Jump to content


Photo

Wibble's And Goku's Fishy Tale


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 November 2017 - 11:56 AM

 

Tetrapods are thought to have evolved from a family of fish known as elpistostegids, which had a similar body and head shape to tetrapods, but paired fins rather than four feet.

However, the footprint tracks are 10 million years older than the oldest elpistostegid body fossils. They suggest that the fossil elpistostegids were late-surviving relics rather than transitional forms.

 

Notice how transitionals can turn into relics. Goku and Wibble complained that a tetrapod at 12 million years older was not enough, I have found this site which has footprints of another tetrapod as being 18 million years old. (But I'm not making this topic to satisfy requests I just wanted to open this one for any further talk of tetrapod evolution.)

 

Interestingly they call it, "lizard-like". I think it's safe to say that really means it was likely a lizard, it smacks of propaganda like when they say, "human like" footprints when they find human prints too old. And if it was a lizard, how much further on were lizards, after amphibian evolution? That would put lizards 18my before the earliest tetrapod.

 

Now I admit I don't laugh out loud all that often, literally speaking, but I did when I read this part of the article;

 

 

 

"The closest elpistostegids were probably contemporaneous with these tracks," he said. "We now have to invent a common ancestor to the tetrapods and elpistostegids."

 

You sure do have to "invent"one, but inventing ancestors is nothing new to evolution theory. :gotcha:

 

I think this highlights how wishy washy transitionals can be, note how easily evolutionists can ditch a whole set of transitionals and just say, "they're now not the transitionals".

 

This is what we have been saying guys - that if these "transitionals", the elpistostegids, are proof of evolution, then do you now consider them proof of evolution now scientists have ditched them as transitions?

 

This is what I'm talking about - how strong can evolution be if the facts are ever re-worked to fit the story?

 

https://www.theguard...etrapods-walked



#2 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 November 2017 - 01:29 PM

I regard the following type of reply as the rhetorical device known as, "playing it down.";

 

"but it's not inconceivable it evolved earlier."

 

Yes, but you said that for the 12 million year one that was too early, now for the 18my one, if it increased to 50 myo, did evolution happen earlier, for example? How many times, and how many millions of years does it take, especially when these "push backs" are becoming exceedingly common. It seems soon they will have to push back the evolution more and more, but this is also the evidence we would expect to find if lizards existed at the same time because they did not evolve.

 

As far as I'm concerned we now have lizards dated before amphibians. I have no logical reason to assume a lizard-like track was not made by a lizard, for that is the circular reasoning of evolution. 

 

So now it seems 100% imagination and "invented" ancestors is "science".

 

Can you at least see guys, how thoroughly unconvincing evolution can be from our perspective? The most parsimonious explanation is to cut away with Occam's razor, all of these forever-invoked, non-existent ancestors and just admit that this general pushing back of things they said shouldn't have existed earlier but do, obviously means that there is no macro evolution happening.



#3 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 07 November 2017 - 02:48 AM

The silence is DEAFENING...

"Evolution is sustained largely by a propaganda campaign that relies on all the usual tricks of rhetorical persuasion: hidden assumptions, question-begging statements of what is at issue, terms that are vaguely defined and change their meaning in midargument, attacks of straw men, selective citation of evidence, and so on. The theory is also protected by its cultural importance. It is the officially sanctioned creation story to modern society, and publicly funded educational authorities spare no effort to persuade people to believe it."

(Professor Phillip Johnson)
  • mike the wiz likes this

#4 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 12 November 2017 - 03:09 PM

I am very, very disappointed in scientists right now because all they do with new discoveries is revise evolution to try to fit it, even if it's a square peg in a round hole.

Spears dated 400,000 years old were found in Germany, verfiably dated and undisputed by those that do such things. These spears were each made of spruce trees, 30 yeard of age, with the points carved from the bottom where it is harder, along with several animal remains.

And here is the problem. According to evolutionists, 400,000 years ago we were languageless people (homo heidelbergensis) that foraged plants and mushrooms and carrion. Our language, if there was one, was to be extraordinarily primitive.

But these spears and the organized game hunts they used them for indicate several things. Planning in depth, sophisticated design, complex communication and so on. All of the spears are equally proportionate, with the center of gravity being 1/3 of the way back from tip. The trees were carefully selected, roughed out, and carved which indicates sophisticated understanding of the physical and useful properties of the environment.

Know what evolutionists say about all this? "We must now revise evolution." Why try to figure out a new answer based on new evidence when you can just revise your current theory to conform to finds which clearly contradict it.

I don't mean to derail; the OP on tetrapods and their alleged ancestors is highly interesting and of course damning to the ToE. Good research!
  • mike the wiz likes this

#5 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 14 November 2017 - 01:52 AM

I am very, very disappointed in scientists right now because all they do with new discoveries is revise evolution to try to fit it, even if it's a square peg in a round hole.

