Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Proofs of Evolution: A Mediocre Debate (Faith, robinrohan and their invitees)
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 286 of 295 (288153)
02-18-2006 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by robinrohan
02-18-2006 4:30 PM


BACK TO EVOLUTION: order & lizard cows
The brain cavity gradually gets bigger in the hominids. The arrangement of the fossils is very telling. A Flood would have deposited them haphazardly.
They would have been carried by currents and waves to their resting place. Over multiplied millions of years of time settling one by one they couldn't possibly have been preserved in such an orderly way. Especially if you consider that each of those layers is made up of a particular sedimentary deposit that supposedly represents deposition over millions of years and that fossils of the same type within it therefore must have been deposited one at a time over those millions of years and yet they all look the same, no evolution from bottom to top of layer.* And that there are these acute sharp differentiations between most of the layers. That makes no sense at all on the millions-of-years scheme.
Also there are those fossils--lots of them--of those lizard-cows--from whom we came.
Oh yeah, a bunch of skeletons that look like they could have descended from a lizard and evolved to a cow or something? Arranging fossils seems to be a particular skill of some evolutionists. To my mind it shows nothing but that they must be good at those puzzles on IQ tests.
****Similarity of design does not prove descent.****
* {abe: And that the only "evolution" is seen from one layer to the next although supposedly we're talking about a continuous stream of time. Why wouldn't the "evolved" thing appear in the top of the same layer with the less evolved version of it? But it doesn't}
This message has been edited by Faith, 02-18-2006 05:10 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by robinrohan, posted 02-18-2006 4:30 PM robinrohan has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 287 of 295 (288155)
02-18-2006 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by robinrohan
02-18-2006 4:30 PM


Hominid skulls
The brain cavity gradually gets bigger in the hominids.
They have how many of these "hominid" skulls? Found where? How are they dated?
This message has been edited by Faith, 02-18-2006 04:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by robinrohan, posted 02-18-2006 4:30 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by robinrohan, posted 02-18-2006 5:07 PM Faith has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 288 of 295 (288158)
02-18-2006 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Faith
02-18-2006 4:47 PM


Re: Hominid skulls
They have how many of these "hominid" skulls? Found where? How are they dated?
See message #126 of this thread. Message 126
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 02-18-2006 04:20 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Faith, posted 02-18-2006 4:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Faith, posted 02-18-2006 5:22 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 290 by NosyNed, posted 02-18-2006 5:26 PM robinrohan has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 289 of 295 (288159)
02-18-2006 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by robinrohan
02-18-2006 5:07 PM


Re: Hominid skulls
From Message 126:
They said in the 19th century that apes and men are closely related. But they didn't have any hard evidence. Then they started finding these fossilized remains of something rather like men, but not quite like men. Many of these fossils contained skulls. They weren't quite like a modern man's skull though. For one thing, the brain was smaller. The forehead tended to jut forward too. One of them turned out to be a fraud. Another one they think now might have been a modern man. But they found more and more, some much older, and they looked rather ape-like.
Here we have some hard evidence that our theory is true. Of course it's not 100% proven. Maybe all those skulls that we found were those of modern men who happened to be born with some severe birth defects. But that seems unlikely.
Here's some pictures for you. hominids
Yeah, Robin, I've seen all that stuff. I'm not up to wading through it entry by entry. I'd just make the point that there are not many examples of these so-called hominids, all come from Africa, most of them are in very bad shape, and until I see all types of known human skulls compared from all over the world I'm not just going to accept that high cranium definition of human. There is no evidence that these skulls were anything but either ape or man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by robinrohan, posted 02-18-2006 5:07 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by robinrohan, posted 02-18-2006 5:36 PM Faith has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 290 of 295 (288160)
02-18-2006 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by robinrohan
02-18-2006 5:07 PM


