Jump to content


The Descent Of Man


  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

#21 Sif

Sif

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Estonia

Posted 20 June 2009 - 02:22 AM

Closely enough related species can successfully interbreed and produce offspring, even if the offspring is sterile!  Lions/tigers, donkeys/horses, etc.  If we are merely another species, but closely related to certain ones (apes for example) - has such human/animal interbreeding been proven possible?  If this is morally offensive to you, I understand.  But as you believe we are merely animals, perhaps it isn't an issue.

View Post


Lets clone a Neanderthal and try, what do you say?

Our closest common ancestor with chimps lived 6 million years ago. thats not really very close, but whatever.

By apes, you do realize that humans are apes? (homo sapiens sapiens is under the taxonomic rank Hominidae, otherwise known as Great Apes. So what evidence do we have that apes can mate humans? Because humans ARE apes.

I know this is not what you meant, I'm just poking


"Any studies on how it could occur and how they reached this conclusion based on biology? If there is no distinction beyond level of species and as apes are our closest relatives, there should be some evidence to this biologic probability."

First of all i'd like to mention that there is subspecies and infraspecies

Secondly, you fail
Chimpanzees aren't in our genus, they are a separate subtribe (panina) / genus (pan)

Evidence of this biological probability?

How about Endogenous Retroviruses? Sure you can claim that it's a wild coincidence that our ERV's line up with the ERV's in chimps genome, whatever. But this doesn't explain why we have more ERV's in common with our closest relative and less and less the farther we go in the phylogenetic sense, as confirmed by every single other independent field of biology

"Even basic biology shows the differences between humans and animals."

Oh really? Well even basic biology indicates that the Cheetah is the fastest land mammal, so they are clearly not animals. The blue whale is the largest extant creature in this planet. Clearly, it's not an animal.

No, this is not how we do science.

"Our brain is unique that it is the largest in comparison to body size. It has two hemispheres. And within these are compartments that control thought, speech/language, imagination, memory etc. Our brains alone clearly separate us from the animals. "

Now you're being very subjective and selective. You can't just pick out one character and claim it to be the thing that separates one species from the rest of them. They all are different. Duh!

"Each human being maybe endowed with certain gifts that differ from the other. E.g. a rocket scienitst, brain surgeon, a singer, an artist. You won't find an animal capable of performing tasks such as these that a human can by indepth study and such specific talents. You won't find animals debating on a forum. I can guarantee you that they are not in zoos debating about evolution. If they are, I hope they group together in protest as to why, if they are so closely related, that they are behind bars for entertainment/study/preservation purposes and the only time we're behind bars is for crime."

And some have the gifts of just being a redneck? BTW a singer has more of a vocal ability than cerebral. As i already pointed out: yes, we are more intelligent than other species, so what?

"Our spine is designed for upright posture and support for standing, walking, running. Though most other animals can stand on two legs for periods of time, the ability to do so is not easily maintained, as their spine is designed differently from ours. Primates are designed differently enough from us to differentiate them from human beings. "

Actually our spine isn't very related to the ability for upright posture, it's our pelvis that does the trick. And it wasn't designed, it evolved. Same way you could pour some water in a glass and say that it was clearly designed for that shape.

Again with the same bs, ditto

Singling out a characteristic and saying it separates us from others is just childish.

Here's a small quiz to know if you're an animal

Are you eukaryotic? I assume yes
Are you multicellular? I assume yes
Are you a heterotroph? I assume yes
Are you lacking a cell wall? I assume yes
Are you motile? yes

Then you're an animal

#22 Guest_Anghellik9_*

Guest_Anghellik9_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 June 2009 - 09:58 AM

Haven't studied the man. Don't know when or how he obtained authority to define terms or dictate how they'll be used.

If you don't intend to slander, don't. If somehow, someone managed to make it through K - 12 indoctrination without figuring out that evolutionism demotes man to the status of animal, I doubt you'll remedy that with a few posts on the forum. We pretty much all know this, and claiming we don't says more about you than us.
So if I obtain the authority, and redefine 'fire' in English, everyone else in the world has to accept my new definition in all the other languages also.  B)  Gotcha.

I can say the same of you. Don't think we'll get too far but here goes: You prefer to believe man is an animal because you prefer what is most comfortable for you rather than what is true.

Done.

I saw no proof. I did see falsehood. Rejecting your stupid religion does not automatically make people ignorant. That kind of belief is just part of your "comfort package" of silly things you tell yourself over and over, hoping somehow they'll become true.

As far as "proof" goes, just how does one prove the definition of a word needs to be altered? Why not keep the old word, and invent a new one to cover the new meaning? It's a far superior strategy if one desires to communicate clearly and efficiently.