Spears dated 400,000 years old were found in Germany, verfiably dated and undisputed by those that do such things. These spears were each made of spruce trees, 30 yeard of age, with the points carved from the bottom where it is harder, along with several animal remains.

And here is the problem. According to evolutionists, 400,000 years ago we were languageless people (homo heidelbergensis) that foraged plants and mushrooms and carrion. Our language, if there was one, was to be extraordinarily primitive.

But these spears and the organized game hunts they used them for indicate several things. Planning in depth, sophisticated design, complex communication and so on. All of the spears are equally proportionate, with the center of gravity being 1/3 of the way back from tip. The trees were carefully selected, roughed out, and carved which indicates sophisticated understanding of the physical and useful properties of the environment.

Know what evolutionists say about all this? "We must now revise evolution." Why try to figure out a new answer based on new evidence when you can just revise your current theory to conform to finds which clearly contradict it.

I don't mean to derail; the OP on tetrapods and their alleged ancestors is highly interesting and of course damning to the ToE. Good research!

 

 

4b4b8394bb4f41eb812f001e6a179442.jpg



#6 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 813 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 15 November 2017 - 09:17 AM

Know what evolutionists say about all this? "We must now revise evolution." Why try to figure out a new answer based on new evidence when you can just revise your current theory to conform to finds which clearly contradict it.

Which parts of evolution does that find clearly contradict? Do those contradictions require throwing out the entire theory?

#7 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 15 November 2017 - 07:49 PM

Know what evolutionists say about all this? "We must now revise evolution." Why try to figure out a new answer based on new evidence when you can just revise your current theory to conform to finds which clearly contradict it.

Which parts of evolution does that find clearly contradict? Do those contradictions require throwing out the entire theory?

NEVER!

If 100 Million Year Old Red Blood Cells OR my devastating question on Vital Organs doesnt do the trick... NOTHING WILL....


"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy.

(Dr. Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology,

#8 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 15 November 2017 - 11:18 PM

Which parts of evolution does that find clearly contradict? Do those contradictions require throwing out the entire theory?

 

It contradicts the timeline evolutionists stoutly and vehemently maintained until the discovery. Is it worth throwing out the theory? Well, what would that take? Honestly, what else can you say except, "Oops, we were off by 200,000 years. So sorry, we'll go ahead and fix our theory to accommodate this new information." In the scope of all evolution, a quarter of a million years isn't much, but concerning the timeline of of a single species of a few million years, it's a sizeable chunk.

 

I find archaeological finds of humans with artifacts far more crucial than the fossil record of animals. Humans are the only species that create tools, music, art, and so on, and of course evolutionists have the timeline of when these creations and technology allegedly emerged. So when we find a bone flute dated to 43,000 years old, and they say we only started making music 30,000 years ago, this can't be ignored, though it can be disputed, and almost always is. I find the disputes of the Divje Babe Flute to be completely unfounded, but there it is.

 

The way scientists have treated the finds at Hueyatlaco is a complete joke. Humans weren't supposed to be in the Americas 250,000 years ago, and stone tool technology that is only 150,000 years old certainly aren't supposed to be there. I'll copy/paste from wikipedia, which is very pro-evolution.

 

The region, about 75 miles SE of Mexico City, was known for its abundance of animal fossils, and Irwin-Williams described Hueyatlaco as a "kill site" where animals were hunted and butchered.

Excavations were conducted via standard protocols, including securing the sites to prevent trespass or accidental disturbances.[6] During excavation, investigators discovered numerous stone tools. The tools ranged from relatively primitive implements at a smaller associated site, to more sophisticated items such as scrapers and double-edged blades uncovered at the main excavation site. The diversity of tools made from non-local materials suggested that the region had been used by multiple groups over a considerable period.
 
 in 1969 Irwin-Williams cited statements of support from three prominent archeologists and anthropologists (Richard MacNeish, Hannah Marie Wormington and Frederick A. Peterson) who had each visited the site independently and attested to the integrity of the excavations and the professionalism of the group's methodology.
 
In 1981, the journal Quaternary Research published a paper by Steen-McIntyre, Fryxell and Malde that defended an anomalously distant age of human habitation at Hueyatlaco.The paper reported the results of four sophisticated, independent tests: uranium-thorium dating, fission track dating, tephra hydration dating and the studying of mineral weathering to determine the date of the artifacts. These tests, among other data, validated a date of 250,000ypb for the Hueyatlaco artifacts. They wrote:
The evidence outlined here consistently indicates that the Hueyatlaco site is about 250,000 yr. old. We who have worked on geological aspects of the Valsequillo area are painfully aware that so great an age poses an archeological dilemma [...] In our view, the results reported here widen the window of time in which serious investigation of the age of Man in the New World would be warranted. We continue to cast a critical eye on all the data, including our own.
 
