Exposing The Great American Fossil Hoax

[supersport]

BillyBob: That doesn't change my point. You [erroneously] claim that genetics have nothing do do with appearance and physical traits.

that's not true...I said genes don't dictate traits...that triats are modified by the environment...which invalidates making evolutionary assumptions on fossil skulls based on their phyical appearance. You can't even get my position right. I suggest you re-read everything I've written the past week.





I also proved that race can be determined by comparing DNA which is contrary to another of your erroneous claims and you failed to respond.

No you did not....you gave me a link from someone who tried to show that what everyone else is saying can't be true. There was certainly no proof there.

By the way, I don't respond to you because you are a waste of time and you merely clog the board up with rhetoric.

[BillyBob]

that's not true...I said genes don't dictate traits...that triats are modified by the environment...which invalidates making evolutionary assumptions on fossil skulls based on their phyical appearance.

You have been proven wrong, admit it and stop looking like a retard.

You can't even get my position right.

I know what your position is, you're the smarmy 5 year old kid who closes his eyes, takes his hands over his ears on and off in quick, repeated succession while humming loudly so you don't have to deal with reality.

I suggest you re-read everything I've written the past week.

No thanks, I read it all at TOL last month, it's the same regurgitated creationist garbage.

But, I suggest you re read all of my responses to you, I handily disproved every one of your dopey premises.

No you did not....you gave me a link from someone who tried to show that what everyone else is saying can't be true. There was certainly no proof there.

I gave you multiple links which corroberated each other and disproved your one link.

I out-linked you!

By the way, I don't respond to you because you are a waste of time and you merely clog the board up with rhetoric.

No, you don't respond to me because I continue to prove you wrong.

[Jorge]

What do you guys think of this......


It's no longer 99%...or 98%....or 96%...it's:

94%

Human-Chimp Gene Gap Widens from Tally of Duplicate Genes

I'm not looking to participate here but only to share some information that you may find useful as you fight against these "educated" pro-evos.

I often hear from these people of the 99% or 98% or whatever similarity and I realize that they're not stopping to think about what they're saying (that, BTW, is something that these people are truly Masters at - not thinking). I mean, a one percent non-similarity amounts to over 30 million differences in the genome!

While in the Air Force, one of my jobs had me working on special chemical formulations (can't go into the details - sorry). The point is this : we often worked with chemicals that had to be certified 99.999% pure. Any less purity would have rendered the final formulation completely ineffective.

So when these people speak about "99% similar" they demonstrate, once again, the utter shallowness of their thinking.

Jorge

[BillyBob]

I'm not looking to participate here but only to share some information that you may find useful as you fight against these "educated" pro-evos.

I often hear from these people of the 99% or 98% or whatever similarity and I realize that they're not stopping to think about what they're saying (that, BTW, is something that these people are truly Masters at - not thinking). I mean, a one percent non-similarity amounts to over 30 million differences in the genome!

Yes, I have already pointed that out to superjerk, but he prefers to ignore all evidence that is contrary to his dopey position, especially when it proves him dead wrong.

So when these people speak about "99% similar" they demonstrate, once again, the utter shallowness of their thinking.

Jorge

Actually, you just described supermorons premise, he's the idiot who wants to argue about percentages and was the first to introduce them into this conversation. Thank you for proving your creationist compatriot wrong.

Not that he'll listen to you, either.

[Roy]

While in the Air Force, one of my jobs had me working on special chemical formulations (can't go into the details - sorry). The point is this : we often worked with chemicals that had to be certified 99.999% pure. Any less purity would have rendered the final formulation completely ineffective.

That's nothing. Homoeopathic solutions are often certified 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% pure. And it's that 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% impurity that gives the solutions the effectiveness they have.

Roy

[BillyBob]

I'm not looking to participate here but only to share some information that you may find useful as you fight against these "educated" pro-evos.

I often hear from these people of the 99% or 98% or whatever similarity and I realize that they're not stopping to think about what they're saying (that, BTW, is something that these people are truly Masters at - not thinking). I mean, a one percent non-similarity amounts to over 30 million differences in the genome!

Yes, I have already pointed that out to superjerk, but he prefers to ignore all evidence that is contrary to his dopey position, especially when it proves him dead wrong.

So when these people speak about "99% similar" they demonstrate, once again, the utter shallowness of their thinking.

Jorge

Actually, you just described supermorons premise, he's the idiot who wants to argue about percentages and was the first to introduce them into this conversation. Thank you for proving your creationist compatriot wrong.

Not that he'll listen to you, either.

[Jorge]

That's nothing. Homoeopathic solutions are often certified 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% pure. And it's that 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% impurity that gives the solutions the effectiveness they have.

Roy

Good for you!!! So maybe now you can join me in telling the idiots that believe that "94-99% similarity in the genome "proves" common ancestry" that they have no idea of what they're talking about. Uhhhh ... isn't that what we creationists have been saying for years?

