[__ Science __ ] Noahs Flood explained and Evolution refuted.

[Barbarian]

The reason you aren't going to define "human" is more than a confusion about logic. It's because you've realized that defining the term would invalidate the idea that humans did not evolve from other hominids. No matter where you draw the line, it's a loser for creationism. See the chart above. This is why you aren't about to define what a human is.

Is the word, "human", a human? Yes or No?

Is a human the word, "human"? Yes or No?

Sorry, no more word games. You can step up and present a testable definition of "human" or you can continue to argue what "is" is. Your choice.

 

[Barbarian]

Here's why any definition of "human" is big trouble for creationists:

Trait	Homo erectus	Archaic Homo sapiens	Anatomically Modern Homo sapiens
Average Brain Size	900 cc	1,200 cc (1,500 cc when including Neanderthals)	1,400 cc
Skull Shape	Long and low Angular	Intermediate	Short and high Globular
Forehead	Absent	Emerging	Present
Nasal Region	Projecting nasal bones (bridge of the nose), no midfacial prognathism	Wider nasal aperture and midfacial prognathism	Narrower nasal aperture, no midfacial prognathism
Chin	Absent	Absent	Present
Other Facial Features	Large brow ridge and large projecting face	Intermediate	Small brow ridge and retracted face
Other Skull Features	Nuchal torus, sagittal keel, thick cranial bone	Projecting occipital bone, often called occipital bun in Neanderthals; intermediate thickness of cranial bone	Small bump on rear of skull, if anything; thin cranial bone
Dentition	Large teeth, especially front teeth	Slightly smaller teeth; front teeth still large; retromolar gap in Neanderthals	Smaller teeth
Postcranial Features	Robust bones of skeleton	Robust bones of skeleton	More gracile bones of skeleton

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Sorry, no more word games.

Ah, you're not going to write any more posts, eh?

 

[hawkman]

loser for creationism

I agree with this definition of creationism , do you ?

Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Is the word, "human", a human? Yes or No?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Is a human the word, "human"? Yes or No?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

You don't even know that the word, "human", is not a human!?

 

[Barbarian]

I agree with this definition of creationism , do you ?

Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation.

I suppose I should be more specific. Paul is dodging my question, because answering it would be a loser for YE creationism. God says that He used nature to produce life, but since nature is itself a miracle, your definition would still be valid.

 

[Barbarian]

Ah, you're not going to write any more posts, eh?

I'll wait a bit and see if you eventually figure out what a "human" is.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

humans did not evolve from other hominids.

Indeed, it's true that all ancestors of humans are humans. Among other entailments of that truth is the truth that no fish are ancestors of humans.

Another entailment of that truth is the truth that the earliest ancestors of humans walked upright on the earth, each one with two legs.

 

[hawkman]

I suppose I should be more specific. Paul is dodging my question, because answering it would be a loser for YE creationism. God says that He used nature to produce life, but since nature is itself a miracle, your definition would still be valid.

Thanks for the answer and clarifying . YE creationism , yeah I am not all in on that one .

 

[Barbarian]

Paul wrote:

Barbarian said: humans did not evolve from other hominids.

Well, let's take a look at that. Before your editing, I wrote:

The reason you aren't going to define "human" is more than a confusion about logic. It's because you've realized that defining the term would invalidate the idea that humans did not evolve from other hominids. No matter where you draw the line, it's a loser for creationism. See the chart above. This is why you aren't about to define what a human is.

(Barbarian shakes head)

The reason why you're reluctant to define "human" is clear in the chart in post #422.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Before your editing, I wrote:

What "editing"? I excerpted from your text what I intended to comment on, viz., the true proposition that all ancestors of humans are humans. So, what's your "point"? I did not wrong you in any way.

You know, I always thought you were a better person than this.

Than what? Of what wrong are you accusing me?

---

Indeed, it's true that all ancestors of humans are humans. Among other entailments of that truth is the truth that no fish are ancestors of humans.

You agree that no fish are ancestors of humans, right? And, for any fish to have been ancestors of humans would be for those fish to have been humans, right? Have any fish ever been humans? Yes or No?

Another entailment of that truth is the truth that the earliest ancestors of humans walked upright on the earth, each one with two legs.

Aside from cases of injury, birth defect, disability, amputation, etc., whatever does not walk upright on the earth with two, and only two legs is not a human. Do you agree? Yes or No?

 

[Barbarian]

Paul wrote:
Barbarian said: humans did not evolve from other hominids.

Well, let's take a look at that. Before your editing, I wrote:
The reason you aren't going to define "human" is more than a confusion about logic. It's because you've realized that defining the term would invalidate the idea that humans did not evolve from other hominids. No matter where you draw the line, it's a loser for creationism. See the chart above. This is why you aren't about to define what a human is.

(Barbarian shakes head)

The reason why you're reluctant to define "human" is clear in the chart in post #422.

What "editing"?

The words in red are the ones you cut out of my statement. I'll leave it to others to decide whether or not your editing made it appear that I had said something different.

You agree that no fish are ancestors of humans, right?

All vertebrates have a common ancestor. Even some YE creationists admit that the fossil evidence for common descent of vertebrates is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Would you like me to show you?

 

[Barbarian]

You agree that no fish are ancestors of humans, right? And, for any fish to have been ancestors of humans would be for those fish to have been humans, right?