Malde suggested the tool-bearing strata had possibly been eroded by an ancient streambed, thus combining older and newer strata and complicating dating.
 
In 1973, Virginia Steen-MacIntyre, Malde and Roald Fryxell returned to Hueyatlaco to re-examine the geographic strata and more accurately determine an age for the tool-bearing strata. They were able to rule out Malde's streambed hypothesis.
 
Only  one scientist maintained the accuracy of the dates, even though there is zero evidence to contradict the them. Her career, of course, is ruined.
 
No good, no good at all. Even the internet armchair atheist scientists that get their rocks off "debunking" anything that doesn't agree with the theory are at a complete loss. All they say is "There is no reason to believe the dates. They must have been contaminated. They don't agree with all the other finds." Duh. This is a new find. It isn't supposed to automatically be consistent with other finds. This is how knowledge advances. Scientists are supposed to be in the pursuit of knowledge, not the censoring of it. Not the ignoring of it.
 
And there are so many other finds that cast considerable doubt on the development of man through the evolutionary lens. I would absolutely love to discuss them. I feel like the "Old Earth vs New Earth" board may be an appropriate place for that, but I don't know if Darwinists chime in there much, and I'm interested in their refutations and theories toward archaeological "anomalies."  

  • Blitzking likes this

#9 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 16 November 2017 - 03:03 AM

Which parts of evolution does that find clearly contradict? Do those contradictions require throwing out the entire theory?

 
It contradicts the timeline evolutionists stoutly and vehemently maintained until the discovery. Is it worth throwing out the theory? Well, what would that take? Honestly, what else can you say except, "Oops, we were off by 200,000 years. So sorry, we'll go ahead and fix our theory to accommodate this new information." In the scope of all evolution, a quarter of a million years isn't much, but concerning the timeline of of a single species of a few million years, it's a sizeable chunk.
 
I find archaeological finds of humans with artifacts far more crucial than the fossil record of animals. Humans are the only species that create tools, music, art, and so on, and of course evolutionists have the timeline of when these creations and technology allegedly emerged. So when we find a bone flute dated to 43,000 years old, and they say we only started making music 30,000 years ago, this can't be ignored, though it can be disputed, and almost always is. I find the disputes of the Divje Babe Flute to be completely unfounded, but there it is.
 
The way scientists have treated the finds at Hueyatlaco is a complete joke. Humans weren't supposed to be in the Americas 250,000 years ago, and stone tool technology that is only 150,000 years old certainly aren't supposed to be there. I'll copy/paste from wikipedia, which is very pro-evolution.
 
The region, about 75 miles SE of Mexico City, was known for its abundance of animal fossils, and Irwin-Williams described Hueyatlaco as a "kill site" where animals were hunted and butchered.
Excavations were conducted via standard protocols, including securing the sites to prevent trespass or accidental disturbances.[6] During excavation, investigators discovered numerous stone tools. The tools ranged from relatively primitive implements at a smaller associated site, to more sophisticated items such as scrapers and double-edged blades uncovered at the main excavation site. The diversity of tools made from non-local materials suggested that the region had been used by multiple groups over a considerable period.
 
 in 1969 Irwin-Williams cited statements of support from three prominent archeologists and anthropologists (Richard MacNeish, Hannah Marie Wormington and Frederick A. Peterson) who had each visited the site independently and attested to the integrity of the excavations and the professionalism of the group's methodology.
 
In 1981, the journal Quaternary Research published a paper by Steen-McIntyre, Fryxell and Malde that defended an anomalously distant age of human habitation at Hueyatlaco.The paper reported the results of four sophisticated, independent tests: uranium-thorium dating, fission track dating, tephra hydration dating and the studying of mineral weathering to determine the date of the artifacts. These tests, among other data, validated a date of 250,000ypb for the Hueyatlaco artifacts. They wrote:
The evidence outlined here consistently indicates that the Hueyatlaco site is about 250,000 yr. old. We who have worked on geological aspects of the Valsequillo area are painfully aware that so great an age poses an archeological dilemma [...] In our view, the results reported here widen the window of time in which serious investigation of the age of Man in the New World would be warranted. We continue to cast a critical eye on all the data, including our own.
 
Malde suggested the tool-bearing strata had possibly been eroded by an ancient streambed, thus combining older and newer strata and complicating dating.
 
In 1973, Virginia Steen-MacIntyre, Malde and Roald Fryxell returned to Hueyatlaco to re-examine the geographic strata and more accurately determine an age for the tool-bearing strata. They were able to rule out Malde's streambed hypothesis.
 
