Are there any Flat Earth believers here?

[gnostic]

How does one turn dust into a living human being, a man with no parents, and no childhood?

Is the creation of man any better than the myth of Khnum creating humans from clay and water on the potter wheel?

Is the Genesis-Eden creation any better than the gods giving life to a marble statue of a woman, a sculpture made by Pygmalion.

You say that evolution is a big con, but turning dust or clay into a living adult male human being, is even a bigger con.

Isn't believing in magic and myth of supernatural, more fiction than fact?

Dusts are living matters. Soil are not living matters. Clay are not living matters.

You talk endlessly about how science have no evidences, but you have no evidences that non-living dust can be transformed into living human being. Are you contradicting yourself? Isn't that hypocrisy?

 

[Tazarah]

How does one turn dust into a living human being, a man with no parents, and no childhood?

Is the creation of man any better than the myth of Khnum creating humans from clay and water on the potter wheel?

Is the Genesis-Eden creation any better than the gods giving life to a marble statue of a woman, a sculpture made by Pygmalion.

You say that evolution is a big con, but turning dust or clay into a living adult male human being, is even a bigger con.

Isn't believing in magic and myth of supernatural, more fiction than fact?

Dusts are living matters. Soil are not living matters. Clay are not living matters.

You talk endlessly about how science have no evidences, but you have no evidences that non-living dust can be transformed into living human being. Are you contradicting yourself? Isn't that hypocrisy?

You are the ones who claim that non-living dust formed into a living human being.

I claim that the creator of the universe created everything.

Life cannot come from non-life.

 

[siti]

Where are all of the fossils?

Here are some.The last one is "Lucy" - autralopithecus afarensis - about 40% complete skeleton, she was about 3.5 feet tall, lived over 3 million years ago and walked upright. If none of that means anything to you, you need to start reading up on the basics of archaeology, anatomy and physiology before attempting to judge for yourself whether you think these are (perhaps) fossils of "transitional species" although, in fact, you should understand that ALL species are transitional including homo sapiens.

You also need to understand that fossilization is a fairly rare event - there will not be millions of fossils of a species - even if the population numbers in the millions (or even billions) under normal circumstances. I don't want to waste too much time on it here but you would certainly benefit from a more circumspect selection of reading material on the subject.

 

[Tazarah]

Here are some.

That’s all? Lmao.

 

[Tazarah]

Here are some.

“Some” , why is it that we have complete reconstructions of literally hundreds of actual dinosaur fossils, but when it comes to the type of fossils in question barely ANY can be found, if any at all? Makes zero sense. Those fossils that you posted are just fossils. There is no record of what they are, when they existed, etc, and they are not even complete reconstructions.

 

[siti]

“Some” , why is it that we have complete reconstructions of literally hundreds of actual dinosaur fossils, but when it comes to the type of fossils in question barely ANY can be found, if any at all? Makes zero sense. Those fossils that you posted are just fossils. There is no record of what they are, when they existed, etc, and they are not even complete reconstructions.

OK - I officially give up - my argument would normally be that hominids are much more intelligent than dinosaurs and therefore better at getting out of the f***ing way when an event likely to end with them being fossilized occurred - but frankly, your arguments flatly disprove any assumption of superior hominid intelligence. I am fully expecting that our evolutionary descendants in about 2 million AD will unearth your fossilized remains and wonder at how such an incredibly large cranial capacity could possibly have been left so bereft of meaningfully intelligent thinking capacity.

You really do need to go and read some books my young friend (I'm guessing you are young enough not to have had to do much reading). And yes I am irritated - as a committed socialist for most of my adult life I have been a strong advocate of spending taxes on education - looks like I was committed to a complete waste of money in some cases. That is really irritating. Go and read some books.

 

[Tazarah]

OK - I officially give up - my argument would normally be that hominids are much more intelligent than dinosaurs and therefore better at getting out of the f***ing way when an event likely to end with them being fossilized occurred - but frankly, your arguments flatly disprove any assumption of superior hominid intelligence. I am fully expecting that our evolutionary descendants in about 2 million AD will unearth your fossilized remains and wonder at how such an incredibly large cranial capacity could possibly have been left so bereft of meaningfully intelligent thinking capacity.

You really do need to go and read some books my young friend (I'm guessing you are young enough not to have had to do much reading). And yes I am irritated - as a committed socialist for most of my adult life I have been a strong advocate of spending taxes on education - looks like I was committed to a complete waste of money in some cases. That is really irritating. Go and read some books.

Uh oh! Ad homs!

