paleontology, for those who loves dinosaurs

[james bond]

Oh, well then,allow me to clarify.

You didn't clarify the evolution myth.

However to accept the Bible literally is to deny science and just plain common sense and that is a very serious problem today.

It just different science and that is creation science. It should be a battle of the two sciences but evos have eliminated their main competition. Thus, you believe whatever their false science tells you. Secular science believed in creation before the 1850s. Afterward, uniformitarianism and Darwin's myths took over.

For example, Professor C. Owen Lovejoy, the professor who put australopithecus afarensis or Lucy's fossils together, thinks apes evolved from humans. It's on the Kent State U website so this is valid. People who believe that evolution happens keeps changing their stories all the time. Our Earth and universe will be getting millions of years older soon.

OTOH, creation science does not change its story. In fact, it can't as it's is already written and it has stood the test of time.

 

[james bond]

You are right about one thing, there is no proof because theories can not be proved because they are always subject to change. However, there is evidence and a hell of lot of it.

We know a lot more about those skulls than you think. First we know how old they are based radiometric dating of the skulls and the rocks they are found in. Secondly we know the attributes such size, shape, and size of the brain they held. We can also tell that they are not homo sapiens due to brain size, skull shape an characteristics of their skeleton. We can place them within genus or family and see transition in structure by comparing them with other skeletal remains. Lastly, DNA studies of fossils .4 to 1.5 million years old allow us to see the changes in DNA as we go through through family and genus. Paleontology is not an exact science but with tools such radiometric dating and dna, plus the increasing number finds it's getting a lot better.

One of the big problems with Darwin's theories and these skulls is that they are racist. How else can one explain blacks are on the lower end of the evolutionary scale and whites on the higher end? We had eugenics which was created by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, and he supported it while Hitler committed the Holocaust. Radiometric dating is not accurate because of the assumptions it makes with parent-daughter isotopes. In fact, its more of the facts made to fit the evolution theory of layers of the earth being based on time chronology. To the contrary, creation science believes the layers are based on location and what happened there such as catastrophes. Even the names of these layers refer to locations and not time. The evos just made the story of the layers and how old they were using erroneous science. Garbage in, garbage out. Thus, you believe in the myth of false science.

How can you show that your evolution and evolutionary thinking and history is not false? Then show us how evolution follows the scientific method. It should not be difficult since you have mountains of evidence and the science is on your side. However, we find that it is all forensic or circumstantial evidence where the secular/atheist scientists made up whatever story fits best..

 

[Grumblenuts]

For starters, prog man, remember that leiwin.wu page you shared idiotically assuming that someone else here somehow wasn't already well acquainted with "primordial soup"? Yeah, that one where you also assumed I wanted to refute it and that I was somehow attacking the messenger by asking you if he happened be the widely acclaimed and beloved physics professor from MIT?

What is the Origin of this Leiwen? Not the physics professor from MIT I hope?

when you cant refute the claim attack the messenger is what I always say,,,

that was just one of many sites that popped up when I google it,,,,here let me get wikipedia for you,,it says pretty much the same thing

And that Wikipedia page you then shared, surprise, surprise, didn't really say the same thing? Yeah, that. Turns out the professor spells his name "Lewin" so that's a relief. Not that I've always agreed with him, but damn that man could teach! Check out some of his free physics lectures if you haven't already.

Anyway, as one might have expected, the Wiki page was straightforward and comprehensive, whereas the leiwen page seemed very truncated in a way that at least seemed highly suspicious. Their listing of supposed "Problems with theory" in particular. But the actual reason I said I hoped it wasn't Lewin is because I had glanced at some other links one can easily navigate to from that page. For example, Creation. Notice same format but suddenly not a hint of criticism ("problems"). In fact, they offer "Other evidence" seemingly to further criticize evolution instead. There's even an "Against PST" page.

That made you smell like a creationist to me. Perhaps something earlier, but apologies if that conclusion was wrong. However, your continued cheap, blanket denials of all evidence offered here for evolution says plenty about your lack of understanding of what comprises scientific evidence and your unwillingness to learn anything more about it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

"I can't hear yoouuuuuu, NANANANANANA!!"

It just goes to show that you have wax in your ears and diarrhea coming out of your fingers as you type.

This reminds me of your recent posts.

Flatulency will get you nowhere

 

[Flopper]

Homo erectus and a modern Eskimo are almost identical aren't they

It's just human variability if one examines the fossils. The rest are artists' drawings to make it look like evolution occurred. If you compare modern humans with the fossils, then there isn't much difference. Your evidence is highly circumstantial as an artist can made these fossils to look like anything he wants.

