27 Apr 05
Originally posted by skywalker redSkywalker Red, you really need to chill out a little. Posts like this give the impression of a small dog, yapping. Not good for projecting a credible persona...
of course it a position and also inherently a question, let me explain it to you, I will go slow and speak in terms that hopefully you will comprehend, but I expect that you will have further difficulty... anyway.... my position is that darwin's questionable and problematic theory has so many holes in it that it cannot float on the waters of serious b ...[text shortened]... le is this: what other possible scenarios are there for the creation of the world and mankind.
27 Apr 05
Originally posted by skywalker redWhat's a 'concrete transitional form'? Why isn't Homo georgicus a 'concrete transitional form'?
you know, its funny, if I actually took the time to enumerate all of the holes in the theory, then this thread would probably never end. However, lets start with the lack of any concrete transitional forms in the geological record.
28 Apr 05
Originally posted by skywalker redAre you sure about that? The volume of the Homo georgicus braincase is 600 cm^3, while modern humans have a minimum cranial capacity of 950 cm^3.
all of the morphological characteristics of homo georgicus falls within the morphological variations of modern homo sapiens.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/ViktoriyaShchupak.shtml
28 Apr 05
Here's an interesting quote:
Most creationists now place the line between human and ape fossils between Homo erectus (human) and H. habilis (ape), with some disagreement about which side of the line the habiline fossil ER 1470 should fall.
Now, however, in the Dmanisi fossils, we have a group of three closely related skulls which, in both brain size and physical characteristics, nicely straddle that line and resemble the fossils on either side of it.
Apparently, most creationists predicted that no fossils would be found that were intermediate in characteristics to H. erectus and H. habilis, while most evolutionists predicted such fossils would be found. The fossils were found.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html
28 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungwell, okay, if your so sure about the infallibility of evolution .....then how do you explain the origin of life?
Here's an interesting quote:
[b]Most creationists now place the line between human and ape fossils between Homo erectus (human) and H. habilis (ape), with some disagreement about which side of the line the habiline fossil ER 1470 should fall.
Now, however, in the Dmanisi fossils, we have a group of three closely related skulls which, in both b ...[text shortened]... uld be found. The fossils were found.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html
28 Apr 05
Originally posted by skywalker redEvolution is not a theory that proports to explain the origin of life. Surely you haven't, with as much bluster and bravado as I have ever seen in these posts, decided to take on one of the most established theories in science without even having understood what it says at the most basic level.
well, okay, if your so sure about the infallibility of evolution .....then how do you explain the origin of life?
28 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYour reference is to an article that describes how evolutionist had to recant their predictions based on new data. It even attempts a preemptive strike against creationist to lessen the blow. Not a case of finding the missing link - but finding an unexpected data point and redrawing the evolutionary tree to fit it.
Here's an interesting quote:
[b]Most creationists now place the line between human and ape fossils between Homo erectus (human) and H. habilis (ape), with some disagreement about which side of the line the habiline fossil ER 1470 ...[text shortened]... und.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html[/b]
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html
(Lots of spin mixed with technical language.)
28 Apr 05
Originally posted by SkorjYou must be smoking that Darwin weed also.
Evolution is not a theory that proports to explain the origin of life. Surely you haven't, with as much bluster and bravado as I have ever seen in these posts, decided to take on one of the most established theories in science without even having understood what it says at the most basic level.
28 Apr 05
Originally posted by skywalker redI am not sure of the infallability of evolution.
well, okay, if your so sure about the infallibility of evolution .....then how do you explain the origin of life?
I explain the origin of life as probably resulting from an evolutionary process acting on self replicating RNA molecules.
28 Apr 05
Originally posted by Skorjwell, evolutionary theory says many things, including the idea that life originated from non-living matter, so my question as to the origin of life has significant bearing on the theory of evolution. so, stop dodging the question ...how do you explain the origin of life?
Evolution is not a theory that proports to explain the origin of life. Surely you haven't, with as much bluster and bravado as I have ever seen in these posts, decided to take on one of the most established theories in science without even having understood what it says at the most basic level.
28 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiThe prediction that was recanted was based on a very specific hypothesis. Weakening that specific hypothesis does not weaken the case for the TOE as a whole very much, though it does weaken it a little bit.
Your reference is to an article that describes how evolutionist had to recant their predictions based on new data. It even attempts a preemptive strike against creationist to lessen the blow. Not a case of finding the missing link - but f ...[text shortened]... s/homs/d2700.html
(Lots of spin mixed with technical language.)
The flip side is that neither does weakening the specific hypothesis of where one draws the line between ape and man weaken the creationist position all that much.
Both these specific claims* now have strong evidence against them. Evolutionists were quick to give an alternate set of specifics which seem plausible. Have creationists offered a different dividing line between ape and man and have they described which essential features differ between the two "kinds"?
*These claims are 1. that Homo erectus left Africa and then evolved into modern humans, and the direct ancestors of H. erectus did not leave Africa and live elsewhere and 2. The claim that H. erectus is of the human "kind" and H. habilis is of the ape "kind" and there were never organisms intermediate in form.
Not a case of finding the missing link - but finding an unexpected data point and redrawing the evolutionary tree to fit it.
The tree was not "redrawn". The prediction in question talked about where things took place, not what happened.
28 Apr 05
Originally posted by skywalker redThere are different variants of evolutionary theory. The standard one is that all life evolved from a single form of life. This one does not address where the first form of life came from.
well, evolutionary theory says many things, including the idea that life originated from non-living matter, so my question as to the origin of life has significant bearing on the theory of evolution. so, stop dodging the question ...how do you explain the origin of life?
Some variants of evolutionary theory do involve hypotheses about the origin of the first life.
28 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungwell, why do you answer my questions with such total amibiguity. Since you admit that some variations within evolutionary theory do involve hypotheses about the origin of life. Maybe you can answer the question that I have now asked THREE times and have not gotten a sufficient answer.. how do you explain the origin of life?
There are different variants of evolutionary theory. The standard one is that all life evolved from a single form of life. This one does not address where the first form of life came from.
Some variants of evolutionary theory do involve hypotheses about the origin of the first life.