Getting out of the way when an event likely to end with them being fossilized occurs? An event like WHAT, death? There is no specific, special kind of event that causes fossilization. Stop with the nonsense. If they existed, then their fossils should be found. But they did not exist, so there are no fossils to be found. If you are anywhere near as educated as you attempt to portray yourself as being then you should know that there is no specific kind of event (other than death) that causes fossilization to occur. You act as if fossilization is some kind of rare occurence that barely happens. What complete and utter nonsense.

“There are two major types of fossils - body fossils and trace fossils. Both are the remains of living organisms. Body fossils reveal the body structure of the organism while trace fossils reveal the activities of these organisms.

The process of fossilization is called taphonomy. There are three main components. First, there is the death of the organism. Then, there are certain processes that can happen to the organism before it is buried. These processes can include body decay due to natural elements such as wind, water or attack from predators. Finally, there are certain processes that occur after the organism's body is buried. These processes result in the different categories of fossils.

What are some factors that can affect fossilization?

Body construction: Does the organism have hard or soft body parts?

Environment: Do the surrounding conditions allow for rapid burial and preservation? Will the body be exposed to many elements of erosion?

Predators: Are other organisms going to destroy the body before it can be preserved?

How do fossils form?

There are many ways fossils can be formed including permineralization, freezing, compression, and entrapment by amber. (See informational links.) Methods of fossilization often involve rapid burial in such a way that predators and erosional effects are eliminated. This allows for preservation of the body parts or trace evidence. Below are some examples.”

Source: Untitled Document

 

[siti]

Uh oh! Ad homs!

But it prompted your most intelligent post to date - I knew you could do it...so now think carefully about how it might be that dinosaurs would be relatively more likely to die in circumstances in which their bodies were quickly buried in fairly rapidly laid down sediments whereas primates would be less likely to die in those circumstances. That's what I was talking about. But you're right - I only chose that idea because it gave me a lead in to the ad hominem punchline - sometimes you gotta be cruel to be kind!

Dinosaurs were very big too, you may have noticed. That helps because once that huge carcass has fallen into the mud, nothing is going to drag it off from there - its flesh might be eaten, but its bones are going to be left to be buried and compressed by more and more mud. A 3 or 4 foot tall ape, on the other hand, might well be dragged away and crunched to pieces by a hungry sabre tooth tiger and the bones pulverized to dust in the process.

Additionally - and you can start looking this up too if you like - dinosaurs were knocking about for around 180 million years - hominids have emerged only in the last 20 million years and our direct line of evolutionary ancestors only split off from our other ape cousins about 6 million years ago so you are comparing a period of time for dinosaur fossilization 30 times longer than for human ancestors).

And, for all but the last few centuries, the populations of our direct ancestors were incredibly small by comparison.

All in all, I reckon it is probably somewhere between a couple of hundred and several thousand times more likely that a dinosaur fossil might be found than a hominid fossil - just thinking about it logically. Does it make greater than "zero sense" now?

PS - how would a creationist account for the huge disparity in numbers of dinosaur versus human fossils?

 

[Tazarah]

But it prompted your most intelligent post to date - I knew you could do it...so now think carefully about how it might be that dinosaurs would be relatively more likely to die in circumstances in which their bodies were quickly buried in fairly rapidly laid down sediments whereas primates would be less likely to die in those circumstances. That's what I was talking about. But you're right - I only chose that idea because it gave me a lead in to the ad hominem punchline - sometimes you gotta be cruel to be kind!

Dinosaurs were very big too, you may have noticed. That helps because once that huge carcass has fallen into the mud, nothing is going to drag it off from there - its flesh might be eaten, but its bones are going to be left to be buried and compressed by more and more mud. A 3 or 4 foot tall ape, on the other hand, might well be dragged away and crunched to pieces by a hungry sabre tooth tiger and the bones pulverized to dust in the process.

Additionally - and you can start looking this up too if you like - dinosaurs were knocking about for around 180 million years - hominids have emerged only in the last 20 million years and our direct line of evolutionary ancestors only split off from our other ape cousins about 6 million years ago so you are comparing a period of time for dinosaur fossilization 30 times longer than for human ancestors).

And, for all but the last few centuries, the populations of our direct ancestors were incredibly small by comparison.

All in all, I reckon it is probably somewhere between a couple of hundred and several thousand times more likely that a dinosaur fossil might be found than a hominid fossil - just thinking about it logically. Does it make greater than "zero sense" now?

PS - how would a creationist account for the huge disparity in numbers of dinosaur versus human fossils?

So out of all of the millions upon millions upon MILLIONS of supposed “ape-humans” that existed, NONE of them turned into fossils?

Lmao.

Not only are there dinosaur fossils — but there are fossils of creatures that are still alive to this day — SMALL creatures, not huge creatures.

Snail fossils, starfish fossils, camel fossils, crab fossils, crocodile fossils, bird fossils, ETC.

But absolutely no ape-man fossils.

