paleontology, for those who loves dinosaurs

[Grumblenuts]

It's a blog and your buddy prog just plagiarized a piece of it with his incredible cut & paste skills. Best slap him. He's making you look worse than you already do..

He was a keen student of Flood geology and the fossil record, including the supposed fossil evidence for human evolution, and wrote a number of important articles on these topics in the Creation Research Society Quarterly and Journal of Creation.

 

[james bond]

It's a blog and your buddy prog just plagiarized a piece of it with his incredible cut & paste skills. Best slap him. He's making you look worse than you already do..

Not I, nuts boy. Like I said, I do not normally use creation.com, but have been doing so just to bug your butt buddy, Fort Fun Indiana. I can't help it if he's one of those in the closet creation science readers.

BTW you cannot even rebut what the article stated, so you shouldn't let your diarrhea fingers get carried away there.

 

[progressive hunter]

It's a blog and your buddy prog just plagiarized a piece of it with his incredible cut & paste skills. Best slap him. He's making you look worse than you already do..

Not I, nuts boy. Like I said, I do not normally use creation.com, but have been doing so just to bug your butt buddy, Fort Fun Indiana. I can't help it if he's one of those in the closet creation science readers.

BTW you cannot even rebut what the article stated, so you shouldn't let your diarrhea fingers get carried away there.

he does have a habit of ignoring the message and attacking the messenger,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

It's a blog and your buddy prog just plagiarized a piece of it with his incredible cut & paste skills. Best slap him. He's making you look worse than you already do..

He was a keen student of Flood geology and the fossil record, including the supposed fossil evidence for human evolution, and wrote a number of important articles on these topics in the Creation Research Society Quarterly and Journal of Creation.

hey I was just posting the part you left out of your cut and paste,,,

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

First you told me that we saw Sgr A when the image of the black hole came out last month

No, i didnt. You're confused. Again.

I had to figure out for myself that it wasn't a shadow, but a silhouette.

Actually, it's either one. You were wrong about that, too.

He has done peer-reviewed work by AIG.

Haha...so embarrassing....

He has no credentials and no published science. He is a fraud, and you are a fool who regurgitates and plagiarizes frauds.

 

[Grumblenuts]

BTW you cannot even rebut what the article stated,

You can't even rebut that's it's a blog. If you had made any sort of reasonable attempt I could have easily conceded that it's actually a full featured website posing as a legitimate discussion spot for scientists. Unfortunately for you, it appears Fort Fun is absolutely correct. There's nothing published by any of those pathetic posers in the peer reviewed scientific journals, FAICT.

 

[progressive hunter]

First you told me that we saw Sgr A when the image of the black hole came out last month

No, i didnt. You're confused. Again.

I had to figure out for myself that it wasn't a shadow, but a silhouette.

Actually, it's either one. You were wrong about that, too.

He has done peer-reviewed work by AIG.

Haha...so embarrassing....

He has no credentials and no published science. He is a fraud, and you are a fool who regurgitates and plagiarizes frauds.

so says the troll,,,

give it up bud, you are just stuck on your mindless religion,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

BTW you cannot even rebut what the article stated,

You can't even rebut that's it's a blog. If you had made any sort of reasonable attempt I could have easily conceded that it's actually a full featured website posing as a legitimate discussion spot for scientists. Unfortunately for you, it appears Fort Fun is absolutely correct. There's nothing published by any of those pathetic posers in the peer reviewed scientific journals, FAICT.

peer review means nothing if they are all wrong,,,

 

[james bond]

It's a blog and your buddy prog just plagiarized a piece of it with his incredible cut & paste skills. Best slap him. He's making you look worse than you already do..

Not I, nuts boy. Like I said, I do not normally use creation.com, but have been doing so just to bug your butt buddy, Fort Fun Indiana. I can't help it if he's one of those in the closet creation science readers.

BTW you cannot even rebut what the article stated, so you shouldn't let your diarrhea fingers get carried away there.

he does have a habit of ignoring the message and attacking the messenger,,,

It's up to them to show evidence for their claims, but they are so trivial or turn out to be fraudulent that one just does an eyeroll . For example, they claimed East Rudolf specimen 1470 or KNM–ER 1470 was a new species of Homo rudolfensis.

