An example of Creation Science

[juvenissun]

I am criticizing the hypocrisy in juvenissun’s position that we are mammals but not apes because of their intelligence.

Why is it a hypocrisy? It is perfectly scientific.

 

[juvenissun]

Actually I believe the more reasonable or pertinent question is why are we so much different from apes and other animals. The similarities between man and ape are primarily physical, in almost every other important way we're very much different. In my opinion, this is the greatest challenge evolution faces. Science, specifically evolution, can't adequately explain the uniqueness of humans compared to all animals, not just apes. I also believe as a TE it is the single biggest challenge they must accurately account for. I have yet to hear any sort of evolutionary explanation that can adequately explain the human soul and spirit. Creation, through God's Word, certainly does!
Dolphins are more intelligent that most other groups of mammals also, does that mean we also descended from them? Whether one group of animals is smarter than another makes no difference, none can come close to comparing to the intelligence of human beings. This is why we are unique and made in the image of God.

This is taken as the greatest challenge to Evolution because the problem is current and all the data are available. Yet we can not understand.

Similar problem (may be smaller in contrast), in fact, exist in all species of fossil record. The difference is most of the data are gone and we could not restore all the details. This allows A LOT of rooms for interpretation and nobody can prove or disprove anything. Evolution is simply a huge science fiction. It does not match reality which is exampled by the contrast between human and ape.

Imagine, if we and ape both extinct and human civilization were all wiped clean. When later intelligent species compare fossils of ape and human, I bet they could not imagine that human had the civilization as we have today. This is the ridiculous nature of evolution theory based on taxonomy.

 

[lemmings]

Why is it a hypocrisy?

You believe that we are mammals, but not apes. Why not apes? Because humans are smarter than the average ape.

The average ape however is more intelligent than the average mammal. Therefore your position fails.

Why don’t you hold mammals up to the same standard of intelligence as apes?

 

[vossler]

I think you think that TE is something different than it is. Why would discussion about the human soul and spirit be more difficult for a TE than it would be for a YEC? I'm sure you don't think that your soul and spirit were biologically transmitted to you from your parents, right? Why should evolution (a matter of biology) make a difference?

So you're explanation is that somewhere during the transition from ape to human God intervened and implanted our soul and spirit? How is this reconciled with modern evolutionary theory? Where does evolution state the soul and spirit originates? Where is the science behind it?

 

[vossler]

This is taken as the greatest challenge to Evolution because the problem is current and all the data are available. Yet we can not understand.

Similar problem (may be smaller in contrast), in fact, exist in all species of fossil record. The difference is most of the data are gone and we could not restore all the details. This allows A LOT of rooms for interpretation and nobody can prove or disprove anything. Evolution is simply a huge science fiction. It does not match reality which is exampled by the contrast between human and ape.

Imagine, if we and ape both extinct and human civilization were all wiped clean. When later intelligent species compare fossils of ape and human, I bet they could not imagine that human had the civilization as we have today. This is the ridiculous nature of evolution theory based on taxonomy.

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']This has been my argument against evolution from the beginning. There is far too much conjecture and speculation involved in order for me to take it too seriously. Then when I see the fervency that most evolutionists hold to their 'theory', rejecting any and all criticisms to the point of using all means available to silence their critics; well it further demonstrates that the theory is, and always has been, on thin ice. This was made clear to everyone when a simple sticker on a textbook could get the whole movement bonded and unified to resist the potential for criticism. Science is supposed to invite criticism; in this case it looks to suppress it. It's quite interesting and rather humorous that a theory based on so many facts can be so afraid of a simple sticker.[/FONT]

 

[vossler]

This is taken as the greatest challenge to Evolution because the problem is current and all the data are available. Yet we can not understand.

Similar problem (may be smaller in contrast), in fact, exist in all species of fossil record. The difference is most of the data are gone and we could not restore all the details. This allows A LOT of rooms for interpretation and nobody can prove or disprove anything. Evolution is simply a huge science fiction. It does not match reality which is exampled by the contrast between human and ape.

Imagine, if we and ape both extinct and human civilization were all wiped clean. When later intelligent species compare fossils of ape and human, I bet they could not imagine that human had the civilization as we have today. This is the ridiculous nature of evolution theory based on taxonomy.

