Not racist no, but I was mocking your constant appeal to authority. Research what the consensus was during the 17th and 18th centuries.
Read what you actually linked me pal:
"Almost all of the transitional forms in this list do not actually represent ancestors of any living group or other transitional forms."
Now is that what I asked for?
Lucy? Why do you think I asked for numerous examples? The Lucy story is full of holes. Look what it's founder, the liar Donald Johanson wrote:
"Separated by 200,000 years, these fossils were almost identical--making a good case for little evolutionary change in this hominid species. From fossils found at a site south of Hadar, the Middle Awash, we know that
Australopithecus afarensis existed as far back as 3.8 million years ago, so it seems to have lived for almost a million years, remaining remarkably similar for all that time.
8
All the 1992 Hadar hominids are about 3 million years old; the oldest Hadar hominids come from sediments that are 3.4 million years old. Add on the fossils from Laetoli, a site in Tanzania, most of which date to 3.4 and 3.5 million years ago, and you have a half million years of documented
Australopithecus afarensis evolution. Including the Middle Awash site south of Hadar, where hominid fossils are 3.8 or 3.9 million years old, that adds up to almost a million years with
afarensis around, evolving very little, from what we could tell after our first look at the new fossils."
How can it not show any signs of evolution for a million years, but morph into Humans within 2.5 million years. How does that even make sense? All you're doing is copying and pasting crap without actually digging into it. My whole reason for not believing in this crap is because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Have you read about the Laetoli Footprints? The supposed perfect cementing evidence for bipedalism? Remember how it was dated 3.5 million old by using the ash composites surrounding it? It was the exact shape as that of a fully formed Homo Sapien's foot. So either the dating method is wrong, or the timeline is completely off. Neither was acceptable to your prophets so they decided to say "Hey look it was Lucy who made those footprints". Now if you look closely at the foot of Lucy...Oh wait... they didn't find any feet, just a toe bone. The nice skeleton above has composite feet drafted from fossils found from the nearby Olduvai Gorge combined with the toe bone and voila! Lucy has new feet. How scientifically honest to use 3.5 million year old fossil and the foot of a upright walking specie that supposedly lived a million years after.
Look into what they did with the pelvis. The Lucy story is complete bollocks. For such an 'intellectual' you sure don't examine the evidence. You just point and say: "hey those professors are saying it at Cambridge uni! Oh golly, it must be all true! Let me copy and past BBC bitesize illustrations, that'll show em!"
You link me to detailed Molecular Biology books? I asked you a question, not a recommended reading list. Answer my question or say you don't know. Have you no shame in your pomposity?
Ooh look, another atheist moving the goalposts! I am not arguing on behalf of the Abrahamic God, so please stay on topic. So the several (unprovable) hypothesis that are formulated in the dusty research cubicles (ranging from string theory, to a universe with no beginning) make a lot more sense than saying a Deity created it! So tell us Cosmos, why choose one conclusion over the other? Do arguments presented in numerical form impress you?
If @
Inquisitive_ and I threw in a couple of Greek numerals, a couple of symbols here or there, fractions and decimals sprinkled in, would it give our argument a little more stock?
I don't compute. We operate in the finite revelation our Lord has given us. Anything that disputes Him we reject e.g. Ape to Man hypothesis. Anything that doesn't, we either reject or accept subject to the strength of evidence provided. Why do I believe a there was a Deity before the Big Bang? Well that's a question you'll need to ask me on a separate thread, this convo is concerns your kind, and the thought process required to reject a Deity all together. DON'T FLIP IT ON ME WHEN YOU FIND YOURSELF GRASPING AT STRAWS.
Nice little pagan story. Pagans are as idiotic as Atheist, so no idea how it's a relevant point of attack. Got any more pagan myths you want to share? We can laugh together, and bond over the little that we agree on.
Not racist no, but I was mocking your constant appeal to authority. Research what the consensus was during the 17th and 18th centuries.
It's not an appeal to authority as I did not claim that as evidence for evolution being true, I just merely mentioned it against your friend who seemed to he confused.
Read what you actually linked me pal:
"Almost all of the transitional forms in this list do not actually represent ancestors of any living group or other transitional forms."
I'm sure you can comprehend English, this is just saying that the transitional fossils don't necessarily represent the ancestors of any species that live today or other transitional fossils themselves but it's valid nonetheless. You don't get to decide what is evidence and what it isn't.
Lucy? Why do you think I asked for numerous examples? The Lucy story is full of holes. Look what it's founder, the liar Donald Johanson wrote:
"Separated by 200,000 years, these fossils were almost identical--making a good case for little evolutionary change in this hominid species. From fossils found at a site south of Hadar, the Middle Awash, we know that
Australopithecus afarensis existed as far back as 3.8 million years ago, so it seems to have lived for almost a million years, remaining remarkably similar for all that time.