Homo rudolfensis: KNM-ER 1470 | eFossils Resources

The skull was assembled by famed paleoanthropologist, Richard Leakey and his wife, Meave, and was sent to the Kenya National Museum – East Rudolf and classified as Homo habilis. So far, so good. But hey, not so fast,

"Homo habilis shares many features with the apes known as Australopithecus. Like them, H. habilis has a long-armed, short-legged and ape-like skeletal structure. Its hands and feet are well suited to climbing. These characteristics show that H. habilis spent most of its time in the trees.

The volume of the majority of skulls classified as H. habilis does not exceed 650 cubic centimeters. This brain size is very close to that of present-day gorillas. On the other hand, its jaw structure closely resembles that of present-day apes, definitely proving that it was an ape.

In terms of general skull features, it bears a closer resemblance to Australopithecus africanus. Like A. africanus, H. habilis has no eyebrow protrusions. Previously, this feature led to its being misinterpreted and depicted as a human-like creature."

Thus, even the famed Richard Leakey gets it wrong, but the evos just hype their wrongness to no end.

KNM-ER 1470 Fraud

 

[progressive hunter]

It's a blog and your buddy prog just plagiarized a piece of it with his incredible cut & paste skills. Best slap him. He's making you look worse than you already do..

Not I, nuts boy. Like I said, I do not normally use creation.com, but have been doing so just to bug your butt buddy, Fort Fun Indiana. I can't help it if he's one of those in the closet creation science readers.

BTW you cannot even rebut what the article stated, so you shouldn't let your diarrhea fingers get carried away there.

he does have a habit of ignoring the message and attacking the messenger,,,

It's up to them to show evidence for their claims, but they are so trivial or turn out to be fraudulent that one just does an eyeroll . For example, they claimed East Rudolf specimen 1470 or KNM–ER 1470 was a new species of Homo rudolfensis.

Homo rudolfensis: KNM-ER 1470 | eFossils Resources

The skull was assembled by famed paleoanthropologist, Richard Leakey and his wife, Meave, and was sent to the Kenya National Museum – East Rudolf and classified as Homo habilis. So far, so good. But hey, not so fast,

"Homo habilis shares many features with the apes known as Australopithecus. Like them, H. habilis has a long-armed, short-legged and ape-like skeletal structure. Its hands and feet are well suited to climbing. These characteristics show that H. habilis spent most of its time in the trees.

The volume of the majority of skulls classified as H. habilis does not exceed 650 cubic centimeters. This brain size is very close to that of present-day gorillas. On the other hand, its jaw structure closely resembles that of present-day apes, definitely proving that it was an ape.

In terms of general skull features, it bears a closer resemblance to Australopithecus africanus. Like A. africanus, H. habilis has no eyebrow protrusions. Previously, this feature led to its being misinterpreted and depicted as a human-like creature."

Thus, even the famed Richard Leakey gets it wrong, but the evos just hype their wrongness to no end.

KNM-ER 1470 Fraud

what thats called is just

MAKIN SHIT UP,,,

 

[james bond]

First you told me that we saw Sgr A when the image of the black hole came out last month

No, i didnt. You're confused. Again.

I had to figure out for myself that it wasn't a shadow, but a silhouette.

Actually, it's either one. You were wrong about that, too.

He has done peer-reviewed work by AIG.

Haha...so embarrassing....

He has no credentials and no published science. He is a fraud, and you are a fool who regurgitates and plagiarizes frauds.

How can you be so wrong about a black hole? The image that was taken was in another galaxy.

Second, you still do not know the difference between a shadow and silhouette even though it was painstakingly explained to you. What a dummy!

Thus, anything you have to say about creation.com and it's top writers completely miss the mark and are so wrong. When you have wrongness on top of wrongness on top of wrongness, then it's better to just let the idiot stammer and stew instead of trying ot fix it. Is there a saying that if something is broke so much, then don't bother to fix it? In the case of you brain, that would be the perfect quote.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's up to them to show evidence for their claims,

I would direct you to a 6th grade science book. Start there.

 

[james bond]

I would direct you to a 6th grade science book. Start there.

