Just tonight I was deleted twice by mrcementhead. First for pointing out that his Soviet history was dead wrong. That one didn't get posted to disappear.
The second was a direct question and a challenge -- name any commercial oilfield discovered using only Creationism principles. I know the answer; zero. A 'geologist' from ICR admitted it to me. It stayed on for an hour.
What can one expect from a mind slave of Kent Hovind?
Ah, old Mr. Mac is just an old dog. You can't teach 'em anything. Let alone how to go about establishing a firm base for which to build knowledge upon. Perhaps he never learned that Truth is no garauntee of comfort...
I do not deny him his deity. However, I will prounounce his indignities and do my small part to bring him shame. He is a deceiver and deserves it...
On Mrmacmasonry home channel (which I will soon be banded from no doubt)
Misere:
So, are you going to confirm that you, have not, and refuse to watched the "History of the Universe" which proves the stars are well over 6000 light years away or did you watch it and your refusing to acknowledge it?
Are you brain-dead? The speed of light is not a constant, and it wouldn't matter if the stars WERE over 6000 light years away. Do you have any concept of what time dilation is? Do you have any knowledge of the FACT that the speed of light is known to have been slowing down since the world began? I doubt it. No, I'm not going to waste my time watching your movie. You watched it, and you're still ignorant, so why waste my time?
2. Even with time dilation, at the distances we are talking about change in light speed makes little difference. The universe is older than 6000yrs, you cherry pick facts to back up your position.
3. It just shows again that you are unwilling to learn anything that would counter your Bronze Age beliefs. This is fine but you should not be bearing false witness to others.
Many fossil graveyards are high up in mountainous areas. In Sicily, for example, four thousand feet above sea level on Mount Etna, there are two caves crammed with the bones of thousands of hippopotamus in each grave. On the island of Malta there are lions, tigers, mammoths, birds, beavers, hippopotamus and foxes all mixed together.
No uplifting and plate tectonics, you may want to take some basic courses in geography and geology while your at it.
Again, where any dinosaurs found "mixed in" with them. The fact is the fossil record is not a jumple as predicted by the creationist model. So do yourself a favour and stop trying to push the circle through the square hole.
Aw, shut up. I've taken university level courses in both.
The evidence and the testimonies are available for anyone who has the sense to look outside of National Pornographic.
...there great fossil graveyards of dinosaurs, where the bones of millions of these beasts lie entombed in vast heaps, together with the piles of fossilized mammals, fish, insects, plants etc., testifying that they all perished together in a great mass death...
Some of them are still rotting as the permafrost melts.
I'm afraid a bible university does not count. National Geographic is not a peer reviewed journal, it is interesting to read but not a source for debate. Show me the evidence about your fossil graveyards. Dont just keep making false statements. And nice to see censorship is your way of winning the argument. But if you are willing to fight me here why not on your channel?
Oh, yeah... right. They just throw out all of the readings that don't agree with how old they want the sample to be. Whatever works for ya...
Just for a little kindergarten level exercise, try looking into what effect the rapidly deteriorating magnetic field of the earth would have on dating a sample 5000 years old. You might also investigate the fact that C14 has not yet reached equilibrium... and it takes only about 10,000 years to reach equilibrium.
Nice try, toothless. Your "contradictory findings" don't hold up to scrutiny. When the margins for error in C14 dating are added up, the maximum margin for ERROR is about 57000 years... which is about the maximum time limit for C14 dating, since by the time you halve such a tiny concentration 10 times, there is too little left to be measured accurately. And then there is the problem of contamination... Nice fairy tale you have there, though. I'm sure the fairies love it. Romans 1 for details.
What are you talking about? Modern tech is way better than when C-dating first started and the errors that you put forward are accounted for by using samples of known ages to calibrate the machine even back when it was first starting.
I have had a similar interaction with this guy. Questioned his use of a video from the 80's on the evolution of man and he responded with something like. "Yes a more modern one would be better but the facts are the same". When I pointed out all the fossils that have been found since then: NOTHING!
Go eat some frozen wooly mammoth in Siberia and get back to me on that millions of years stuff, will ya? ;-p
When you finish with that, see if you can find a "Lucy" chimp that wasn't collected from bones spread over a 25 mile area. It's amazing what "scientific discoveries" can be made when your grant money hangs in the balance.
Mammoths went extinct 4-5000 yrs ago not millions, that was the dinosaurs but glad to see you know your stuff. Wait stop, you don't instead you make strawmen such as that comment!
Lucy was not found over 25mile area. What evidence do have for this other than a creationist myth that attacks the character of leeky via an ad homind attack?
Mammoths were fossilized by the same cataclysm that fossilized the dinosaurs. Check out Velikovsky's information on the American camels, mastodons, rhinos, horses, sabertooth cats, bears and mammoths that all perished together and were buried in a twisted mass of vegetation.
Leeky? What's that, a soup recipe? Ad homind attack? What's that, an attack on a hominid? I'm not going to do your homework for you, home boy. Learn to read.
in the March 1996 issue of National Geographic, Donald Johanson himself admitted: Lucy has recently been dethroned (189[3]:117, emp. added). His (and Lucys) fifteen minutes of fame are over. As Lee Berger declared: One might say we are kicking Lucy out of the family tree (as quoted in Shreeve, 1996). Fascinating, how often the hominid family tree is pruned! "Lucy" was nothing but a fruit-eating chimp, and the descendants were nothing but knuckle-draggers. Your fairy tale has been debunked
By that he means that it may not be the direct ancestor of modern humans. Not that it was not a contender or an early homind. See thats how science works, new info is found and it either reinforces the current model or goes against it. We then before either more confidant that we are correct until the hypothesis gets turned into a theory OR we alter the model to fit the data. Not stick to bronze age beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Your "hominid" "Lucy" was not a hominid at all. It was nothing but a chimpanzee. Get a grip, man. It wasn't a contender for ANYTHING except how to prove that greedy scientists will pounce on any chance for fame and fortune, and distort the obvious physical evidence to promote a lie. THEY'RE STILL LYING ABOUT IT. The trouble with "Lucy" was that they tried desperately to distort the physical evidence to fit a pipe dream. In the end, they were found out and discredited.
Ill to the homework for you since YOU ARE unwilling
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
As for sabertooth cats etc: Any t-rexs found with them or any other dino?
Your comment shows how poorly you read. You will find my statement at 1:03 to 1:45 in the video, third paragraph. C14 is found IN FOSSILS at all levels of the geologic column. This points to the fact that the layers were laid down in rapid succession over a period of mere months in a global cataclysm, mere thousands of years ago... about 4390 years plus or minus 25. It is found in coal and diamonds also, reinforcing the MSH info that coal forms from the bark of floating trees, not from peat.
C14 is not found in fossils at all levels of the geologic column. In Fossils that test positive for C14 it is the lacker used to protect them while in storage.
C14 is found in SOME coal deposits located in areas with heavier elements decaying in the Earths core. The radiation of these elements generates new C14. This is a well known fact. As not all coal in the same layer has C14, just the stuff around the heavier elements, we know that this is correct. And diamonds come from coal.
Oh, and umm... coal in the earth's core? Do you make this stuff up as you go along? Maybe you should familiarize yourself with just how many miles DOWN the earth's core is.
Go buy yourself a peat bog and see how many diamonds you can get from it. Should be a good investment property for you... along with beachfront property in Arizona. Oh, wait... are you admitting that coal comes from tree bark? That explains it... diamonds grow on trees.
Please site your source that C14 is found in all fossil levels. Also, please site your source that coal is formed from back. One last thing, how does this show a global cataclysm a mere 4390 years ago?
Try Google. It isn't hard. You can do it. Who knows? You may even develop the skills to think your way out of a wet paper bag.
A polystrate tree would rot before it could be buried in "millions of years' worth of rock layers. Ditto for a fish.
Re: coal: one little volcano at MSH resulted in several feet of tree bark being deposited in the bottom of the lake, along with a lot of trees buried in the upright position in deposited sediments in the lake... just like polystrate trees.
So you are not citing any sources. I guess that means I can dismiss your claim. That is okay, because you seem to get your info off Google anyways. I have a suggest for you, switch Google to Google scholar and see what you find.
Lazy bum. No, dummy, I FIND it with Google, just like you do. You're only looking for sloppy scholarship and bogus science to bolster your evolution fables. One would think that any honest seeker would get a clue from the "Lucy" scam, or from any number of other evolutionist fossil hoaxes.
Google: Harrub & Thompson, Lucy Dethroned
Google: The Boneyards: Excerpts from "Earth in Upheaval", by Velikovsky
Google: Experiments in Stratification by Guy Berthault
Still not citing source. I can find anything on Google, which does not make it true. Just because there is a website about it does not make it true. Come on. Sloppy scholarship and bogus science? Lucy scam? Seems like someone has been sipping a little too much on the cool-aid.
"She" was a he, which means that a "she" would be even smaller, allowing for an even smaller brain size to pass the pelvis. He had finger-like curved chimpanzee toes, did not walk upright, swung from the trees, and ate fruit... did NOT live by foraging on the ground. And yet your pathetic PROFESSIONAL LIARS still have a fake skeleton with perfect human hands and feet in the St. Louis Zoo, COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE. apologeticspressDOTorg/articles/52
Don't know how that space got in there. Just substitute "." for "DOT" when you paste it in the url field.
apologeticspressDOTorg/articles/52
Lucy should have been called "Lucifer" for starters, and the whole thing was an embarrassment to real science. Johanson admitted it himself. Read the article for once in your life and stop drinking the Kool Aid. The love of money and fame has been the downfall of multitudes. Johanson had his 5 minutes of fame and fortune, but in the end was disgraced.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
Your link did not come up two unrelated articles. Write the tilte instead of s/52
"articles" is spelled without a space. YouTube insists on screwing with it. Delete any spaces. The address works fine. Stop making excuses. You know perfectly well that YouTube doesn't allow working links in the comments. Try this. There are two spaces to delete.
This is why I blocked you on my channel. You post endless spam, untruths, and obfuscation, while refusing to look at real evidence. You're totally brainwashed with the evolutionists' religion, without a lick of common sense. A high school student could look at "Lucy"s bones and tell you it was a chimp. It takes greedy professionals to foist such a grand lie on the "scientific community". Some of them don't have the common sense of an 8-year-old, and you have joined them.
You need YEARS of physiology training, its nuts to make the claim a high school student could. But we could test this: lets pick some random high school biology students from a good school, get hold of a couple 40% complete chimp, bonobo & human skeletons (or copies) of the same size & see if they can tell one from the other. I predict that they maybe able to work out which ones are the humans but I bet that they cant tell the chimps apart.
Human and chimp ribs are shaped completely differently, as are the rib cages. The forearms, wrists, feet, hands, and toes are also very different. Johanson admitted that the reason for his errors was that he was so eager for fame and fortune. An unbiased observer (such as his assistant) wouldn't be so biased and blind. Distinguishing one chimp from another is irrelevant to the claim that "Lucy" was a hominid. HE WAS A SMALL FRUIT-EATING,TREE-DWELLING, KNUCKLE-DRAGGING CHIMP.. not even a female.
You seem a little hung up on Lucys sex, It does not matter what sex she/he was, its a nick name.
Distinguishing one chimp from another: early hominids i.e. our common ancestor with chimps, was more chimp like than human like. So it is relevant that a high school student would be unable to tell one set of chimp like bones from another, especially when dealing with a 40% skeleton. Your claim that a high school student could do the analysis is false. YOU ARE A HOMINID, CHIMPS ARE HOMINIDS!