Amazing Vintage Photographs Capture Everyday Life of Eskimo People From the Early 20th Century ~ vintage everyday

Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or human variability? - creation.com

The difference between the species homo erectus and homo sapiens are to great to consider them the same species, a smaller brain, low forehead and protruding face. Homo erectus have very large teeth compared homo sapian's small teeth. They have heavy brow bridges and much heavier build jaws. Eskimos nor any other race or ethnicity matches. Although Homo erectus is much closer to humans than most other hominids, they are just not close enough but they are certainly transitional.

Homo ergaster discovered in first half of the 20th century is closer to modern day humans in many respects than Homo erectus. Some claim it to be a common ancestor of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens. However, there is much controversy over this species.
Homo erectus
Homo sapiens

 

[progressive hunter]

For starters, prog man, remember that leiwin.wu page you shared idiotically assuming that someone else here somehow wasn't already well acquainted with "primordial soup"? Yeah, that one where you also assumed I wanted to refute it and that I was somehow attacking the messenger by asking you if he happened be the widely acclaimed and beloved physics professor from MIT?

What is the Origin of this Leiwen? Not the physics professor from MIT I hope?

when you cant refute the claim attack the messenger is what I always say,,,

that was just one of many sites that popped up when I google it,,,,here let me get wikipedia for you,,it says pretty much the same thing

And that Wikipedia page you then shared, surprise, surprise, didn't really say the same thing? Yeah, that. Turns out the professor spells his name "Lewin" so that's a relief. Not that I've always agreed with him, but damn that man could teach! Check out some of his free physics lectures if you haven't already.

Anyway, as one might have expected, the Wiki page was straightforward and comprehensive, whereas the leiwen page seemed very truncated in a way that at least seemed highly suspicious. Their listing of supposed "Problems with theory" in particular. But the actual reason I said I hoped it wasn't Lewin is because I had glanced at some other links one can easily navigate to from that page. For example, Creation. Notice same format but suddenly not a hint of criticism ("problems"). In fact, they offer "Other evidence" seemingly to further criticize evolution instead. There's even an "Against PST" page.

That made you smell like a creationist to me. Perhaps something earlier, but apologies if that conclusion was wrong. However, your continued cheap, blanket denials of all evidence offered here for evolution says plenty about your lack of understanding of what comprises scientific evidence and your unwillingness to learn anything more about it.

well if you would stop picking your nose after you wipe your ass you might be able to smell better


and no evidence has been given,,just speculation


but I did notice instead of providing any evidence you went straight to personal attacks,,,

which we all know is the last thing a person has when they cant back up their own claims,,,

 

[Flopper]

Oh, well then,allow me to clarify.

You didn't clarify the evolution myth.

However to accept the Bible literally is to deny science and just plain common sense and that is a very serious problem today.

It just different science and that is creation science. It should be a battle of the two sciences but evos have eliminated their main competition. Thus, you believe whatever their false science tells you. Secular science believed in creation before the 1850s. Afterward, uniformitarianism and Darwin's myths took over.

For example, Professor C. Owen Lovejoy, the professor who put australopithecus afarensis or Lucy's fossils together, thinks apes evolved from humans. It's on the Kent State U website so this is valid. People who believe that evolution happens keeps changing their stories all the time. Our Earth and universe will be getting millions of years older soon.

OTOH, creation science does not change its story. In fact, it can't as it's is already written and it has stood the test of time.

Unlike the Bible creation story, science changes with new discovers commonly referred to as scientific progress. Some people need to hold on to something that never changes such as the biblical story of creation although it's based on the supernatural, with no reliable evidence as to the author, no original manuscript, and no evidence that it's factual, plus it's filled inconsistency. The fact that so many people believe this crap is a real miracle.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I have no problem accepting the creation story as allegorical tale in which God is the architect of the universe and the prime mover.

I do if by "allegorical tale" you at all mean a true though highly symbolic narrative. Just as with all the pathetically obvious dinosaur revisionism discussed here earlier, there are so many blatant contradictions right off the bat that no matter how much one lends it poetic or symbolic license it soon ceases being even funny. For example, those first "days" are clearly intended to be taken as literal days. No matter how many revisionists insist otherwise, the entire context makes that plain. I've read that crap too many times. Much though is indeed good story telling just as one can still expect from the powers that be.