Jorge

[wattsr1]

Well....to me it seems to be the only logical explanation. There are some things I have serious questions about when it comes to the beginning of the world and how life populated the earth, so I mostly just have to live on faith the Word in the Bible is true. The reality is nobody really knows how it happened. Regarding the flood and the movements of the continents, I've read some of what Walt Brown has had to say and it just makes sense. To me, the only realistic way humans -- not to mention other animals -- could spread out across the globe so quickly after the flood is if the land masses were together.

Surely you don’t accept that the continents moved because one man told you so? Did Walt Brown actually see the continents move? And, given that you accept creation ex nihlo (presumably), why are moving continents “the only logical explanation”?


Regards, Roland

[supersport]

Surely you don’t accept that the continents moved because one man told you so? Did Walt Brown actually see the continents move? And, given that you accept creation ex nihlo (presumably), why are moving continents “the only logical explanation”?


Regards, Roland

Quite honestly, I had that idea before I read it from Walt Brown. It dawned on me a while back when I ran across the fact that human remains have been found in the Americas that date back to the time of the earliest neanderthals (evoutionists' time, mind you.) Since it's not rational to consider that humans sailed across the atlantic ocean thousands of years before the Chris Columbus did it, and that mass migration across Russia/Alaska is equally as unlikely...I pondered the notion that there may have been one large landmass after the flood.

Of course I'm not much of a geologist -- or not at all -- so I had no idea that this concept was even feasible or if anyone else had given that a thought. It's good to see others back up this notion.

[wattsr1]

Quite honestly, I had that idea before I read it from Walt Brown. It dawned on me a while back when I ran across the fact that human remains have been found in the Americas that date back to the time of the earliest neanderthals (evoutionists' time, mind you.) Since it's not rational to consider that humans sailed across the atlantic ocean thousands of years before the Chris Columbus did it, and that mass migration across Russia/Alaska is equally as unlikely...I pondered the notion that there may have been one large landmass after the flood.

Of course I'm not much of a geologist -- or not at all -- so I had no idea that this concept was even feasible or if anyone else had given that a thought. It's good to see others back up this notion.

O.k. You thought of it before Walt Brown:-

1) But did you or any one backing this idea up, ever see the continents move?

2) And given that you presumably accept creation ex nihlo, why is “moving continents” the only logical explanation for how humans got to be where they are.


Regards, Roland

[supersport]

O.k. You thought of it before Walt Brown:-

1) But did you or any one backing this idea up, ever see the continents move?

2) And given that you presumably accept creation ex nihlo, why is “moving continents” the only logical explanation for how humans got to be where they are.


Regards, Roland

1) But did you or any one backing this idea up, ever see the continents move?

No, I guess we're kind of like evolutionists in that respect....evolutionists didn't see monkeys evolve into men...they're simply making an educated guess...albeit an irrational one. None of it is science, in my opinion. It's all guess work based on perspective.

And I don't know if it's really the only logical explanation....it's just the only one I can think of. There may be another perfectly good explanation, who knows.

[Cyrus Johnson]

Quite honestly, I had that idea before I read it from Walt Brown. It dawned on me a while back when I ran across the fact that human remains have been found in the Americas that date back to the time of the earliest neanderthals (evoutionists' time, mind you.)

The oldest human remains in the Americas are AFAIK 12-13,000 years tops. Neandertals go back some 350,000 years, and had died out before the first humans came to America, so I don't know what "fact" your talking about here.

Also, there's nothing inherently irrational about humans sailing across the ocean before Columbus. The Polynesians for one were able to migrate long distances over open water hundreds, even thousands, of years before Columbus.

[wattsr1]

No, I guess we're kind of like evolutionists in that respect....evolutionists didn't see monkeys evolve into men...they're simply making an educated guess...albeit an irrational one. None of it is science, in my opinion. It's all guess work based on perspective.

I gather then, that to you, an idea can only be science if either the object of investigation (a proton or a neutron) or the subject matter (HIV causes AIDS) can be seen with human eyes – otherwise it’s all irrational?

And I don't know if it's really the only logical explanation....

I was using your term.

… it's just the only one I can think of.

This is what I don’t get. Are you saying that creation ex nihlo is illogical? And …

There may be another perfectly good explanation, who knows.

Rowing boats is another good way. Alien abductions is another possibility. I don’t understand why you do not consider these two possibilities as logical.


Regards, Roland

[supersport]

The oldest human remains in the Americas are AFAIK 12-13,000 years tops. Neandertals go back some 350,000 years, and had died out before the first humans came to America, so I don't know what "fact" your talking about here.

Also, there's nothing inherently irrational about humans sailing across the ocean before Columbus. The Polynesians for one were able to migrate long distances over open water hundreds, even thousands, of years before Columbus.

hang tight....be prepared to be proven wrong....I'll need a couple minutes to dig up the link.

[supersport]

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...atom%20evidenc

here it is, cyrus.