6days
New member
If you mean Stripe..... I thank you!:up:
Evolution... Do we believe?
- Thread starter PopeFrancieLXIX
- Start date
Someone's already called you out on that dishonesty.
Barbarian observes:
"Nebraska man" was largely the invention of a London tabloid:
As a primate tooth. The tabloid filled in the rest from imagination.
The imaginative drawing of Nebraska Man to which creationists invariably refer was the work of an illustrator collaborating with the scientist Grafton Elliot Smith, and was done for a British popular magazine, not for a scientific publication. Few if any other scientists claimed Nebraska Man was a human ancestor. A few, including Osborn and his colleagues, identified it only as an advanced primate of some kind. Osborn, in fact, specifically avoided making any extravagant claims about Hesperopithecus being an ape-man or human ancestor:
"I have not stated that Hesperopithecus was either an Ape-man or in the direct line of human ancestry, because I consider it quite possible that we may discover anthropoid apes (Simiidae) with teeth closely imitating those of man (Hominidae), ..."
"Until we secure more of the dentition, or parts of the skull or of the skeleton, we cannot be certain whether Hesperopithecus is a member of the Simiidae or of the Hominidae." (Osborn 1922)
Most other scientists were skeptical even of the more modest claim that the Hesperopithecus tooth belonged to a primate. It is simply not true that Nebraska Man was widely accepted as an ape-man, or even as an ape, by scientists, and its effect upon the scientific thinking of the time was negligible. For example, in his two-volume book Human Origins published during what was supposedly the heyday of Nebraska Man (1924), George MacCurdy dismissed Nebraska Man in a single footnote:
"In 1920 [sic], Osborn described two molars from the Pliocene of Nebraska; he attributed these to an anthropoid primate to which he has given the name Hesperopithecus. The teeth are not well preserved, so that the validity of Osborn's determination has not yet been generally accepted."
Gregory confirmed this in his article which correctly identified the tooth:
The scientific world, however, was far from accepting without further evidence the validity of Professor Osborn's conclusion that the fossil tooth from Nebraska represented either a human or an anthropoid tooth. (Gregory 1927)
Identifying the tooth as belonging to a higher primate was not as foolish as it sounds. Pig and peccary cheek teeth are extremely similar to those of humans, and the specimen was worn, making identification even harder.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html
No kidding. One was a fraud, finally exposed by evolutionists. The other was a magazine article based loosely on a single tooth, which was corrected by a paleontologist.
Barbarian, regarding iron as a preservative:
Well, it preserves organic molecules, but it doesn't do much for tissue or cells. So maybe it's not a good idea. Formaldehyde preserves organic material too.
But you probably don't want to rub it on your face. Just saying.
Doesn't keep tissue at all. But it can prevent organic material like collagen from breaking down. And that's why there's no tissue, but some organic material still present.
Jose Fly
New member
They both have their "I'm out" phrases (signature phrases that are actually their way of saying "I'm done with this discussion").
Stripe's is "Evolutionists hate reading".
6days' phrases are variations on the "Science agrees with God's Word" theme.
But they both mean the same thing....."this conversation is over".
way 2 go
Well-known member
not fact, fiction
didn't you know
completely mangled the science; link
they are afraid to carbon-14 date the dinosaur soft tissue
Unfortunately, your nuclear scientist didn't show us his evidence that iron could only work as a preservative in the presence of water. That goes against kinetic theory, in which water is necessary only to affect the pace of reactions. In a few million years, it wouldn't matter, as long as the iron was mixed with the other molecules.
I'm guessing ignorance, but maybe he has something that overturns basic chemistry. Doesn't seem very likely, since he declined to show us.
Nope.
It is accurate to say that evolutionists hate reading. We respond concisely and accurately your inane questions — which you pose to move attention away from the deficiencies exposed in your religion — yet you act as if nothing has been answered.
Interplanner
Well-known member
I think they answer those kinds of questions. The presuppositional questions, though, just go begging. The problem of improbabilities too! I once heard an illustration on the accuracy of the force of gravity for humans: imagine a tape measure across our galaxy the Milky Way. Now the force of gravity has to be sitting on the exact inch mark of that tape. One inch further and we disintegrate centripetally. Too little and we collapse in condensed matter. But that is only one of about 20 like it, chemical, physical, lightwaves. Does anyone have a computer than can calculate this? They have to work perfectly the first time and all the time, coherently and harmoniously, right?
I can't absorb a Rembrandt for an hour and say, wow, paint is amazing, and then go spend $500K on the apron Rembrandt wore, when $200K will get me the original "Artist's Wife In Bed."
I can't absorb a Rembrandt for an hour and say, wow, paint is amazing, and then go spend $500K on the apron Rembrandt wore, when $200K will get me the original "Artist's Wife In Bed."
Stipe writes:
Jose gets 20 points.
Jose gets 20 points.
Maybe because anything from a dinosaur is older than the 50,000-70,000 year maximum range that carbon dating is effective for? Just a thought that you don't want to acknowledge.
I noticed you never answered my offer to explain anything about evolution and/or prehistory to you with citations included. The only conclusion is that you don't give a rat's behind about the truth of science behind anything, and only want to whine and complain about how the evidence doesn't come close to supporting the Biblical creation account or worldwide flood. Knock yourself out
Yep. That's totally it. Scientists are the ones who are scared of science. Brilliant
Not scientists; evolutionists.
Excuse me, all scientists who aren't YECs are idiots. That's what you mean, right?
Therefore 99.7% of all scientists.
Here's something that is certain: You're an idiot.
As I said: Brilliant