Sorry, but your argument does not hold.

 

[siti]

So out of all of the millions upon millions upon MILLIONS of supposed “ape-humans” that existed, NONE of them turned into fossils?

Lmao.

Not only are there dinosaur fossils — but there are fossils of creatures that are still alive to this day — SMALL creatures, not huge creatures.

Snail fossils, starfish fossils, camel fossils, crab fossils, crocodile fossils, bird fossils, ETC.

But absolutely no ape-man fossils.

Sorry, but your argument does not hold.

Oh Dear! I can see I am going to have draw on all my reserves of patience here...

The reason there are relatively greater numbers of snail (shell), starfish and crab fossils should be obvious - they are all far more likely to be buried in sediments after death. I have no idea about crocodile fossils but I do know that like the dinosaurs, crocodiles and their closely related evolutionary ancestors have been around for a couple of hundred million years (again that is more than 30 times longer than hominids). Both bird fossils and camel fossils are pretty rare finds - for some of the same reasons that hominid fossils are quite rare. Bird bones are pretty fragile and unlikely to stay around long enough to be fossilized and the fossil record for birds is notoriously sparsely populated. However, in all of these cases, what fossil evidence there is bears out evolution.

If by "ape-man" and "ape-human" fossils you mean fossils of hominids that were either direct ancestors or cousins of ancestors of modern humans then you are clearly mistaken in suggesting that there are "absolutely no" such fossils. There are lots of them and I showed you pictures of some of them earlier.

I really don't want to waste too much time on this - we've done it to death on RF - but please take my advice and do some reading.

 

[Tazarah]

Oh Dear! I can see I am going to have draw on all my reserves of patience here...

The reason there are relatively greater numbers of snail (shell), starfish and crab fossils should be obvious - they are all far more likely to be buried in sediments after death. I have no idea about crocodile fossils but I do know that like the dinosaurs, crocodiles and their closely related evolutionary ancestors have been around for a couple of hundred million years (again that is more than 30 times longer than hominids). Both bird fossils and camel fossils are pretty rare finds - for some of the same reasons that hominid fossils are quite rare. Bird bones are pretty fragile and unlikely to stay around long enough to be fossilized and the fossil record for birds is notoriously sparsely populated. However, in all of these cases, what fossil evidence there is bears out evolution.

If by "ape-man" and "ape-human" fossils you mean fossils of hominids that were either direct ancestors or cousins of ancestors of modern humans then you are clearly mistaken in suggesting that there are "absolutely no" such fossils. There are lots of them and I showed you pictures of some of them earlier.

I really don't want to waste too much time on this - we've done it to death on RF - but please take my advice and do some reading.

I’ve done plenty of reading and all I’ve seen is unreinforced speculation. There are no fossil records linking “hominids” to humans, let alone anything else to “hominids”.

We have still not found the missing link between us and apes

 

[siti]

There are no fossil records linking “hominids” to humans, let alone anything else to “hominids”.

Humans are hominids. It just more obvious in some cases.

 

[Woberts]

But I’m being serious.

Why are you angry? How should I ask the question? Nobody seems to be able to answer. Sounds like you’re just reporting me because you can’t answer the question.

You guys can make fun of me and my beliefs all you want, right? But as soon as I ask a [legitimate] question about yours that you don’t like you become triggered.

Lol

Actually, tons of people has answered. You just said "LOL that's dumb" and left the conversation when you couldn't provide a an actual rebuttal. Funnily enough, that's what happened every time.
It's almost as if you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Polymath257]

I’ve done plenty of reading and all I’ve seen is unreinforced speculation. There are no fossil records linking “hominids” to humans, let alone anything else to “hominids”.

We have still not found the missing link between us and apes

What are you expecting of a fossil for it to link species? No, we cannot verify each and every generation. We never will. We cannot see one species giving birth to another. We never will.

But we *can* notice that the range of species alive changes over time with new species similar in many ways to the old species.

You have presented a LOT of misinformation and a bit of snarkiness around here. For example, Homo erectus is NOT just a small ape. And we have much more than just the original, lost, skull. For example, we know they made tools, built fires, and had brains of a size that are between those of modern apes and humans.

You have *assumed* that evolution requires an individual of one species to give birth to a completely different species. That doesn't happen. So you attack a straw man with no relation to the actual viewpoints of the science of evolution. I could go on, but I would suggest you read some *actual* science books and not the stuff your church points you to. You will, at least, get a better picture of those you oppose.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I’ve done plenty of reading and all I’ve seen is unreinforced speculation. There are no fossil records linking “hominids” to humans, let alone anything else to “hominids”.