The real issue, if you ever get around to it, is whether or not man has a spirit and/or a soul which distinguishes him from animals. There is no dispute about the chemical composition of our biological bodies, and you know it. In order to call the claim that man is distinct "incorrect", you need to demonstrate that it actually is incorrect. You'll never get beyond the assertion stage.

Also, is there some link or something we're supposed to be discussing. The title of the thread is a mystery.

View Post


Linnaeus obtained authority to classify creatures based on shared characteristics by his many years as a zoologist, botanist, and doctorial status.

It is not slander, rather than the truth. And I need to repeat myself again; Evolution fully supports Linnean taxonomy, but taxonomical system that places humans in with other mammals, and in fact with apes, has been in place since before Charles Darwin had even been born. If you disagree with the taxonomical classification of an animal, then read my original post, and prove that we are not.

Ask yourself this: Why would I, or anyone for that matter, find the idea of belonging to the animal kingdom comforting? My point is that it is more comfortable to people to believe that they are special and separate from the animal kingdom, rather than belonging to it. And also, what truth do you speak of? I have given you the definition of what it is to be an animal, and you have simply not shown how we do not fit it.


"I saw no proof. I did see falsehood." Did you actually read my post? Everything in it is true, and absolutely verifiable.

The actual definition of an animal is a multi-celled creature with a cell membrane.

The only other real definition is specifying that they are land based creatures, mostly referring to mammals.

#23 Ibex Pop

Ibex Pop

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Louisiana, USA

Posted 20 June 2009 - 01:53 PM

Well, this thread has really moved since yesterday, so without quoting and dissecting, let it be known that us being animals is not an argument for how we ought to act. Social (moral) actions serve as much function in a social species as purely mechanical ones might for another. We act out of social instinct, which humans have inherited, and it explains, in broad terms, why we share the morality to not slaughter people wholesale without a good reason (the good reason clause being yet another part off the social mechanics). In this light, would you argue that chimps should start spinning webs and eating their mates? They obviously can't. We're a bit (or a lot, if you prefer) more intelligent, so we can make the observations that might allow us to take on a behavior we like, but in general, we can no more start spinning webs and have women start eating their husbands raw and whole than the chimps can. It's not part of our capacity. Now, if merely knowing that a Christian scientist, Linnaeus, classified you as an animal makes you think you should go out and emulate the other animals however you can, well, maybe you're not the type of person who should research this.

It's a naturalistic fallacy to say we should emulate whatever we see in nature. No "evolutionist" should use this fallacy. If I'm not mistaken, it's being put in our mouths. Regardless of the fact that we should not imitate the whole body of conflicting, often mutually exclusive traits in nature, will anyone argue that we are not a part of it? The naturalistic fallacy is akin to a funtionalistic fallacy: We have arms, so we should always punch, or crawl, or do some other function without regards for how it would serve us, discarding the whole of our social instinct and reason. Does knowing you have arms make you want to do either without reason?

#24 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 20 June 2009 - 02:04 PM

"I saw no proof. I did see falsehood." Did you actually read my post? Everything in it is true, and absolutely verifiable.

View Post

Untrue

However, this is more than likely because few creationists understand what an animal really is.

View Post

Creationists do understand your definition just fine. They just don't accept it. You'll not be proving or verifying otherwise.

#25 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 20 June 2009 - 02:14 PM

I observe another inconsistency. Linnaeus is claimed to have authority to define terms. Did he define God as existent or nonexistent? Someone's cherry-picking.

#26 Ibex Pop

Ibex Pop

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Louisiana, USA

Posted 20 June 2009 - 03:31 PM

I observe another inconsistency. Linnaeus is claimed to have authority to define terms. Did he define God as existent or nonexistent? Someone's cherry-picking.

View Post


I'm not cherry-picking anything, I never even said he defined us as anything (classified is the more appropriate word, which is the reason you switched it on me -- you cannot classify God to exist), but the features he defined in taxonomy are existent. The definition he gave for each of those words -- animal, chordate, vertebrate, tetrapod, hominid -- stands as verifiable (do you dispute that we consume other life or have four plantigrade external limbs or have a backbone?). You're playing with words in such a way as to use two definitions at once with the implication they are the same. Linnaeus gave us classification, explaining what we were classified as all the way down; he considered God to exist. Both are appropriately covered by "defined", but they are not the same kind of definition.

Incidentally, people can be right about one thing and wrong about another. If you debate his classification, you've a brazen disregard for observable fact, whereas God is devoid of any heatsignature detectable by NASA. I think he was wrong about God, but I know that we meet his classification as animals, under the definition he gave. You're free to posit whatever supernatural agent that sets us apart from the other animals if you like -- Humans are the only animals with souls. Humans are the alone in possessing X trait -- but we are animals, just the same, so you may want to start using a new word to refer to us separately, or the old one which lists us explicitly, "human", but we are still animals insofar as objective fact exists.