Only  one scientist maintained the accuracy of the dates, even though there is zero evidence to contradict the them. Her career, of course, is ruined.
 
No good, no good at all. Even the internet armchair atheist scientists that get their rocks off "debunking" anything that doesn't agree with the theory are at a complete loss. All they say is "There is no reason to believe the dates. They must have been contaminated. They don't agree with all the other finds." Duh. This is a new find. It isn't supposed to automatically be consistent with other finds. This is how knowledge advances. Scientists are supposed to be in the pursuit of knowledge, not the censoring of it. Not the ignoring of it.
 
And there are so many other finds that cast considerable doubt on the development of man through the evolutionary lens. I would absolutely love to discuss them. I feel like the "Old Earth vs New Earth" board may be an appropriate place for that, but I don't know if Darwinists chime in there much, and I'm interested in their refutations and theories toward archaeological "anomalies."


"Scientists are supposed to be in the pursuit of knowledge, not the censoring of it. Not the ignoring of it."

Yes, that is the way it is SUPPOSED TO work.. But then again..

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"
Richard Dawkins

#10 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 813 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 16 November 2017 - 07:45 AM

It contradicts the timeline evolutionists stoutly and vehemently maintained until the discovery. Is it worth throwing out the theory? Well, what would that take? Honestly, what else can you say except, "Oops, we were off by 200,000 years. So sorry, we'll go ahead and fix our theory to accommodate this new information." In the scope of all evolution, a quarter of a million years isn't much, but concerning the timeline of of a single species of a few million years, it's a sizeable chunk.

A sizable chunk of a single species is still a vanishingly small percentage of the history of life. Even if the consensus on human origins is almost completely wrong and there were tool users in the Americas 250,000 years ago, which parts of evolution would that contradict?

#11 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,135 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 16 November 2017 - 10:56 AM

 

 

 

Which parts of evolution does that find clearly contradict? Do those contradictions require throwing out the entire theory?

 

It contradicts the timeline evolutionists stoutly and vehemently maintained until the discovery. Is it worth throwing out the theory? Well, what would that take? Honestly, what else can you say except, "Oops, we were off by 200,000 years. So sorry, we'll go ahead and fix our theory to accommodate this new information." In the scope of all evolution, a quarter of a million years isn't much, but concerning the timeline of of a single species of a few million years, it's a sizeable chunk.

 

 

 

What should they do?  To me, there are three possibilities when finding new evidence which are not necessarily mutually exclusive:  1) Discard a theory or theories; 2) Develop an alternative theory or theories; and / or 3) Adapt a current theory or theories to explain and include the new evidence when possible.   It's kinda like a murder case.  From a macro view, the theory of evolution is firmly accepted as a viable theory within the scientific community.  But, when it comes to the micro-level details (like human evolution in the last million years), there's less consensus....mainly because of the lack of relevant evidence....which is why when new evidence is discovered, the micro-level theories adapt more often.



#12 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 16 November 2017 - 05:27 PM

A sizable chunk of a single species is still a vanishingly small percentage of the history of life. Even if the consensus on human origins is almost completely wrong and there were tool users in the Americas 250,000 years ago, which parts of evolution would that contradict?

 

Evolution as a theory is very malleable. The understanding of it is always changing, with the belief in macro being the constant. However, if a hominid skull were to be found and dated to 30ma, the theory would have to be thrown out regardless of all the other evidence that led to the conclusion of goo-to-you. 

 

The finds at Hueyatlaca don't directly contradict evolution, I'll concede that. But it does raise reasonable doubt, because if it's found that humans didn't evolve, then neither did anything else. On the micro scale, it brings into question the rapidity and age of social development, cultural development, anticipatory planning, complex thinking, and so forth. I fail to see how humans 500,000 years ago were any less intelligent than us, because they had all of these things. 

 

The hypothesis of man never having complex social structure and advanced knowledge of their environment is highly doubtful. The cave findings at Niaux cave indicates that people in the upper paleolithic made highly sophisticated paints. But the real interest was in the extenders, of which there seemed to be four distinct recipes, which the researchers number one through four. Extenders help to bring out the color of the pigment and, as their name implies, add bulk to the paint without diluting the color. The four recipes for extenders used at Niaux were talc; a mixture of baryte and potassium feldspar; potassium feldspar alone; and potassium feldspar mixed with an excess of biotite. Jean Clottes and his colleagues experimented with some of these extenders and found them to be extremely effective. 

 

And in the "pre-pottery" age? Human's weren't advanced enough to gather and form clay and harden it in a fire, yet they could do something that would be challenging to a chemist?

