Gutsick Gibbon Answers "Classroom" and I Answer Her

Gutsick Gibbon Answers "Classroom" and I Answer Her · Debate under Gutsick Gibbon's Video

A) Gutsick Gibbon Answers "Classroom"

"Evolutionist" Teacher versus Creationist Student
Gutsick Gibbon, 12 May 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-JU2seTqjo

and B) I Answer Her

3:55 Is the hearing system really outside yours?

Apes acknowledged on all side as such and alive today have more robust parts of anything from outer ductus to stapes. This means, they cannot hear consonants, at the very least, they cannot hear front consonants, like labials or dentals. Doing the tongue and lip and teeth movements we do to produce a P or a T would possibly be physically possible to an ape, but it would be pointless, given that other apes could not hear them.

I think this is also the case for back consonants, and it's Australopithecus and Paranthropus that has ears that could pick out a K, if even that.

With no chance of articulating too many vowels, perhaps just ee and oo, and no or nearly no consonants that they can hear, they could never have had a sufficient phoneme repertoir to get a palette of phonemes not having, but distinguishing meanings. Hence no language structured in the typically three barrelled system human language uses, and all human language uses.

10:15 Is there any non-Lucy Australopith or Paranthrope with a foot size matching the Laetoli footprints? Or two of them with foot sizes around matching, or one of them with a foot size between what would match the two main walkers?

As a Creationist, I obviously think these foot prints were made while Flood waters were rising.

I consider the different levels of volcanic deposit and sediment at Laetoli are all from the Flood, and yes, I have a mechanism explaining why older argon dates match older column "dates" - as volcanic deposits thickened, even with sediment / mud between them, the water was less and less good at cooling, so more and more argon escaped.

This would obviously not account for any argon argon results, only for potassium argon results - but aren't the datings from the era when potassium argon ruled, and have they been repeated by argon argon since?

daft wulli

I think it makes sense to find arguments that are simple and undeniable. Every flood leaves behind a flood layer of debris, and flood layers have a very specific structure. The densest stuff gets deposited first then lighter and lighter stuff. So flood layers are very distinct from anything else. There is no worldwide layer. So there never was a wordwide flood. And yes I know some creationists try to claim the fossil layer woiuld be a flood layer, but it look nothing like a flood layer and is highly ordered and structured. No flood could do that.

daft wulli

Quote :"As a Creationist, I obviously think these foot prints were made while Flood waters were rising."

translation : as a creationist I just make shit up as I go along and try to shoehorn anything into evidence for my pet believes, no matter if they fit or not, and would not recognize actualö evidenmce if it hits me in the face

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@daft wulli Instead of trying to push this as a "translation" what about telling me what it is that doesn't fit the evidence, and how it doesn't.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@daft wulli Sorry for previous by me, I missed this one from yesterday.

"Every flood leaves behind a flood layer of debris, and flood layers have a very specific structure. The densest stuff gets deposited first then lighter and lighter stuff."

Certainly applies to floods with no saturation or oversaturation of sediment, as this deposits only after turbulence calms down.

You are missing out on Guy Berthault's research about depositing in fast streaming water oversaturated with sediment, this works out in a different way.

Also, as to structure at Laetoli, you compare the year long Flood of Noah to one flood, with no or only one volcanic eruption.

I hold that when this happened, the streams with oversaturated sediment came more than once and that volcanic eruptions also came more than once. The latter being part of the mechanism opening the "fountains of the deep" ...

J D

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Hey friendo...where did all the water come from that flooded the earth? Also, follow up question, where did that water go? Do you realize how much water you would need to flood the entire earth to the height of mountaintops?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J D One km and close to two above sea level is feasible if deeps seas were significantly shallower up to the end of the flood. Mountains rose after the Flood.

I was obviously more specifically inviting to specifics about Laetoli, but OK ... at least it shows, you ran out of more specific ones quickly.

J D

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Ah. "If the world was magically and fundamentally different, then the math checks out". My man, why didn't you just say so? Of course it'd be easy to flood the earth "up to the mountains" if there weren't any mountains lmao

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J D Oh, there were, up to one km high.