You may disagree on the colloquial meaning, and I think that's the only place you do disagree, but you should realize that animal is not a scientific classification for anything not human, but a description that we fit just as much as vertebrate. The OP stands.

#27 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 20 June 2009 - 06:31 PM

Sif,Jun 20 2009, 10:22 PM]
Lets clone a Neanderthal and try, what do you say?


Yes lets B) How do you suppose we'll achieve this?

But seriously, If they ever get to do this, that would be incredible to say the least. I personally do not agree with cloning, but it'd be a feat indeed if they cloned a Neanderthal from fossil DNA.

That way he'd be clearly observed, which would put a halt to the assumptions and bias depictions of the typical animated brute-like pictures and descriptions we're presented with.

http://evolution-fac...ook/E-H-13a.htm

Neanderthals had larger craniums than we do. They had larger brains! This indicates regression of our race from a former longer-lived, more intelligent, race rather than evolutionary progression. Brain capacity is an important indicator of whether a cranium (the part of the skull which encloses the brain) belongs to an ape or a person.

"The cranial capacity of the Neanderthal race of Homo sapiens was, on the average, equal to or even greater than that in modern man."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Changing Man," in Science, January 27, 1967, p. 410.

"Normal human brain size is 1450cc.-1500 cc. Neanderthal’s is 1600 cc. If his brow is low, his brain is larger than modern man’s."—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 87.

"The [Neanderthal] brain case on the average was more than 13 percent larger than that of the average of modern man."—Erich A. von Fange, "Time Upside Down," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1974, p. 23.

They also had well-developed culture, art, and religion. At the present time, most scientists agree that Neanderthals were just plain people that lived in caves for a time. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for this change in thinking to be seen in children’s textbooks.


Hardly the stuff of brute-like and primitive ancestry eh?

The Neanderthals possessed the hyoid bone, which is necessary for human speech. They have been found with tools and weapons, cave drawings, evidences of burial, and even a musical instrument. In fact, the finger holes of the Neanderthal flute found in Slovenia in 1995 were spaced according to the diatonic scale – do re me fa so la ti do – which argues that its maker possessed both intelligence and a musical ear. The Neanderthal image is having to be revamped as scientists realize that while they were thicker boned and more physically powerful than we are today, these humans were also intelligent, creative, and spiritually-aware people.

In fact, Dr. Jack Cuozzo, a New Jersey orthodontist who has studied several of the Neanderthal skulls firsthand, argues that based on his experience of studying bone growth, the Neanderthals may have simply lived extremely long lives - perhaps 400-500 years rather than our typical 80.

Ironically, the name Neander is a classical version of Neumann, which means "new man." Even more ironic is the way the "New Man" Valley received its name. In the mid 1600s, a young man named Joachin Neander settled in Dusseldorf, Germany as rector of the Latin school. While suspended from teaching during some disagreements with the Reformed church, he spent a great deal of time walking in the nearby river valley and writing hymns. Apparently, he spent so much time in that pleasant valley near Dusseldorf, it was later named for him. His hymns were published and some, like the following verse, are sung today.

"Praise ye the Lord the Almighty, the King of Creation
Oh my soul praise him for he is thy health and salvation
All ye who hear, now to his temple draw near
Join me in glad adoration."

As scientists work to place the Neanderthals in their appropriate place in human history, the very name given these ancient humans brings to mind that other Neander Valley man who praised God as the Almighty – and perhaps the Neanderthal bones, even now, are bringing glory to the same King of Creation.



Related Links:
• Joachim Neander - Answers.com
• Neanderthal Flute - NYU
• Neanderthal: 99.5 Percent Human - Live Science
• Saint Cesaire - eMuseum
• What About the Neanderthals? - Creation Defense
• The Continuing Story of Neandert(h)al Man - Centrum voor Recht and ICT



http://www.evolution...chapter10_2.php

NEANDERTHAL SKULL. A ROBUST PEOPLE!
Posted Image


IN CONTRAST: THE ANIMATED EVOLUTIONARY DEPICTIONPosted Image


26,000 YEAR OLD NEEDLE: An interesting fossil showing that the Neanderthals had knowledge of clothing: A needle 26,000 years old. (D. Johanson, B. Edgar From Lucy to Language, p. 99)


Posted Image


NEANDERTHAL FLUTE: (check this Neanderthal Flute - NYU to find out more information)
Posted Image

And here is something interesting too:

A Hut 1.7 Million Years Old
Posted Image
Findings of a 1.7 million-year-old hut shocked the scientific community. It looked like the huts used by some Africans today.