Lucy's branch went NOWHERE and he is not a human ancestor.
Donald Johanson himself admitted: Lucy has recently been dethroned (189[3]:117, emp. added). His (and Lucys) fifteen minutes of fame are over. As Lee Berger declared: One might say we are kicking Lucy out of the family tree (as quoted in Shreeve, 1996). Fascinating, how often the hominid family tree is pruned!
If Hausler and Schmids conclusion is correct, then this implies that the equivalent female of this species would be even smaller—something unheard of in trying to compare this creature to modern-day humans! Lucys pelvis is not what it should be for an upright-walking hominid—but the dimensions fall easily within primates found among the family Pongidae (apes).
Got that? Lucy was NOT AN UPRIGHT WALKING HOMINID. Nothing but a monkey. Are you a monkey?
It seems that the gender was very important in this case.
You're using circular reasoning as usual. There is no basis to assume that Lucy was a human ancestor. "She" has been booted out of the "hominid' family tree.
It is irrelevant if Lucy was female, male or a hermaphrodite, she was an early hominid. Whether she was in fact our direct ancestor or our cousin is up for debate. I do not make an assertion either way as Im not am not an anthropologist. You should also realise that even if she is neither it does not disprove that humans evolved from the OTHER great apes, no more than Ted Haggards meth taking invalidates the Christian stance that hard drugs are bad mmmmmKay.
" I should tell you, so that you don't waste your time: you can't make me angry." ~ The operative.
To do that I would have to respect you.
BACK TO THE SCIENCE!
According to all the sources I have looked at Lucy is still a hominid. Please give the link to the PEER REVIEWED article that says she is not, plus the supporting articles required to change the classification of something!
Sure... in another 20 years after you learn to spell. The fact is that Johanson's ASSUMPTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS WERE UNJUSTIFIED BY THE EVIDENCE and are still being used to promote a lie. Lucy was NOT a hominid. Get over it and try to prop up your delusions some other way. "Adhomiem"? You wouldn't know an ad hominem attack if it bit you, and you only read controlled sources used for the NWO brainwash. Why do you think the tax-free foundations of the banksters FUND this stuff?
Thats the neat thing about ad hominem attacks, they cant bite me. Its the last measure of a failed argument and just makes the person making them look ridiculous and desperate. As for the spelling, not only do I write in the Queens English, Im also Dyslexic, not to the point it stops me from succeeding in life but enough to seriously affect my spelling. So whats your next move? Running up to a person in a wheel chair and trying to mocking them because they cant walk?
Oh, so now you're a poor child who can't tell left from right. So go get a government check or something and stop PRETENDING that a knuckle-dragging chimp that dates to a more recent time than your Australopithecus is somehow a missing link proving descent of man from pond scum. Your LooneyToonz logic only serves to add credence to the notion that given enough time for the entropy laws to work, you will devolve to pond scum. Congratulations on making yourself look like a monkey, though. Hoooahh
You want me to go on Welfare? Weird. I have stated several times: Lucy may not be our direct ancestor, it is up for debate. I do maintain that Lucy is a hominid by all REAL sources post 1996. You have not met my request of a peer reviewed reference that says otherwise or counted any of the other evidence. Instead you keep focusing on Lucy arguing against a stand point I do not have, ignoring all other points that would prove you wrong, making ad hominem attacks & IM the monkey?
You are a conspiracy theorist. Sweet, one more strike against your validity. LUCY is a hominid. You have no evidence to say that it is not. All the modern peer reviewed sources say it was a hominid. But once more for the record: HUMAN EVOLUTION FROM APES DOES NOT REST ON LUCY! Again with the same pattern of a nested hierarchy through: Genetics (functional & non functional genes, Mitochondrial DNA etc), Fossil records (ALL THE OTHER HOMINID FOSSILS), etc etc. Learn the subject before you comment.
I'm not as impressed by big words as some deluded souls such as yourself. Just keep chanting your "Lucy or some lucky apes/monkeys/chimps are my ancestors" mantra if it helps you sleep at night. I could write an impressive paragraph in the tradesman's lingo of 25-cent words that says "all cats look grey at night", but the only folks who would be impressed by that nonsense would be education-worshipping fools like yourself, who don't have a lick of sense. How come chimps don't read or plant seeds
Its called shifting the Goal posts". People with your stand point used to say How come chimps don't use tools, then we found that they do & now it is reading. Reading is a recent human development; even some cultures prior to western colonisation had no reading 200yrs ago. Does that make them sub human? NO! They, like chimps, had no need to read. Also you can teach a chimp to read & use sign language. We are most technology advanced species on this planet; It does not make us better.
Whether Lucy was in fact our direct ancestor or our cousin may well be up for debate. I do not make an assertion either way as Im not am not an anthropologist. You should also realise that even if she is neither it does not disprove that humans evolved from the OTHER great apes. We have more than enough fossil, genetic, behavioural and physolical evidence to be completely certain that we are hominids, our closest relations are chimps and you dont know what youre talking about.
Smoke some more crack, dude. You have no PROOF. Chickens walk on two legs too. Are they your cousins? Similarities in DNA do NOT prove that B is a descendant of A. Similarities of structure and function require similarities in genetic information, and that is ALL you can prove. Behavior proves nothing either as far as origins are concerned. I've seen dogs catching frisbees. Does that prove they are descended from humans?
Yet more Adhomiem attacks! Man for a Christian your not very Christ like. It is the PATTERNS of similarities & difference that show the relationship. Killing the same genes same designer argument. Suggest that you check out this vid: "GULOP - A Test of Common Descent" on YT.
Here's a job for you. Imagine you are an engineer. Your job is to build a car that looks a bit like other cars (kind of like man looks a little like an ape), but you can't use any rubber, steel, aluminum, titanium, plastic, copper, fiberglass, carbon fiber, synthetic or natural fabrics, leather, or any fuel derived from oil, nuclear energy or biofuels. It has to be able to perform the general activities and functions of a car, but it can't share any elements of materials or design. Good luck.
You want me to make a car out of nothing at all? Poor argument! Once again, it is the patterns of similarities/differences on the functional & non-functional components that support evolution. Have you watched this yet GULOP - A Test of Common Descent? Watch it and then tell me why it is wrong rather than harping on about this.
No, that is the very heart of the matter. You claim that similarities of material and design PROVE COMMON DESCENT. They don't. The only thing you can prove is the necessity to use similar materials and design in order to achieve similarities in structure and function. If you want a hand to look and function like a hand, it will have to have the structural design and genetic information of a hand. It doesn't prove that man evolved from apes... or chimps. Similar function requires similar DNA.
My BMW K1200S didn't "inherit its DNA" from Harley. If you want it to look like a motorcycle, act like a motorcycle, and smell like a motorcycle, it will have to be DESIGNED using metals, plastics, lubricants, and fuel, and it will have to roll on two wheels. Similarity doesn't prove origin. By your logic, if you found an old knucklehead, it MUST BE the grandfather of my BMW. Or a 1925 BMW MUST BE the grandfather of a 2009 Road King. Stupid logic.
Your right your logic is stupid. BMW's do not reproduce; they do not have more little BMW offspring with slight variations that can survive in every generation for natural selection to work on. Thus, you are making a false analogy which does not carry across to biology. What you are making is a very weak strawman, so weak it actually proves the other sides point!
Natural selection works against evolution by mutation. Mutations are ERRORS that generally are detrimental, often fatal, and operate under the entropy laws. How would you like to have your hemoglobin assembled by trial and error, random happenstance? Your chances of survival would be ZERO.
Again here you have your understanding mixed up and your facts wrong.
Mutation: source of variation, most are NEUTRAL, rest are detrimental & a few are beneficial. They are random.
Each generation produces more offspring than can survive.
Natural selection is the process which the weakest individuals are knocked off first and the strongest ones are left. It is not random. Result is evolution as those very few beneficial mutations accrue!
Watched GULOP - A Test of Common Descent it addresses your argument. In a nut shell: There is redundancy in DNA which means most mutations are neutral & code for the same function as the wild type. Also there are genes like GULOP that have had detrimental mutations to make them inactive but they are not needed (so why did God put them there?). In both cases these mutations follow the pattern of evo not design. If they were designed then the differences would be either random or absent.
Similar function does not require similar DNA. If you had any biological training or understanding of the subject you would know this from basic 1styr genetics. The DNA has a large amount of redundancy, different sequences code for the same ammo acids. Protein shape is the most important thing, determined by its structure. Replace one ammo acid with another & you can break this structure but if the new AA has similar properties then it will not change the function. Which uni did you go to again?
Have fun masturbating yourself with petty definitions. Obviously there are different kinds of flesh in different animals that perform similar functions, and the AA sequences will be different. SO WHAT? There are a limited number of AA's and if the sequences were IDENTICAL the proteins would be the same and there wouldn't be such a variety of proteins. What I was alluding to is the fact that chimp DNA resembles human DNA. It in no way proves that humans evolved from chimps.
Re: Have fun masturbating yourself with petty definitions.
I'm back! If you cant be specific & accurate in your argument by using the correct definitions then you are not going to get anywhere. It appears that you are generally ignorant about biology & have a very limited understanding of it. You are building your arguments on this shoddy foundation, so as a result I am required to point your false statements out if there is to be any progress made.
O.k. Once again. There is more than one way to code for the same protein. If they were designed by an intelligence agent (GOD) then either you would have them all use the exact same sequence or if god wanted to mix it up & use different one for each animal he is being pretty deceitful by making it look like a nested hierarchy (NH). He could have made it random! IF god exists I doubt he is deceitful so evolution is they way he made us. So pick your option: deceitful or evolution.
Right got to go on a teaching field trip for the next 10 days for stage two biology, so if you do reply, don't take my silence as a sign that you have won or I'm ignoring you. Ill be in the middle of the forest with 30 undergraduate students, no internet access there. Have a pleasant Easter! Love those pagan holidays!
Re: "Have a pleasant Easter! Love those pagan holidays!"
Help yourself. It IS a pagan holiday, and you will have your fill of Mystery Babylon real soon. Easter has nothing to do with the Resurrection or the Feast of Firstfruits. "Enjoy it".
No one has ever claimed that A. afarensis had a large brain. Therefore, the pelvis it possessed would be efficient at having a child with that size of brain. A. afarensis possessed fingers that were intermediate between humans and chimp in length and curvature. Moreover, yes it did walk up right, shown by the possession of the foramen magnum and the shape of the pelvis.
Zuckermans research—which established conclusively that the australopithecines were nothing but knuckle-walking apes—was performed on fossils younger (i.e., closer to man) than Lucy!
And therein lies the controversy. If Lucy and her descendants were discovered to be nothing more than apes (or chimps), then all of Johansons fame and fortune would vanish instantly—like an early morning fog hit by a hot noonday Sun. Remember—this single discovery made Johansons career.
First off, the Australopiths are apes; no one is arguing that they were not apes. Nevertheless, humans are apes as well; we all belong to the clade Hominoidae, which is the family that includes the African and Asia great apes. Second, if A. afarensis was found to be a knuckle-walker than it would no longer be classed with the Australipiths, upright walking is one character that defines that genus.
Are you that ignorant of cladistics? You really need to look at an encyclopedia and see how humans are classed. I am starting to believe that you do not know the first thing about biology. I am wondering if you could define evolution and natural selection.
