• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

more Darwinist self-defeat

A

Avajs

Active member
of course not. it seemed to be what 7 took from the article. i suggested he contact the authors to see if his reading was accurate. chances he will do that??
 
7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
In the article I linked in the OP, we read:

Her skeleton has been described as one of the most important discoveries of the past century, and she is changing basic ideas about how our earliest ancestors looked and moved.


Tell us, @Avajs:
  • By the author's phrase, "our earliest ancestors", is she referring to single-celled organisms? Yes or No?
  • Is the author telling us that dug-up skeletal fragments are "changing basic ideas about" how single-celled organisms looked and moved? Yes or No?
To affirm the truth that the earliest ancestors of humans had skeletons is to deny the Darwinistspeak falsehood that the earliest ancestors of humans were single-celled organisms.
 
7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Avajs said:
of course not. it seemed to be what 7 took from the article. i suggested he contact the authors to see if his reading was accurate. chances he will do that??
Click to expand...
"The authors"? Plural? Seriously? Because the article's author's name is 'Ann Gibbons' instead of 'Ann Gibbon', you think the 's' at the end signifies that multiple authors wrote it? Wow! I suggest you contact Ann Gibbons and ask her if she is multiple authors, and report back.:ROFLMAO:
 
A

Avajs

Active member
7djengo7 said:
"The authors"? Plural? Seriously? Because the article's author's name is 'Ann Gibbons' instead of 'Ann Gibbon', you think the 's' at the end signifies that multiple authors wrote it? Wow! I suggest you contact Ann Gibbons and ask her if she is multiple authors, and report back.:ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
oh my, is this a clue that you really did not read the article? Gibbons wrote an article for
Smithsonian summarizing the work of the scientists who found the fossils, analyzed them and were authors of papers in scientific journals. so yes, contact one of the authors of the original papers who did the original research and ask them if your understanding of their work is correct.
 
A

Avajs

Active member
7djengo7 said:
"The authors"? Plural? Seriously? Because the article's author's name is 'Ann Gibbons' instead of 'Ann Gibbon', you think the 's' at the end signifies that multiple authors wrote it? Wow! I suggest you contact Ann Gibbons and ask her if she is multiple authors, and report back.:ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
7, the Gibbons article is 14 years old and perhaps some of those referenced have moved on but a quick google search suggest that C. Owen Lovejoy mentioned in the article is still at Kent State. Give him a call. I'll be he would be delighted to hear from you
 
7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
I asked @Avajs:
7djengo7 said:
  • By the author's phrase, "our earliest ancestors", is she referring to single-celled organisms? Yes or No?
Click to expand...
@Avajs: <NO ANSWER>

I asked @Avajs:
7djengo7 said:
  • Is the author telling us that dug-up skeletal fragments are "changing basic ideas about" how single-celled organisms looked and moved? Yes or No?
Click to expand...
@Avajs: <NO ANSWER>

Your glaring failure to answer these easy, Yes/No questions about the article is you admitting that you have not read the article, @Avajs. And now, you've gone and further admitted that you have not read the article by your glaring blunder of claiming the article has multiple authors, rather than just one author.
 
A

Avajs

Active member
7djengo7 said:
I asked @Avajs:

@Avajs: <NO ANSWER>

I asked @Avajs:

@Avajs: <NO ANSWER>

Your glaring failure to answer these easy, Yes/No questions about the article is you admitting that you have not read the article, @Avajs. And now, you've gone and further admitted that you have not read the article by your glaring blunder of claiming the article has multiple authors, rather than just one author.
Click to expand...
no and no. your glaring failure to understand basic science is obvious.
 
A

Avajs

Active member
Right Divider said:
The idea that mankind "evolved" from a single-celled organism by a long series of mistakes is one the dumbest ideas ever invented.
Click to expand...
“invented”? not really the correct word.
but rather than quibble over your word choice—-the Smithsonian article referenced a number of hominids ancestral to H. sapiens—-what is your explanation for those creatures? and, did they become extinct before or after the flood?
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Avajs said:
“invented”? not really the correct word.
but rather than quibble over your word choice—-the Smithsonian article referenced a number of hominids ancestral to H. sapiens—-what is your explanation for those creatures? and, did they become extinct before or after the flood?
Click to expand...
I was talking about the big picture of your ridiculous belief system...

Humans are humans.
Apes are apes.
Monkeys are monkeys.

etc. etc. etc.

None of which "evolved" from a single-celled ancestor.
 
7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
7djengo7 said:
  • By the author's phrase, "our earliest ancestors", is she referring to single-celled organisms? Yes or No?
Click to expand...
Avajs said:
no
Click to expand...
Correct.
7djengo7 said:
  • Is the author telling us that dug-up skeletal fragments are "changing basic ideas about" how single-celled organisms looked and moved? Yes or No?
Click to expand...
Avajs said:
and no.
Click to expand...
Correct.

By your No answers to those questions I asked you, you've just conceded my point, which is the truth that the author of the article is therein denying/contradicting the asinine Darwinistspeak falsehood that the earliest ancestors of humans were single-celled organisms. Make no mistake, Professor: I am NOT saying that she would not/does not, out of the other side of her Darwin-cheerleading mouth, asininely assert also the falsehood that the earliest ancestors of humans were single-celled organisms. That's the point: Darwinists (just like you, yourself) are seriously confused and at war against truth and logic, and always, inevitably end up contradicting out of one side of their mouth what they had just got done asserting out of the other side of their mouth -- hence, the titled of this thread.

Why are you so proud of yourself for being a raving, semiliterate butcher of English who can't even write a sentence, and cannot be reasoned with?
 
7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Avajs said:
your glaring failure to understand basic science is obvious.
Click to expand...
What you wrote, there, reads like a fortune-cookie fortune (except that, unlike you, the Japanese know to capitalize the initial of a sentence in English). Which is kind of apt since a fortune-cookie fortune is, similarly, text that comes out of a dark, empty space inside dough.🥠
 
A

Avajs

Active member
Right Divider said:
I was talking about the big picture of your ridiculous belief system...

Humans are humans.
Apes are apes.
Monkeys are monkeys.

etc. etc. etc.

None of which "evolved" from a single-celled ancestor.
Click to expand...
how about an answer to the question of what happened to all the 15 or so species and genera discussed in the article? extinct pre or post flood and how can you tell?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top