 

[Grumblenuts]

It wasn't until the 17th century, with the rise of critical thinking in many disciplines—in science, in philosophy, and others—that people began to look at the Bible not just as a sacred text but as they would look at any other book. And they began to notice in the pages of the first five books of the Bible a lot of issues that didn't seem consistent with the idea that Moses was their author. For example, Moses never speaks in the first person; Moses doesn't say, "I went up on Mt. Sinai." There are also a lot of repetitions—the same stories told from different perspectives. And there are also many, many inconsistencies; as the same stories are retold, many of the details change.

So much for holding "on to something that never changes".

 

[Flopper]

I have no problem accepting the creation story as allegorical tale in which God is the architect of the universe and the prime mover.

I do if by "allegorical tale" you at all mean a true though highly symbolic narrative. Just as with all the pathetically obvious dinosaur revisionism discussed here earlier, there are so many blatant contradictions right off the bat that no matter how much one lends it poetic or symbolic license it soon ceases being even funny. For example, those first "days" are clearly intended to be taken as literal days. No matter how many revisionists insist otherwise, the entire context makes that plain. I've read that crap too many times. Much though is indeed good story telling just as one can still expect from the powers that be.

It's amazing the different accounts of the creation story. In Gen 1, God creates plants, then animals, and then simultaneously creates man and woman. In Gen 2, God creates a human, plants, then animals, and later he divides the human into female and male. Additionally, the two stories employ different names for the deity. Then there's about 15 popular versions (translations) of the Bible each with a different twist.

So when someone says they take the creation story in the Bible literally, which one?

Two Creations in Genesis

 

[james bond]

Homo erectus and a modern Eskimo are almost identical aren't they

It's just human variability if one examines the fossils. The rest are artists' drawings to make it look like evolution occurred. If you compare modern humans with the fossils, then there isn't much difference. Your evidence is highly circumstantial as an artist can made these fossils to look like anything he wants.

Amazing Vintage Photographs Capture Everyday Life of Eskimo People From the Early 20th Century ~ vintage everyday

Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or human variability? - creation.com

The difference between the species homo erectus and homo sapiens are to great to consider them the same species, a smaller brain, low forehead and protruding face. Homo erectus have very large teeth compared homo sapian's small teeth. They have heavy brow bridges and much heavier build jaws. Eskimos nor any other race or ethnicity matches. Although Homo erectus is much closer to humans than most other hominids, they are just not close enough but they are certainly transitional.

Homo ergaster discovered in first half of the 20th century is closer to modern day humans in many respects than Homo erectus. Some claim it to be a common ancestor of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens. However, there is much controversy over this species.
Homo erectus
Homo sapiens

Yours are still artist reconstructions. They usually can't agree on what homo erectus looked like.

"1) H. erectus is the same species as H. ergaster, and thereby H. erectus is a direct ancestor of the later hominins including Homo heidelbergensis, Homo antecessor, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo denisova, and Homo sapiens; or,
2) it is in fact an Asian species or subspecies distinct from African H. ergaster"

Of course, they do not put "same species, but distinct from H. ergaster."

 

[james bond]

So when someone says they take the creation story in the Bible literally, which one?

You should read it yourself and find it's this one:

 

[Hollie]

So when someone says they take the creation story in the Bible literally, which one?

You should read it yourself and find it's this one:

Don’t you find ir odd that you’re reduced to cutting and pasting cartoons from charlatans at a dishonest, fundamentalist ministry?

 

[james bond]

Flatulency will get you nowhere

You get this then

 

[Hollie]

Homo erectus and a modern Eskimo are almost identical aren't they

It's just human variability if one examines the fossils. The rest are artists' drawings to make it look like evolution occurred. If you compare modern humans with the fossils, then there isn't much difference. Your evidence is highly circumstantial as an artist can made these fossils to look like anything he wants.

Amazing Vintage Photographs Capture Everyday Life of Eskimo People From the Early 20th Century ~ vintage everyday

Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or human variability? - creation.com

The difference between the species homo erectus and homo sapiens are to great to consider them the same species, a smaller brain, low forehead and protruding face. Homo erectus have very large teeth compared homo sapian's small teeth. They have heavy brow bridges and much heavier build jaws. Eskimos nor any other race or ethnicity matches. Although Homo erectus is much closer to humans than most other hominids, they are just not close enough but they are certainly transitional.

Homo ergaster discovered in first half of the 20th century is closer to modern day humans in many respects than Homo erectus. Some claim it to be a common ancestor of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens. However, there is much controversy over this species.
Homo erectus
Homo sapiens

Yours are still artist reconstructions. They usually can't agree on what homo erectus looked like.