Are you in the ninth grade or something? Yeah, i know what cladistics is. I don't buy beach front property in Arizona either. My major was in biological sciences. You're just a gullible little puppet who believes whatever the "scholarly authorities" tell you. Yup, you're just a dumb animal who got lucky and you will always be led around by the nose by other animals smarter and more evil than you are.
All right, if you know what cladistics is than can you define it? I also asked you to define evolution and natural selection, which should be easy for you since you major in biology.
It is funny how when you are backed into a corner all you do is fling insults and avoid the questions and evidence brought to you. Nevertheless, I would like to know why you think evolution is such an evil idea and why evil men use it.
First off, you were the one that started to talk about the Australopiths, not I. Second, they are not dead monkeys, they are dead apes, there is a difference, and anyone that understands cladistics would know that. So how about it, can you define cladistics, evolution, and natural selection? Alternatively, is my assumption right that you do not know anything about the subject of evolution? This are not hard questions for someone that major in biology. Biologists use these terms daily.
I am going to take your silence as an admission that you do not know the first thing about the theory of evolution. Maybe you should first try to understand the theory that you show so much distain towards. I believe that if you did do some real research into this subject you would find out how the theory of evolution does not threaten your believes in any way.
Maybe you should take it as evidence that I have better things tio do than scanning through 160 comments looking for evidence in support of your dumb theory. Evolutionists have never proven that any kind of creature ever evolved into a different kind of creature. Not one "missing link" in 6000 years. Nothing but a pile of extinct specimens, and a few "extinct creatures" like the coelacanth that turned out to be still around and never evolved at all. Mutations are hindered by biochemical limits.
It seems that you do not have better things to do because you are still arguing with the others on this video. That suggests to me that you are willing to arguing with someone as long as they do not ask you hard questions (even though the questions I asked you were not hard for someone that has studied biology).
I can think of two examples of new species coming from parent populations, Island Wall Lizards and nylon eating bacteria. There have been 100s of transitional fossils found and the coelacanth that you are talking about is different from the fossil coelacanths that we find (for one thing the fossils we find lived in shallow marine environments whereas the modern one lives in deep oceans).
Also, most mutations are neutral; they do not have bad or good effects on the host. If a bad mutation appears it is weeded out by natural selection and if a good one appears it is passed on at a higher rate because of natural selection. This is basic biology here.
I am still waiting for you to define the terms I asked you to. They are simple definitions that anyone that has any background in biology should know off the top of their head. By not defining them you are just proving my hypothesis right that you do not know the first thing about the theory of evolution.
Missing link? 6000yrs? Hang on, there are 1000's of transitional fossils all over the show. Whales, Tetrapod, bird evolution etc are all well documented in the fossil record. BUT even if there are large gaps it would not matter. ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE! As for the 6k years, I take it you are saying the Earth is only 6k old? How do we see stars millions of light years away?
You have thousands of specimens that are apparently extinct. Big deal. Starlight? First of all, the limits of trigonometry do not allow measurement in millions of light years. Secondly, the speed of light is not a constant. Thirdly, there is this little thing called time dilation. You might want to learn about it before you go on blathering with your false assumptions.
What we have in is a stepwise progression in the geological column of species AND traits. We do not find t-rex and bunny rabbits in the same strata. Huge deal! Also, the occasional living fossil is irrelevant.
You are sort of right on limits of trig & light speed, however, there are ways around this. You may want to watch HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE MADE EASY before commenting. Ill ask you a question when you do about the vid.
P.S. Glad your back and well. Hope you have a nice Easter!
Time dilation? Your not honestly trying to tell me you have any understanding of quantum physics?
Like, you have no grasp of genetics and protein's. Time dilation does not overcome the distances between stars or the other evidence in favor of a old universe.
You have no understanding of the biological limits on evolution, which are imposed by the observed way that mutations occur. It is not POSSIBLE to get mutations at all of the locations and producing all of the chains necessary for your pipe dream "evolution" to happen. It does not and cannot happen, and has been proven by observation.
Evolution of new traits, structures and species has been directly observed on multiple occasions. So direct observation has proved evolution, you would know this if you had ever studied the subject!
You're deluded, and NO there are no ways around this. The longest dimension available for the short side of the triangle is obtained by taking readings from two positions of the earth on opposite sides of the sun, which yields a maximum limit only on the order of a couple of hundred light years at best. I grow weary of your baseless and foolish assertions.
LOL your frustration at losing the arguments through you ignorance is so blatant you can almost taste it. To make such an assertion is insane and you obviously have not seen this History of Our Universe Part 1 (for schools). Name me the nebula he talks about and explain why it does not work.
By this you mean being precise in my arguments and using correct definitions rather than strawmen constructed of cherry picked facts? O.k. Bye run away and keep bearing false witness. You know that you have lost these debates. So do yourself a favour and stop lying, it makes Jesus sad!
And so you have run away. Since you have failed to counter my arguments are you going to stop spreading your false understanding of how evolution works or just keep stating false hoods that you know are wrong?
You, sir, are a pompous and deluded ass. The "evolution" that you presume as fact is biochemically and mathematically impossible, even if the universe were trillions of times older than your ilk presume it to be. You are a blind leader of the blind. Enjoy your little fantasy for as long as it lasts... there are no rain forests where you are going to spend eternity.
New structures, species, traits & genes have been observed to form within human life time. WE HAVE OBSERVED EVOLUTION DIRECTLY. As for the impossible, such an argument shows an ignorance of how probability works. Even if P= 0.1Xten to the power of billion, in a universe as large & old as ours, throw the dice enough times & you will get the result.
Threat of Hell, so your loving god who made me with a doubting mind is going to burn me forever for it. That sounds perfectly sane & reasonable.
How about one chance in 10 to the 640th power? Wanna throw the dice on the random chances of building hemoglobin? There are only about 10 to the 18th particles in the universe. Now then... how many seconds are there in 20 billion years? All life came from rocks in 20 billion years? What are you smoking?
This is an eg of an argument from math for the fail! Hemoglobin (Hb) did not spring into being all at once like you claim. Hb is a modified cell; as such all of the mutations did not have to occur at once. Where did you even get that number from? Regardless even if it had, Hb 1st occurred in early animals whose pop was in the billions, each producing 10s of 1000s of offspring each year. At a low estimate: 1bill animals X 5k offspring X 1bill yrs = ?. Thats with the No. stacked in your favor!
Third, A. afarensis was discovered in the late 1970s, since than there have been discoveries of earlier hominins including earlier Australopiths, Ardipithecus, and Sahelanthropus. Get with the program and stop living in the past.
It probably swung from trees and ate fruit, but also foraged on the ground. Modern chimps forage on the ground so it would be foolish to say A. afarensis did not. I made a video about this entitled Lucy was not a chimp, I go over some of the evidence and cite my sources in the side.
According to evolutionary timelines, the creatures adopted bipedalism as their primary form of transportation, and once on the ground, began to use tools. Lucy, as it happened, took this nice, neat little story and turned it upside down. Her brain case was not enlarged. In fact, from all appearances, it was comparable in size to the common chimpanzee. And yet, Johanson and White steadfastly defended the position that this creature walked uprightly like man.
That was the idea in the early 70s, get with the times. No one holds that belief anymore. I do not know any anthropologist that does not accept that the A. afarensis walked upright. Brain size has nothing to do with how it walked. Nevertheless, as I said before, there are several features of its skeleton that can only be explained if it walked. The Australopithecines walked upright, that is a character that defines their clade. As I said, I have made a video about this.
I do not know about St. Louis, but all the reconstruction I have ever seen of Lucy do not show it with feet or hands because they did not find feet or hand with Lucy. Hands and feet of A. afarensis were found in other specimens, because Lucy was not the only A. afarensis discovered. In addition, a link to a propaganda site does not prove anything. Apologetic Press does not seem like an unbiased source for scientific research. Find something in nature or science next time.
Nature and Science are peer-reviewed journals of science, so they are biased to reality. Ideas that are submitted to scientific journals stand on their own merit. If the ideas presented in them are flawed, the reviewers will not allow the paper to be printed
Peer reviewed journals are a good old boys club, and nobody really reads them. You just put them on your coffee table to impress your gullible friends. If the ideas refute the agenda, the article doesn't get published.
Nobody reads them? I read them. Science uses the peer-reviewed process that is how new information is brought to the world and old ideas are tested, unlike the article that you keep quoting (Lucy Dethroned). It is funny because that article quote mines peer-reviewed journals. They quote mine Stern et al. and Richmond et al. into saying stuff that they were not. Both of the scientists accept that A. afarensis walked upright, all one has to do to know that is read the articles that are cited.
Neither of them in their articles says that the Austilopiths were knuckle-walkers. It is also pathetic because it says that A. africanus was the Leakey discovery, everyone knows that Dart discovered A. africanus, long before the Leakey ever went to Africa.
LOL! Knock Knock. This is reality calling mrmacmasonry, are you home? I can clearly see the lights are on. But.... Knock Knock Knock!.
Science is all about refuting old ideas in the interests to get to the correct one. Certainly if you are trying to overthrow an old ideal that works (i.e. makes testable predictions that are always are proven correct by lots of data from multiple sources.) and you will need a very convincing argument backed by even more data. You dont have it!
I agree that polystrata trees would rot before millions of years of rock layers was deposited on them, that is why we do not find things like that. The polystrata trees that we do find represent either the change in season in a given area or a local flood that buried them quickly.
I am glad we agree on this. Polystrata trees are created during local events.
Oh really... Thousands of them buried simultaneously all over the world, while equatorial plant and animal species were being swept 6000 miles north to the arctic regions and buried under hundreds of feet of sediment and twisted vegetation. That's some local flood you have there, bubba. If Velikovsky and Buckland were still alive, they would die laughing.
The lethal wound to uniformitarian geology is to be found within the great fossil graveyards that exist in every major country, especially the Americas. In these fossil graveyards vast numbers of creatures are violently mixed together. There are dinosaur graveyards in America and China with hundreds of dinosaurs mixed and buried together.
I beg to differ. A fossil T. Rex was found that was up to its armpits in rabbit bones. The crew was charged with the task of disposing of all of the rabbit bones so that they could publish the story with "credible" photos.
In my book, that ain't SCIENCE. It is science false so-called, to "prove" a lie.
What proof of this do you have? You make founded assertions which are false and I can also play that game.
.
Jesus was a paedophile who used magic tricks to get close to small children. He paid off the Romans to have a guy who was trying expose him for the fraud that he is to be crucified on the cross in his stead. Once this was done he disposed of the body to pull off the resurrection illusion and zoomed off to the US to start the Mormons up.
Ad hominem attacks over and over again. It is the sign of someone who knows that they are losing an argument. You can't debate so you attack the man. Note I do not call you names.
As for Velikovsky, don't know if am smarter than him. But after reading what he believed maybe. However, that does not matter; my intelligence or lack of in relation to someone else has no bearing on what is correct.
Also I need a link to a peer reviewed paper. Not a bible sourse
"So why are there great fossil graveyards of dinosaurs, where the bones of millions of these beasts lie entombed in vast heaps, together with the piles of fossilized mammals, fish, insects, plants etc., testifying that they all perished together in a great mass death?"
Once again not Mammals & Dinos. If it was as common as you make out, which it should be if the bible was literally true, you could find such a pit, bring in the news crews to watch it get dug up in front of evolutionary biologists & palaeontologists. The fact is there are some very devout Christians who are in science. They would love nothing more to see that the bible is literally true, as they know its not they have modified their interpretation but not their faith.