We have still not found the missing link between us and apes

What is painfully obvious, is that you place much more importance in being attacked, then you do in defending your claims. You don't seem interested in answering my questions, or to defend your position that the earth is flat. You also seem to deliberately frustrate others, by parroting scripted denials as your personal red badge of courage. Asking for evidence that only a God could provide, or making unfalsifiable claims, only represents the true limits of all religious inquiries. Even the simple idea that the ancestors of our early primates were here long before us, or that non-living matter existed before living matter, or that all living things share a single-celled origin, would have no logical importance to you. Even if we could resurrect every transitional fossil at every transitional stage, or every genetic anatomical or chemically shared markers, and present this evidence to you in spoon-size amounts, I don't think that this would be enough to avoid your rejection. You will continue to reject all the facts from the years of research by devoted scientist, until we run out of anymore examples to show you. You will then claim victory because of our ignorance. Unfortunately, it is not our ignorance that is being questioned. You are not the first, and you won't be the last. Other than "God did it" as your truth claim, what can you deposit that isn't scripted by creationists and flat earther sites at Google U.? These sites can only exploit the lack of scientific absolutes and some of the small controversies. They can't offer any independent objective evidence of their own, especially if the evidence clearly conflicts with their confirmation or belief bias. Maybe you would like to deposit your own independent alternative explanations, that explains the rationale behind any of the evidence supporting Evolution and a Spherical Earth? In other words, why is science wrong, and you are right? I didn't think so.

At best, you are only a flea biting the back of an elephant at best. At worst, you are the poster child example of a religious education. I also tend to agree with another poster, in that you must be a young adult. Since no older adult would have exposed their ignorance so easily, or so proudly. I would seriously look up the meaning of inductive and deductive reasoning, and then apply them.

 

[Audie]

OK - I officially give up - my argument would normally be that hominids are much more intelligent than dinosaurs and therefore better at getting out of the f***ing way when an event likely to end with them being fossilized occurred - but frankly, your arguments flatly disprove any assumption of superior hominid intelligence. I am fully expecting that our evolutionary descendants in about 2 million AD will unearth your fossilized remains and wonder at how such an incredibly large cranial capacity could possibly have been left so bereft of meaningfully intelligent thinking capacity.

You really do need to go and read some books my young friend (I'm guessing you are young enough not to have had to do much reading). And yes I am irritated - as a committed socialist for most of my adult life I have been a strong advocate of spending taxes on education - looks like I was committed to a complete waste of money in some cases. That is really irritating. Go and read some books.

Of course, too, there were unknown numbers
of different kinds of dinosaurs for what, 100+
million years, all over the world, and the bones are like,
big.

But yes, waste of time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

But I’m being serious.

Why are you angry? How should I ask the question? Nobody seems to be able to answer. Sounds like you’re just reporting me because you can’t answer the question.

You guys can make fun of me and my beliefs all you want, right? But as soon as I ask a [legitimate] question about yours that you don’t like you become triggered.

Lol

You're spamming the thread.
But worse, it doesn't appear that you care to learn why your beliefs about evolution are ill informed.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So out of all of the millions upon millions upon MILLIONS of supposed “ape-humans” that existed, NONE of them turned into fossils?

Lmao.

Not only are there dinosaur fossils — but there are fossils of creatures that are still alive to this day — SMALL creatures, not huge creatures.

Snail fossils, starfish fossils, camel fossils, crab fossils, crocodile fossils, bird fossils, ETC.

But absolutely no ape-man fossils.

Sorry, but your argument does not hold.

Ape-humans? What are you talking about, exactly?

Somebody was just kind enough to present you with a number of hominid fossils and what did you do? You brushed them off as not enough.
I don't think there is any pleasing you. I don't get the impression that you care to learn.

FYI: For just "Lucy" alone (australopithecus afarensis), over 300 specimens have been found to date.

Australopithecus afarensis

 

[Skwim]

Somebody was just kind enough to present you with a number of hominid fossils and what did you do? You brushed them off as not enough.
I don't think there is any pleasing you. I don't get the impression that you care to learn.

I honestly believe the reason he posts is because he gets a kick out of stirring up the membership. Why else make nine posts in a row (825-833) without a hint of seeking discussion---a clear case of spamming---AND blithely ignoring the excellent points made in answer to his challenges? In fact, I strongly suspect he may very well NOT believe a thing he posts.

Just my opinion of course, but an honest one presented without malice.

.

 

[Audie]

I honestly believe the reason he posts is because he gets a kick out of stirring up the membership. Why else make nine posts in a row (825-833) without a hint of seeking discussion---a clear case of spamming---AND blithely ignoring the excellent points made in answer to his challenges? In fact, I strongly suspect he may very well NOT believe a thing he posts.

Just my opinion of course, but an honest one presented without malice.

.

Nothing malicious about the ig function.

(ya swab)