evolution

[hecd2]

it would seem that the more data points one has the more accurately one can map his evidence to his argument

so it would seem that the volume of evidence has a lot to do the amount of confidence one can have about his conclusions

I agree that more data increases confidence in a conclusion, but it is not a question of physical volume (ie whether the fossils would or would not fit in a pickup truck), but, as you say, data points.

maybe i could call the university and get his degree yanked for having a different opinion than other posters. how dare he!

You seem to have difficulty in understanding simple arguments. Whether or not Homo habilis and Homo sapiens have overlapping anatomy is not a matter of “opinion” but a matter of fact. All Homo habilis crania fall outside the living human range in almost every diagnostic. So for Gary to claim that H habilis falls within the human range is to make an elementary error that is surprising for someone with a degree in anthropology. Either he hasn’t got one, or he has forgotten a lot, or perhaps he slept through the relevant classes?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Right. So you meant that: “there are gaping flaws” (in evolution)

whole post my friend, whole post.

Well, you don’t have a problem taking a position.You do, on this evidence, have a huge problem in supporting it.

yes timmy there is a santa monobloc clause

Right. So you wrote the whole post exactly as you meant it, including the statement that there are gaping flaws in evolution

,

and including the statement where i agreed with its generalities, a couple of lines later, yes

but then again you didn’t make that argument, assertion or claim. Is your thinking always as incoherent as this?

apparently yes, i cant seem to focus well enough to be come the psychic of B.A.'s

No, that’s not what you did. You said “there are gaping flaws”. You didn’t say “Some people, not me, think there are gaping flaws.”

There is a difference, you know, that everyone else can see, even if you can’t.

is this another psychic thing, or a place where one erroneously but confidently posts a claim?

you may find a reason that i am mistaken, but as the author i think i might know what i meant.

maybe that was psychiced out too though.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I agree that more data increases confidence in a conclusion, but it is not a question of physical volume (ie whether the fossils would or would not fit in a pickup truck), but, as you say, data points.

as these arguments are entirely based on physical evidence, i would assume that a data point would correlate directly to a physical piece of evidence, so indeed the volume of physical evidence one possesses should directly effect the confidence of his conclusions

assuming of course in this instance we do not mean physical volume of the bones, but rather the number of specimens

You seem to have difficulty in understanding simple arguments.

you seem to have difficulty understanding that statements like these are not a socially effective way of earning respect.:tsktsk:

Whether or not Homo habilis and Homo sapiens have overlapping anatomy is not a matter of “opinion” but a matter of fact. All Homo habilis crania fall outside the living human range in almost every diagnostic.

i hardly know, i hated anthropology. but i loved anatomy(i know strange, i took them at different stages in life)

but what i do know is that these are not mathematically exact ideas, as you say they have a range of values. so there can be differing opinion, even if not to standards of your liking

and thats why he doesnt deserve your implication below

So for Gary to claim that H habilis falls within the human range is to make an elementary error that is surprising for someone with a degree in anthropology. Either he hasn’t got one, or he has forgotten a lot, or perhaps he slept through the relevant classes?

really, lighten up. :coolinoff:

 

[garysibio]

And this is where we get back to this claimed BA in anthropology. Either you never had one, or you’ve forgotten everything you ever learned.

You are calling me a liar. I have a BA in anthropology from the University of Illinois at Chicago. I graduated in the winter quarter of 1975.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

Since it seems that the evolutionists in this discussion find it necessary to resort to ridicule and slander, I have decided to withdraw from the discussion. I will not waste my time with people who insist on behaving this way.

Gary

 

[cynic]

Yes there’s been some uncalled-for name-calling.

 

[hecd2]

as these arguments are entirely based on physical evidence, i would assume that a data point would correlate directly to a physical piece of evidence, so indeed the volume of physical evidence one possesses should directly effect the confidence of his conclusions

assuming of course in this instance we do not mean physical volume of the bones, but rather the number of specimens

But physical volume is precisely what Gary meant. He claimed that the evidence would fit in the back of a truck. It’s a fallacious argument, as you now agree.

but what i do know is that these are not mathematically exact ideas, as you say they have a range of values. so there can be differing opinion, even if not to standards of your liking

What’s not mathematically exact about the correct statement that all Homo habilis cranial volumes are less than the smallest living human cranial volume? God heavens, I even posted them.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[name_withheld]

Evolution is a discredited lie taught by atheists in order to brain wash Catholics in public schools. When Mao took over, he ordered that evolution be taught in order to undermine the Faith.

There is no scientific evidence for evolution!!

Evolution violates the first and second laws of Thermodynamics.

Astronomy shows that the solar system could not have formed from condensing gases and that the Earth is 10.000 or less years old.

Radio Chemistry proves that there is no way to accurately date rocks.

Sedimentology shows that strata are not separated by age, but by particle size- disproving the Geological Column.

Here is a good article (on a SSPX site, but no propaganda):

sspx.org/against_the_sound_bites/devolution_of_evolution.htm

 

[Orogeny]

Evolution is a discredited lie taught by atheists in order to brain wash Catholics in public schools. When Mao took over, he ordered that evolution be taught in order to undermine the Faith.

There is no scientific evidence for evolution!!

Evolution violates the first and second laws of Thermodynamics.

Astronomy shows that the solar system could not have formed from condensing gases and that the Earth is 10.000 or less years old.

Radio Chemistry proves that there is no way to accurately date rocks.

Sedimentology shows that strata are not separated by age, but by particle size- disproving the Geological Column.

Here is a good article (on a SSPX site, but no propaganda):

sspx.org/against_the_sound_bites/devolution_of_evolution.htm

Oh, my. When will someone, anyone ever give a scientific source for such claims?

