About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This is really a response to anyone regarding evidential creativity. Get a crate load of a variety of chemicals of your choice from the periodic table. These we shall call the elements of creation. Then demonstrate by just throwing them up in the air to see if you create anything.

It's been done. And it has a name - the Big Bang. Elementally speaking, it began with hot, dense, hydrogen ions. The whole universe was initially like the core of a star - a hot, dense, opaque, hydrogen plasma fusing protons and neutrons, although very little heavier material formed before actual stars. You can conceive of the expansion as a type of throwing matter. Guess what it did? It arranged itself into filaments of galaxies of solar systems made of the periodic table of elements fit for life and mind to evolve.

So with the evolution theory it just means looking at bones in the field and jumping to conclusions

No, that's creationism. Science proceeds in small, deliberate steps and depends on examining evidence carefully.

There’s no demonstrations to give the facts so you will always have your inadequate theories

None for you. It's interesting how often creationists offer themselves as a metric, as if what they see is all that is seeable.

Just provide a demonstration of rocks sticking.

It's already been done as well. New Horizons photographed this fused asteroid:

What's all of this show me stuff? Were you aware that you're responsible for your own education, and that although many here are glad to help you a bit, nobody's here to tutor anybody else?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That article should indicate there was back and forth migration. No separate cradle of civilisation.

The article appears to refute your claim. It says nothing about "Russian" being an influence at all.


And there may have been some back and forth. But the land bridge between Alaska and Siberia went away when the latest glaciation ended.

Russian is a far more modern European language. Its roots do not appear to be in Siberia or surrounding areas:

History of the Russian language - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You may have misunderstood an article and that is why I doubted your claim. I know where the Native Americans came from and when.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's been done. And it has a name - the Big Bang. Elementally speaking, it began with hot, dense, hydrogen ions. The whole universe was initially like the core of a star - a hot, dense, opaque, hydrogen plasma fusing protons and neutrons, although very little heavier material formed before actual stars. You can conceive of the expansion as a type of throwing matter. Guess what it did? It arranged itself into filaments of galaxies of solar systems made of the periodic table of elements fit for life and mind to evolve.

No, that's creationism. Science proceeds in small, deliberate steps and depends on examining evidence carefully.

None for you. It's interesting how often creationists offer themselves as a metric, as if what they see is all that is seeable.

It's already been done as well. New Horizons photographed this fused asteroid:

View attachment 73170

What's all of this show me stuff? Were you aware that you're responsible for your own education, and that although many here are glad to help you a bit, nobody's here to tutor anybody else?

Thank you for reminding me. He asked that question and I found an article that hopefully can explain the mechanism of how it got from small dust bunny type accretions to that point:

Planet Formation? It's a Drag

The way worlds form from dust may also explain other phenomena throughout the universe—and right here on Earth

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[metis]

If you know where they came from you will accept the language came with them.

Linguistic Phylogenies Support Back-Migration from Beringia to Asia

D.N.A. testing indicates that the Amerindians migrated from southeast Siberia, which is part of Russia today. The Inuit came somewhat later, and they were largely from northern Siberia.

 

[Apostle John]

the periodic table of elements fit for life and mind to evolve.

These elements have a mind to evolve? What absolute nonsense.

 

[Apostle John]

The article appears to refute your claim. It says nothing about "Russian" being an influence at all.


And there may have been some back and forth. But the land bridge between Alaska and Siberia went away when the latest glaciation ended.

Russian is a far more modern European language. Its roots do not appear to be in Siberia or surrounding areas:

History of the Russian language - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You may have misunderstood an article and that is why I doubted your claim. I know where the Native Americans came from and when.

Thank you. You have perfectly exposed the nonsense of multiple cradles of civilisation. That was the reason I brought up language.

 

[Apostle John]

D.N.A. testing indicates that the Amerindians migrated from southeast Siberia, which is part of Russia today. The Inuit came somewhat later, and they were largely from northern Siberia.

Yes I’m sure your right but the dates for migration would be ridiculous.

 

[Apostle John]

It's already been done as well. New Horizons photographed this fused asteroid:

View attachment 73170

What's all of this show me stuff? Were you aware that you're responsible for your own education, and that although many here are glad to help you a bit, nobody's here to tutor anybody else?

That is not evidence of rocks first colliding and sticking together. That picture could be anything.

 

[Apostle John]

Thank you for reminding me. He asked that question and I found an article that hopefully can explain the mechanism of how it got from small dust bunny type accretions to that point:

Planet Formation? It's a Drag

The way worlds form from dust may also explain other phenomena throughout the universe—and right here on Earth

www.scientificamerican.com

No that is pure speculation. Complete guesswork with no demonstration.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No that is pure speculation. Complete guesswork with no demonstration.

No, that's what you have.

 

[metis]

Yes I’m sure your right but the dates for migration would be ridiculous.

Why so, and how could you supposedly know this? A link(s) would be nice, btw.

 

[Audie]

These elements have a mind to evolve? What absolute nonsense.

Yes, it is nonsense. Like most of the things you say. Make up then state as fact.

English is my second language but I have no trouble understanding that was not remotely
what was said.

Do you misunderstand on purpose, or what?

 

[Apostle John]

The article appears to refute your claim. It says nothing about "Russian" being an influence at all.


And there may have been some back and forth. But the land bridge between Alaska and Siberia went away when the latest glaciation ended.

Russian is a far more modern European language. Its roots do not appear to be in Siberia or surrounding areas:

History of the Russian language - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You may have misunderstood an article and that is why I doubted your claim. I know where the Native Americans came from and when.

Slowly, slowly catchy monkey. Give them enough rope…

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Oh, I forgot you said you practiced a pseudoscience. Allow me to spell it out for you this is what you said:-

So the multiple cradles of civilisation put forward by evolutionary biologists propose they occurred in what is termed the old world and the new world. If you look at these geographical areas, it doesn’t explain demonstrably or factually why the language of Native Americans is similar to Russian.

The scattering of the nations at the Tower of Babel does explain this perfectly.

(evolutionary) biology deals with the origins and evolution of species.
You are confusing it with anthropology, which deals with the origins and development of human culture and civilization.

And babel is a myth. One of the more absurd ones, I'll add.

 

[Apostle John]

The theory of evolution is the most well evidenced scientific theory in existence. Without it, biology doesn't make any sense. There are mountains and mountains of evidence supporting it, across multiple independent fields of science, collected by multiple independent groups of scientists across the globe over the last 150+ years. Evolution is a demonstrable fact of life.

(evolutionary) biology deals with the origins and evolution of species.
You are confusing it with anthropology, which deals with the origins and development of human culture and civilization.

That’s not what your alter ego said (first quote), I think I’ve taken this debate as far as it will go. Good luck.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That’s not what your alter ego said (first quote), I think I’ve taken this debate as far as it will go. Good luck.

That's exactly what that poster said. That poster and myself are in agreement.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Slowly, slowly catchy monkey. Give them enough rope…

You already hung yourself. Oh, wait, I see. You have realized that you aer still a monkey. Yes, now I get it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That’s not what your alter ego said (first quote), I think I’ve taken this debate as far as it will go. Good luck.

This is not a "debate". You are merely being corrected. For a debate there must be some question which side is right. You unfortunately have almost no scientific education at all. It You are bit like a five year old challenging sumo wrestlers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you. You have perfectly exposed the nonsense of multiple cradles of civilisation. That was the reason I brought up language.

No, I did not. I just showed that your odd claim was worthless.

I do not think that you understand how reasoning works.

 

[Subduction Zone]

These elements have a mind to evolve? What absolute nonsense.

No, no mind needed. Why jump to such a conclusion?