Evolutionists, how do you explain this?

a reply to: FuggleHop

Your posts bring a smile to my face and brighten my day. FuggleHop please don't ever change you are brilliant.

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: ReyaPhemhurth

originally posted by: firefromabove

originally posted by: Cypress

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: Cypress

So they're just interpolating things.

They have no actual evidence.

No it's called comparative analysis. Deny ignorance

Cool slogan bro

Needs more evidence

I see plenty of evidence being posted against you, which you continue to brush off...but when it comes to YOU posting any evidence to support YOUR claims or YOUR attitudes and assumptions...I see nothing except more vagueness and deflection.

I'd say the burden of proof should be your responsibility, as you are the OP.

At this point he's just trolling and not very good at it either.

that is all these threads are ever about. but it is only fair to let them have their fair shot at making fools of themselves. those who are willing to learn need no convincing. those who are not willing to learn, will never be convinced. that should be the new slogan for abovetopsecret.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
those who are willing to learn need no convincing. those who are not willing to learn, will never be convinced. that should be the new slogan for abovetopsecret.

Yeah "Denny Ignorance" doesn't seem to be doing to well these days.

You should drop that list of evolution vs creation threads like you did in the last thread just to keep people up on the fact that nothing new has been brought to the table in this thread.

originally posted by: firefromabove
How is it that evolutionist "scientists" look at a single jawbone or a thigh bone of some extinct animal and then somehow just "know" what the rest of the animal looked like?

Uhhhhh, because paleontologist are EXPERTS on bone structure and features. And wtf is an evolutionist scientist? Sorry you lost me with that false claim.

Most images we have of extinct animals are artist renderings, based on one jawbone or thighbone!

Most of them are based on one single fossil? Yeah, I'm not buying that. Scientists have found millions of fossils.

Anybody can see that evolutionists operate not on evidence but on imagination and assumptions. If you feel otherwise please explain.

I will simply say learn science. They have tests they can run to tell how old fossils are and compare them to other species to understand what the rest of the organisms looked like. Obviously it's never 100% perfect, but nothing is.

originally posted by: SolAquarius

originally posted by: TzarChasm
those who are willing to learn need no convincing. those who are not willing to learn, will never be convinced. that should be the new slogan for abovetopsecret.

Yeah "Denny Ignorance" doesn't seem to be doing to well these days.

You should drop that list of evolution vs creation threads like you did in the last thread just to keep people up on the fact that nothing new has been brought to the table in this thread.

why not?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
made a somewhat better compilation of debate re-runs that have graced the forums. since it seems so many people have missed these classics i figured i would throw together a string of examples for reference purposes. if i missed any good ones, let me know so i can update the list. made for those interested in "frequently asked questions". dont be shy folks, and feel free to share if you know someone who needs it

Creationism vs Evolution debates(ad nauseam)


1. Evolution is so illogical it has to be a conspiracy

2. An easy way to understand evolution...

3. Proof that evolution is the only answer

4. Modern proof of evolution

5. If evolution is wrong then what's the alternative?

6. Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible

7. Watching Evolution in Action

8. Evolution is a farce: Evidence

9. Prove Evolution Is False - Even Without the Bible

10. A challenge for evolution deniers: Explain why changes do not continue to add up over time

11. The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

12. Is There Evidence for Evolution? Show it to us.

13. Creation v Evolution argument can end

14. If evolution happened, where are ALL the transitional fossils?

15. 10 popular fallacies and misconceptions about evolution

16. 100 Reasons Why Evolution is Stupid is Stupid

17. Human Evolution (with pictures!)

18. 10 Ways Darwin got it wrong - The Conspiracy of Evolution

19. An evolutionary dilemma!!!!

20. I don't understand evolution.

21. Creationists: Have you ever read a book about Evolution?

22. Evolution is boring, What does it mean to you ?

23. How accurate is the Theory of Evolution?

24. No Such Thing As Evolution

25. Fundamental concepts of evolution explained.

26. why I hate evolution..

27. Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

28. Problems I have with evolution...

29. Genetics, Evolution and the Creationist Conspiracy

30. Evolution - defies accepted science

originally posted by: xstealth
evolution is the most ridiculous theory I've heard.

They can't even explain how two species of different sex could evolve at the same time to breed without wild theories that make it sound even more stupid.