 

At Gobekli Tepe, a civilization from 11,000 years ago, "pre-pottery" of course, there are twenty stone pillars weighing 20 tons that were fit into sockets hewn into the bedrock. And they couldn't make pottery? They obviously weren't hunter-gatherers living day to day. They obviously had labor division, technology to cut and move megalithic blocks without metal, raise them without rope nearly sophisticated enough to hold that kind of weight, pulleys, and so on.  

 

From wikipedia: At present Göbekli Tepe raises more questions for archaeology and prehistory than it answers. It remains unknown how a force large enough to construct, augment, and maintain such a substantial complex was mobilized and compensated or fed in the conditions of pre-sedentary society.

 

That's easy—they weren't in a pre-sedentary society. They were a complex civilization with technology that we can't replicate using what they had.

 

Homo Sapiens were said to have evolved in Africa 200,000ka. As far as I know, Homo Heidelbergensis never made it to the Americas. How did they get to America if there were no landbridge, and if there was how did they make it all the way down to Mexico 50,000 years before homo sapiens were even around? 



#13 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 16 November 2017 - 09:08 PM

Which parts of evolution does that find clearly contradict? Do those contradictions require throwing out the entire theory?

 
It contradicts the timeline evolutionists stoutly and vehemently maintained until the discovery. Is it worth throwing out the theory? Well, what would that take? Honestly, what else can you say except, "Oops, we were off by 200,000 years. So sorry, we'll go ahead and fix our theory to accommodate this new information." In the scope of all evolution, a quarter of a million years isn't much, but concerning the timeline of of a single species of a few million years, it's a sizeable chunk.
 
What should they do?  To me, there are three possibilities when finding new evidence which are not necessarily mutually exclusive:  1) Discard a theory or theories; 2) Develop an alternative theory or theories; and / or 3) Adapt a current theory or theories to explain and include the new evidence when possible.   It's kinda like a murder case.  From a macro view, the theory of evolution is firmly accepted as a viable theory within the scientific community.  But, when it comes to the micro-level details (like human evolution in the last million years), there's less consensus....mainly because of the lack of relevant evidence....which is why when new evidence is discovered, the micro-level theories adapt more often.


"It's kinda like a murder case."

Indeed, Except that which has been murdered is Scientific Integrity, Logic, Critical Thinking, and Discernment.. And surely you know why by now... Because.. "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist" Richard Dawkins


"From a macro view, the theory of evolution is firmly accepted as a viable theory within the scientific community. But, when it comes to the micro-level details (like human evolution in the last million years), there's less consensus."



“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
[Crichton gave a number of examples where the scientific consensus was completely wrong for many years.]
“… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
  • Bonedigger and mike the wiz like this

#14 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 813 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 17 November 2017 - 03:01 PM

Evolution as a theory is very malleable. The understanding of it is always changing, with the belief in macro being the constant.

That's because the available evidence is always changing, but doesn't contradict those basic parts of the theory.
 

However, if a hominid skull were to be found and dated to 30ma, the theory would have to be thrown out regardless of all the other evidence that led to the conclusion of goo-to-you.

Sure, but no such skull or anything comparable has been found for some reason. 
 

The finds at Hueyatlaca don't directly contradict evolution, I'll concede that. But it does raise reasonable doubt, because if it's found that humans didn't evolve, then neither did anything else.

It doesn't seem to have raised any doubt in anyone who wasn't already at full denial.
 

On the micro scale, it brings into question the rapidity and age of social development, cultural development, anticipatory planning, complex thinking, and so forth. I fail to see how humans 500,000 years ago were any less intelligent than us, because they had all of these things.

They might not have been. The trick is that we have the advantage of our ancestors having worked a bunch of stuff out previously that we can build on. If you or I had to start from absolute scratch, I'm not sure we'd be able to do that much better than they did.
 

The hypothesis of man never having complex social structure and advanced knowledge of their environment is highly doubtful. The cave findings at Niaux cave indicates that people in the upper paleolithic made highly sophisticated paints. But the real interest was in the extenders, of which there seemed to be four distinct recipes, which the researchers number one through four. Extenders help to bring out the color of the pigment and, as their name implies, add bulk to the paint without diluting the color. The four recipes for extenders used at Niaux were talc; a mixture of baryte and potassium feldspar; potassium feldspar alone; and potassium feldspar mixed with an excess of biotite. Jean Clottes and his colleagues experimented with some of these extenders and found them to be extremely effective. 
 
And in the "pre-pottery" age? Human's weren't advanced enough to gather and form clay and harden it in a fire, yet they could do something that would be challenging to a chemist?

How likely are you to work out that a specific kind of dirt changes into a more useful material when you put it in an extremely hot fire if you aren't actually trying? I would bet significantly more trial and error went in to figuring out how to paint things on other things than went in to burning dirt.
 