There have been many findings demonstrating that Homo sapiens dates back even earlier than 800,000 years. One of them is a discovery by Louis Leakey in the early 1970s in Olduvai Gorge. Here, in the Bed II layer, Leakey discovered that Australopithecus, Homo Habilis and Homo erectus species had co-existed at the same time. What is even more interesting was a structure Leakey found in the same layer (Bed II). Here, he found the remains of a stone hut. The unusual aspect of the event was that this construction, which is still used in some parts of Africa, could only have been built by Homo sapiens! So, according to Leakey's findings, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and modern man must have co-existed approximately 1.7 million years ago.93 
This discovery must surely invalidate the evolutionary theory that claims that modern men evolved from ape-like species such as Australopithecus.


An ape-like, primitive past?

Our closest common ancestor with chimps lived 6 million years ago. thats not really very close, but whatever.


Oh and you have clear cut evidence of this? Please do present the undeniable lineage from the common ancestor leading up to modern day man. No animated chart scenarios. Let's see the fossil evidences for this.

By apes, you do realize that humans are apes? (homo sapiens sapiens is under the taxonomic rank Hominidae, otherwise known as Great Apes. So what evidence do we have that apes can mate humans? Because humans ARE apes.


Because scientists have decided to classify humans in the "apes" taxonomic group is hardly surprising, considering the massive efforts to push evolution. See how far you get in todays areas of science/biology without conforming to the evolution belief system.

Why do so many scientists endorse evolution?

If we ARE apes, then successful interbreeding should be no problem. Do you have evidence of such a successful outcome, rather than just telling everybody we're apes and therefore it must be so.

First of all i'd like to mention that there is subspecies and infraspecies 

Secondly, you fail
Chimpanzees aren't in our genus, they are a separate subtribe (panina) / genus (pan)

You fail. I mentioned apes, not chimps.

How about Endogenous Retroviruses? Sure you can claim that it's a wild coincidence that our ERV's line up with the ERV's in chimps genome, whatever. But this doesn't explain why we have more ERV's in common with our closest relative and less and less the farther we go in the phylogenetic sense, as confirmed by every single other independent field of biology.

We also have cancers and other diseases in common with animals. That fact that ERV's line up with the ERV's in chimps is not too surprising either. This is no way contrasts with creation/Genesis. We share a common designer and common matter!

However, it is also interesting that the are enough differences between us and the primates that the parts used to replace heart valves etc in people are taken from pig parts, not the parts from apes. Why is this so? If we are merely apes, why is it that we do not use the parts from apes when such things go wrong and need replacing? We reject ape parts, but we do not reject pig parts. In fact, my doctor is trying to get my on thyroid pills (pig thyroid).

Perhaps this makes us pigs? B)

I have also heard evolution claim that we share a common ancestor with rats. I'm sure many of us could class a few humans as pigs, apes and rats on occassion.

Oh really? Well even basic biology indicates that the Cheetah is the fastest land mammal, so they are clearly not animals. The blue whale is the largest extant creature in this planet. Clearly, it's not an animal.


What does speed of foot, or brute strength for that matter have to do with the unique mind of man? Many animals are stronger and faster than human beings. The mind of the human being is unique from that of the animals. This is what I have explained to you, which you have either ignored or overlooked as though it's "trivia". How can it be trivia when you consider the achievements of mankind throughout history and the fact you'd not be sitting on here debating about anything at all if it was not for the human abilities you have been endowed with that separates you from the other animals.

Now you're being very subjective and selective. You can't just pick out one character and claim it to be the thing that separates one species from the rest of them. They all are different. Duh!

Duh! I did not point to ONE character! Unless of course you consider the human mind as ONE characteristic? Observation should be a key in pointing out the obvious alone, but evidentally it escapes you completely. The incredible detail of the human brain and all that's involved would take much for you to try and analyse! This control center is not the only thing that seperates us from animals, but it would have to be one of the main ones! More complex than a computer! Hardly the stuff of trivia.

And some have the gifts of just being a redneck? BTW a singer has more of a vocal ability than cerebral. As i already pointed out: yes, we are more intelligent than other species, so what?


Yes, but even a redneck can perform mental tasks that animals cannot. The mind of man is indeed unique. Ignoring that fact or making out "So what" just shows the deliberate limitations you wish to set on this in order to support your theory.

Actually our spine isn't very related to the ability for upright posture, it's our pelvis that does the trick. And it wasn't designed, it evolved. Same way you could pour some water in a glass and say that it was clearly designed for that shape.