8
All the 1992 Hadar hominids are about 3 million years old; the oldest Hadar hominids come from sediments that are 3.4 million years old. Add on the fossils from Laetoli, a site in Tanzania, most of which date to 3.4 and 3.5 million years ago, and you have a half million years of documented
Australopithecus afarensis evolution. Including the Middle Awash site south of Hadar, where hominid fossils are 3.8 or 3.9 million years old, that adds up to almost a million years with
afarensis around, evolving very little, from what we could tell after our first look at the new fossils."
How can it not show any signs of evolution for a million years, but morph into Humans within 2.5 million years. How does that even make sense? All you're doing is copying and pasting crap without actually digging into it. My whole reason for not believing in this crap is because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
You're whole reason for not accepting the evidence is because you blindly follow what mummy and daddy have fed to you from a very young age, you said so yourself:
"Anything that disputes Him we reject e.g. Ape to Man hypothesis. Anything that doesn't, we either reject or accept subject to the strength of evidence provided."
How the hell are you attempting to put out yourself as being an honest skeptic when you unapologetically state that you reject evolution because it disputes him?
"the liar Donald Johanson wrote"
You are really drenching yourself in intellectual dishonesty. Essentially you are asking me to convince you of something that you have clearly illustrated, will never change your mind. You reject the evolution not because of the science but because it disproves the Adam/Eve nonsense you so love yo espouse.
It's also quite interesting how you received you info from
http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i5f.htm#footnote8.
That should dispels any intellectual honesty that you thought you had. Where is the academic site?
Anyways, there's a logical and scientific reasoning behind why they changed very little for a million years. Australopithecus Afarensis, just going to call them AA, have survived for around 900,000 with very little evolution because they were adapted to living on both trees and on land meaning that this has allowed them to survive climate and environmental changes. Note that evolution doesn't occur in a vacuum. For example, human beings didn't develop different skin tones because Noah had three children of different races, it occurred because the environment in which they lived required them to adapt. White people have white skin because they have a reduced quantity of melanin in their skins, eyes and hair which allows them to absorb the sunlight might better. Black people on the other hand developed a high quantity of melanin giving them darker skin, eyes and hair, because it enabled them to deflect much of the sunlight which contained UV (ultraviolet radiation) which can cause skin cancer. Point is, evolution doesn't occur in a vacuum and the reason why it evolved so little was because it didn't really have to as it lived in both land and tree which meant it can survive the sudden environmental changes that bring about a necessity to evolve. Human beings have undergone that. Nonetheless, it has evolved features which we hold today. "They had small canine teeth like all other early humans, and a body that stood on two legs and regularly walked upright."
To read more, check out my academic site:
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/australopithecus-afarensis
Have you read about the Laetoli Footprints? The supposed perfect cementing evidence for bipedalism? Remember how it was dated 3.5 million old by using the ash composites surrounding it? It was the exact shape as that of a fully formed Homo Sapien's foot. So either the dating method is wrong, or the timeline is completely off. Neither was acceptable to your prophets so they decided to say "Hey look it was Lucy who made those footprints". Now if you look closely at the foot of Lucy...Oh wait... they didn't find any feet, just a toe bone. The nice skeleton above has composite feet drafted from fossils found from the nearby Olduvai Gorge combined with the toe bone and voila! Lucy has new feet. How scientifically honest to use 3.5 million year old fossil and the foot of a upright walking specie that supposedly lived a million years after.
The irony of a creationist, who knows f*ck all about evolution, to question the scientific integrity of actual scientists. Let me break things down so you can understand better. This the sort of bullshit that comes up when you start getting your sources from non academic sources.
Like usual, theists misconstrued the findings to fit their own creationist agenda. The footprints were not exactly the same as a fully formed Homo sapien, the footprints, as indicated by the scientific research, is most like that of
Australopithecus afarensis. So I think you need to refer to actual academic websites before you push around garbage from scienceagainstevolution.com, crap. It's not an academic source and so you shouldn't be publishing its BS points as evidence of anything. You then go on to make an audacious claim that entails scientists purposely merging a 3.6 million year old fossil to the feet of modern humans!! Dude, are you fucking kidding me?!
"The early humans that left these prints were bipedal and had big toes in line with the rest of their foot. This means that these early human feet were more human-like than ape-like, as apes have highly divergent big toes that help them climb and grasp materials like a thumb does. The footprints also show that the gait of these early humans was "heel-strike" (the heel of the foot hits first) followed by "toe-off" (the toes push off at the end of the stride)—the way modern humans walk.
The close spacing of the footprints is evidence that the people who left them had a short stride, and therefore probably had short legs. It is not until much later that early humans evolved longer legs, enabling them to walk farther, faster, and cover more territory each day."
"How do we know these are early human footprints?