"1) H. erectus is the same species as H. ergaster, and thereby H. erectus is a direct ancestor of the later hominins including Homo heidelbergensis, Homo antecessor, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo denisova, and Homo sapiens; or,
2) it is in fact an Asian species or subspecies distinct from African H. ergaster"

Of course, they do not put "same species, but distinct from H. ergaster."

Most anyone, even fundamentalist quacks can edit wiki.

 

[Hollie]

Oh, well then,allow me to clarify.

You didn't clarify the evolution myth.

However to accept the Bible literally is to deny science and just plain common sense and that is a very serious problem today.

It just different science and that is creation science. It should be a battle of the two sciences but evos have eliminated their main competition. Thus, you believe whatever their false science tells you. Secular science believed in creation before the 1850s. Afterward, uniformitarianism and Darwin's myths took over.

For example, Professor C. Owen Lovejoy, the professor who put australopithecus afarensis or Lucy's fossils together, thinks apes evolved from humans. It's on the Kent State U website so this is valid. People who believe that evolution happens keeps changing their stories all the time. Our Earth and universe will be getting millions of years older soon.

OTOH, creation science does not change its story. In fact, it can't as it's is already written and it has stood the test of time.

Actually, the silly label of “creation science” has long ago been exposed as a fraud. It’s nothing more than fundamentalist Christianity under a false label of ID’iot creationism.

There is no battle with ID’iot creationism as fundamentalist Christian ministries due no research and thus cannot publish in peer reviewed journals.

It’s too bad that the hyper-religious don’t understand even the most basic concepts of biological evolution. It’s a broad term that encompasses both a set of facts and a testable model, or theory (actually, many theories), to explain those facts. Creationism has neither a testable model nor facts that support the claims to supernaturalism.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yours are still artist reconstructions.

No, those are actual fossils. Why do you say such ridiculous things? You ambarrass yourself. We can measure the bones and teeth. And no, they do not resemble modern humans or fall within the physiological spectrum of modern humans.. You are spreading stupid lies.

 

[Hollie]

You are right about one thing, there is no proof because theories can not be proved because they are always subject to change. However, there is evidence and a hell of lot of it.

We know a lot more about those skulls than you think. First we know how old they are based radiometric dating of the skulls and the rocks they are found in. Secondly we know the attributes such size, shape, and size of the brain they held. We can also tell that they are not homo sapiens due to brain size, skull shape an characteristics of their skeleton. We can place them within genus or family and see transition in structure by comparing them with other skeletal remains. Lastly, DNA studies of fossils .4 to 1.5 million years old allow us to see the changes in DNA as we go through through family and genus. Paleontology is not an exact science but with tools such radiometric dating and dna, plus the increasing number finds it's getting a lot better.

One of the big problems with Darwin's theories and these skulls is that they are racist. How else can one explain blacks are on the lower end of the evolutionary scale and whites on the higher end? We had eugenics which was created by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, and he supported it while Hitler committed the Holocaust. Radiometric dating is not accurate because of the assumptions it makes with parent-daughter isotopes. In fact, its more of the facts made to fit the evolution theory of layers of the earth being based on time chronology. To the contrary, creation science believes the layers are based on location and what happened there such as catastrophes. Even the names of these layers refer to locations and not time. The evos just made the story of the layers and how old they were using erroneous science. Garbage in, garbage out. Thus, you believe in the myth of false science.

How can you show that your evolution and evolutionary thinking and history is not false? Then show us how evolution follows the scientific method. It should not be difficult since you have mountains of evidence and the science is on your side. However, we find that it is all forensic or circumstantial evidence where the secular/atheist scientists made up whatever story fits best..

That was one long, lurid conspiracy theory addled rant. “Science is racist” is right out of the Henry Morris playbook.

It’s not surprising that most of your cutting and pasting is stereotypical for the hyper-religious thumpers.

An Index to Creationist Claims

 

[james bond]

No, those are actual fossils.

I actually clicked on Flopper's link as he is smarter than you. Here is homo erectus:

Way too dark if you ask me and he is made to look like homo ergaster. Another artist would represent him differently from the fossils and description. It's based on human variability, so we can show today's humans to fit the description and fossils.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I actually clicked on Flopper's link as he is smarter than you. Here is homo erectus:

Way too dark? According to whom? The voices in your head? And homo erectus and homo ergaster do look somewhat alike, and they resemble each other much more than either resembles a modern human.