At Gobekli Tepe, a civilization from 11,000 years ago, "pre-pottery" of course, there are twenty stone pillars weighing 20 tons that were fit into sockets hewn into the bedrock. And they couldn't make pottery? They obviously weren't hunter-gatherers living day to day. They obviously had labor division, technology to cut and move megalithic blocks without metal, raise them without rope nearly sophisticated enough to hold that kind of weight, pulleys, and so on.  
 
From wikipedia: At present Göbekli Tepe raises more questions for archaeology and prehistory than it answers. It remains unknown how a force large enough to construct, augment, and maintain such a substantial complex was mobilized and compensated or fed in the conditions of pre-sedentary society.
 
That's easy—they weren't in a pre-sedentary society. They were a complex civilization with technology that we can't replicate using what they had.

It seems more like the explanation is that they had grain earlier than we thought they did. It's a massive undertaking, but we're not talking about inconcievable feats of engineering here.
 
 

Homo Sapiens were said to have evolved in Africa 200,000ka. As far as I know, Homo Heidelbergensis never made it to the Americas. How did they get to America if there were no landbridge, and if there was how did they make it all the way down to Mexico 50,000 years before homo sapiens were even around?

How many of these questions do you think would need to accumulate before scientists would discard everything and declare that it's more likely Earth is 6,000 years old and everything was created in a week instead?

#15 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 17 November 2017 - 09:07 PM

Evolution as a theory is very malleable. The understanding of it is always changing, with the belief in macro being the constant.

That's because the available evidence is always changing, but doesn't contradict those basic parts of the theory. 

However, if a hominid skull were to be found and dated to 30ma, the theory would have to be thrown out regardless of all the other evidence that led to the conclusion of goo-to-you.

Sure, but no such skull or anything comparable has been found for some reason.  

The finds at Hueyatlaca don't directly contradict evolution, I'll concede that. But it does raise reasonable doubt, because if it's found that humans didn't evolve, then neither did anything else.

It doesn't seem to have raised any doubt in anyone who wasn't already at full denial. 

On the micro scale, it brings into question the rapidity and age of social development, cultural development, anticipatory planning, complex thinking, and so forth. I fail to see how humans 500,000 years ago were any less intelligent than us, because they had all of these things.

They might not have been. The trick is that we have the advantage of our ancestors having worked a bunch of stuff out previously that we can build on. If you or I had to start from absolute scratch, I'm not sure we'd be able to do that much better than they did. 

The hypothesis of man never having complex social structure and advanced knowledge of their environment is highly doubtful. The cave findings at Niaux cave indicates that people in the upper paleolithic made highly sophisticated paints. But the real interest was in the extenders, of which there seemed to be four distinct recipes, which the researchers number one through four. Extenders help to bring out the color of the pigment and, as their name implies, add bulk to the paint without diluting the color. The four recipes for extenders used at Niaux were talc; a mixture of baryte and potassium feldspar; potassium feldspar alone; and potassium feldspar mixed with an excess of biotite. Jean Clottes and his colleagues experimented with some of these extenders and found them to be extremely effective.  And in the "pre-pottery" age? Human's weren't advanced enough to gather and form clay and harden it in a fire, yet they could do something that would be challenging to a chemist?

How likely are you to work out that a specific kind of dirt changes into a more useful material when you put it in an extremely hot fire if you aren't actually trying? I would bet significantly more trial and error went in to figuring out how to paint things on other things than went in to burning dirt. 

At Gobekli Tepe, a civilization from 11,000 years ago, "pre-pottery" of course, there are twenty stone pillars weighing 20 tons that were fit into sockets hewn into the bedrock. And they couldn't make pottery? They obviously weren't hunter-gatherers living day to day. They obviously had labor division, technology to cut and move megalithic blocks without metal, raise them without rope nearly sophisticated enough to hold that kind of weight, pulleys, and so on.   From wikipedia: At present Göbekli Tepe raises more questions for archaeology and prehistory than it answers. It remains unknown how a force large enough to construct, augment, and maintain such a substantial complex was mobilized and compensated or fed in the conditions of pre-sedentary society. That's easy—they weren't in a pre-sedentary society. They were a complex civilization with technology that we can't replicate using what they had.

It seems more like the explanation is that they had grain earlier than we thought they did. It's a massive undertaking, but we're not talking about inconcievable feats of engineering here.  

Homo Sapiens were said to have evolved in Africa 200,000ka. As far as I know, Homo Heidelbergensis never made it to the Americas. How did they get to America if there were no landbridge, and if there was how did they make it all the way down to Mexico 50,000 years before homo sapiens were even around?

How many of these questions do you think would need to accumulate before scientists would discard everything and declare that it's more likely Earth is 6,000 years old and everything was created in a week instead?

