-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Somehow,somewhere,somewhen
- Thread starter twinc
- Start date
- Apr 17, 2006
- 6,467
- 4,001
- 47
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- AU-Greens
Australopithecus afarensis
They have listings of feet and hips found with some of the fossils, and the reasoning the scientists used to get to bipedal and upright.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Sorry, but that is a tautology at best.
Your definition of "kind" has varied wildly. It has varied so much that even if we use one of the narrowest of definitions of "kind" that you have used it would put other apes and men as the same kind. If you were ever foolish enough to call bacteria a "kind" then you ave expanded kind to the point that men and bananas are the same "kind".
You need to have a working definition of "kind". I can give you a working definition of "species", why can't you do the same for your side.
If you can't properly define kind then you really should not use the term in a debate.
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
I was curious because the feet of Australopithecus were not like modern homo sapiens from what I have read, (although I admit that has been awhile) and what I remembered was that there was at first controversy with the pelvis and rib cage. I know that the feet and hands were considered more chimp like than modern Homo Sapiens. So I was surprised by your comment.
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
In the Creation narrative it states: after its kind when mentioning a kind. This kind means that each kind listed in the narrative comes from a kind that came before. So lets make this easier for discussion purposes. Rather than the three domains, lets say a kind is a kingdom. A kingdom is the kind prior to the kind in the Creation narrative. So when it says: grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind..it would be a kind from the kingdom of plant. We could go back to the three domains of life but by taking it up a step it works too.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
If you are anti-evolution this is a very poor definition since men are of the ape kind, which is a group of the primate kind, which is a group of the mammal kind, which is a group of the tetrapod kind, which is a ... All the way back to the original cell.
Upvote
0
EternalDragon
Counselor
Some scientists say humans are of the ape kind. It is a false assumption just as all the names you dropped back to "the original cell" are, as well. Basically a philosophy on paper only, that is the reverse of what we actually observe in nature.
Since you mentioned the original cell, where did that come from?
Upvote
0
Please present even one scientific paper in which an actual scientist refers to humans as the 'ape kind'. Just one.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Wrong, no scientist actually uses the word "kind", and of the scientists that understand evolution the best well over 99% know that humans are apes. All you have left are a few kooks. Sorry but that is the hard truth.
Second scientists are honest and admit that we are not sure how the first cell came into existence. It is looking more and more like it arose naturally from chemical processes, but we do not have enough evidence to strongly support this claim. That does not mean that we will not have enough evidence in the future.
By the way, it does not matter where the original cell came from and you should know that by now. It could have arisen naturally, come from another planet where it arose naturally, dropped off by E.T. on his way to phone home or even magically poofed into existence by a god. It does not matter. Once it existed it would be subject to the theory of evolution.
Upvote
0
EternalDragon
Counselor
Subduction zone just said it, not me. Ask him. It is from his quote.
Upvote
0
- Apr 17, 2006
- 6,467
- 4,001
- 47
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- AU-Greens
The stuff I've read linked form the wiki page and elsewhere doesn't indicate that it walked as smoothly as us.
Probably a swaying waddle, a little ungainly, but more efficient walking across the plains then the tree living chimpanzee.
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
Yes, but you said specifically that they were more human like and I don't think that is accurate. This is also complicated by the fact that there were fossil footprints in that time frame that are almost identical to modern footprints. So for this time frame with the footprints and the later find of Ardi I find Lucy (and her kind) less stunning or convincing...but that is just mho.
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
Now more concisely it does matter how the original life came about. It may not be included in the ToE and is separate in study, but without the first life form the theory is on shaky ground because the first life forms that we know of are far too complex to be there without something much much simpler coming before them. So it does matter.
Upvote
0
EternalDragon
Counselor
He referred to it. I was using his reference. Are you trying to say humans are NOT of the ape kind?
Post #346
"If you are anti-evolution this is a very poor definition since men are of the ape kind, which is a group of the primate kind, which is a group of the mammal kind, which is a group of the tetrapod kind, which is a ... All the way back to the original cell."
Upvote
0
Dear SZ, False, since man was made long BEFORE the first Stars our Cosmos. Genesis 2:4-7 shows that man was made before plants, herbs, trees, on the THIRD Day, the SAME Day as the Big Bang of our Cosmos, but BEFORE the Stars put forth their light on the FOURTH Day. Genesis 1:16
What you are falsely teaching is that the common ancestor of Apes was made BEFORE our Earth even existed, and some 9 Billion years BEFORE our Solar System was formed. You are getting your information from the False ToE which is easily refuted. You have been duped into believing the biggest Lie in the History of mankind.
In Love,
Aman
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Yes, I said it, and you quoted out of context.
Tsk tsk.
That is called quote mining.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