Nobody said they were buried simultaneously, actually most of the date (relatively and absolutely) to very different dates. I think you need to cite some evidence for your claim that plants and animals were swept anywhere. I have never heard of anything like that in the fossil record.
The great problem for geological theories to explain is that amazing phenomenon, the mingling of the remains of animals of different species and climates, discovered in exhaustless quantities... so that the exuviae of those genera which no longer exist at all, are found confusedly mixed together in the soils of the most northerly latitudes. . . .The bones of those animals which can live only in the torrid zone are buried in the frozen soil of the polar regions. You won't find it at talk.origins
Its callled Plate techonics and its no problem. You will need to go back to school (An creadited University that teachins real science not a bible "university") and learn your subject before debating with those that do.
Excellent scholarship man. I noticed he uses videos by Ken Hovind who is paid by the Christian religions of the world to spread lies and misrepresentation of scientific fact. Funny thing is, Hovind doesn't even have a degree in anything? He just says whatever the religious institutions pay him too.
Another account that does the same thing is NephilimFree, only he blocks you after the first comment if your not a creationist.
Shoddy scholarship, man. Your mentors are paid by the NWO crowd to promote circular reasoning and misrepresent the evidence. Where I live, the evidence of the Flood is everywhere. Open your eyes. Check out some lab experiments on the segregation and deposition of aggregates by moving water.
Your projecting dude. Reglion is circular reasoning and like above you misrepresent the evidence. Just go back to church and carm down. Science does not comment on the supper natural so your safe until you try change it to look like it does.
We know the rocks are this old because we know the fossils are this old, and we know the fossils are this old because the rocks are this old. What were you saying about circular reasoning?
It isn't possible for the fossils to have been deposited and fossilized over millions of years. It happened in one global cataclysmic event. It also isn't possible for a fossilized fish or tree to penetrate multiple strata if the strata represent millions of years. Wake up.
How about the eye witness testimony of over 500 witnesses post-resurrection, and the written records of the Sanhedrin and the Roman Senate BEFORE the crucifixion? How about the testimony of the transformed lives of the Apostles and thousands of believers in spite of the vicious persecutions by the Jews and Romans? People don't lay down their lives for a fairy tale.
I don't count obvious religious apologists for writing the story of Jesus, let's talk about people alive that could have attested to a Jesus of Nazareth. There are none.
500 witnesses, really? They didn't care to write anything down outside of the bible? Strange
The Sanhedrin? Do you realize how many prophets were prophesied about? Take 94a for example and the story of a prophet named Menahem bar Hezekiah
The Archko Volume. Jesus was extensively investigated and written about by both the Sanhedrin and the Roman Senate. Both bodies kept written records, and you can read about it in The Archko Volume.
Furthermore, the Sanhedrin was written centuries after the supposed death of Christ, therefore, it adds nothing to the historicity of Jesus, especially being written by Christian apologists.
Liar. It is found throughout. For example, Chapter X: Herod Antipas' Defence Before the Roman Senate in Regard to the Execution of John the Baptist
Quote: "As to what pontius pilate says in regard to my cowardice and disobedience in the case of jesus of Nazareth, I will say this in my own defence: I was informed by all the jews that this was the same Jesus that my father aimed to destroy in his infancy; for I have it in my father's private writings and accounts of his life, showing that when...
...the report was circulated of three men inquiring where was he that was born king of the Jews, he called the Hillel and Shammai schools, and demanded the reading of the sacred scrolls, that it was decided he was to be born in Bethlehem of Judea, as read and interpreted that night by Hillel. So when my father earned that there was a birth of a male child in Bethlehem under very strange circumstances, and he could not learn who or where the child was, he sent and had the male children slain...
Again, my lords, Pilate is a higher officer than I; and you know in our law the lower court always has the right to appeal to the higher. As to Pilate's saying that Jesus was a Galilean, he is mistaken. Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, as the records show. And as to his citizenship, he had none. He wandered about from place to place, having no home, and making his abode principally with the poor. He was a wild fanatic, who had taken up the doctrines of John (but not his baptism) and was...
See also Jonathan's interview, Gamaliel's interview with Joseph, Mary and others concerning Jesus, and report to the Sanhedrin, the report of Caiaphas to the Sanhedrin concerning the execution of Jesus, the report of Caiaphas to the Sanhedrin concerning the resurrection of Jesus, Pilate's report to Caesar of the arrest, trial, and execution of Jesus, and Herod Antipater's defence before the Roman Senate in regard to his conduct at Bethlehem.
You do realize that the Sanhedrin offers nothing to the historicity of Jesus right? It was written CENTURIES after the supposed crucifixion of Christ. Damn dude, find me one historical document that attests to the life of Jesus. Tell a secular scholar the Sanhedrin is your source and he will laugh at you.
Please show me the documents written about Jesus while he was ALIVE or shortly thereafter. You don't have a leg to stand on chump.
You're nothing but a stupid, lying troll. The Sanhedrin was (and since it was recently reconvened, now is) the Jewish Supreme Court which began when In the Torah, God commanded Moses to "Assemble for Me ["Espah-Li"] seventy men of the elders of Israel. It was NOT A BOOK, YOU CLOD, it was a court. Like any court, and LIKE THE ROMAN SENATE, it kept written records, which later were accessed and compiled into a book called The Archko volume, A COPY OF WHICH I QUOTED FROM. Cut off your legs, Shorty.
Dude, calm down, you should not be so cut up just because johnhart30 has a different opinion from you. Look, have a cup of tea and relax! This level of stress can not be doing you any good.
The fool claims that the Sanhedrin is a document. He doesn't know history, the subject matter or the facts, and he is making up garbage as he goes along in the hope of bluffing his way through an argument where there is no evidence in support of his idiotic opinion. I quoted from the written records of the Roman Senate and the Sanhedrin. What next, will he claim that the Roman Senate is a cuneiform tablet or a parchment scroll?
the sanhedrin is a document, just not a historical one. I suggest you read, "the origin of consciousness and the breakdown of the bicameral mind" by Julian Jaynes.
The Sanhedrin is a judicial body, the "Supreme Court" of Israel. Why don't you just admit your ignorance instead of trying to impress by blowing smoke about "Julian Jaynes"? It has been convened and disbanded numerous times in the history of Israel, and has recently been reconvened. It was functioning as a kind of kangaroo court under Roman jurisdiction during Christ's ministry in Israel.
and more importantly dumbass it is rabbinical law because it is and always was part of the Babylonian Talmud. That Rabbinical law was an oral tradition carried down through (supposedly) centuries than transcribed into writing sometime in the second century. Judea is not Rome, therefore it does not qualify as Roman history.
Again jackass, name me one person who was alive that wrote something down about this miraculous man? You can't, therefore, you dodge the issue.
The Sanhedrin is a body of JUDGES that began in the days of Moses, hundreds of years before the Babylonian Captivity or the Talmud. I don't give a rat's rear end about the Talmud... it is NOT Scripture like the Torah. Judea was under Roman jurisdiction and governance at the time of Jesus, and religious and political activities were closely monitored by the Roman authorities. The written records of the Roman Senate are PROOF OF THAT. Choke on it, you ignoramus.
Once again, the sanhedrin is oral rabbinical law handed down through time that INTERPOLATED into written scripture. It was written in the Second Century, nearly 200 years after the supposed crucifixion of Christ, not merely even close enough to be considered historical evidence jackass.
ONE MORE TIME....please cite a source that wrote and documented the miracles and teachings of Jesus WHILE HE WAS ALIVE!
PS..the Sanhedrin is part of the Babylonian Talmud buddy. Do some research.
Re: "PS..the Sanhedrin is part of the Babylonian Talmud buddy. Do some research. "
Moron. It is MENTIONED in the Talmud, because it existed at various times. IT WAS A GROUP OF JUDGES, NOT A DOCUMENT. You're just digging yourself a deeper hole, "buddy". Can you not understand the difference between people and the records that those people wrote?
You just answered my question that it is part of the Babylonian Talmud, thank you. Your trial of Jesus didn't exist in the Sanhedrin until almost two centuries after Christ was reported to be crucified. How does that hardly attest to a historical account? The original Roman documents cannot be found anywhere.
and the trial is not mentioned until centuries after the supposed crucifixion of Christ? Bit of a loop hole there.
Dumbass, I never said the court was part of the Talmud, I said the Sanhedrin was.
Again, let us know of the thousands of people that documented the miracles and ministering of a man known Jesus of Nazareth. Surely, someone wrote something down?
"Dumbass, I never said the court was part of the Talmud, I said the Sanhedrin was."
So somebody took 71 judges in the Great Sanhedrin and made them into part of the Talmud? And I thought Hitler's idea of making lamp shades was original...
"Dinosaurs" didn't exist until somebody invented the term, either. The Sanhedrin began in the days of Moses, more than 14 centuries BCE, whether you want to call it the "Sanhedrin" or not. It was a court of 71 judges.
Just tonight I was deleted twice by mrcementhead. First for pointing out that his Soviet history was dead wrong. That one didn't get posted to disappear.
The second was a direct question and a challenge -- name any commercial oilfield discovered using only Creationism principles. I know the answer; zero. A 'geologist' from ICR admitted it to me. It stayed on for an hour.
What can one expect from a mind slave of Kent Hovind?
neferkheperre 2 years ago
Ah, old Mr. Mac is just an old dog. You can't teach 'em anything. Let alone how to go about establishing a firm base for which to build knowledge upon. Perhaps he never learned that Truth is no garauntee of comfort...
I do not deny him his deity. However, I will prounounce his indignities and do my small part to bring him shame. He is a deceiver and deserves it...
twothlesswonder 2 years ago
On Mrmacmasonry home channel (which I will soon be banded from no doubt)
Misere:
So, are you going to confirm that you, have not, and refuse to watched the "History of the Universe" which proves the stars are well over 6000 light years away or did you watch it and your refusing to acknowledge it?
Miserenz 2 years ago
Mrmacmasonry:
Are you brain-dead? The speed of light is not a constant, and it wouldn't matter if the stars WERE over 6000 light years away. Do you have any concept of what time dilation is? Do you have any knowledge of the FACT that the speed of light is known to have been slowing down since the world began? I doubt it. No, I'm not going to waste my time watching your movie. You watched it, and you're still ignorant, so why waste my time?
Miserenz 2 years ago
Misere:
Ah
1. Its not "My movie" its by another author
2. Even with time dilation, at the distances we are talking about change in light speed makes little difference. The universe is older than 6000yrs, you cherry pick facts to back up your position.
3. It just shows again that you are unwilling to learn anything that would counter your Bronze Age beliefs. This is fine but you should not be bearing false witness to others.
Miserenz 2 years ago
Many fossil graveyards are high up in mountainous areas. In Sicily, for example, four thousand feet above sea level on Mount Etna, there are two caves crammed with the bones of thousands of hippopotamus in each grave. On the island of Malta there are lions, tigers, mammoths, birds, beavers, hippopotamus and foxes all mixed together.
Local flooding, huh?
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
No uplifting and plate tectonics, you may want to take some basic courses in geography and geology while your at it.
Again, where any dinosaurs found "mixed in" with them. The fact is the fossil record is not a jumple as predicted by the creationist model. So do yourself a favour and stop trying to push the circle through the square hole.
Miserenz 2 years ago
Aw, shut up. I've taken university level courses in both.
The evidence and the testimonies are available for anyone who has the sense to look outside of National Pornographic.