This has been my argument against evolution from the beginning. There is far too much conjecture and speculation involved in order for me to take it too seriously. Then when I see the fervency that most evolutionists hold to their 'theory', rejecting any and all criticisms to the point of using all means available to silence their critics; well it further demonstrates that the theory is, and always has been, on thin ice. This was made clear to everyone when a simple sticker on a textbook could get the whole movement bonded and unified to resist the potential for criticism. Science is supposed to invite criticism; in this case it looks to suppress it. It's quite interesting and rather humorous that a theory based on so many facts can be so afraid of a simple sticker.

 

[juvenissun]

You believe that we are mammals, but not apes. Why not apes? Because humans are smarter than the average ape.

The average ape however is more intelligent than the average mammal. Therefore your position fails.

Why don’t you hold mammals up to the same standard of intelligence as apes?

No no no... The scale is totally off.

ape to other mammals --> 100 to 50
Human to ape ---> 10E20 to 10E2

Don't ask me for source of data, I don't have it. But that is the argument.

 

[gluadys]

So you're explanation is that somewhere during the transition from ape to human God intervened and implanted our soul and spirit? How is this reconciled with modern evolutionary theory? Where does evolution state the soul and spirit originates? Where is the science behind it?

What is there to be reconciled? Science makes no statement about the soul and spirit. It says nothing about the origin of the soul or spirit. There is no science behind it.

So there is no science relative to the soul or spirit that a TE needs to figure out how to reconcile with modern evolutionary theory.

 

[lemmings]

No no no... The scale is totally off.

ape to other mammals --> 100 to 50
Human to ape ---> 10E20 to 10E2

Don't ask me for source of data, I don't have it. But that is the argument.

You are saying that we are a quintillion times more intelligent than the great apes? And 2 quintillion times more intelligent than the average mammal?

“Recent experiments with Koko, the gorilla who has been taught American Sign
Language, indicate she has an IQ equivalent to a 3 or 4 year old human.”
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99379.htm



BTW, this still doesn’t explain why you hold apes to a different standard of intelligence than other mammals.

 

[juvenissun]

You are saying that we are a quintillion times more intelligent than the great apes? And 2 quintillion times more intelligent than the average mammal?

“Recent experiments with Koko, the gorilla who has been taught American Sign
Language, indicate she has an IQ equivalent to a 3 or 4 year old human.”
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99379.htm



BTW, this still doesn’t explain why you hold apes to a different standard of intelligence than other mammals.

Old argument.

If so, why don't we see an ape society even one tenth (or one hundredth) of the development compare to ours? Why don't they cook their food?

 

[lemmings]

If so, why don't we see an ape society even one tenth (or one hundredth) of the development compare to ours? Why don't they cook their food?

Toddlers cook their food? Did preschoolers build Rome?



I want to know where those absurd numbers came from that says that we are a quintillion times smarter than other apes, and you are STILL ignoring my initial point that you have established a double standard for intelligence.

 

[Willtor]

So you're explanation is that somewhere during the transition from ape to human God intervened and implanted our soul and spirit?

No. But it is one possibility among many - assuming soul and spirit are legitimately describable using those terms.

How is this reconciled with modern evolutionary theory? Where does evolution state the soul and spirit originates? Where is the science behind it?

It isn't reconciled with modern evolutionary theory. If evolution addressed the soul and spirit I wouldn't be a proponent of it.

 

[juvenissun]

Toddlers cook their food? Did preschoolers build Rome?



I want to know where those absurd numbers came from that says that we are a quintillion times smarter than other apes, and you are STILL ignoring my initial point that you have established a double standard for intelligence.

They will when they grow up. Old ape is simply an old ape, nothing else.

The number is use to put the two onto the same scale, not on double scale. If you could tell me the number of times of different between firing a gun and throwing a rock, then I can calculate that number for you.

 

[Assyrian]

They will when they grow up. Old ape is simply an old ape, nothing else.