The shape of the feet, along with the length and configuration of the toes, show that the Laetoli Footprints were made by an early human, and the only known early human in the region at that time was
Au. afarensis. In fact, fossils of
Au. afarensis were found nearby to the footprints and in the same sediment layer, telling scientists that
Au. afarensis was in the area at the same time the footprints were left."
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/behavior/footprints/laetoli-footprint-trails
More L L L L L L L L Ls
Look into what they did with the pelvis. The Lucy story is complete bollocks. For such an 'intellectual' you sure don't examine the evidence. You just point and say: "hey those professors are saying it at Cambridge uni! Oh golly, it must be all true! Let me copy and past BBC bitesize illustrations, that'll show em!"
Mate, the bitesize was because you had no fucking idea what natural selection is. You thought it was separate to evolution when they're one and the same.
I don't examine the evidence?! You just threw garbage from creationist websites! You even copied and pasted by are you seriously trying to blast me for not only doing the same, but providing the source from where I got from?! Not only are you intellectually dishonest, you're also a hypocrite.
You have no interest in critical thinking as you have clearly stated that you don't accept evolution because it contradicts your faith. You're a blind follower trying to question others on examining evidence when you have shown yourself to not care for such things.
As for the pelvic issue, this is clearly more evidence that you're a plain fraud. Creationist have long been making the claim that the pelvis of Lucy was purposely reconstructed so as to make it look as if she walked upright. This is beyond nonsensical and is a desperate attempt to try and dismiss the monumental piece of discovery that Lucy actually is. You're probably a conspiracy theorist so you may think that some dodgy business occurred with the reconstruction but frankly... there's no evidence for such things. Unless of course this wasn't what you were talking about?
You link me to detailed Molecular Biology books? I asked you a question, not a recommended reading list. Answer my question or say you don't know. Have you no shame in your pomposity?
I did answer your question, it's in the links I provided. I'm sorry, if you're too damn lazy to actually fucking read then don't fucking read it but what you're looking for is in those links.
Ooh look, another atheist moving the goalposts! I am not arguing on behalf of the Abrahamic God, so please stay on topic. So the several (unprovable) hypothesis that are formulated in the dusty research cubicles (ranging from string theory, to a universe with no beginning) make a lot more sense than saying a Deity created it! So tell us Cosmos, why choose one conclusion over the other? Do arguments presented in numerical form impress you?
If @
Inquisitive_ and I threw in a couple of Greek numerals, a couple of symbols here or there, fractions and decimals sprinkled in, would it give our argument a little more stock?
Look at this retarded garbage this guy is spewing!!
If you're going to present a deity as some kind of alternative to science, you need to fucking define that deity instead of just shoving things up in the air and expecting people to accept it. Deities are not well defined are have different understandings depending on where your from and what religion you follow. It's also built on a logical fallacy called the god of the gaps whoops a part of the larger logical fallacy called argument from ignorance. You're asserting that since scientists have no real answer as to what caused the universe, you can then position your god there. It's s logical fallacy that cannot be accepted by logically sound people.
I never accepted any conclusion, stop with your straw man!! I simply said "I don't know what caused the universe, if there even is a cause!" Scientists have made educated guesses but they're nothing beyond that and unlike religion, they wish to actually find out what really happened instead of just claiming to hold the ultimate truth with zero evidence!
My argument is built on, 'let's have more evidence,' whilst yours is built on 'I already know what caused the universe to exist.' One is intellectually sound and the other is just baseless and primitive.
I don't compute. We operate in the finite revelation our Lord has given us. Anything that disputes Him we reject e.g. Ape to Man hypothesis. Anything that doesn't, we either reject or accept subject to the strength of evidence provided. Why do I believe a there was a Deity before the Big Bang? Well that's a question you'll need to ask me on a separate thread, this convo is concerns your kind, and the thought process required to reject a Deity all together. DON'T FLIP IT ON ME WHEN YOU FIND YOURSELF GRASPING AT STRAWS.
Nice little pagan story. Pagans are as idiotic as Atheist, so no idea how it's a relevant point of attack. Got any more pagan myths you want to share? We can laugh together, and bond over the little that we agree on.
You reject evolution because it contradicts your religion, got it!
You have no evidence to believe there is a deity before the Big Bang but thanks to your childhood indoctrination, you now do.
The thought process that enables me to reject it a deity is very simple... where is the evidence?
Pagans are as idiotic as atheists?
Well I've got bad news for you! If you came here thinking you can get away with retardation, you're utterly mistaken.
Islam is monotheism with paganism all around it. The Hajj, Safa and Marwa, The dawaf, Jinn/black magic/evil eye, the prophet flying to heaven on a winged horse, salah and many other things as well, are all either Arab paganism, Zoroastrian or whatever.
So yeah... let us laugh at all the primitive paganism that Islam has incorporated into its faith.
Ilahayow save us from atheist arrogance. 