You should add muscles and ligaments. Each of these was designed by an intelligent mind to be put together for the desired function and result. They didn't self assemble I assure you. Unless you can give me an example of such.

How did the glass get there and what shaped it? Did it evolve?

Singling out a characteristic and saying it separates us from others is just childish.

Making out I singled out a "characteristic" is both dishonest, dismissive and incorrect.

Here's a small quiz to know if you're an animal

Are you eukaryotic? I assume yes
Are you multicellular? I assume yes
Are you a heterotroph? I assume yes
Are you lacking a cell wall? I assume yes
Are you motile? yes

Then you're an animal


And this is all it takes to convince you that we must be animals? One wonders, do you take what seperates us from the animals into account?

I have some for you :D And I'll make it even easier by comparing humans with their most "closest" relative! Rather than just animals collectively. Let me know how you go on these.

Which set of 18 traits do you relate to?

Here is the first set of 18 traits:

1. Small brains, averaging about 400 cc

2. Have no neck - spine joins skull from the back; extensive muscular connections between head and shoulder, suitable for climbing

3. Have a C-shaped spine for walking on all fours

4. Jaws protrude, to see better upwards than downwards

5. 29 facial muscles for expression and recognition

6. Small semi-circular canals in the inner ear

7. Arms longer than the legs

8. Four hands for climbing; knuckle-walking on all fours

9. Knee joints do not lock upright

10. Hairy body for heat insula- tion, no female pubic hair or male top lip; no long beard or moustache possible

11. Sclera of the eye brown, white rarely shown

12. Hip joints do not extend fully upright so can only stand with bent legs

13. Short Achilles tendon

14. Nails grow more like claws, very slowly

15. Larynx and vocal cords capable of only simple sounds

16. Ears sensitive to frequencies of 1-8 kilohertz

17. No hymen in female; male *that word not allowed* has a bone or baculum for erection; female fertility not hidden

18. Mammary glands purely for milk production; easy birth of young


Second set of 18 traits:

1. Brain size is large but very variable, averaging about 1400 cc (fossils range from 700 to 1800 cc); humans have a highly developed cortex, wired differently from the chimp cortex

2. Have a neck - spine joins skull from below; head stabilised by nuchal ligament

3. Have an S-shaped spine for upright stance and walking

4. Faces are flat, to see both upwards and downwards (necessary for walking)

5. 53 facial muscles for more complex social relationships

6. Large semi-circular canals in the inner ear, for balance in the vertical plane

7. Legs longer than the arms

8. Feet unlike hands, suitable for walking rather than climbing

9. Knee joints that lock upright

10. Constantly growing hairs on top of head; hairy male face, pubic hairs, otherwise hair is sparse

11. Sclera are white, and often shown by use of extra face muscles, for expression

12. Hip joints extend upright; large buttock muscles and pelvic attachment areas aid running; additional buttock fat for beauty

13. Long Achilles tendon

14. Finger and toe nails grow fast

15. Larynx and vocal chords capable of complex sounds, including singing

16. Ears sensitive to frequencies of 2-4 kilohertz, suitable for hearing speech

17. Hymen in female; male *that word not allowed* made erect entirely by blood, and twice size of apes; female fertility hidden

18. Female breasts enhanced by body fat for beauty, birth of young slow and painful


We all share in common a common designer who made us, birds and beasts from the matter of the earth! It is expected that we share many biologic similarities, and breath the same oxygen, and in "many" circumstances can consume the same foods the creator has provided in abundance. This must be so, or the land dwelling creatures would be incompatible with the earth itself and the foods that grow forth from it.

It is He whom has provided us with the means to live and thrive upon the same earth. We must be biologically compatible!

But what makes man unique and separated from the animals? Not just our creative and unique mind, and not just the other obvious differences, but God breathed into us a living soul.

See to you as an atheist? This is meaningless. So it is hardly surprising that you classify humans as mere animals! But I can guarantee you, that you'd not be too happy to be locked behind a cage at a zoo! It's interesting how suddenly aware one is of their differences to other animals, even apes when it suits!

Our beliefs of what we are so often grounded upon our beliefs about our origins.
For me as a believer? I do not believe that mere chance/coincidence occurances are responsible for the earth and the universe, the natural laws, or the life upon it. Everything around smacks of blatant design! A life giver, a law giver, a provider!

#28 Guest_Anghellik9_*

Guest_Anghellik9_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 June 2009 - 10:53 AM

Untrue
Creationists do understand your definition just fine. They just don't accept it. You'll not be proving or verifying otherwise.

View Post


You think it's untrue? Then prove it.

