You haven’t responded to my facts about the flood… I’m sure everyone is interested in what you have to say …
My sympathies Christy - in my experience, publications range from seriously interesting work, to stuff that is rubbish. I have the opportunity to recommend good work for publication and recommend rejection of rubbish. But I need to say that all of my research has included a truck load of useful references from people whose publications have been just that, useful for advancement of knowledge and understanding of scientific areas.
1 Like
Not at all, it was a polite and relevant request. The rest of your post demonstrates you still don’t understand the subject, so you need to keep reading until you do. It’st hat simple. Otherwise people are wasting their time playing whack-a-mole with questions you ask on the basis of false premises and insufficient knowledge. What you need to do is read scientific explanations online, and then come here and challenge those explanations with evidence.
This is not true. It is well known that it is the movement of part of the core which causes the magnetic field. The earth’s core consists of a solid inner core and a molten outer core. The outer molten core moves as the earth spins, and this is what generates the magnetic field. That is why geothermically inactive planets such as Venus do not have a magnetic field. Venus cooled down a very long time ago, and now lacks the necessary geothermal dynamo to generate a magnetosphere. This is well known by scientists, and you can find the information very easily online.
its not. in this case you can just push back human origin.
No you can’t, because doing that completely disrupts the established evolutionary history of humans. Pushing back human origins to before the dinosaurs would prove that the entire understanding of humans as the product of evolution was completely wrong, and would need to be discarded in favour of a new theory.
new theory that will still be evolution one. i doesnt see any problem to claim that human evolved first and apes evolve from human. another possibility is to claim for convergent evolution ( that human shape evolve twice like dog-like shape evolve twice in both dogs and the tasmanian wolf). or just claim that someone fake this fossil or anything else but falsified evolution.
Ok well now you’re just making things up I’m afraid. In order to make those kinds of claims scientists would need to present an entirely new chain of evidence for human evolution. That would be incredibly difficult since we already know that no such evidence exists in the fossil record, and it is impossibly unlikely that such a huge amount of evidence would be found in the future.
So @dcscccc
-
If the other primates evolved from HUMANS …
-
Humans were the ones to first have a broken gene for making vitamin C… and then
-
Humans passed this gene on to chimpanzees?
Is this what you really believe ?
1 Like
where is the problem? human first and apes after.
its one possibility george if you believe in evolution and whant to keep it alive.
If I could sleep on top of a cloud, the existing theory of gravity would be destroyed, and physicists would have to create a new theory of gravity.
If I sampled a moon rock and discovered that it is made of bleu cheese, geologists would be forced to create a new theory for the formation of the moon.
If paleontologists discovered a fossil of homo sapiens sapiens in a Cretaceous formation, the theory of evolution (of hominids, at any rate) would be destroyed, and biologists would have to come up with a new evolutionary tree for primates.
contradict with this one:
so evolution will be destroy or not?
Hello Jonathan
Sorry that I have no time to give you a proper answer because we are about to move to another place and have to pack what we collected in some 55 years. I will a give an extensive answer asap. For the time being you might read my postings on the history of Earth and Humanity, where you may find my calculations on the heat transfer from the top of the crust downwards, leading to the conclusion that the crust floats on gas.
Venus is another story. It had a crust melt down, turning the planet temporarily in a low temperature sun, until is had lost nearly all its heat and was coagulated almost completely. I read somewhere that it got a new crust some 140 million years ago. Since then it must be heating up again but still not enough to get a magnetic field.
I know what is well known to the scientists, but I disagree with them. Call me arrogant if you wish, but they have no solid explanations for pole shifts, ice ages, the Flood, etcetera, and I do have explanations.
Please read my posts and explain where and why I am wrong.
Those posts demonstrate you do not understand the science.
I have already given you an example. You were completely wrong about Venus’ magnetic field, because you do not understand how the earth’s magnetic field is generated. This shows you do not understand even the basics of electromagnetism. You also didn’t understand what scientists believe about the earth’s magnetic field, and attributed to them a view they do not hold. This shows you do not understand the topic you’re trying to talk about.
Pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses, for a start. Take the GULO gene as an example.
If the moon can be made of cheese, and if I can lie down on a cumulonimbus cloud, then evolution can be obliterated.
2 Likes
Evolution is toast!
what is the problem? you can claim that the apes gulo evolved from the human one. and even if not- you can always claim that this is a fake fossil made by creationists or a reslut of connverngent evolution and so on…
This shows you do not understand pseudogenes like the GULO gene, and you do not understand endogenous retroviruses. It is not possible to claim the ape’s GULO “evolved from the human one”, because the mutation record we have shows the gene was inherited from apes to humans, not the other way around. I note you didn’t address endogenous retroviruses either.
So a truly out of place fossil could not be simply dismissed with claims that was fake or “a result of convergent evolution”. The very fact that you even mentioned convergent evolution in this case shows you do not understand convergent evolution. To argue convergent evolution you would need even more evidence than simply an out of place fossil. You would need a small mountain of evidence.
1 Like