There is not enough erosion of the continents for them to be many 10s of millions of years old.

[AdamjEdgar]

Count on creationists and science deniers to be completely obsessed with a handful of fraudulent "finds", while completely ignoring literally millions of genuine ones.

i dont think you appreciate the point...Piltown man, Java man, acheulean axe, homo erectus is not an ancestor of neandertals nor modern man but a contemporary of both, the "dingo took my baby" case...

these arent about a specific fraud...they show what you guys claim secularists do not do...enter into scientific investigation without philosophical aims and intentions. That is exactly why continue to press on TEists for example that philosophy comes before the search for knowledge...the Epistomological questions drive our learning.

I dont suppose you have read about the archeulean axe...given its shape, that it was probably used a a discuss weapon for taking down large game rather than as a tool for cutting and that the reason why these kinds of objects are found near water should be rather obvious...thats where animals predicably come to drink and the weapons were probably discgarded because...well they fell into the water whose levels vary? I read a news article only a few days ago where the so called scientists had been at a loss to explain why ancient humans discarded these objects around water. The claim was that hunter gathers werent intelligent enough to really value the tools and therefore once the food was killed that was the sole priority...completely ignoring the fact perhaps the weapons were simply lost in great numbers because of where they were most often used.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

How are you going to prove that Homo erectus is not a human ancestor?

this is a question from a lack of concentration on whats going on around an individual. I already done that...you havent been reading or studying anything that has been said on this topic...you just keep spitting out recorded answers that are ignorant of dilemmas those recorded answers do not address.

download and read Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow. All of the major work in his book is externally referenced. The point is not whether or not everyone may agree with his claims, but that this book raises some very significant issues that few evolutionists have put together in a single location and that is exactly why this book is so significant. When you see all of these issus side by side in a single published work, the reality of the dilemmas presented becames alarming for naturalisms claims regarding the fossil record.

 

[Subduction Zone]

already done that...you havent been reading

No, I have been reading. You never came close.

 

[Subduction Zone]

this is a question from a lack of concentration on whats going on around an individual. I already done that...you havent been reading or studying anything that has been said on this topic...you just keep spitting out recorded answers that are ignorant of dilemmas those recorded answers do not address.

download and read Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow. All of the major work in his book is externally referenced. The point is not whether or not everyone may agree with his claims, but that this book raises some very significant issues that few evolutionists have put together in a single location and that is exactly why this book is so significant. When you see all of these issus side by side in a single published work, the reality of the dilemmas presented becames alarming for naturalisms claims regarding the fossil record.

I see you edited your post. Find some real scientists. He was a professor of biography. In other words he is no more of an expert than an accountant would be. His main argument appears to be the false belief that parent species and daughter species cannot exist at the same time. That is like arguing that Americans cannot be descended from Europeans because Europeans still exist. If you want a more thorough debunking read this:

Review: Bones of Contention

www.talkorigins.org

 

[Dan From Smithville]

i dont think you appreciate the point...Piltown man, Java man, acheulean axe, homo erectus is not an ancestor of neandertals nor modern man but a contemporary of both, the "dingo took my baby" case...

Homo erectus has not be eliminated as an ancestor of Homo sapiens. Maybe that dingo ate your argument.

these arent about a specific fraud...they show what you guys claim secularists do not do...enter into scientific investigation without philosophical aims and intentions. That is exactly why continue to press on TEists for example that philosophy comes before the search for knowledge...the Epistomological questions drive our learning.

That is what creationists do. You have a goal of seeing the theory of evolution rejected and you model your arguments on logical fallacies, misunderstanding and the misinformation of non-specialists and others doing the same.

What I see here from you amounts to projection to me.

I dont suppose you have read about the archeulean axe...given its shape, that it was probably used a a discuss weapon for taking down large game rather than as a tool for cutting and that the reason why these kinds of objects are found near water should be rather obvious...thats where animals predicably come to drink and the weapons were probably discgarded because...well they fell into the water whose levels vary? I read a news article only a few days ago where the so called scientists had been at a loss to explain why ancient humans discarded these objects around water. The claim was that hunter gathers werent intelligent enough to really value the tools and therefore once the food was killed that was the sole priority...completely ignoring the fact perhaps the weapons were simply lost in great numbers because of where they were most often used.

Is this supposed to demonstrate something or mean something?

Why don't you provide that reference and maybe it will cast some light on whatever you think you are saying here.

To me, it looks like you meandered off the page into water over your head.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

this is a question from a lack of concentration on whats going on around an individual. I already done that...you havent been reading or studying anything that has been said on this topic...you just keep spitting out recorded answers that are ignorant of dilemmas those recorded answers do not address.

download and read Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow. All of the major work in his book is externally referenced. The point is not whether or not everyone may agree with his claims, but that this book raises some very significant issues that few evolutionists have put together in a single location and that is exactly why this book is so significant. When you see all of these issus side by side in a single published work, the reality of the dilemmas presented becames alarming for naturalisms claims regarding the fossil record.

It's just another apologist attempt to reject science on flawed reasoning and misunderstanding.