Animals, by scientific definition, are Eukaryotic, multi-cellular heterotrophs. You fit this description. Therefore, you are technically an animal. Read through my original post, and ask yourself: Do humans fit into the definitions?

By not accepting it, you don't make it any less true. Putting the blinder on doesn't make reality go away, however distasteful you may find it.

I observe another inconsistency. Linnaeus is claimed to have authority to define terms. Did he define God as existent or nonexistent? Someone's cherry-picking.


He believed that God existed, but knew that it would be unscientific to state that he did exist in a scientific arena without any empirical evidence. If someone believed seriously that Godzilla existed, and was a qualified paleontologist, and claimed that it absolutely did exist while having no evidence pointing towards that conclusion, he would lose his credibility, reputation, and more than likely, his job as well.

#29 Guest_Anghellik9_*

Guest_Anghellik9_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 June 2009 - 11:59 AM

Before I begin: This is a long, long post, which to be honest, I don't have the time to respond to all at once, so my response will come in 2 or 3 parts, spread out over the next day or so. Let's begin.

[quote name='Bex' date='Jun 20 2009, 06:31 PM']
Yes lets :) How do you suppose we'll achieve this?

But seriously, If they ever get to do this, that would be incredible to say the least. I personally do not agree with cloning, but it'd be a feat indeed if they cloned a Neanderthal from fossil DNA.

That way he'd be clearly observed, which would put a halt to the assumptions and bias depictions of the typical animated brute-like pictures and descriptions we're presented with.

http://evolution-fac...ook/E-H-13a.htm
Hardly the stuff of brute-like and primitive ancestry eh?


Related Links:
• Joachim Neander - Answers.com
• Neanderthal Flute - NYU
• Neanderthal: 99.5 Percent Human - Live Science
• Saint Cesaire - eMuseum
• What About the Neanderthals? - Creation Defense
• The Continuing Story of Neandert(h)al Man - Centrum voor Recht and ICT
http://www.evolution...chapter10_2.php

NEANDERTHAL SKULL. A ROBUST PEOPLE!
IN CONTRAST: THE ANIMATED EVOLUTIONARY DEPICTIONPosted Image

NEANDERTHAL FLUTE: (check this Neanderthal Flute - NYU to find out more information)
Posted Image

And here is something interesting too:

A Hut 1.7 Million Years Old
Posted Image
Findings of a 1.7 million-year-old hut shocked the scientific community. It looked like the huts used by some Africans today.
[/quote]

Neanderthals were (and are, i suppose) a fascinating creature. They were not a member of our ancestry, but rather a distinct "cousin" species, as we both were derived from Homo Erectus. Unfortunately for the neanderthals, the most likely scenario surrounding their extinction is that humans killed them, through tribal warfare and out-competing them for food due to a larger population. Neanderthals look fairly brutish, but that doesn't mean they are. Science has known of their (relatively) advanced society for a very long time.

Oh, and i'm not sure where you found the picture of the neanderthal hut. I would be interested in looking at that.

[QUOTE]
There have been many findings demonstrating that Homo sapiens dates back even earlier than 800,000 years. One of them is a discovery by Louis Leakey in the early 1970s in Olduvai Gorge. Here, in the Bed II layer, Leakey discovered that Australopithecus, Homo Habilis and Homo erectus species had co-existed at the same time. What is even more interesting was a structure Leakey found in the same layer (Bed II). Here, he found the remains of a stone hut. The unusual aspect of the event was that this construction, which is still used in some parts of Africa, could only have been built by Homo sapiens! So, according to Leakey's findings, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and modern man must have co-existed approximately 1.7 million years ago.93 
This discovery must surely invalidate the evolutionary theory that claims that modern men evolved from ape-like species such as Australopithecus.

[/QUOTE]

First off, I would really like to see this article sourced, as the most recent Afarensis fossil ever found is over 2.9 million years old, and the most recent Erectus being around 1 million years old, giving you the most liberal estimates possible.

Oh, and doesn't that article you quote invalidate young earth creationism, giving it this date of 800,000 years? And you accept A. Afarensis now?
[QUOTE]
An ape-like, primitive past?
Oh and you have clear cut evidence of this? Please do present the undeniable lineage from the common ancestor leading up to modern day man. No animated chart scenarios. Let's see the fossil evidences for this.
Because scientists have decided to classify humans in the "apes" taxonomic group is hardly surprising, considering the massive efforts to push evolution. See how far you get in todays areas of science/biology without conforming to the evolution belief system.
[/QUOTE]
Why do so many scientists endorse evolution?

Posted Image

...Need I say much more? And I think this is the fifth time i've said this now: Humans were classified as belonging to the ape family long before Darwin had even been born. Yet you still push taxonomy as being a part of some grand conspiracy.