...there great fossil graveyards of dinosaurs, where the bones of millions of these beasts lie entombed in vast heaps, together with the piles of fossilized mammals, fish, insects, plants etc., testifying that they all perished together in a great mass death...
Some of them are still rotting as the permafrost melts.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
I'm afraid a bible university does not count. National Geographic is not a peer reviewed journal, it is interesting to read but not a source for debate. Show me the evidence about your fossil graveyards. Dont just keep making false statements. And nice to see censorship is your way of winning the argument. But if you are willing to fight me here why not on your channel?
Miserenz 2 years ago
Ivy League school, you idiot.
Re: "if you are willing to fight me here why not on your channel? "
Same reason I'm about to close down this debate. I'm weary of your bullshit and I have better things to do.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Oh, yeah... right. They just throw out all of the readings that don't agree with how old they want the sample to be. Whatever works for ya...
Just for a little kindergarten level exercise, try looking into what effect the rapidly deteriorating magnetic field of the earth would have on dating a sample 5000 years old. You might also investigate the fact that C14 has not yet reached equilibrium... and it takes only about 10,000 years to reach equilibrium.
Let me know how that works out for ya.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Nice try, toothless. Your "contradictory findings" don't hold up to scrutiny. When the margins for error in C14 dating are added up, the maximum margin for ERROR is about 57000 years... which is about the maximum time limit for C14 dating, since by the time you halve such a tiny concentration 10 times, there is too little left to be measured accurately. And then there is the problem of contamination... Nice fairy tale you have there, though. I'm sure the fairies love it. Romans 1 for details.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
What are you talking about? Modern tech is way better than when C-dating first started and the errors that you put forward are accounted for by using samples of known ages to calibrate the machine even back when it was first starting.
Miserenz 2 years ago
test
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
I have had a similar interaction with this guy. Questioned his use of a video from the 80's on the evolution of man and he responded with something like. "Yes a more modern one would be better but the facts are the same". When I pointed out all the fossils that have been found since then: NOTHING!
Miserenz 3 years ago
Go eat some frozen wooly mammoth in Siberia and get back to me on that millions of years stuff, will ya? ;-p
When you finish with that, see if you can find a "Lucy" chimp that wasn't collected from bones spread over a 25 mile area. It's amazing what "scientific discoveries" can be made when your grant money hangs in the balance.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Mammoths went extinct 4-5000 yrs ago not millions, that was the dinosaurs but glad to see you know your stuff. Wait stop, you don't instead you make strawmen such as that comment!
Lucy was not found over 25mile area. What evidence do have for this other than a creationist myth that attacks the character of leeky via an ad homind attack?
Miserenz 2 years ago
Mammoths were fossilized by the same cataclysm that fossilized the dinosaurs. Check out Velikovsky's information on the American camels, mastodons, rhinos, horses, sabertooth cats, bears and mammoths that all perished together and were buried in a twisted mass of vegetation.
Leeky? What's that, a soup recipe? Ad homind attack? What's that, an attack on a hominid? I'm not going to do your homework for you, home boy. Learn to read.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
in the March 1996 issue of National Geographic, Donald Johanson himself admitted: Lucy has recently been dethroned (189[3]:117, emp. added). His (and Lucys) fifteen minutes of fame are over. As Lee Berger declared: One might say we are kicking Lucy out of the family tree (as quoted in Shreeve, 1996). Fascinating, how often the hominid family tree is pruned! "Lucy" was nothing but a fruit-eating chimp, and the descendants were nothing but knuckle-draggers. Your fairy tale has been debunked
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
By that he means that it may not be the direct ancestor of modern humans. Not that it was not a contender or an early homind. See thats how science works, new info is found and it either reinforces the current model or goes against it. We then before either more confidant that we are correct until the hypothesis gets turned into a theory OR we alter the model to fit the data. Not stick to bronze age beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Miserenz 2 years ago
Your "hominid" "Lucy" was not a hominid at all. It was nothing but a chimpanzee. Get a grip, man. It wasn't a contender for ANYTHING except how to prove that greedy scientists will pounce on any chance for fame and fortune, and distort the obvious physical evidence to promote a lie. THEY'RE STILL LYING ABOUT IT. The trouble with "Lucy" was that they tried desperately to distort the physical evidence to fit a pipe dream. In the end, they were found out and discredited.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Ill to the homework for you since YOU ARE unwilling
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
As for sabertooth cats etc: Any t-rexs found with them or any other dino?
Miserenz 2 years ago
Another creationist using censorship. Nothing new here. It is great that you are blowing the whistle on him.
I think it is funny how he says you can carbon date fossils. a statement like that shows how little he knows in the first place.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
Your comment shows how poorly you read. You will find my statement at 1:03 to 1:45 in the video, third paragraph. C14 is found IN FOSSILS at all levels of the geologic column. This points to the fact that the layers were laid down in rapid succession over a period of mere months in a global cataclysm, mere thousands of years ago... about 4390 years plus or minus 25. It is found in coal and diamonds also, reinforcing the MSH info that coal forms from the bark of floating trees, not from peat.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
C14 is not found in fossils at all levels of the geologic column. In Fossils that test positive for C14 it is the lacker used to protect them while in storage.
C14 is found in SOME coal deposits located in areas with heavier elements decaying in the Earths core. The radiation of these elements generates new C14. This is a well known fact. As not all coal in the same layer has C14, just the stuff around the heavier elements, we know that this is correct. And diamonds come from coal.
Miserenz 2 years ago
Lacker, huh? That's really scientific.
Oh, and umm... coal in the earth's core? Do you make this stuff up as you go along? Maybe you should familiarize yourself with just how many miles DOWN the earth's core is.
Go buy yourself a peat bog and see how many diamonds you can get from it. Should be a good investment property for you... along with beachfront property in Arizona. Oh, wait... are you admitting that coal comes from tree bark? That explains it... diamonds grow on trees.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Please site your source that C14 is found in all fossil levels. Also, please site your source that coal is formed from back. One last thing, how does this show a global cataclysm a mere 4390 years ago?
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Try Google. It isn't hard. You can do it. Who knows? You may even develop the skills to think your way out of a wet paper bag.
A polystrate tree would rot before it could be buried in "millions of years' worth of rock layers. Ditto for a fish.
Re: coal: one little volcano at MSH resulted in several feet of tree bark being deposited in the bottom of the lake, along with a lot of trees buried in the upright position in deposited sediments in the lake... just like polystrate trees.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
So you are not citing any sources. I guess that means I can dismiss your claim. That is okay, because you seem to get your info off Google anyways. I have a suggest for you, switch Google to Google scholar and see what you find.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Lazy bum. No, dummy, I FIND it with Google, just like you do. You're only looking for sloppy scholarship and bogus science to bolster your evolution fables. One would think that any honest seeker would get a clue from the "Lucy" scam, or from any number of other evolutionist fossil hoaxes.
Google: Harrub & Thompson, Lucy Dethroned
Google: The Boneyards: Excerpts from "Earth in Upheaval", by Velikovsky
Google: Experiments in Stratification by Guy Berthault
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Still not citing source. I can find anything on Google, which does not make it true. Just because there is a website about it does not make it true. Come on. Sloppy scholarship and bogus science? Lucy scam? Seems like someone has been sipping a little too much on the cool-aid.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
"She" was a he, which means that a "she" would be even smaller, allowing for an even smaller brain size to pass the pelvis. He had finger-like curved chimpanzee toes, did not walk upright, swung from the trees, and ate fruit... did NOT live by foraging on the ground. And yet your pathetic PROFESSIONAL LIARS still have a fake skeleton with perfect human hands and feet in the St. Louis Zoo, COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE. apologeticspressDOTorg/articles/52
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Don't know how that space got in there. Just substitute "." for "DOT" when you paste it in the url field.
apologeticspressDOTorg/articles/52
Lucy should have been called "Lucifer" for starters, and the whole thing was an embarrassment to real science. Johanson admitted it himself. Read the article for once in your life and stop drinking the Kool Aid. The love of money and fame has been the downfall of multitudes. Johanson had his 5 minutes of fame and fortune, but in the end was disgraced.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
Your link did not come up two unrelated articles. Write the tilte instead of s/52
Miserenz 2 years ago
"articles" is spelled without a space. YouTube insists on screwing with it. Delete any spaces. The address works fine. Stop making excuses. You know perfectly well that YouTube doesn't allow working links in the comments. Try this. There are two spaces to delete.
apologeticspress. org/articles/ 52
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
This is why I blocked you on my channel. You post endless spam, untruths, and obfuscation, while refusing to look at real evidence. You're totally brainwashed with the evolutionists' religion, without a lick of common sense. A high school student could look at "Lucy"s bones and tell you it was a chimp. It takes greedy professionals to foist such a grand lie on the "scientific community". Some of them don't have the common sense of an 8-year-old, and you have joined them.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
You need YEARS of physiology training, its nuts to make the claim a high school student could. But we could test this: lets pick some random high school biology students from a good school, get hold of a couple 40% complete chimp, bonobo & human skeletons (or copies) of the same size & see if they can tell one from the other. I predict that they maybe able to work out which ones are the humans but I bet that they cant tell the chimps apart.
Miserenz 2 years ago
Human and chimp ribs are shaped completely differently, as are the rib cages. The forearms, wrists, feet, hands, and toes are also very different. Johanson admitted that the reason for his errors was that he was so eager for fame and fortune. An unbiased observer (such as his assistant) wouldn't be so biased and blind. Distinguishing one chimp from another is irrelevant to the claim that "Lucy" was a hominid. HE WAS A SMALL FRUIT-EATING,TREE-DWELLING, KNUCKLE-DRAGGING CHIMP.. not even a female.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
You seem a little hung up on Lucys sex, It does not matter what sex she/he was, its a nick name.
Distinguishing one chimp from another: early hominids i.e. our common ancestor with chimps, was more chimp like than human like. So it is relevant that a high school student would be unable to tell one set of chimp like bones from another, especially when dealing with a 40% skeleton. Your claim that a high school student could do the analysis is false. YOU ARE A HOMINID, CHIMPS ARE HOMINIDS!
Miserenz 2 years ago
Lucy's branch went NOWHERE and he is not a human ancestor.
Donald Johanson himself admitted: Lucy has recently been dethroned (189[3]:117, emp. added). His (and Lucys) fifteen minutes of fame are over. As Lee Berger declared: One might say we are kicking Lucy out of the family tree (as quoted in Shreeve, 1996). Fascinating, how often the hominid family tree is pruned!
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
If Hausler and Schmids conclusion is correct, then this implies that the equivalent female of this species would be even smaller—something unheard of in trying to compare this creature to modern-day humans! Lucys pelvis is not what it should be for an upright-walking hominid—but the dimensions fall easily within primates found among the family Pongidae (apes).
Got that? Lucy was NOT AN UPRIGHT WALKING HOMINID. Nothing but a monkey. Are you a monkey?
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
It seems that the gender was very important in this case.
You're using circular reasoning as usual. There is no basis to assume that Lucy was a human ancestor. "She" has been booted out of the "hominid' family tree.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
It is irrelevant if Lucy was female, male or a hermaphrodite, she was an early hominid. Whether she was in fact our direct ancestor or our cousin is up for debate. I do not make an assertion either way as Im not am not an anthropologist. You should also realise that even if she is neither it does not disprove that humans evolved from the OTHER great apes, no more than Ted Haggards meth taking invalidates the Christian stance that hard drugs are bad mmmmmKay.
