Rediculous statement.

So many sub levels going on i am not sure if i am a Christian or an atheist? :/

op's posts are rather spiteful against religion, I'm not sure I believe it's a secret Christian just trying to show up atheists. I suppose it could be an atheist trying to show that the regular atheist posters don't embrace everyone automatically that claims to be an atheist (hinted at by doggg, cwocwoc for example).

Having read a few of ops posts from other forums, I think he's probably what he appears to be; obnoxious, dogmatic and misinformed. But hold on a sec, didn't I just say I didn't think he was a Christian?!! (jk, jk!!)

Neither. You're a Cerifist.

Lol when in doubt there's always scientology or mormonism...


on a serious note. How come we have the gene. the only gene responsible for language in our DNA and no monkey to speak of has it? how can we differ in this way from what i assume is all other animals. is it just something we developed being the apex predator? Or is there serious missing link that we have yet to figure out that could be GodLy or extraterrestrial in nature?


Darth

Wait, there's a gene responsible for language and there's only one of them?

Ignoring the "only gene responsible for language" issue for the moment, what have Monkey's got to do with us? We're not evolved from them, we just have a common ancestor a very very long time ago. Also, there are animals currently that communicate vocally and species that have completely different methods to communicate in ways that could be considered as a primitive language (the Humboldt squid springs to mind).

I've read a theory that we selected for big brains because we spend an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out what other humans are thinking. Speech greatly facilitates that so our development and use of it makes sense but if you fast forward a million years you might find other animal species swapping anecdotes with each other. Don't forget that we're not at the termination of evolution, NOW is just a snapshot of an ongoing process.

Great post!

I thought we may have had this big bang of knowledge. Once we started cooking our meat. What I have trouble understanding is how for hundreds of thousands of years or whatever it was we were extremely primitive hunter gathers and then bang all the sudden the snap of my fingers were building pyramids that's just a little strange. There's a huge gap in human history after the Ice Age that we just have no clue off or something crazy happened IMO.

-Darth

Saved

Not really. Your image raises two points:

1) You claim there are gaps but instead of being curious and attempting discovery through study, you fill the gaps with God (and this is one of the things I really dislike about religions). Where science is driven by ignorance, you are content in your lack of understanding, you are happy to shut down your critical faculties and simply not question it.

2) The gaps aren't really gaps at all which could be demonstrated through even a minimal amount of research on your part.

saved

100% BS

So you think that every purported transitional ape-human fossil is either clearly a human or clearly an ape? Is that fair?

Human, or some other hominid.

Who's arguing with this?

you are right. isn't it funny that you can become us president and believe in something like this intelligent design stuff? to believe in that your DNA must be 99.9999999999% the same as chimpanzees. (sorry if i offended anyone)

woah woah woah

i can fit the amount of specimens they use as a transitional fossil on one spreadsheet and tell you exactly what they are with minimal research not just a vague "APE OR MAN"

there should be MILLIONS OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS all kinds of weird ape men theres like 7 TOTAL!

its so obvious and when more than half of them are proven to be outright obvious lies it just instantly delegitimizes evolution and the rest of the fossils they use

the one neanderthal that looks pretty convincing has a disease called rickets

thats an example

Thanks, I was hoping you'd say this.

Can you explain this chart:



As you can see, individually each creation 'scientist' can easily put each fossil into an "ape" or "human" category, but collectively they disagree with each other. It is especially interesting to note that the fossils that are very early or very later chronologically are the ones with most creationist agreement, and the fossils that are dated in between have the most disagreement. This collective disagreement is perfectly predicted by an evolutionary model, as species (or kinds, if you prefer) have fluid boundaries. On the assumption of creationism, however, this is an major embarrassment.

this is just silly one is a drawing one is a skullcap doesnt count
er 1470 was apparently REGROWN with chemicals
"and are still presenting Skull 1470 with the original and incorrect flat face as portrayed in 1972"

er 1813
"Wolpoff describes KNM-ER 1813 as ‘very similar to, really indistinguishable from, early H. sapiens in its teeth and frontofacial architecture (except for its narrow mid-face) but has a much smaller brain size’.14 If the evaluation of KNM-ER 1813 by White and Wolpoff is correct, then this cranium, with a cranial capacity of only about 509 cm3,15 may have belonged to a very small human. "

i thought this was funny
" some scientists had used habilis ‘as a garbage bag’. Tattersall and Schwartz have described ‘the status of H. habilis as an all-embracing “wastebasket” species into which a whole heterogeneous variety of fossils could be conveniently swept’"


er 3733
reconstruction
"Bowden's concern about the angle of the facial bones indicates that he may think ER 3733 is an ape which has been incorrectly reconstructed to make it look more human than it really is."

wt 15000
"WT 15000 is plainly a human being - even in the post-cranial features. Radiodated at about 1.6 mya (million years ago), this lad stood and walked as fully erect as do humans today.17,18 Although the brain capacity is rather small, it is still larger than some juvenile and adult humans of today.

As most of the adult cranial capacity is reached by age 10 or 11, it is likely that the adult ECV of WT 15000 would be no more than about 1000-1050cc, which is still well within the modern human range of about 800- 2000cc"



even if there was like 45 different skulls layed out that were almost convincing realistically millions of years would have many more

and where are the ape's descendants? OOPS.

All you've done is googled for individual creationists arguments about what each fossil represent. That doesn't address the problem that the creationists disagree with each other about what they represent. These are supposed to be clearly and obviously different 'kinds' of fossil. Creationism predicts that fossils will be easily identified as one or the other. This prediction has failed. A failed prediction means a falsified theory. Therefore creationism is false.

ok but so do the evolutionists disagree among one each other

as i was researching i saw that

mr ex president?

its not going to be crystal clear gods creation is still really flexible in creationist view

you could mistake it for evolution

The theory of evolution predicts that evolutionists will disagree, because 'kinds' are not immutable. Think about colour as an example. There is a point along the spectrum from green to blue where people disagree about whether a colour is green or blue. That is expected, because colours are continuous. The same goes for species - on evolution there are no sharp dividing lines between species, so disagreement is inevitable. The creationist proposes that sharp dividing lines DO exist between kinds/species, therefore disagreement should not be expected.

neither is there a sharp dividing line on creation

if you line up a skull from china from america from africa from russia you would get what could look like a series of evolution its how different they are