Evolution is the most ridiculous theory you've ever heard? You should Google creationism then.

a reply to: TzarChasm

You put some effort into it might as well drop it every time one of these threads pop up
to emphasize the redundancy of the arguments.

originally posted by: FuggleHop
a reply to: ReyaPhemhurth

whatever but unlike so called evolutionists christians are tolerant and loving and open minded. The opposite of scientists apparently.

Go read Leviticus.

originally posted by: xstealth
Why do you guys thing the giants that are found are taken by the smithsonian and never seen again?

Giants would disprove everything taught about evolution and we've seen a cover up by scientists to keep the truth from ever coming out.

Because that's a hoax story, that's why.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: firefromabove
How is it that evolutionist "scientists" look at a single jawbone or a thigh bone of some extinct animal and then somehow just "know" what the rest of the animal looked like?

Most images we have of extinct animals are artist renderings, based on one jawbone or thighbone!

Anybody can see that evolutionists operate not on evidence but on imagination and assumptions. If you feel otherwise please explain.

Can you please cite a research article which looked at a jawbone and recreated the entire animal from that jawbone? Just curious. I can't find one!

There's evidence in this very thread: they found one piece of straw and recreated an entire strawman!

Now here's an interesting case: Archaeologists found a body without a head. The guy was wearing a suit and tie and had his right arm on some type of dinosaur. Dating analysis suggested that the guy was only 50 years old when he died. Using the same technique as suggested by the OP, they recreated the head! See below for evidence.

You could be right. In Maine evolution stopped about 50000 years ago.
abouta reply to: firefromabove

a reply to: firefromabove

@OP I will continue to ask you the same question - so don't think you can disappear into the ether. If you don't answer, your thread is ended.

originally posted by: ReyaPhemhurth
a reply to: firefromabove

And, seriously, you're calling evolution a money "greebing" scheme? Last time I checked Christianity was pretty damn money grabbing. Then again, I wouldn't expect you to know this. The power hungry world of religion wouldn't dare shoot themselves in the foot by admitting they break their own rules.

Show me...
When did I call evolution a money "greebing" scheme

Why do atheists constantly lie and misrepresent the opponent?

originally posted by: firefromabove

originally posted by: ReyaPhemhurth
a reply to: firefromabove

And, seriously, you're calling evolution a money "greebing" scheme? Last time I checked Christianity was pretty damn money grabbing. Then again, I wouldn't expect you to know this. The power hungry world of religion wouldn't dare shoot themselves in the foot by admitting they break their own rules.

Show me...
When did I call evolution a money "greebing" scheme

Why do atheists constantly lie and misrepresent the opponent?

the way creationists misrepresent the theory of evolution you mean?

a reply to: firefromabove

How is it that evolutionist "scientists" look at a single jawbone or a thigh bone of some extinct animal and then somehow just "know" what the rest of the animal looked like?

They don't. Even if they have an entire skeleton, they don't know exactly what they looked like - and no scientist will tell you anything different.

If all they have is a jawbone, all they can do is extrapolate what the animal MIGHT have looked like based on related animals.

However, remember that forensic artists can reproduce remarkable likenesses of human faces from just the skull. They have excellent knowledge of what the muscles 'do' under the skin and what their contribution to the visage is like, where fat layers go to smooth out the underlying muscle bumps and ripples. They don't, of course, know how fat or skinny the individual was, or what color hair or eyes they had, or whether the hair was curly or straight, or maybe whether the nose cartilage was broken - but they can get pretty darn good likenesses.

Scientists can tell from the shape of a jawbone what the shape of the skull must have been, not perfectly but in general. How strong the anchor points needed to be, etc, etc, etc. From the teeth they can tell whether it was a herbivore, a carnivore, an omnivore, a scavenger, or whatever and therefore how strong a bite it needed or whether it needed to grind or tear its food. All that provides clues as to what the animal might have looked like.

But no one can know for sure - and new data can and does correct or validate the original hypothesis.

It happens all the time.

Most images we have of extinct animals are artist renderings, based on one jawbone or thighbone!

Artists renderings are exactly that, artists renderings. Produced from an artists imagination with input from the scientists understanding of what general characteristics the animal might have had.