Peace

Tim

 

[name_withheld]

Scientific proof? My friend wrote a book that you can find on www.catholicshowcase.com. Click on NOTES then Apologetics. There is a section on Evolution.

“Scientists have promulgated philosophic opinions of the most dubious kind as established scientific truths, and in the name of science have thrust upon an awed and credulous public a shallow world-view for which in reality there is not a shred of scientific support. Having gained the trust and admiration of society through the technological wonders which they have engineered, I maintain that scientists as a class have usurped their authority by predisposing the public against the high truths of religion.”

• Dr. Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D.

 

[hecd2]

Evolution is a discredited lie taught by atheists in order to brain wash Catholics in public schools. When Mao took over, he ordered that evolution be taught in order to undermine the Faith.

There is no scientific evidence for evolution!!

Evolution violates the first and second laws of Thermodynamics.

Astronomy shows that the solar system could not have formed from condensing gases and that the Earth is 10.000 or less years old.

Radio Chemistry proves that there is no way to accurately date rocks.

Sedimentology shows that strata are not separated by age, but by particle size- disproving the Geological Column.

Here is a good article (on a SSPX site, but no propaganda):

sspx.org/against_the_sound_bites/devolution_of_evolution.htm

I got no further than the bit where it says :

“Yet, the theory of evolution has no scientific basis. It derives solely from Darwin’s observations of natural selection as well as countless imaginary drawings. No genuine evidence exists to support it,”

It is complete unmitigated garbage.

As for your statements, someone has been lying to you.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[name_withheld]

I got no further than the bit where it says :

“Yet, the theory of evolution has no scientific basis. It derives solely from Darwin’s observations of natural selection as well as countless imaginary drawings. No genuine evidence exists to support it,”

It is complete unmitigated garbage.

As for your statements, someone has been lying to you.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Well, you can stick your head back into the sand if you like. You are probably non-Catholic.

And for you Catholics out there- you all know that evolution is a condemned heresy right?

 

[hecd2]

Scientific proof? My friend wrote a book that you can find on www.catholicshowcase.com. Click on NOTES then Apologetics. There is a section on Evolution.

Welcome back to the recently banned requiemaeternum now sporting a new handle.

Alec

 

[name_withheld]

Welcome back to the recently banned requiemaeternum now sporting a new handle.

Alec

Actually no, I know requiemaeturnum from another forum. He told me about CAF so I decided to come over. My friend, the author of the book is also on that forum. You can find us all on

www.websitetoolbox.com/mb/apologia

EDIT: So for God’s sake stop throwing around lies and avoiding the problem. Also, Bill Rhineheart, author of the books is rather famous among the SSPX if you go on the Ignatian Retreats so stop assuming things.

 

[Orogeny]

Scientific proof? My friend wrote a book that you can find on www.catholicshowcase.com. Click on NOTES then Apologetics. There is a section on Evolution.

As I told you before when you called yourself requiemaeturnum, your friend’s book is a joke. No science there.

Peace

Tim

 

[name_withheld]

As I told you before when you called yourself requiemaeturnum, your friend’s book is a joke. No science there.

Peace

Tim

And you are a modernist and neo-con.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

But physical volume is precisely what Gary meant. He claimed that the evidence would fit in the back of a truck. It’s a fallacious argument, as you now agree.

so the physical dimensions of these pieces of are so much larger than average, that they would fill a pick up bed?

i think the common sense interpretation is that he meant the number of pieces of evidence would fit in the back of the truck.

you may claim the opposite of the common sense interpretation, leaving some room for debate.

but as he was treated so badly as to leave, we may never know.

None of these are remotely within the range of extant humans. It’s not just the obvious thing like cranial capacity that is outside the extant human range. Other critical diagnostic measurements are also outside the extant range for H habilis and H erectus. In the case of H neanderthalensis, even if the cranial capacity is the same as or more than extant humans other diagnostic measurements are outside the range of extant humans, as is Neanderthal DNA. I would expect someone with a degree in anthropology to know this.

this quote following your list of certain specimens particular dimensions seems to be referencing the ranges which preclude mathematical exactness. and allow for someone to have a different opinion.

but as gary was needlessly insulted, and left the conversation as such. the point cant really be argued now, can it?

 

[The_Barbarian]

While it may be astonishing to some that Gary didn’t know that H. habilis and H. erectus skulls were notably different than modern human skulls, if he got his degree in 1975, and never worked in anthropology, it’s possible that he’s forgotten much of it.

It may also be that he was confused by the fact that advanced H. erectus and archaic H. sapiens are much more alike than the classic H. erectus and anatomically modern humans.

 

[redhen]

In the case of H neanderthalensis, even if the cranial capacity is the same as or more than extant humans other diagnostic measurements are outside the range of extant humans, as is Neanderthal DNA. I would expect someone with a degree in anthropology to know this.

Yup, the complete neanderthal genome sequencing by Richard Green et al in August 2008, confirms that neanderthal falls outside the range of human mtDNA variation, implying this hominid was a distinct species, and also confirming the lineage divergence age.

Green, R. et al (2008) A Complete Neandertal Mitochondrial Genome Sequence Determined by High-Throughput Sequencing
Cell, Volume 134, Issue 3, 416-426, 8 August 2008

p.s. a B.A. in anthropology suggests either the linguistic or cultural subfield. A physical anthropologist would have a B.Sc .

 

[hecd2]

While it may be astonishing to some that Gary didn’t know that H. habilis and H. erectus skulls were notably different than modern human skulls, if he got his degree in 1975, and never worked in anthropology, it’s possible that he’s forgotten much of it.

It may also be that he was confused by the fact that advanced H. erectus and archaic H. sapiens are much more alike than the classic H. erectus and anatomically modern humans.

Yes, it was unkind of me to doubt Gary’s degree, and I apologise to him.

Alec
evolutionpages.com