That's cause toddlers brains grow as they get older. So really you are admitting the difference between adult humans and adult ape, the reason humans can achieve so much more than apes in culture and technology, is that our brains grow from the size and complexity of a toddler, while toddler intelligence is the most ape brains achieve. And the biological impossibility you see in brains developing from the size of an apes to an adult human, is actually achieved by most toddlers in a few years. Why shouldn't evolution be able to achieve the same result by simple genetic changes that give greater brain size and complexity given millions of years since we diverged from the other apes?

 

[Assyrian]

They will when they grow up. Old ape is simply an old ape, nothing else.

That's cause toddlers brains grow as they get older. So really you are admitting the difference between adult humans and adult ape, the reason humans can achieve so much more than apes in culture and technology, is that our brains grow from the size and complexity of a toddler, while toddler intelligence is the most ape brains achieve. And the biological impossibility you see in brains developing from the size of an apes to an adult human, is actually achieved by most toddlers in a few years. Why shouldn't evolution be able to achieve the same result by simple genetic changes that give greater brain size and complexity given millions of years since we diverged from the other apes?

 

[juvenissun]

That's cause toddlers brains grow as they get older. So really you are admitting the difference between adult humans and adult ape, the reason humans can achieve so much more than apes in culture and technology, is that our brains grow from the size and complexity of a toddler, while toddler intelligence is the most ape brains achieve. And the biological impossibility you see in brains developing from the size of an apes to an adult human, is actually achieved by most toddlers in a few years. Why shouldn't evolution be able to achieve the same result by simple genetic changes that give greater brain size and complexity given millions of years since we diverged from the other apes?

No, the difference between adult man and adult ape is obvious. However, human baby ALREADY shows sign of difference. For example, toddlers can "give" and can "help", which even an old old ape could not do.

The brain size argument is backward. It is the result, not the cause.

 

[Assyrian]

Lots of creatures display altruism so that doesn't help you argument. The brain size argument is one where you claim the difference in intelligence between ape and human is far too great to be explained by evolution, but when we look at your argument we find apes have similar intelligence levels to a toddler, which is clearly not the massive uncrossable chasm to adult human intelligence you claim. Your argument is simply without foundation.

Are there difference between toddlers and apes? Of course there are. Toddlers are immature form of adult humans and show signs of what they will grow into. But you argument was based on claiming
the mental abilities of apes and human as just too far apart to have evolved. They clearly aren't. If an ape can have the intelligence level of a toddler, it did not take that much for our ape ancestors to evolve into modern humans with our larger brains and human intelligence.

 

[Mallon]

For example, toddlers can "give" and can "help", which even an old old ape could not do.

Sure they do. A simple Google search will prove as much. Here's the first hit I got when I Googled "chimpanzee help":

http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=3411

Even a brief trip to the zoo will show that apes can behave altruisticaly.

 

[lemmings]

The number is use to put the two onto the same scale

How can that be a scale? You just wrote a number that sounded big and then compared it to a hundred which apparently is the base intelligence for an ape according to you. You didn’t realize that that big sounding number was a quintillion times larger than the other however.

To put it into perspective how absurd it is to say that a human is a quintillion times more intelligent than an ape: a human has an estimated 50-trillion cells, this is 20 times smaller than a quintillion. See a problem with that?

, not on double scale.

Let me try explaining it to you again.

You agree with me that humans are mammals, but you believe that we are not apes.

When asked why we cannot be apes, you state that apes are dumb and we are trillions of times smarter than them.

Apes are actually intelligent compared to other mammals.

If apes are closer than the generic mammal to us in intelligence, why is it that you exclude them but not the more distant group?

If you could tell me the number of times of different between firing a gun and throwing a rock, then I can calculate that number for you.

What did you say?

 

[juvenissun]

How can that be a scale? You just wrote a number that sounded big and then compared it to a hundred which apparently is the base intelligence for an ape according to you. You didn’t realize that that big sounding number was a quintillion times larger than the other however.

To put it into perspective how absurd it is to say that a human is a quintillion times more intelligent than an ape: a human has an estimated 50-trillion cells, this is 20 times smaller than a quintillion. See a problem with that?

No. You are wrong again. Intelligence is not measured by the number of cells. It might be measured by the electric activities take place in the brain. The number, the possibility and the pattern of that type of activity could be bigger then E20 or E30.