In general, if all we have are jawbones of an animal, the artist SHOULD use self control and only render the head. But artists are artists and what they do is art, not science. I don't hear you objecting to the imaginative renderings of Jesus or Moses or Noah's Ark or even G_d Itself that accompany many Bibles. We don't even have a jawbone or a thighbone with which to come up with an imaginative rendering of G_d.

Anybody can see that evolutionists operate not on evidence but on imagination and assumptions. If you feel otherwise please explain.

Of course I feel otherwise; you have set up a straw man argument. You have confused the practices of art and science and are attempting to deny the use of a fundamental human attribute, namely 'imagination' to science and scientists.

When an artists renders an image of an extinct animal that no-one living has seen, it is that particular artist's imagination that has produced the image, not the scientist's definitive judgment. Of course, the artists may be influenced by the scientist's best guess. The scientist has to use imagination to fill in the pieces so he can go look for other parts of the animal in the fossil fields or what ever.

As with the case of the Brontosaurus, the scientists had to imagine what the head must have looked like because they never found a skeleton with a head - until the 1970's.

Of course scientists use imagination; all humans use imagination, whether they are artists, politicians, lawyers, ditch diggers, scientists, doctors, football players, internet posters, theologians, or what-ever. Imagination is one of the most basic traits that make humans human.

Albert Einstein is generally considered to be one of the greatest geniuses in the history of mankind. He would have accomplished absolutely nothing if it weren't for his imagination. His greatest tool was what he called 'thought experiments'.

Perhaps your difficulty in seeing the value of the imagination is your own lack of it. That is quite alright, not everyone, including me, is Albert Einstein or Leonardo Da Vinci. On the other hand, just because we don't have the imagination of Einstein or Da Vinci it doesn't mean we don't (or can't) use what we do have.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
Now to be fair most of the gaps filled in are through comparing and contrasting to the skeletons of other animals but is wholly reliable. There are subtle differences but nothing so dramatic as to mistake a thigh bone with an arm bone or the like.

Not to be a total pest, well not the worst one ever at least, I see so much head (skull, jaw, etc) variation just watching cinema & series, that the apparent diversity of 'everyday humans' is currently so immense that over thinking specific 'humanoid' fossils seems just as inherent as if we went and studied 1,000 skulls in se New York City.

Oh don't consider yourself a pest. These are the kind of discussions I live for!

Yes the skulls of everyday humans are amazingly diverse but it all comes down to subtleties. The tiniest of details are what people spend years and years in school to recognize. The fact that we have access to thousands upon thousands of everyday human skulls is how we know as much as we do.

Now when it comes to fossils of our ancestors, the lack of variety both helps and hurts. There are huge gaps between the age of fossilized skulls found so far so from skull to skull the changes are drastic. But that is also what helps too. You can see the bigger picture. The biggest changes you can see right away are in the cranium and jaw.

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Evolutionists just magically know everything, don't they.

Science seems like magic to people who don't understand it.

a reply to: SaturnFX

They dont even know how the moon stays up in the sky!

Your joking right .

originally posted by: firefromabove
How is it that evolutionist "scientists" look at a single jawbone or a thigh bone of some extinct animal and then somehow just "know" what the rest of the animal looked like?

That you put 'scientists' in quotes like that generally tells me that you are infested with 'beliefs' and emotionally need to deny and discard the 'science' that threatens 'beliefs'.
A rational discussion on the subject (of the belief) is less than likely.
Since the 'experts' are pretty good at telling much by the little, rather than blaring your ignorance all over the place in doubts and disparaging remarks, why not learn some science so you know and understand what these people do in their recreations.
It is about 'windows', not exactitude.
Who would ever think that some artist's rendering of a long extinct creature would be expected to be 100% accurate (other than by wild coincidence)?

Most images we have of extinct animals are artist renderings, based on one jawbone or thighbone!

Nonsense!
Did it hurt pulling that one out?

Anybody can see that evolutionists operate not on evidence but on imagination and assumptions.

Even if your nonsense claim were valid, logically, what could be said of those who believe in the impossibility of (failed theories of) 'creation' and/or 'intelligent design'?

Actually, the theory of evolution fails for the exact same reasons that 'creation/ID' fails!

a reply to: namelesss

Its a fact that scientists find one jawbone and conclude something.

www.scientificamerican.com...

its an article titled "Jawbone Fossil May Mark Dawn of Humankind"

Wow.

One jawbone fossil. Marks "dawn of humankind". How dramatic.