This is beyond your reading level, but is a good start for many children:
Children’s Books

 

[james bond]

You can't even rebut that's it's a blog. If you had made any sort of reasonable attempt I could have easily conceded that it's actually a full featured website posing as a legitimate discussion spot for scientists. Unfortunately for you, it appears Fort Fun is absolutely correct. There's nothing published by any of those pathetic posers in the peer reviewed scientific journals, FAICT.

I did with the trueorigin article. It's written by the same author and his work has been peer-reviewed. Of course, that article is too advanced for you so you could not understand even if you read it.

 

[toobfreak]

It's up to them to show evidence for their claims,

I would direct you to a 6th grade science book. Start there.

Which ones would you recommend that didn't find too far over your head?

 

[Grumblenuts]

"Previously, this feature led to its being misinterpreted and depicted as a human-like creature."

So something scientists apparently now acknowledge to be erroneous serves, not as evidence that science is always a work in progress, nor as an example of how peer review is necessary, albeit often slow,.. no, no.. you somehow take it as evidence there simply must be a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Fabulous!

You can't even rebut that's it's a blog. If you had made any sort of reasonable attempt I could have easily conceded that it's actually a full featured website posing as a legitimate discussion spot for scientists. Unfortunately for you, it appears Fort Fun is absolutely correct. There's nothing published by any of those pathetic posers in the peer reviewed scientific journals, FAICT.

I did with the trueorigin article. It's written by the same author and his work has been peer-reviewed. Of course, that article is too advanced for you so you could not understand even if you read it.

What "article"? What "author"? Links? Quotes? Anything?

Too advanced, eh? What's your degree, Doctor of Incoherence and Smear?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's up to them to show evidence for their claims,

I would direct you to a 6th grade science book. Start there.

Which ones would you recommend that didn't find too far over your head?

Meh,not witty or fresh. C-

 

[james bond]

So something scientists apparently now acknowledge to be erroneous serves, not as evidence that science is always a work in progress, nor as an example of how peer review is necessary, albeit often slow,.. no, no.. you somehow take it as evidence there simply must be a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Fabulous!

You guys made up the Flying Spaghetti Monster that exists in people's imaginations just like evolution. It's just just like you made up what the too old foot fossil was, the fake homo rudolfensis, Piltdown Man, and more:

.

Why don't you let creation scientists peer-review the work?

What "article"? What "author"? Links? Quotes? Anything?

Too advanced, eh? What's your degree, Doctor of Incoherence and Smear?

Why don't you briefly rebut? What did you say your background was again lol? So far, I connect you with Fort Fun Indiana who thinks he made it to 7th grade (but still in 4th).

The Rise and Fall of Skull KNM-ER 1470

 

[toobfreak]

So something scientists apparently now acknowledge to be erroneous serves, not as evidence that science is always a work in progress, nor as an example of how peer review is necessary, albeit often slow,.. no, no.. you somehow take it as evidence there simply must be a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Fabulous!

You guys made up the Flying Spaghetti Monster that exists in people's imaginations just like evolution. It's just just like you made up what the too old foot fossil was, the fake homo rudolfensis, Piltdown Man, and more:

.

Why don't you let creation scientists peer-review the work?

What "article"? What "author"? Links? Quotes? Anything?

Too advanced, eh? What's your degree, Doctor of Incoherence and Smear?

Why don't you briefly rebut? What did you say your background was again lol? So far, I connect you with Fort Fun Indiana who thinks he made it to 7th grade (but still in 4th).

The Rise and Fall of Skull KNM-ER 1470

You're a little cornfused, James. Heidelberg Man, Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Cro-Magnon, etc., these are all only references to specimens found at specific locations, not as distinct, separate species. But the evidence is clear that man evolved from the same ancestry that apes came from and part of what helped them advance was both their learning to stand on two legs to see farther as well as giving up berries and fruits to become a hunter which the added protein gave a higher quality food source to support a larger brain.

 

[Grumblenuts]

So that already discussed dead guy is still your alleged peer reviewed "author", except not in the "creation science" arena? ... "work by AIG" was peer reviewed, not his work in particular? Here's some peer review of AIG:
https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-AIG-RVW2987517.htm
Is that what you meant?
Incoherent.

Why don't you briefly rebut?

Already did. You not liking my rebuttal doesn't make it nonexistent.

Why don't you let creation scientists peer-review the work?

Already covered too. There's no such thing as a creation scientist.