationists have gotten so far. What we usually get is artists reconstructions to make it appear that fossils represent what they are suppose to represent. Homo naledi is one such example. It still isn't considered homo by all including secular scientists. Creation scientists think its an ape since the skeletons point more to an ape. The small cranial capacity, no nose formation, stooped shoulders and body.

That's it!
You Filthy deluded POS.
I put up tons of material (3 posts) Debunking everything you've said on the last few pages.
You Only out up two pictures and a condensed (and alleged) hearsay (and personal) opinion on the taxonomy of Homo Naledi, with NO link/source.

Nothing on your IDIOTIC take, and one of your (and others here) main bases for rejececting evolution : that it's "only a theory".
NOTHING on the Huge difference between casual use of 'theory' (conjecture) and Scientific Theory: a well substantiated idea using facts and information tested over time.
Another source Wiki:

....The definition of a scientific theory (often contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". In everyday speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] the Opposite of its meaning in science. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of "prediction" in science versus everyday speech, where it denotes a mere hope..."

​

NOTHING on my rebuttal of your Idiotic (paraphrase) "I watch nature programs and monkeys/apes/chimps" haven't changed in 25 years"
vs my pointing out the many separate Species and subspecies within Each.
While you expect evolution in a complex creature in less than it's average lifespan, instead of great periods of time.
You're a total Bio-illiterate and logic challenged.

What an in-denial and DISHONEST Godist DOPE you are.
You WHIFFED on everything you Dishonest POS.
Everything I took the trouble to post/educate your dumb ass on.

There is Overwhelming Evidence for Evolution, NONE for God/Dog.
`

Ha ha. It didn't take long for you to reveal your true colors and lack of science knowledge. Just remember you'll reap what you sow..

 

[james bond]

Yesterday, Koko the Gorilla who mastered sign language and showed that animals have empathy has died. She was 46. No one is going to question she was a gorilla. However, because she was a special case, she was treated differently and lived a life with humans. What about other gorillas in the wild? Are they revered by our atheist scientists to have the potential to do more if they are taught? Do they respect the potential of the animal kingdom? God used some of the same materials in their design just as other species seem similar to each other. That's why there are similarities but also differences that separate us from apes. Unfortunately, the very scientists who believe in evolution do not practice what they preach and treat the gorilla or other apes differently from humans. They may not have basic intelligence or empathy for others, but can be taught. Instead, they use them for their own purposes as God taught. Hope it's not for inhuman purposes. If what I and creation scientists say isn't true, then any of these evo scientists should be able to take an ape and produce a species of intelligent and bipedal apes, chimps and the like. They would show that these trained apes would be better than some of the humans who do not have enough intelligence nor have empathy towards others of their own kind. What separates us from apes isn't always for the good.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just checked....


.....nope, still no such thing as "creation science".

 

[james bond]

Just checked....


.....nope, still no such thing as "creation science".

Weren't you the one who could not figure out how science backs up the Bible? You got some bad sources and would not be able to comprehend it even if it hit you on the head. Creation science and Gregor Mendel showed Darwin's ToE was wrong.

There are such things as god of the world and prince of the air and sons of God. I'm sure you'll learn when the time comes when they run wild and try to take over the planet.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Weren't you the one who could not figure out how science backs up the Bible

Dunno... Was I? Bear in mind, your answer is pretty worthless, as you have spent this entire thread inventing hilariously stupid shit that would get you laughed out of a 6th grade classroom.

 

[fncceo]

Just checked....


.....nope, still no such thing as "creation science".

Weren't you the one who could not figure out how science backs up the Bible? You got some bad sources and would not be able to comprehend it even if it hit you on the head. Creation science and Gregor Mendel showed Darwin's ToE was wrong.

There are such things as god of the world and prince of the air and sons of God. I'm sure you'll learn when the time comes when they run wild and try to take over the planet.

Generally speaking, it’s a bad idea to attempt to reconcile religious scriptures with observed empirical data. Any claim that literal scripture is supported by scientific data is just too easy to disprove and it makes for an unproductive discussion.

However, there are many areas where science cannot provide a reasonable explanation - example, pre-Big Bang or reconciliation of the infinity of the universe vs the finite nature of physical space that aren’t in conflict with a metaphorical interpretation of scripture.

At the end of the day, it’s not as important what people believe as it is to accept that people believe differently and to always engage in respectful dialogue when discussing those differences.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just checked....


.....nope, still no such thing as "creation science".

Weren't you the one who could not figure out how science backs up the Bible? You got some bad sources and would not be able to comprehend it even if it hit you on the head. Creation science and Gregor Mendel showed Darwin's ToE was wrong.

There are such things as god of the world and prince of the air and sons of God. I'm sure you'll learn when the time comes when they run wild and try to take over the planet.

Generally speaking, it’s a bad idea to attempt to reconcile religious scriptures with observed empirical data. Any claim that literal scripture is supported by scientific data is just too easy to disprove and it makes for an unproductive discussion.

However, there are many areas where science cannot provide a reasonable explanation - example, pre-Big Bang or reconciliation of the infinity of the universe vs the finite nature of physical space that aren’t in conflict with a metaphorical interpretation of scripture.

At the end of the day, it’s not as important what people believe as it is to accept that people believe differently and to always engage in respectful dialogue when discussing those differences.

You are definitely pissing in the wind, there. He is a staunch, young earth creationist.