Nature Published: 17 April 2013​

The African coelacanth genome provides insights into tetrapod evolution​

Abstract​

The discovery of a living coelacanth specimen in 1938 was remarkable, as this lineage of lobe-finned fish was thought to have become extinct 70 million years ago. The modern coelacanth looks remarkably similar to many of its ancient relatives, and its evolutionary proximity to our own fish ancestors provides a glimpse of the fish that first walked on land. Here we report the genome sequence of the African coelacanth, Latimeria chalumnae. Through a phylogenomic analysis, we conclude that the lungfish, and not the coelacanth, is the closest living relative of tetrapods.

It turns out that lungfish and land vertebrates are more closely related to each other than either is to other fish. And we know these analyses show descent, because we can test that with organisms of known descent.

We're getting back on track with the discussion now. Thanks for your help.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

All vertebrates have a common ancestor.

Are vertebrates descended from invertebrates? Yes or No?

If to be descended from dinosaurs makes something a dinosaur, does being descended from an invertebrate make something an invertebrate? Yes or No?

Are any vertebrates invertebrates? Yes or No?

Oh, also, are all vertebrates humans? Yes or No?

Have fun stonewalling against these questions!

 

[Barbarian]

If to be descended from dinosaurs makes something a dinosaur, does being descended from an invertebrate make something an invertebrate?

That's actually not a dumb question. The key is apomorphic characters. In phylogenetics, an apomorphy is a novel character or character state that has evolved from its ancestral form.

So a species descended from a dinosaur might still be a dinosaur if it lacked any apomorphic characters. Birds, for example, if they had any apomorphic characters with respect to dinosaurs, would not be dinosaurs. However, they don't have such characters. At least I can't think of one. Can you?

does being descended from an invertebrate make something an invertebrate?

Let's see. "Invertebrate" is not a taxonomic group but a description like "winged." Octopuses are descended from primitive mollusks which are invertebrates. But octopuses also lack a backbone, so yes, they are invertebrates. That was a pretty good question, too.

Oh, also, are all vertebrates humans? Yes or No?

Are all animals with backbones human? You really don't know? Just in case you don't know... no, there are many animals with backbones that are not human. The phylum is Chordata, but not all chordates actually have vertebrae. Tunicates, for example, only have a notochord as we do, but they lack vertebrae.

Have fun

This was actually a worthwhile post on your part. Well done.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

The words in red are the ones you cut out of my statement.

I quoted your words:

humans did not evolve from other hominids.

Did you write those words? Yes or No?

I'll leave it to others to decide whether or not your editing made it appear that I had said something different.

Something different than what? Did you, or did you not write these words that I quoted from your post:

humans did not evolve from other hominids.

How is

humans did not evolve from other hominids.

from

humans did not evolve from other hominids.

?

---

What "question" were you "answering" when you wrote:

Yes. H. erectus is a species of hominid, which is almost identical to anatomically modern humans below the neck.

?

Therein you're certainly not answering any question I've asked you. I'll leave it to others to decide whether or not your editing made it appear that you were answering any question I had asked you.

 

[Barbarian]

I quoted your words:

Edited to change the meaning of what I said. Not a smart thing to do on a message board, where the evidence is still present. I'll leave it to others to decide whether or not your editing made it appear that I had said something different.
Paul wrote:

Barbarian said: humans did not evolve from other hominids.

Well, let's take a look at that. Before your editing, I wrote:

The reason you aren't going to define "human" is more than a confusion about logic. It's because you've realized that defining the term would invalidate the idea that humans did not evolve from other hominids. No matter where you draw the line, it's a loser for creationism. See the chart above. This is why you aren't about to define what a human is.

There's no way to make this better for you. Learn from it and go on.

 

[Barbarian]

Some more information:
While vertebrates do comprise a taxonomic group, "invertebrates" do not for the same reason that angiosperms (flowering plants) comprise a taxonomic group while "non-flowering plants" do not.

vertebrate, any animal of the subphylum Vertebrata, the predominant subphylum of the phylum Chordata. They have backbones, from which they derive their name. The vertebrates are also characterized by a muscular system consisting primarily of bilaterally paired masses and a central nervous system partly enclosed within the backbone.

The subphylum is one of the best known of all groups of animals. Its members include the classes Agnatha, Chondrichthyes, and Osteichthyes (all fishes); Amphibia (amphibians); Reptilia (reptiles); Aves (birds); and Mammalia (mammals).

Vertebrate | Definition, Characteristics, Examples, Classification, & Facts

Vertebrate, any animal of the subphylum Vertebrata. They have backbones and are also characterized by a muscular system consisting primarily of bilaterally paired masses and a central nervous system partly enclosed within the backbone. Its members include fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and...

www.britannica.com

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I asked Barbarian this Yes/No question:

If to be descended from dinosaurs makes something a dinosaur, does being descended from an invertebrate make something an invertebrate? Yes or No?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

---

Oh, also, are all vertebrates humans? Yes or No?

no, there are many animals with backbones that are not human.

So, some invertebrates are non-humans. Good to have your admission of that obvious fact on record.

Let's see. "Invertebrate" is not a taxonomic group but a description like "winged."

• Is the group of all animals without backbones a group of animals? Yes or No?
• Is a taxonomic group a group of animals? Yes or No?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

While vertebrates do comprise a taxonomic group, "invertebrates" do not

So, when you divide the group of all animals into two subgroups of animals, one of the two subgroups of animals is a group of animals, but the other one of the two subgroups of animals is not a group of animals!?

Yet another glaring Darwinistspeak stupidity that advertises the fact that what Darwinists term "taxonomy" is just another aspect of their war against truth and logic.

And, what's with your sneer quotes around your word, "invertebrates"? Do you believe all animals have backbones, and you're mocking the fact that some animals do not have backbones?