(May 20, 2014 at 12:43 am)snowtracks Wrote: the hominid fossil record demonstrate that a reliable diagram cannot be built showing that bipedal primates (human erectus and neanderthals) are transitional forms to humans. so what's with this theory? did it go like this? look, there's a upright animal, we're upright, so we evolved from them.

Oh look, more fucking assertions!

Do you have anything real, from this decade, that's accepted by mainstream science, that proves your point, Snowy? Or is it all just insipid, simplified strawmen?

(May 20, 2014 at 12:43 am)snowtracks Wrote:

(May 19, 2014 at 8:36 pm)Tonus Wrote: There is nothing to refute. Unlike creationists, real scientists are willing to put their theories to the test. Incomplete or sloppy work is therefore exposed and results can be discarded or must be supported via other data and research, which itself can be tested. In doing so, we learn more and get closer to the truth.

You did notice that scientists did not use this one paper to dismiss evolution at all, didn't you? Or perhaps you did, which is why your summary is so misleading and your conclusion so wrong. I realize that at this point you've given up and are just flinging poo at the wall, but a person might expect you to actually read the material you are partially quoting and perhaps learn something, if even by accident.

evolutionist atheist are not the only ones going to be referenced on this board, so get used to it.

---

(May 19, 2014 at 11:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: What we need is a video of someone singing the words "argument from ignorance!" in a loud, lengthy, operatic voice, so that we can all post it whenever smug morons like Snowy think shit like this is an argument.

You know what refutes your single, out of date paper, shitbird? The last fifteen years of evolution accepting biological science. Fucking checkmate.

the hominid fossil record demonstrate that a reliable diagram cannot be built showing that bipedal primates (human erectus and neanderthals) are transitional forms to humans. so what's with this theory? did it go like this? look, there's a upright animal, we're upright, so we evolved from them.

(May 20, 2014 at 12:43 am)snowtracks Wrote: evolutionist atheist are not the only ones going to be referenced on this board, so get used to it.

Trust me, we're used to theists using poor sources or using sources poorly by now.

(May 19, 2014 at 8:14 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(May 19, 2014 at 11:09 am)Tonus Wrote: What??? A Christian using a single source that's out-of-date?

no postings to refute it, so it stands, proudly.

Are you ill?

(May 20, 2014 at 12:43 am)snowtracks Wrote: so what's with this theory? did it go like this? look, there's a upright animal, we're upright, so we evolved from them.

Yes; that's exactly how it happened. We came up with a theory we liked, made up some science, then twisted the facts to fit.

Oh no wait, that's creationism...

(May 20, 2014 at 1:30 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(May 20, 2014 at 12:43 am)snowtracks Wrote: evolutionist atheist are not the only ones going to be referenced on this board, so get used to it.

---

the hominid fossil record demonstrate that a reliable diagram cannot be built showing that bipedal primates (human erectus and neanderthals) are transitional forms to humans. so what's with this theory? did it go like this? look, there's a upright animal, we're upright, so we evolved from them.

same pattern, whenever have no scientific rebuttal, post a cartoon. you needn't feel downtrodden, just learn the art of losing gracefully.

(May 22, 2014 at 2:27 am)snowtracks Wrote: same pattern, whenever have no scientific rebuttal, post a cartoon. you needn't feel downtrodden, just learn the art of losing gracefully.

He said, desperately hoping that nobody else would remember the last few pages of scientific rebuttals that he ignored to get here.

Like most theists who take this route he has stopped trying to promote a losing argument but apparently doesn't want to let 'the other side' think it won, so he'll troll the topic and pretend it was his plan all along, is my guess.

(May 8, 2014 at 11:56 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(May 8, 2014 at 11:52 pm)snowtracks Wrote: mankind is a standalone creation. the Neanderthals were a non-human bipedal primate.

Considering many of us have neanderthal DNA it means we were closely related enough to them to breed with them in the past. The same cannot be said for modern apes, some of which we share 90% + DNA with.

This seems to indicate that they were a human subspecies

From a biblical viewpoint, biological similarities between humans and other primates would be expected since both are fashioned from the same substance (‘out of the ground all the beasts…”), so genetic similarities should exist between humans and other animals. And an even greater dna similarity should exist between humans and other primates since the design template is basically the same.
now in the case of human beings (made in God's image), they have a spirit which accounts for behavior and cognitive ability differences from other primates.

(May 26, 2014 at 10:17 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(May 8, 2014 at 11:56 pm)Beccs Wrote: Considering many of us have neanderthal DNA it means we were closely related enough to them to breed with them in the past. The same cannot be said for modern apes, some of which we share 90% + DNA with.

This seems to indicate that they were a human subspecies

From a biblical viewpoint, biological similarities between humans and other primates would be expected since both are fashioned from the same substance (‘out of the ground all the beasts…”), so genetic similarities should exist between humans and other animals. And an even greater dna similarity should exist between humans and other primates since the design template is basically the same.
now in the case of human beings (made in God's image), they have a spirit which accounts for behavior and cognitive ability differences from other primates.

You've never read a biology book, have you.