"How many of these questions do you think would need to accumulate before scientists would discard everything and declare that it's more likely Earth is 6,000 years old and everything was created in a week instead?"


100s if not 1000s of Scientists have done exactly that..

AND

They have done so based on the overwhelming evidence..

Or is it a prerequisite that only people that believe that they are "Accidental Apes" that evolved from pond scum are eligible to be "Real" Scientists" LOL

"Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."

(Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)

#16 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 18 November 2017 - 12:06 AM

That's because the available evidence is always changing, but doesn't contradict those basic parts of the theory.

 

Those basic parts of the theory should certainly be in question. How does the evidence always change but never the conclusion? It's been mentioned on this forum many times that macro evolution has never been observed or repeated. Which came first, DNA or protein? DNA needs protein to replicate, protein needs DNA to form. I would like a satisfactory answer that doesn't include "could have" and stands up to the scientific method.

 

 

 

It doesn't seem to have raised any doubt in anyone who wasn't already at full denial.

 

Denial of what, precisely? That for the last however many years evolutionists adamantly and religiously claimed that not only was it impossible for humans to be in the Americas earlier than 20,000 years ago, but also that bifacial arrowheads emerged 150,000 years ago. Please allow me to reiterate. Homo Heidelbergensis didn't make it to the Americas according to ToE, and homo sapiens emerged in Africa 200ka. How did they get to America, Mexico to be precise, 50,000 years before they emerged?

 

 

 

They might not have been. The trick is that we have the advantage of our ancestors having worked a bunch of stuff out previously that we can build on. If you or I had to start from absolute scratch, I'm not sure we'd be able to do that much better than they did.

 

We don't know that they worked out a bunch of stuff previously at all. Nothing in the archeaological record indicates that. The cave paintings from 17ka are more advanced than the ones 11ka. The Schoningen spears indicates complex language and social structure half a million years ago, and there is nothing to indicate previous progression. Back when a few years ago, according to hundreds of immaculately written peer-reviewed papers, we were incapable of saying even "Ooga Booga me hungry."

 

 

How likely are you to work out that a specific kind of dirt changes into a more useful material when you put it in an extremely hot fire if you aren't actually trying? I would bet significantly more trial and error went in to figuring out how to paint things on other things than went in to burning dirt
.

 

Because you don't make highly sophisticated paintings with a myriad of specific reagents without having a knowledge of chemistry. This level of experimentation indicates they were highly familiar with ways to use the wild usefully. Evolutionists say pottery is one of the simplest forms of technology, and it is, but whether it emerged before or after doesn't matter in the least bit when looking at technological and social development.

 

 

It seems more like the explanation is that they had grain earlier than we thought they did. It's a massive undertaking, but we're not talking about inconcievable feats of engineering here.

 

Actually we are talking about inconcievable feats of engineering. Inconcievable in the way that we have not one satisfactory answer for how they accomplished it. You cannot cut a megalithic stone to a 90 degree angle with another stone, even a much harder one like chert. The technology of granite drilling and transport in Egypt has been in debate for decades, and they actually had copper and bronze. Research teams tried and failed miserably to replicate the cutting, hauling, and placing of a single stone of Gobekli Tepe. That kind of technology would take a very long time to develop. So you're saying some hunter gatherers settled down, got somewhat of an easier life from growing grain, and then in just a little while came up with ways to carve and haul 20 ton stones?

 

 

 

How many of these questions do you think would need to accumulate before scientists would discard everything and declare that it's more likely Earth is 6,000 years old and everything was created in a week instead?

 

Scientists don't investigate anything that sheds doubt on their accepted theory. I don't want scientists to to discard everything and say the earth is 6,000 years old; I want them to stop giving blanket explanations that undermine significant archeaological finds. I don't care what conclusion people come to as long as they come to it honestly. The creationists here have come honestly to their worldview. They don't seem to be ignoring anything that evolutionists can't prove, but evolutionists seem to ignore the things that they can't disprove, and embrace the things they won't investigate with integrity so long as it roundabouts to what they already consider true.

 

In the case of abiogenesis and macro-evolution it's : We didn't see it happen, we can't make it happen again, and we don't know how it happened, but it must have happened.

 

In the case of archaeological finds that shatter their timeline, it's: "Who cares? Easily placated by a slight change in a timeline on pencil and paper. Yes, that should do the trick. No serious investigation necessary, I think."


  • Blitzking likes this

#17 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,035 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 18 November 2017 - 10:27 AM

It (evolution) doesn't seem to have raised any doubt in anyone who wasn't already at full denial.

correct, but only because scientists are compelled to natural origins and explanation of things

what exactly is the nature of this "evolution"?
how does it work?
i've already shown that there is zero evidence that natural selection is little more than 2 words.
population genetics is useless as a direct result of epigenetics.
so tell me, how does it work?
don't forget that your analysis must take into account of why transposons encode their own transcriptase and how and why there is a restart scenerio.