Miserenz 2 years ago
No, dummy, Lucy was not a hominid. The evidence resulted in Lucy being booted out of the hominid tree in 1996.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Yet more Adhomiem attacks!
" I should tell you, so that you don't waste your time: you can't make me angry." ~ The operative.
To do that I would have to respect you.
BACK TO THE SCIENCE!
According to all the sources I have looked at Lucy is still a hominid. Please give the link to the PEER REVIEWED article that says she is not, plus the supporting articles required to change the classification of something!
Miserenz 2 years ago
Sure... in another 20 years after you learn to spell. The fact is that Johanson's ASSUMPTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS WERE UNJUSTIFIED BY THE EVIDENCE and are still being used to promote a lie. Lucy was NOT a hominid. Get over it and try to prop up your delusions some other way. "Adhomiem"? You wouldn't know an ad hominem attack if it bit you, and you only read controlled sources used for the NWO brainwash. Why do you think the tax-free foundations of the banksters FUND this stuff?
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Thats the neat thing about ad hominem attacks, they cant bite me. Its the last measure of a failed argument and just makes the person making them look ridiculous and desperate. As for the spelling, not only do I write in the Queens English, Im also Dyslexic, not to the point it stops me from succeeding in life but enough to seriously affect my spelling. So whats your next move? Running up to a person in a wheel chair and trying to mocking them because they cant walk?
Miserenz 2 years ago
Oh, so now you're a poor child who can't tell left from right. So go get a government check or something and stop PRETENDING that a knuckle-dragging chimp that dates to a more recent time than your Australopithecus is somehow a missing link proving descent of man from pond scum. Your LooneyToonz logic only serves to add credence to the notion that given enough time for the entropy laws to work, you will devolve to pond scum. Congratulations on making yourself look like a monkey, though. Hoooahh
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
You want me to go on Welfare? Weird. I have stated several times: Lucy may not be our direct ancestor, it is up for debate. I do maintain that Lucy is a hominid by all REAL sources post 1996. You have not met my request of a peer reviewed reference that says otherwise or counted any of the other evidence. Instead you keep focusing on Lucy arguing against a stand point I do not have, ignoring all other points that would prove you wrong, making ad hominem attacks & IM the monkey?
Miserenz 2 years ago
You are a conspiracy theorist. Sweet, one more strike against your validity. LUCY is a hominid. You have no evidence to say that it is not. All the modern peer reviewed sources say it was a hominid. But once more for the record: HUMAN EVOLUTION FROM APES DOES NOT REST ON LUCY! Again with the same pattern of a nested hierarchy through: Genetics (functional & non functional genes, Mitochondrial DNA etc), Fossil records (ALL THE OTHER HOMINID FOSSILS), etc etc. Learn the subject before you comment.
Miserenz 2 years ago
I'm not as impressed by big words as some deluded souls such as yourself. Just keep chanting your "Lucy or some lucky apes/monkeys/chimps are my ancestors" mantra if it helps you sleep at night. I could write an impressive paragraph in the tradesman's lingo of 25-cent words that says "all cats look grey at night", but the only folks who would be impressed by that nonsense would be education-worshipping fools like yourself, who don't have a lick of sense. How come chimps don't read or plant seeds
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Its called shifting the Goal posts". People with your stand point used to say How come chimps don't use tools, then we found that they do & now it is reading. Reading is a recent human development; even some cultures prior to western colonisation had no reading 200yrs ago. Does that make them sub human? NO! They, like chimps, had no need to read. Also you can teach a chimp to read & use sign language. We are most technology advanced species on this planet; It does not make us better.
Miserenz 2 years ago
Whether Lucy was in fact our direct ancestor or our cousin may well be up for debate. I do not make an assertion either way as Im not am not an anthropologist. You should also realise that even if she is neither it does not disprove that humans evolved from the OTHER great apes. We have more than enough fossil, genetic, behavioural and physolical evidence to be completely certain that we are hominids, our closest relations are chimps and you dont know what youre talking about.
Miserenz 2 years ago
Smoke some more crack, dude. You have no PROOF. Chickens walk on two legs too. Are they your cousins? Similarities in DNA do NOT prove that B is a descendant of A. Similarities of structure and function require similarities in genetic information, and that is ALL you can prove. Behavior proves nothing either as far as origins are concerned. I've seen dogs catching frisbees. Does that prove they are descended from humans?
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Yet more Adhomiem attacks! Man for a Christian your not very Christ like. It is the PATTERNS of similarities & difference that show the relationship. Killing the same genes same designer argument. Suggest that you check out this vid: "GULOP - A Test of Common Descent" on YT.
Miserenz 2 years ago
Here's a job for you. Imagine you are an engineer. Your job is to build a car that looks a bit like other cars (kind of like man looks a little like an ape), but you can't use any rubber, steel, aluminum, titanium, plastic, copper, fiberglass, carbon fiber, synthetic or natural fabrics, leather, or any fuel derived from oil, nuclear energy or biofuels. It has to be able to perform the general activities and functions of a car, but it can't share any elements of materials or design. Good luck.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
You want me to make a car out of nothing at all? Poor argument! Once again, it is the patterns of similarities/differences on the functional & non-functional components that support evolution. Have you watched this yet GULOP - A Test of Common Descent? Watch it and then tell me why it is wrong rather than harping on about this.
Miserenz 2 years ago
No, that is the very heart of the matter. You claim that similarities of material and design PROVE COMMON DESCENT. They don't. The only thing you can prove is the necessity to use similar materials and design in order to achieve similarities in structure and function. If you want a hand to look and function like a hand, it will have to have the structural design and genetic information of a hand. It doesn't prove that man evolved from apes... or chimps. Similar function requires similar DNA.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
My BMW K1200S didn't "inherit its DNA" from Harley. If you want it to look like a motorcycle, act like a motorcycle, and smell like a motorcycle, it will have to be DESIGNED using metals, plastics, lubricants, and fuel, and it will have to roll on two wheels. Similarity doesn't prove origin. By your logic, if you found an old knucklehead, it MUST BE the grandfather of my BMW. Or a 1925 BMW MUST BE the grandfather of a 2009 Road King. Stupid logic.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Your right your logic is stupid. BMW's do not reproduce; they do not have more little BMW offspring with slight variations that can survive in every generation for natural selection to work on. Thus, you are making a false analogy which does not carry across to biology. What you are making is a very weak strawman, so weak it actually proves the other sides point!
Miserenz 2 years ago
Natural selection works against evolution by mutation. Mutations are ERRORS that generally are detrimental, often fatal, and operate under the entropy laws. How would you like to have your hemoglobin assembled by trial and error, random happenstance? Your chances of survival would be ZERO.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Again here you have your understanding mixed up and your facts wrong.
Mutation: source of variation, most are NEUTRAL, rest are detrimental & a few are beneficial. They are random.
Each generation produces more offspring than can survive.
Natural selection is the process which the weakest individuals are knocked off first and the strongest ones are left. It is not random. Result is evolution as those very few beneficial mutations accrue!
With enough time and generations chances are ONE!
Miserenz 2 years ago
Watched GULOP - A Test of Common Descent it addresses your argument. In a nut shell: There is redundancy in DNA which means most mutations are neutral & code for the same function as the wild type. Also there are genes like GULOP that have had detrimental mutations to make them inactive but they are not needed (so why did God put them there?). In both cases these mutations follow the pattern of evo not design. If they were designed then the differences would be either random or absent.
Miserenz 2 years ago
Similar function does not require similar DNA. If you had any biological training or understanding of the subject you would know this from basic 1styr genetics. The DNA has a large amount of redundancy, different sequences code for the same ammo acids. Protein shape is the most important thing, determined by its structure. Replace one ammo acid with another & you can break this structure but if the new AA has similar properties then it will not change the function. Which uni did you go to again?
Miserenz 2 years ago
Have fun masturbating yourself with petty definitions. Obviously there are different kinds of flesh in different animals that perform similar functions, and the AA sequences will be different. SO WHAT? There are a limited number of AA's and if the sequences were IDENTICAL the proteins would be the same and there wouldn't be such a variety of proteins. What I was alluding to is the fact that chimp DNA resembles human DNA. It in no way proves that humans evolved from chimps.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
mrmacmasonry (5 days ago)
Re: Have fun masturbating yourself with petty definitions.
I'm back! If you cant be specific & accurate in your argument by using the correct definitions then you are not going to get anywhere. It appears that you are generally ignorant about biology & have a very limited understanding of it. You are building your arguments on this shoddy foundation, so as a result I am required to point your false statements out if there is to be any progress made.
Miserenz 2 years ago
O.k. Once again. There is more than one way to code for the same protein. If they were designed by an intelligence agent (GOD) then either you would have them all use the exact same sequence or if god wanted to mix it up & use different one for each animal he is being pretty deceitful by making it look like a nested hierarchy (NH). He could have made it random! IF god exists I doubt he is deceitful so evolution is they way he made us. So pick your option: deceitful or evolution.
Miserenz 2 years ago
Right got to go on a teaching field trip for the next 10 days for stage two biology, so if you do reply, don't take my silence as a sign that you have won or I'm ignoring you. Ill be in the middle of the forest with 30 undergraduate students, no internet access there. Have a pleasant Easter! Love those pagan holidays!
Miserenz 2 years ago
Re: "Have a pleasant Easter! Love those pagan holidays!"
Help yourself. It IS a pagan holiday, and you will have your fill of Mystery Babylon real soon. Easter has nothing to do with the Resurrection or the Feast of Firstfruits. "Enjoy it".
Google: The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
No one has ever claimed that A. afarensis had a large brain. Therefore, the pelvis it possessed would be efficient at having a child with that size of brain. A. afarensis possessed fingers that were intermediate between humans and chimp in length and curvature. Moreover, yes it did walk up right, shown by the possession of the foramen magnum and the shape of the pelvis.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Zuckermans research—which established conclusively that the australopithecines were nothing but knuckle-walking apes—was performed on fossils younger (i.e., closer to man) than Lucy!
And therein lies the controversy. If Lucy and her descendants were discovered to be nothing more than apes (or chimps), then all of Johansons fame and fortune would vanish instantly—like an early morning fog hit by a hot noonday Sun. Remember—this single discovery made Johansons career.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
First off, the Australopiths are apes; no one is arguing that they were not apes. Nevertheless, humans are apes as well; we all belong to the clade Hominoidae, which is the family that includes the African and Asia great apes. Second, if A. afarensis was found to be a knuckle-walker than it would no longer be classed with the Australipiths, upright walking is one character that defines that genus.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
OK... I believe YOU are an ape.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Are you that ignorant of cladistics? You really need to look at an encyclopedia and see how humans are classed. I am starting to believe that you do not know the first thing about biology. I am wondering if you could define evolution and natural selection.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Are you in the ninth grade or something? Yeah, i know what cladistics is. I don't buy beach front property in Arizona either. My major was in biological sciences. You're just a gullible little puppet who believes whatever the "scholarly authorities" tell you. Yup, you're just a dumb animal who got lucky and you will always be led around by the nose by other animals smarter and more evil than you are.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
All right, if you know what cladistics is than can you define it? I also asked you to define evolution and natural selection, which should be easy for you since you major in biology.