The major premise of the book is the incorrect idea that ancestral species cannot exist in the same time and space as derived species. That's just nonsense.

The book does nothing for science or for creationism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@AdamjEdgar you really should check through this website. It lists all sorts of creationist arguments and how they have been refuted. It lists the papers used to refute them, quite often with links.

It is almost ten years old and most arguments are far older than that. As a result any argument that can be refuted with Talk Origins is a rather bad argument:

Browse the Talk.Origins Archive

www.talkorigins.org

 

[Polymath257]

that is a ridiculous argument...criminals have proven that crime pays despite the legal system aiming to sanction crime, it continues today nevertheless. It does not matter whether or not you see that as scientific or mathematical odds, your argument is mute. Some of the richest and most powerful individuals in the world have been in the past and continue to be today, criminals.

I have no idea why you think that is relevant.

The legal system doesn’t try to prove itself wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

i dont think you appreciate the point...Piltown man, Java man, acheulean axe, homo erectus is not an ancestor of neandertals nor modern man, the "dingo took my baby" case...this isnt about a specific fraud...its about exactly what you guys claim secularists do not do...enter into scientific investigation without philosophical aims and intentions. That is exactly why continue to press on TEists for example that philosophy comes before the search for knowledge...the Epistomological questions drive our learning.

If you have a testable hypothesis, please let someone know.

The philosophy that is relevant says that testing and skepticism is how we learn new things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you have a testable hypothesis, please let someone know.

The philosophy that is relevant says that testing and skepticism is how we learn new things.

Far too many creationists run on the false dichotomy of "if evolution is wrong then creationism is true". But that is not the case. Even if evolution was shown to be wrong the creation stories would still be refuted myths. That is why creationists will grasp for the thinnest straw in dealing with evolution not knowing that even that does not help them.

 

[YoursTrue]

Are you just here to insult people and post nonsense or do you have something more to offer?

wow...

 

[YoursTrue]

Far too many creationists run on the false dichotomy of "if evolution is wrong then creationism is true". But that is not the case. Even if evolution was shown to be wrong the creation stories would still be refuted myths. That is why creationists will grasp for the thinnest straw in dealing with evolution not knowing that even that does not help them.

hmm, once again I was thinking...he he, I do think you know sometimes. And where is the real PROOF (there is none beyond speculation) that fish evolved, as one example, to eventually become human beings. You can show all the pictures of fossils and graphs you want, but it is not proof. Yes, fish are still fish, gorillas are still gorillas, etc. Birds are birds even if their beaks change sometimes.

 

[McBell]

Are you just here to insult people and post nonsense or do you have something more to offer?

wow...

We should have a vote to determine the answer...

 

[YoursTrue]

Far too many creationists run on the false dichotomy of "if evolution is wrong then creationism is true". But that is not the case. Even if evolution was shown to be wrong the creation stories would still be refuted myths. That is why creationists will grasp for the thinnest straw in dealing with evolution not knowing that even that does not help them.

Oh, and lest I forget, prokaryotes are rather complex. Do evolutionists really know how they first came about?
"How did prokaryotes start?

It has been theorized that the first-ever prokaryotes appeared a billion years after the earth's crust formation. They initially existed as non-oxygen synthesizing, photosynthetic bacteria that accumulated to form large mounds known as stromatolites."

(Like they know, right?)

How did prokaryotes evolve?

How did prokaryotes evolve?

byjus.com

 

[YoursTrue]

We should have a vote to determine the answer...

LOL, my first out loud laugh tonight. Hey, is it night where you're at or is it day? Or evening?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would expect much more from someone claiming the education level that you do. Where is it?

Frankly, a 4 year education degree and being raised by a theologian isn't that strong of an education level. In my experience, education majors are those that can't handle a real subject. As always, there are exceptions.

I know it can be done, but in my state I was talking to a guy that I knew and he told me that he was studying to be a high school science teacher. I asked him how he was handling the calculus and he shocked me by telling me that you do not need to take calculus to teach high school physics. And yes, you could remember the formulas and how to apply them, But that is almost the same as cookbook chemistry. It involves a very limited understanding of physics.

The reason that I brought that up is that high school biology teachers often do not need to understand evolution. In fact in this article it states 13% of them are creationists:

https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/high-school-biology-teachers-reluctant-endorse-evolution-class/

 

[YoursTrue]

We should have a vote to determine the answer...

I'm looking at your answer again -- thanks for the laugh. I laughed again.

 

[McBell]

LOL, my first out loud laugh tonight. Hey, is it night where you're at or is it day? Or evening?

It is currently dark outside

 

[McBell]

I'm looking at your answer again -- thanks for the laugh. I laughed again.

If said vote did take place, I predict that Creationists would vote you did have something more to offer and that Evolutionists would vote you continued to post nonsense.

As for the insult part, everyone can clearly see them.

 

[YoursTrue]

If said vote did take place, I predict that Creationists would vote you did have something more to offer and that Evolutionists would vote you continued to post nonsense.

As for the insult part, everyone can clearly see them.

Somehow I believe on these forums regarding the Bible, Bible-deniers outnumber Bible believers, in whatever form they take. But that doesn't really matter.