I consider Noah took off from the highest known and actually highest mountain.

I hesitate between the Meseta of Spain, bc there he could have had inlaws of both Neanderthal and Denisovan heritage, or Calvary, for theological reasons.

Either of them qualifies as a mountain if Mount Everest and Alps are not yet on the scene, and not even the Pyrenees, at least not full present height.

"different,"

From what? What we see now? Your own theory also says it has been different from that.
Or from what you expect according to your theory? Well, being different from someone's theory is not a slight on the beauty of the world. The theory could be wrong.
Or, perhaps, from a certain thing you think traces imply? If so, that would be really worth a debate!

22:04 Genetically distinct.

Stronger.

30 % of their genome is still available in modern human specimens, but typically more like 3 % in a single one (I wonder how many % Neanderthal Hercules and Beowulf were ....) The 30 % do not include mitochondriae or Y-chromosomes, looks like their heirs went over a bottleneck (if a Neanderthal man had a daughter with a Cro-Magnon woman, the daughter would have no Y chromosome, since a woman, and no Neanderthal mitochondriae).

No Neanderthal actual body remain found carbon dated to later than 40 000 BP. (Gorham cave is carbon dated later by charcoals, and is tied to Neanderthals by Mousterian tools, not Neanderthal remains - there were however Neanderthal actual remains in a nearby cave, carbon dated to 47 000 BP).

Could this be a pre-Flood race, perhaps either Nephelim or closer to Nephelim than Cro-Magnon race was (Cro-Magnon a k a "Sapiens" but since Neanderthals are equally made in God's image ...?) but perhaps less close than the Denisovan / Antecessor / Heidelbergian race was? Would fit genetical distinction, would fit being stronger, would fit not having any Y-chromosomes or mitochondriae, if the only representatives on the Ark were a daughter or more of Neanderthal fathers and Cro-Magnon mothers, and herself or themselves married one or more of the three Cro Magnon sons of Noah? Could this be why fullblood Neanderthals are not found carbon dated to more recent than 40 000 BP, and could this carbon date be the carbon date of the Flood?

22:16 Creationists these days tend to be Baraminologists, i e believe tigers and lions differentiated after the Flood from a single couple on the Ark. Like hedgehogs (Atelerix algirus) and hedgehogs (Hemiechinus auritus). OK, get your point, not phenotypically identical, fair enough.

I think the young man is however overdoing the point of "they are human, not ape" (as in what all sides agree to call apes).

daft wulli

Well humans are apes too, so he is not making the least sense here

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@daft wulli We aren't. Even from your p o v, you should admit we aren't what all sides agree to call apes.

And quit saying things like "doesn't make the least sense" about people who don't agree with your ideologemes, even if or even especially if, the ideologemes have some support in experts you'd refer to as "Science".

23:10 Claiming they are human and "Homo sapiens" should be renamed "Homo Cro Magnon" after very early skeleta found early on, since all are "sapientes" as in God's image might be less vapid, though.

daft wulli

Sapient does not mean in gods image, and there is a good reason why somne are homo sapients and some are not

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@daft wulli While sapient does not lexically mean in God's image, it presupposes being so.

There is no good reason why Neanderthals and Denisovans aren't Sapiens. Unless you'd argue one or both of them are giants, of which Baruch 3 says they did not find wisdom. For Erectus soloensis, they may have been victims of degenerating genetic experiments. Kind of like Saruman's orc breeding to take a fictitious example.

J D

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "This word means X"

"No it doesn't..."

"No it doesn't, but imagine if it DID..."

Hilarious response my fellow ape.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J D I did not say "imagine if it did" I said "the actual meaning implies this too" ...

J D

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Right but it doesn't. Sapient doesn't imply we're made in God's image.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J D Yes, it does, precisely as a rock being created not in God's image means the rock is not sapient.

J D

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I mean, that's not the definition of sapient doing the presupposition, that's YOU doing the presupposition. Sapience just means "greatly intelligent". You're presupposing that anything that is greatly intelligent is "created in the image of God".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J D Yes, even anything that's intelligent at all (unless you mean pragmatic and emotive "intelligence" which beasts don't lack).