It is funny how when you are backed into a corner all you do is fling insults and avoid the questions and evidence brought to you. Nevertheless, I would like to know why you think evolution is such an evil idea and why evil men use it.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
If you ever bring any real evidence, I'll be sure to let you know. Dead monkeys don't prove anything.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
First off, you were the one that started to talk about the Australopiths, not I. Second, they are not dead monkeys, they are dead apes, there is a difference, and anyone that understands cladistics would know that. So how about it, can you define cladistics, evolution, and natural selection? Alternatively, is my assumption right that you do not know anything about the subject of evolution? This are not hard questions for someone that major in biology. Biologists use these terms daily.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
I am going to take your silence as an admission that you do not know the first thing about the theory of evolution. Maybe you should first try to understand the theory that you show so much distain towards. I believe that if you did do some real research into this subject you would find out how the theory of evolution does not threaten your believes in any way.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Maybe you should take it as evidence that I have better things tio do than scanning through 160 comments looking for evidence in support of your dumb theory. Evolutionists have never proven that any kind of creature ever evolved into a different kind of creature. Not one "missing link" in 6000 years. Nothing but a pile of extinct specimens, and a few "extinct creatures" like the coelacanth that turned out to be still around and never evolved at all. Mutations are hindered by biochemical limits.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
It seems that you do not have better things to do because you are still arguing with the others on this video. That suggests to me that you are willing to arguing with someone as long as they do not ask you hard questions (even though the questions I asked you were not hard for someone that has studied biology).
jebus6kryst 2 years ago 3
I can think of two examples of new species coming from parent populations, Island Wall Lizards and nylon eating bacteria. There have been 100s of transitional fossils found and the coelacanth that you are talking about is different from the fossil coelacanths that we find (for one thing the fossils we find lived in shallow marine environments whereas the modern one lives in deep oceans).
jebus6kryst 2 years ago 3
Also, most mutations are neutral; they do not have bad or good effects on the host. If a bad mutation appears it is weeded out by natural selection and if a good one appears it is passed on at a higher rate because of natural selection. This is basic biology here.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago 3
I am still waiting for you to define the terms I asked you to. They are simple definitions that anyone that has any background in biology should know off the top of their head. By not defining them you are just proving my hypothesis right that you do not know the first thing about the theory of evolution.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago 2
Missing link? 6000yrs? Hang on, there are 1000's of transitional fossils all over the show. Whales, Tetrapod, bird evolution etc are all well documented in the fossil record. BUT even if there are large gaps it would not matter. ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE! As for the 6k years, I take it you are saying the Earth is only 6k old? How do we see stars millions of light years away?
Miserenz 2 years ago
You have thousands of specimens that are apparently extinct. Big deal. Starlight? First of all, the limits of trigonometry do not allow measurement in millions of light years. Secondly, the speed of light is not a constant. Thirdly, there is this little thing called time dilation. You might want to learn about it before you go on blathering with your false assumptions.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
What we have in is a stepwise progression in the geological column of species AND traits. We do not find t-rex and bunny rabbits in the same strata. Huge deal! Also, the occasional living fossil is irrelevant.
You are sort of right on limits of trig & light speed, however, there are ways around this. You may want to watch HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE MADE EASY before commenting. Ill ask you a question when you do about the vid.
P.S. Glad your back and well. Hope you have a nice Easter!
Miserenz 2 years ago
BTW.
Time dilation? Your not honestly trying to tell me you have any understanding of quantum physics?
Like, you have no grasp of genetics and protein's. Time dilation does not overcome the distances between stars or the other evidence in favor of a old universe.
Miserenz 2 years ago
You have no understanding of the biological limits on evolution, which are imposed by the observed way that mutations occur. It is not POSSIBLE to get mutations at all of the locations and producing all of the chains necessary for your pipe dream "evolution" to happen. It does not and cannot happen, and has been proven by observation.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Evolution of new traits, structures and species has been directly observed on multiple occasions. So direct observation has proved evolution, you would know this if you had ever studied the subject!
Miserenz 2 years ago
You're deluded, and NO there are no ways around this. The longest dimension available for the short side of the triangle is obtained by taking readings from two positions of the earth on opposite sides of the sun, which yields a maximum limit only on the order of a couple of hundred light years at best. I grow weary of your baseless and foolish assertions.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
LOL your frustration at losing the arguments through you ignorance is so blatant you can almost taste it. To make such an assertion is insane and you obviously have not seen this History of Our Universe Part 1 (for schools). Name me the nebula he talks about and explain why it does not work.
Miserenz 2 years ago
If you're going to continue masturbating, I refuse to watch. 'Bye.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
By this you mean being precise in my arguments and using correct definitions rather than strawmen constructed of cherry picked facts? O.k. Bye run away and keep bearing false witness. You know that you have lost these debates. So do yourself a favour and stop lying, it makes Jesus sad!
Miserenz 2 years ago
And so you have run away. Since you have failed to counter my arguments are you going to stop spreading your false understanding of how evolution works or just keep stating false hoods that you know are wrong?
Miserenz 2 years ago
You, sir, are a pompous and deluded ass. The "evolution" that you presume as fact is biochemically and mathematically impossible, even if the universe were trillions of times older than your ilk presume it to be. You are a blind leader of the blind. Enjoy your little fantasy for as long as it lasts... there are no rain forests where you are going to spend eternity.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
New structures, species, traits & genes have been observed to form within human life time. WE HAVE OBSERVED EVOLUTION DIRECTLY. As for the impossible, such an argument shows an ignorance of how probability works. Even if P= 0.1Xten to the power of billion, in a universe as large & old as ours, throw the dice enough times & you will get the result.
Threat of Hell, so your loving god who made me with a doubting mind is going to burn me forever for it. That sounds perfectly sane & reasonable.
Miserenz 2 years ago
How about one chance in 10 to the 640th power? Wanna throw the dice on the random chances of building hemoglobin? There are only about 10 to the 18th particles in the universe. Now then... how many seconds are there in 20 billion years? All life came from rocks in 20 billion years? What are you smoking?
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
This is an eg of an argument from math for the fail! Hemoglobin (Hb) did not spring into being all at once like you claim. Hb is a modified cell; as such all of the mutations did not have to occur at once. Where did you even get that number from? Regardless even if it had, Hb 1st occurred in early animals whose pop was in the billions, each producing 10s of 1000s of offspring each year. At a low estimate: 1bill animals X 5k offspring X 1bill yrs = ?. Thats with the No. stacked in your favor!
Miserenz 2 years ago
Are you an animal?
Miserenz 2 years ago
Third, A. afarensis was discovered in the late 1970s, since than there have been discoveries of earlier hominins including earlier Australopiths, Ardipithecus, and Sahelanthropus. Get with the program and stop living in the past.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Extinct apes. Get with reality.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
It is plain to anyone that you are the one that needs to get with reality.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
It probably swung from trees and ate fruit, but also foraged on the ground. Modern chimps forage on the ground so it would be foolish to say A. afarensis did not. I made a video about this entitled Lucy was not a chimp, I go over some of the evidence and cite my sources in the side.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
According to evolutionary timelines, the creatures adopted bipedalism as their primary form of transportation, and once on the ground, began to use tools. Lucy, as it happened, took this nice, neat little story and turned it upside down. Her brain case was not enlarged. In fact, from all appearances, it was comparable in size to the common chimpanzee. And yet, Johanson and White steadfastly defended the position that this creature walked uprightly like man.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
That was the idea in the early 70s, get with the times. No one holds that belief anymore. I do not know any anthropologist that does not accept that the A. afarensis walked upright. Brain size has nothing to do with how it walked. Nevertheless, as I said before, there are several features of its skeleton that can only be explained if it walked. The Australopithecines walked upright, that is a character that defines their clade. As I said, I have made a video about this.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
I do not know about St. Louis, but all the reconstruction I have ever seen of Lucy do not show it with feet or hands because they did not find feet or hand with Lucy. Hands and feet of A. afarensis were found in other specimens, because Lucy was not the only A. afarensis discovered. In addition, a link to a propaganda site does not prove anything. Apologetic Press does not seem like an unbiased source for scientific research. Find something in nature or science next time.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Oh, I see... Nature or Science are unbiased sources? Right. They're about as unbiased as Newsweek or National Pornographic.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Nature and Science are peer-reviewed journals of science, so they are biased to reality. Ideas that are submitted to scientific journals stand on their own merit. If the ideas presented in them are flawed, the reviewers will not allow the paper to be printed
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Peer reviewed journals are a good old boys club, and nobody really reads them. You just put them on your coffee table to impress your gullible friends. If the ideas refute the agenda, the article doesn't get published.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Nobody reads them? I read them. Science uses the peer-reviewed process that is how new information is brought to the world and old ideas are tested, unlike the article that you keep quoting (Lucy Dethroned). It is funny because that article quote mines peer-reviewed journals. They quote mine Stern et al. and Richmond et al. into saying stuff that they were not. Both of the scientists accept that A. afarensis walked upright, all one has to do to know that is read the articles that are cited.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Neither of them in their articles says that the Austilopiths were knuckle-walkers. It is also pathetic because it says that A. africanus was the Leakey discovery, everyone knows that Dart discovered A. africanus, long before the Leakey ever went to Africa.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
LOL! Knock Knock. This is reality calling mrmacmasonry, are you home? I can clearly see the lights are on. But.... Knock Knock Knock!.
Science is all about refuting old ideas in the interests to get to the correct one. Certainly if you are trying to overthrow an old ideal that works (i.e. makes testable predictions that are always are proven correct by lots of data from multiple sources.) and you will need a very convincing argument backed by even more data. You dont have it!
Miserenz 2 years ago
I agree that polystrata trees would rot before millions of years of rock layers was deposited on them, that is why we do not find things like that. The polystrata trees that we do find represent either the change in season in a given area or a local flood that buried them quickly.
I am glad we agree on this. Polystrata trees are created during local events.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Show me one example of where a local flood produced polystrate trees. It takes much more than a flood.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
You gave an example with your volcano. When volcano erupted, some produce lahars which in gulp everything in their path.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
"some produce lahars which in gulp everything in their path."
Let me know when you get off the dope and develop the ability to construct intelligent sentences.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Cop out.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Oh really... Thousands of them buried simultaneously all over the world, while equatorial plant and animal species were being swept 6000 miles north to the arctic regions and buried under hundreds of feet of sediment and twisted vegetation. That's some local flood you have there, bubba. If Velikovsky and Buckland were still alive, they would die laughing.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Try s8intDOTcom/boneyard3DOThtml
The lethal wound to uniformitarian geology is to be found within the great fossil graveyards that exist in every major country, especially the Americas. In these fossil graveyards vast numbers of creatures are violently mixed together. There are dinosaur graveyards in America and China with hundreds of dinosaurs mixed and buried together.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Yes but not one grave yard where dinosaurs are mixed together with mammals. Which is the point!
Miserenz 2 years ago
I beg to differ. A fossil T. Rex was found that was up to its armpits in rabbit bones. The crew was charged with the task of disposing of all of the rabbit bones so that they could publish the story with "credible" photos.
In my book, that ain't SCIENCE. It is science false so-called, to "prove" a lie.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
What proof of this do you have? You make founded assertions which are false and I can also play that game.
.
Jesus was a paedophile who used magic tricks to get close to small children. He paid off the Romans to have a guy who was trying expose him for the fraud that he is to be crucified on the cross in his stead. Once this was done he disposed of the body to pull off the resurrection illusion and zoomed off to the US to start the Mormons up.
Proof thanks not baseless conjecture.
Miserenz 2 years ago
Idiot. I suppose you think you're smarter than Velikovsky. You're nothing but an accomplished liar.
s8int. com/boneyard1. html
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Ad hominem attacks over and over again. It is the sign of someone who knows that they are losing an argument. You can't debate so you attack the man. Note I do not call you names.
