Moontanman

I am quite well read in the laws of Entropy and abiogenesis. What causes an population of organisms to change over time is random mutations filtered by natural selection...

The full moon is my favorite time roam the forest, I,ve done it since i was very little i would sneak out of the house and just wonder through the woods.

Allyou can do is insult us and assume we haven't looked into the god thing? Faith is not allowed in science, only repeatable experiments. Logic and common sense tell me that science being the single path to truth and religion failing on all counts. I choose the reality I can demonstrate and reproduce to show others. Faith allows you to believe in anything from invisible dragons to pixies, faith is the most dishonest path to follow..

Then you should embrace the single most effective way to learn about reality... Science, it works. Sit for a while and contemplate how easier you life is. 30,000 years ago cave bears and starvation was the only truth but humans persevered. compared to even a couple hundred years ago you live in a paradise created by science. Give that some thought "Air Between The Notes"

It should also be noted that the majority of mutations are neutral and have no effect...

Take a deep breath and thing about the vice pres who would replace him....

Prove a god is real and I will consider him as sovereign, do you really submit to something that has no evidence of it's existence? You may as well worship the invisible dragon I keep in my garage. Note to other members, has this person become our pet troll or is she subject to the same rules we all are? So far she has yet to answer a question in any way but quoting an ancient book of mythology which in it's self is not evidence but a claim that requires evidence. I honestly would like to talk to this person about the question but she must give us more than empty platitudes and bible quotes. I have asked her direct questions and i get ignored or given empty platitudes that make no sense in the reality of the world...

I do not worship science or anything else. Science is repeatable to predictable, no faith or belief is necessary or allowed. If you can't show it then you don't know it...

Are you ever going to answer the questions with anything but insipid drivel? Not being able to disprove something does not make it real. You can't provide any positive evidence for any goed much less a specific one. If you want to believe fairy tales are real that is your right it's also my right to not believe things that have no evidentiary support... Unlike you I am open to evidence, my mind could be changed, could yours?

Very few animals are fossilized, what fossils we do see conform to gradual deposition over many millions of years. What we see in the fossil record in no way suggests a world wide flood, you will never find a bunny rabbit in the cambrian, a T-Rex will never be found fossilized beside a dimetrodon, nor will apes be found in the same strata as dinosaurs. You premiss is dishonest and trivially falsified...

Why would you give any credence to what the bible says... as opposed to any other god mythologies?

Would you mind clarifying how chance and time figure into it? Science prohibits faith, evidence always trumps belief. Please explain what you mean by pseudoscience and provide some evidence for the "supernatural"...

Frost heave could indeed be the culprit but a large earth quake could have lifted a rock through sediments to sit on the top. Take a can of pebbles of various sizes and sand, shake it up and watch the larger bits rise to the top of the can... It would be odd this is the only stone lifted in this manner...

It's a good chance a glacier dropped it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_erratic

There is also that pesky hawking radiation to worry about but int the scenario you have set up it should go off like an atomic bomb,,

Interesting, can we eat sea weed too?

The SETI people define it as the ability to build a radio telescope...

I went to the site, it would appear they have little desire to do anything but defend the faith. I honestly do not see what AGW has to do with faith but W.L. Craig seems to be their hero or something. I am never come across anyone qute as influential and dishonest as WLC. I may join and see if I can join a rational discussion... Strike that, the site is nothing but an outlet for WLC's horsefeathers and merchandise.

I also think that harm is a relative term, I know a guy who started smoking cigarettes when he was 8 years old, has smoked two to three packs a day and is 86 years old, still smoking... Looking at him could you say that cigarettes are not harmful? Marijuana smoking has to be less than healthy, breathing smoke cannot be good for you, to me the real problem is less than neutral studies and people who don't want to hear their drug of choice is harmful. The man I mentioned above is convinced cannabis is horrific and anyone who smokes it should be put away for life, this he says while swilling bourbon, taking opiates, and smoking like a frieght train... he is a mean drunk too... My main worry is people whose lives are ruined by the law when they get caught smoking pot....

I knew bigfoot was real! Real video of a real bigfoot!

So far I see little debunking of this going on. Probably because it is so crazy to assume such sensational behaviors from the scant evidence we have. I am still intrigued by the facial reconstruction aspect. Hmmm... Young whipper snapper! I am not sure facial reconstruction is done that way. I know they do use the flesh and muscle thicknesses of the human face as a guide. This guys reconstruction is supposed to be using an apes scull flesh and muscles as a template. I would like to see more about that but so far it's no joy on the net. If his contentions are true then it would call into question facial reconstruction of many hominids.

I would say the he really has no "theory" speculations at best and sensational speculations at that. I've always had my doubts about behaviors being asserted from fossils and such outrageous ones really need a considerable amount of support other than legends transmitted over 40,000 years. My main interest is the appearence, do we really have reason to assume Neanderthal flesh and muscles match ours as opposed to more ape like primates? Would our ape relatives look human if we reconstructed them using human flesh and muscles? I think it's an interesting line of inquiry...

this is true but the inbreeding is part of his assertion. As i said his ideas need some support but my main concern is the reconstruction of neanderthals, did they look human or ape like? If the later then cross breeding seems unlikely but humans do have sex with orangutans even though no cross breeding can take place... I know ewww... The possible difference in appearance is what caught my eye, behavioral differences seem unlikely to be decided by fossils on that fine a scale...