See robinrohan -- a waste of time
An utter waste of time. Faith has already said she doesn't care about science anyway.
Then she pretends to and asks for evidence -- given some of it we get:
quote:
There is no evidence that these skulls were anything but either ape or man.
Of course, she knows zip, zero and nada about the evidence. But can still make such flat out statements. It is a waste of your time to bother discussing it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by robinrohan, posted 02-18-2006 5:07 PM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 291 of 295 (288163)
02-18-2006 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Faith
02-18-2006 5:22 PM


Re: Hominid skulls
all come from Africa, most of them are in very bad shape, and until I see all types of known human skulls compared from all over the world I'm not just going to accept that high cranium definition of human. There is no evidence that these skulls were anything but either ape or man.
They don't all come from Africa. They come from all over. The brain cavity is too big for an ape and not big enough for a modern man. They have thousands of hominid fossils, but they don't have very many complete skeletons. They have some skulls--not a lot. Looks like maybe 20 or 30 or so--I'm not sure.
The lizard-cows are crosses between reptiles and mammals. They have features of both. This line is the most complete grouping they have--probably because there were so many of them. Also they had a lot of hard body parts which you need for fossilization. These lizard-cows are descendents of dinosaurs, I guess. And of course they have tons of dinosaur fossils.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Faith, posted 02-18-2006 5:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Faith, posted 02-18-2006 5:48 PM robinrohan has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 292 of 295 (288168)
02-18-2006 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by robinrohan
02-18-2006 5:36 PM


Re: Hominid skulls
The brain cavity is too big for an ape and not big enough for a modern man.
What's a "modern man?" I suspect there are all kinds of human types in small tribes and jungle villages and who knows where all, and even some of these smaller skulls among modern men too. That's what needs proving. And there are so few of them, 20 or 30? Come on.
They have thousands of hominid fossils, but they don't have very many complete skeletons. They have some skulls--not a lot. Looks like maybe 20 or 30 or so--I'm not sure.
Right, hardly any. And they even sometimes put the wrong jaw onto a cranium. And they have a job of it matching up the rest of the body parts too.
The lizard-cows are crosses between reptiles and mammals.
Prove it.
They have features of both.
So do dogs and horses have features of cows.
This line is the most complete grouping they have--probably because there were so many of them.
Prove descent is the explanation rather than simple design of some as yet unnamed species.
Also they had a lot of hard body parts which you need for fossilization. These lizard-cows are descendents of dinosaurs, I guess. And of course they have tons of dinosaur fossils.
But very few of these "lizard cows" ?
By the way, I already gave my answer to the topic of transitionals back in Message 129.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by robinrohan, posted 02-18-2006 5:36 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by robinrohan, posted 02-18-2006 5:56 PM Faith has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 293 of 295 (288171)
02-18-2006 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Faith
02-18-2006 5:48 PM


Re: Hominid skulls
By the way, I already gave my answer to the topic of transitionals back in Message 129.
Yes, you conceded the point. If you concede that, and if you accept the validity of radiometric dating, then your theory is in ruins. I was just going over what I think are the main strengths of the evolutionary argument.
Now, what we do have on your side to combat that?
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-18-2006 04:59 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Faith, posted 02-18-2006 5:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 02-18-2006 6:01 PM robinrohan has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 294 of 295 (288174)
02-18-2006 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by robinrohan
02-18-2006 5:56 PM


Debate over
Nothing Robin. You win.
Or, put it this way, I've made a lot of points. If they don't convince then that's that.
abe: I also haven't agreed that transitionals or radiometric dating are right, I merely concede the debate. I believe both are wrong. But I can't prove it so I concede the debate for now.
This message has been edited by Faith, 02-18-2006 06:12 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by robinrohan, posted 02-18-2006 5:56 PM robinrohan has not replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 295 of 295 (288182)
02-18-2006 6:16 PM


And on that note, it is time to close this very sorry excuse for a Great, or even Mediocre, Debate.
This started out a great idea and dissolved into a catch all for any thing you wanted to talk about at the time.
If all you are looking for is a private, and general, conversation may I suggest the chat room, the multitude of IM programs available, email, snailmail, or the ever popular telephone.

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
    http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024