As for Velikovsky, don't know if am smarter than him. But after reading what he believed maybe. However, that does not matter; my intelligence or lack of in relation to someone else has no bearing on what is correct.
Also I need a link to a peer reviewed paper. Not a bible sourse
Miserenz 2 years ago
Oh, is that so?
"So why are there great fossil graveyards of dinosaurs, where the bones of millions of these beasts lie entombed in vast heaps, together with the piles of fossilized mammals, fish, insects, plants etc., testifying that they all perished together in a great mass death?"
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Once again not Mammals & Dinos. If it was as common as you make out, which it should be if the bible was literally true, you could find such a pit, bring in the news crews to watch it get dug up in front of evolutionary biologists & palaeontologists. The fact is there are some very devout Christians who are in science. They would love nothing more to see that the bible is literally true, as they know its not they have modified their interpretation but not their faith.
Miserenz 2 years ago
Nobody said they were buried simultaneously, actually most of the date (relatively and absolutely) to very different dates. I think you need to cite some evidence for your claim that plants and animals were swept anywhere. I have never heard of anything like that in the fossil record.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
The great problem for geological theories to explain is that amazing phenomenon, the mingling of the remains of animals of different species and climates, discovered in exhaustless quantities... so that the exuviae of those genera which no longer exist at all, are found confusedly mixed together in the soils of the most northerly latitudes. . . .The bones of those animals which can live only in the torrid zone are buried in the frozen soil of the polar regions. You won't find it at talk.origins
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Cite your source.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Its callled Plate techonics and its no problem. You will need to go back to school (An creadited University that teachins real science not a bible "university") and learn your subject before debating with those that do.
Miserenz 2 years ago
Excellent scholarship man. I noticed he uses videos by Ken Hovind who is paid by the Christian religions of the world to spread lies and misrepresentation of scientific fact. Funny thing is, Hovind doesn't even have a degree in anything? He just says whatever the religious institutions pay him too.
Another account that does the same thing is NephilimFree, only he blocks you after the first comment if your not a creationist.
johnhart30 3 years ago
Shoddy scholarship, man. Your mentors are paid by the NWO crowd to promote circular reasoning and misrepresent the evidence. Where I live, the evidence of the Flood is everywhere. Open your eyes. Check out some lab experiments on the segregation and deposition of aggregates by moving water.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Your projecting dude. Reglion is circular reasoning and like above you misrepresent the evidence. Just go back to church and carm down. Science does not comment on the supper natural so your safe until you try change it to look like it does.
Miserenz 2 years ago
We know the rocks are this old because we know the fossils are this old, and we know the fossils are this old because the rocks are this old. What were you saying about circular reasoning?
It isn't possible for the fossils to have been deposited and fossilized over millions of years. It happened in one global cataclysmic event. It also isn't possible for a fossilized fish or tree to penetrate multiple strata if the strata represent millions of years. Wake up.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Blame the inconsistencies of the bible on the NWO?
Wow, I don't even need to waste my time with the fallacies of the bible, I can dive right in and prove that Jesus never existed.
If your Jesus never existed, how the hell can the bible be true?
johnhart30 2 years ago
I see you're following in the footsteps of NWO sock puppets and professional douchebags Peter Joseph and Acharya S. You don't have a leg to stand on.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
I don't follow either of those "sock pockets"
I follow the supposed evidence itself. How nice of you to try and redirect though, while assuming.
Acharya and Joseph are not professionals, nor did I ever say they were.
Who would you like to talk about first? Perhaps your famed Flavius Josephus?
Let's discuss your obscure evidence, shall we?
johnhart30 2 years ago
How about the eye witness testimony of over 500 witnesses post-resurrection, and the written records of the Sanhedrin and the Roman Senate BEFORE the crucifixion? How about the testimony of the transformed lives of the Apostles and thousands of believers in spite of the vicious persecutions by the Jews and Romans? People don't lay down their lives for a fairy tale.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
I don't count obvious religious apologists for writing the story of Jesus, let's talk about people alive that could have attested to a Jesus of Nazareth. There are none.
500 witnesses, really? They didn't care to write anything down outside of the bible? Strange
The Sanhedrin? Do you realize how many prophets were prophesied about? Take 94a for example and the story of a prophet named Menahem bar Hezekiah
johnhart30 2 years ago
Were are the Roman documents from the trial of Jesus?
Apparently they do lay down their lives for a superstition.
johnhart30 2 years ago
The Archko Volume. Jesus was extensively investigated and written about by both the Sanhedrin and the Roman Senate. Both bodies kept written records, and you can read about it in The Archko Volume.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Please reference where Jesus' name is found in that document, its not. Next.
Please, where is the evidence for a historical jesus? During the time that he lived and ministered outside of biblical text?
johnhart30 2 years ago
Furthermore, the Sanhedrin was written centuries after the supposed death of Christ, therefore, it adds nothing to the historicity of Jesus, especially being written by Christian apologists.
johnhart30 2 years ago
Liar. It is found throughout. For example, Chapter X: Herod Antipas' Defence Before the Roman Senate in Regard to the Execution of John the Baptist
Quote: "As to what pontius pilate says in regard to my cowardice and disobedience in the case of jesus of Nazareth, I will say this in my own defence: I was informed by all the jews that this was the same Jesus that my father aimed to destroy in his infancy; for I have it in my father's private writings and accounts of his life, showing that when...
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
...the report was circulated of three men inquiring where was he that was born king of the Jews, he called the Hillel and Shammai schools, and demanded the reading of the sacred scrolls, that it was decided he was to be born in Bethlehem of Judea, as read and interpreted that night by Hillel. So when my father earned that there was a birth of a male child in Bethlehem under very strange circumstances, and he could not learn who or where the child was, he sent and had the male children slain...
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Again, my lords, Pilate is a higher officer than I; and you know in our law the lower court always has the right to appeal to the higher. As to Pilate's saying that Jesus was a Galilean, he is mistaken. Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, as the records show. And as to his citizenship, he had none. He wandered about from place to place, having no home, and making his abode principally with the poor. He was a wild fanatic, who had taken up the doctrines of John (but not his baptism) and was...
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
See also Jonathan's interview, Gamaliel's interview with Joseph, Mary and others concerning Jesus, and report to the Sanhedrin, the report of Caiaphas to the Sanhedrin concerning the execution of Jesus, the report of Caiaphas to the Sanhedrin concerning the resurrection of Jesus, Pilate's report to Caesar of the arrest, trial, and execution of Jesus, and Herod Antipater's defence before the Roman Senate in regard to his conduct at Bethlehem.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
You do realize that the Sanhedrin offers nothing to the historicity of Jesus right? It was written CENTURIES after the supposed crucifixion of Christ. Damn dude, find me one historical document that attests to the life of Jesus. Tell a secular scholar the Sanhedrin is your source and he will laugh at you.
Please show me the documents written about Jesus while he was ALIVE or shortly thereafter. You don't have a leg to stand on chump.
johnhart30 2 years ago
You're nothing but a stupid, lying troll. The Sanhedrin was (and since it was recently reconvened, now is) the Jewish Supreme Court which began when In the Torah, God commanded Moses to "Assemble for Me ["Espah-Li"] seventy men of the elders of Israel. It was NOT A BOOK, YOU CLOD, it was a court. Like any court, and LIKE THE ROMAN SENATE, it kept written records, which later were accessed and compiled into a book called The Archko volume, A COPY OF WHICH I QUOTED FROM. Cut off your legs, Shorty.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Dude, calm down, you should not be so cut up just because johnhart30 has a different opinion from you. Look, have a cup of tea and relax! This level of stress can not be doing you any good.
Miserenz 2 years ago
The fool claims that the Sanhedrin is a document. He doesn't know history, the subject matter or the facts, and he is making up garbage as he goes along in the hope of bluffing his way through an argument where there is no evidence in support of his idiotic opinion. I quoted from the written records of the Roman Senate and the Sanhedrin. What next, will he claim that the Roman Senate is a cuneiform tablet or a parchment scroll?
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
the sanhedrin is a document, just not a historical one. I suggest you read, "the origin of consciousness and the breakdown of the bicameral mind" by Julian Jaynes.
johnhart30 2 years ago
The Sanhedrin is a judicial body, the "Supreme Court" of Israel. Why don't you just admit your ignorance instead of trying to impress by blowing smoke about "Julian Jaynes"? It has been convened and disbanded numerous times in the history of Israel, and has recently been reconvened. It was functioning as a kind of kangaroo court under Roman jurisdiction during Christ's ministry in Israel.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
and more importantly dumbass it is rabbinical law because it is and always was part of the Babylonian Talmud. That Rabbinical law was an oral tradition carried down through (supposedly) centuries than transcribed into writing sometime in the second century. Judea is not Rome, therefore it does not qualify as Roman history.
Again jackass, name me one person who was alive that wrote something down about this miraculous man? You can't, therefore, you dodge the issue.
johnhart30 2 years ago
The Sanhedrin is a body of JUDGES that began in the days of Moses, hundreds of years before the Babylonian Captivity or the Talmud. I don't give a rat's rear end about the Talmud... it is NOT Scripture like the Torah. Judea was under Roman jurisdiction and governance at the time of Jesus, and religious and political activities were closely monitored by the Roman authorities. The written records of the Roman Senate are PROOF OF THAT. Choke on it, you ignoramus.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
Once again, the sanhedrin is oral rabbinical law handed down through time that INTERPOLATED into written scripture. It was written in the Second Century, nearly 200 years after the supposed crucifixion of Christ, not merely even close enough to be considered historical evidence jackass.
ONE MORE TIME....please cite a source that wrote and documented the miracles and teachings of Jesus WHILE HE WAS ALIVE!
PS..the Sanhedrin is part of the Babylonian Talmud buddy. Do some research.
johnhart30 2 years ago
Re: "PS..the Sanhedrin is part of the Babylonian Talmud buddy. Do some research. "
Moron. It is MENTIONED in the Talmud, because it existed at various times. IT WAS A GROUP OF JUDGES, NOT A DOCUMENT. You're just digging yourself a deeper hole, "buddy". Can you not understand the difference between people and the records that those people wrote?
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
You just answered my question that it is part of the Babylonian Talmud, thank you. Your trial of Jesus didn't exist in the Sanhedrin until almost two centuries after Christ was reported to be crucified. How does that hardly attest to a historical account? The original Roman documents cannot be found anywhere.
johnhart30 2 years ago
The Court is not a set of documents. Are YOU a book? Sheesh!
The court is not "part of the Talmud". Are you on drugs?
The rest of your comment is pure crap.
Read the book, dummy.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago
and the trial is not mentioned until centuries after the supposed crucifixion of Christ? Bit of a loop hole there.
Dumbass, I never said the court was part of the Talmud, I said the Sanhedrin was.
Again, let us know of the thousands of people that documented the miracles and ministering of a man known Jesus of Nazareth. Surely, someone wrote something down?
johnhart30 2 years ago
"Dumbass, I never said the court was part of the Talmud, I said the Sanhedrin was."
So somebody took 71 judges in the Great Sanhedrin and made them into part of the Talmud? And I thought Hitler's idea of making lamp shades was original...
"Dinosaurs" didn't exist until somebody invented the term, either. The Sanhedrin began in the days of Moses, more than 14 centuries BCE, whether you want to call it the "Sanhedrin" or not. It was a court of 71 judges.
mrmacmasonry 2 years ago