If we ARE apes, then successful interbreeding should be no problem. Do you have evidence of such a successful outcome, rather than just telling everybody we're apes and therefore it must be so.
[/quote]
Are you joking? our DNA needs to be even closer than 99% similiar to successfully procreate.

Note: I had to delete some of your photos, as it would not let me post my reply with them on.

#30 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 21 June 2009 - 12:10 PM

You think it's untrue? Then prove it.

View Post

You made the accusation. The burden of proof is yours.


You declined to retract or amend it.

It is not slander, rather than the truth.

View Post

You even said

Did you actually read my post? Everything in it is true, and absolutely verifiable.

View Post

So now it's time for you to commence proving. Or "absolutely verifying", if you prefer.

#31 Guest_Anghellik9_*

Guest_Anghellik9_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 June 2009 - 12:15 PM

You made the accusation. The burden of proof is yours.
You declined to retract or amend it.

You even said

So now it's time for you to commence proving. Or "absolutely verifying", if you prefer.

View Post


Proving that we are, by definition, animals is actually quite simple. Anything fitting into the classification of "animal" is a heterotrophic, multi-cellular eukaryote. This is a classification that is extremely broad, and quite simply means that an animal is a single creature made up of multiple cells, and it's cellular structure consists of a membrane, as opposed to a cell wall, and digests food in an internal chamber. Humans fit quite easily into this classification, and thus: humans are animals, and the same holds true for bugs, birds, fish, and lions.


Hooray for me lol.

#32 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 21 June 2009 - 12:39 PM

Not even going to make an attempt?

Figures...

#33 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 21 June 2009 - 12:49 PM

When I said "figures...", that was short for "It figures". This basically means "it's exactly what one would expect".

* That's for the benefit of our foreign members - the ones who are truly foreign, and not just some clown in California lying about himself. (And yes, I'm aware how foreign California is, too.)

#34 Guest_Anghellik9_*

Guest_Anghellik9_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 June 2009 - 01:21 PM

Not even going to make an attempt?

Figures...

View Post


Can you see my quote? If not, here it is.

"Proving that we are, by definition, animals is actually quite simple. Anything fitting into the classification of "animal" is a heterotrophic, multi-cellular eukaryote. This is a classification that is extremely broad, and quite simply means that an animal is a single creature made up of multiple cells, and it's cellular structure consists of a membrane, as opposed to a cell wall, and digests food in an internal chamber. Humans fit quite easily into this classification, and thus: humans are part of the animal kingdom, and the same holds true for bugs, birds, fish, and lions."

What part of this statement can you disprove again?

#35 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 21 June 2009 - 01:49 PM

Anghe,

You do understand that the word 'animal' can have different definitions in different contexts?

What is your fixation on this word? Are you intent on limiting attributes just to the physical? Are you intent in limiting the discussion to bolster your naturalistic presuppositions? Are you hoping to look smart because you can feel that you're correcting us? What is your angle and motive? Lay it out for us.

#36 Guest_Anghellik9_*

Guest_Anghellik9_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 June 2009 - 02:07 PM

Anghe,

You do understand that the word 'animal' can have different definitions in different contexts?

What is is your fixation on this word? Are you intent on limiting attributes just to the physical? Are you intent in limiting the discussion to bolster your naturalistic presuppositions? Are you hoping to look smart because you can feel that you're correcting us? What is your angle and motive. Lay it out for us.

View Post


My definition and context is the one used in taxonomy, and it is the truth.

And my angle? Everything found in evolution fits taxonomy and Phylogeny almost perfectly, and is completely relative to the theory. Is this forum not for the discussion of the theory of evolution?

More personally, what is my angle and motive? To promote Science. The real danger of creationism is that it holds back scientific advance, as many of the followers of your movement are intent on hurting science, something which has made our standard of living a practical utopis compared to that in which our ancestors lived just 200 years ago.

This is done by attempting to ban evolution, which is the unifying force of biology, or teach an unvalidated an unprovable claim that something, an "Intelligent Designer" made the world, as a secondary alternative, which offers no real answer, and does nothing to further our knowledge, and permits no further research. This has the exact same effect as saying "God did it"and stopping research. What this does is make less people join in science, which makes our lives a great deal better.

Sorry about the rant, but there's my "Angle".

What is yours?

#37 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 21 June 2009 - 02:20 PM

First: I put your response on this post:

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=32778

What is yours?

View Post


I think evolution is from the pit of Hell and one of the most foolish lies foisted on to the minds of men (and women). I want to see it exposed as the mind rotting deception that it is. I also want to equip other Christians to expose and debunk this pseudoscience, that is leading many young people to feel justified in abandoning the only hope this world has to offer in Jesus Christ and His saving grace through the cross on Calvary, His shed blood and His miraculous resurrection.