#18 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 813 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 19 November 2017 - 12:24 AM

Those basic parts of the theory should certainly be in question.

So far you haven’t explained which ones and why they’re in question on the basis of any of the finds you’ve presented.
 

How does the evidence always change but never the conclusion?

Parts of the conclusion do change, specifically the parts that don’t fit with the new evidence. There’s not much reason to revise all of evolution because what was thought about pre-human history turned out to be wrong. It’s like finding out your great grandfather wasn’t who you thought and concluding that you must be an alien.
 

Denial of what, precisely?

Evolution, large parts of geology and astronomy, and a little chemistry.
  

In the case of archaeological finds that shatter their timeline, it's: "Who cares? Easily placated by a slight change in a timeline on pencil and paper. Yes, that should do the trick. No serious investigation necessary, I think."

Does anything you’ve read actually lead you to the conclusion that anyone is satisfied with the answers we have so far to the issues you’ve raised? “X must have developed earlier than we thought” isn’t a final statement, it’s a starting point for additional research.

#19 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 19 November 2017 - 09:53 AM

So far you haven’t explained which ones and why they’re in question on the basis of any of the finds you’ve presented.

 

Abiogenisis and macro evolution are already in considerable doubt based on numerous topics and debates on this forum. So many of these questions are completely and utterly unanswerable by the ToE, and this alone should make anyone investigate a different origin of man. Further, there are finds that completely destroy the accepted hypotheses of the technological and cultural evolution of mankind. All of the finds indicate that man was never without language or a sophisticated understanding of their natural world. It isn't being investigated because the scientific community has already drawn a conclusion, which in itself is horrible science.

 

 

 

 

Parts of the conclusion do change, specifically the parts that don’t fit with the new evidence. There’s not much reason to revise all of evolution because what was thought about pre-human history turned out to be wrong. It’s like finding out your great grandfather wasn’t who you thought and concluding that you must be an alien.

 

Incorrect. It's more my understanding that evidence that doesn't fit the theory is discarded. And nobody is asking is for anyone to revise all of evolution because that is completely impossible. There isn't any evolutionary standard that anyone goes by. It's more philosophical musing than anything else. There are so many thousands of disagreements between evolutionary scientists about how it happened after that first cell appeared that there isn't anything concrete other than "life formed from chemical reactions, replicated itself somehow, evolved into other things somehow, and here we are." Everything in between is a jumbled mess that cannot be revised.

 

 

 

It’s like finding out your great grandfather wasn’t who you thought and concluding that you must be an alien.

 

Not at all. It's like, "People have been telling me and also everyone else who my grandfather is, professing it to be true, and now I find out that grandfather is not who everyone says he is. Let me try to find out who he is, how he came about, why everyone thought he was someone else, just why everyone was so sure in the first place, and who my actual grandfather might be,"

 

 

 

 

Evolution, large parts of geology and astronomy, and a little chemistry.

 

 

What parts specifically are people in denial of? Abiogenisis? I wonder why. Macro evolution? Give a single example. Astronomy? Even the Big Bang is a god-loving theory—the matter had to come from somewhere.

 

 

 

 

Does anything you’ve read actually lead you to the conclusion that anyone is satisfied with the answers we have so far to the issues you’ve raised? “X must have developed earlier than we thought” isn’t a final statement, it’s a starting point for additional research.

 

Yes, much of what I've read indicates strongly that the scientific community is very satisfied indeed with the answers they have right now. Gobekli Tepe is 5% excavated. The finds at Hueyatlaca, which dates it to 250ka using separate individual testing of different kinds, the integrity of the dig being confirmed, no contamination detected, has been dropped from the records, even though it's saying that humans were in Mexico 50,000+ years before we emerged in Africa. Why isn't this information everywhere? Why did I have to dig so far to find it? There isn't a single explanation from scientists because 1) They don't care. 2) It contradicts their timeline.

 

It isn't a starting point for initial research, it's an ending point for continuing research.

 

I'm not exactly sure how you're playing this discussion, Popoi. All the finds indicate that humans have always been language-using, tool-using, sophisticated people. I won't ask you to provide proof to the contrary, because I know it isn't within your ability. 



#20 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,035 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 21 November 2017 - 10:00 AM

Abiogenisis and macro evolution are already in considerable doubt based on numerous topics and debates on this forum.

correct, both of these have no evidence.
science has no plausible scenario for abiogenesis, it simply has no clue about how life came to be here.

i simply do not know what to say about macroevolution.
there is zero evidence that animal phyla descended from one another, apparently arriving here radially from eukaryote supergroups.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users