Pretty straight forward, huh?

BTW, there is no science that needs evolution concepts to work and it is not the reason we have the scientific method. Oh and most if not all foundational sciences that actually produce anything useful were discovered by creationists. Go figure.

#38 Guest_Anghellik9_*

Guest_Anghellik9_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 June 2009 - 03:17 PM

First: I put your response on this post:

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=32778
I think evolution is from the pit of Hell and one of the most foolish lies foisted on to the minds of men (and women). I want to see it exposed as the mind rotting deception that it is. I also want to equip other Christians to expose and debunk this pseudoscience, that is leading many young people to feel justified in abandoning the only hope this world has to offer in Jesus Christ and His saving grace through the cross on Calvary, His shed blood and His miraculous resurrection.

Pretty straight forward, huh?

BTW, there is no science that needs evolution concepts to work and it is not the reason we have the scientific method. Oh and most if not all foundational sciences that actually produce anything useful were discovered by creationists. Go figure.

View Post


Nothing I haven't heard before. The belief that evolution is, somehow, from Satan because it contradicts Genesis is a pretty old concept, one which I don't think anyone who believes in evolution (theistic or otherwise) agrees with.

How does evolution rot minds? I would consider myself to be at least moderately intelligent, especially for my age group, and I am one of few people I know (on a personal level at any rate) that actually studies the theory.

Evolution does not require you to abandon Christ, or Christianity. I turned towards Atheism without any push towards it by evolution, and in fact, most people who believe in evolution believe that God guided the process. The only thing that is required is a non-literal interpretation of Genesis. As a perfect example:

Another outspoken proponent of evolution, Dr. Robert T. Bakker, (who has PhDs from both Harvard and Yale) is not only one of the leading, and most recognizable paleontologists in the world today, but he also happens to be a Bible-believing Pentecostal preacher; though he interprets Genesis differently than literalists would.  In his book, Bones, Bibles and Creation, he says that to treat the Bible as though it were common history is to degrade its eternal meaning.

Source - http://darwinwasrigh...om/1stFFoC.html

Here is one excellent example of why evolution is necessary for science:

Understanding evolution helps us solve biological problems that impact our lives. There are excellent examples of this in the field of medicine. To stay one step ahead of pathogenic diseases, researchers must understand the evolutionary patterns of disease-causing organisms. To control hereditary diseases in people, researchers study the evolutionary histories of the disease-causing genes. In these ways, a knowledge of evolution can improve the quality of human life.


Source: http://evolution.ber...0_0/medicine_06



It's not the reason the scientific method exists, I never said it was. However, it is necessary to apply it in all fields of science. (hence, scientific method).

#39 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 21 June 2009 - 03:31 PM

Nothing I haven't heard before. The belief that evolution is, somehow, from Satan because it contradicts Genesis is a pretty old concept...

View Post

Let's go one step further. It contradicts reality. Satan is the father of all lies. Evolution is a lie, therefore Satan is its ultimate author.

It's not the reason the scientific method exists, I never said it was. However, it is necessary to apply it in all fields of science. (hence, scientific method).

View Post

This isn't true. Show us how evolution (no shell games please.) needs to be applied to do physics, surgery, engineering, even taxonomy doesn't need evolution and paleontology doesn't need it either. This following thread is awful quiet, if what you say is true:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2347

#40 Guest_Anghellik9_*

Guest_Anghellik9_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 June 2009 - 03:49 PM

Let's go one step further. It contradicts reality. Satan is the father of all lies. Evolution is a lie, therefore Satan is its ultimate author.
This isn't true. Show us how evolution (no shell games please.) needs to be applied to do physics, surgery, engineering, even taxonomy doesn't need evolution and paleontology doesn't need it either. This following thread is awful quiet, if what you say is true:


http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2347

View Post


Your problem here is that you assert that evolution is a lie, when I claim that it is not. How does creation explain the descending DNA pattern, the prescence of geological strata and the relative uniformity that the fossil record exhibits when all the creatures we find become more complex the closer we get to the modern age, with the various dating systems showing that the deeper we go, the older the organisms become.

you are also misrepresenting my argument when you say
"Show us how evolution eeds to be applied to do physics, surgery, engineering, even taxonomy doesn't need evolution and paleontology doesn't need it either."
When I made no claim that it did, except that Paleontology only really makes sense with evolution, and taxonomy fully supports it.

Also, you equate the scientific method with evolution, when the scientific method is simply requiring evidence, and limiting assertions to the natural unviverse.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users