- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,103
- 52,639
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
So if a poodle acts like a dog, that's okay; but if a human acts like an ape, it's not okay?
Upvote
0
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.
So if a poodle acts like a dog, that's okay; but if a human acts like an ape, it's not okay?All poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles.
All humans are apes, but not all apes are humans.
So if a poodle acts like a dog, that's okay; but if a human acts like an ape, it's not okay?
You have few that are anything more than single bones.
I have spoken to my criteria many times.
You appear to be requesting more than you yourself can provide in being clear what's what.
Your Java man debarkle, Ardi and Lucy biting the dust etc etc are examples.
Umm, You may not have realised that I am a creationist. Hence you are requesting that I provide a description of a mythical creature.
You have over 100 years of changing theories and reclassifications.
Can you or should you have to describe God or Nephalim for evolutionary theory to be robust?.[/
quote]
Give me the biblical description of a Nephalim and I will see if there is a fossil that fits.
What is it about this description below that you and others keep missing?
"The stark and obvious difference between mankind and beast is not in the sharing of 4 similar limbs and a head. It is about mankinds highly sophisticated language, superior reasoning ability and perception including the ability to percieve of a Creator and pay homage to a God. No beast has the perceptual ability to give praise to God as only mankind was created in Gods image and given this privelidge."
I can find differences between a great dane and a chihuahua. Does this mean that they do not share a common ancestor?
Here is another. Extreme sexual dimorphism. Homo Erectus dispalys more primitive features than previously thought. Again more evidence that Erectus was a variety of ape, on top of all the ape features listed in this mornings post as well as Erectus' ape head.
So a transitional would not have primitive features? Why not? Are you saying that a transitional would need to be 100% identical to modern humans with no basal ape features?
Therefore the above data demonstrates Erectus is discontinuous (Baramins, previously discussed) with Mankind and outside the range of variability of humans.
So you are saying that a transitional would need to be within modern human ranges?
The truth does not lie in anyones ability to answer every question.
Actually, it does in this case. It shows that a transitional, in your eyes, would need to be identical to modern species. This is not what we would see if evolution were true, but this is your definition nonetheless.
I do not need to best guess what the first created ape looked like and you have no idea what the chimp/human common ancestor looked like either.
Then you can not claim that these fossils are not transitional.
Because of evolutionists assumptions they have ended up in the mess they are currently in with virtually no direct human ancestors to speak to.
Transitional is not the same as direct ancestor. You do understand the difference, do you not?
It is not about which researcher is right or wrong. It is about your irrefutable evidence for common descent and dating methods being as clear as mud.
ERV's are irrefutable evidence that we share a common ancestor with other apes. What the fossil record can show us is in what order the changes occurred in our lineage.
Apes are not capable of lighting fires and controlling them.
Actually, there is one species of ape that is capable of that. They are called humans. You should look into it.
If Ardi and Lucy are no longer direct human ancestors.
They never were. They are transtional, however. Do you understand the difference?
If Ardi and Lucy had the bipedalism your reseachers purported they had, then are some apes today likely descendant from bipedal apes?
There is at least one species that is closely related to those two species. That ape species is H. sapiens.
Do you accept the research re Ardi and Lucy not being human ancestors, I posted?
Only DNA can be used to determine direct ancestry. Morphology can not. However, a fossil can have a mixture of features from two divergent taxa. Those fossils are called transitional. The platypus is transitional. It has a mixture of features from placental mammals and reptiles. That doesn't mean that the platypus is the direct ancestor of placental mammals. Do you understand the difference?
What wildly non plausable scenario do you think your researchers will propose to mop up this mess?
The only mess here is your understanding of biology.
What about my point that these supposed half ape heads, Erectus, worked out how to use flint stone or stick rubbing... did they? I say this is a wild scenario born of desperation as erectus did not have the perceptive ability to light and control fire.
Stone tools have been found in strata containing H. habilis and H. erectus. The evidence points to these species forming and using simple stone tools.
Also, wouldn't you expect a transitional to have a head with a mixture of basal ape and modern human features?
What about my point that a curved fingered, 3ft tall, ape that resembles a Bornean Orang left very human footprints.
The pelvises of Australopithecines and orangs are quite different. The Australopithecine pelvis is much more like ours, so it makes sense that we would find footprints like ours. As for the curved fingers, this is what we would expect to find in a transitional, a mixture of basal ape and modern features.
So there you have it, science as it supports creation.
Transitional fossils support creationism? Since when?
So no one should wonder why Klebold & Harris went bananas?But we do act like apes. We cannot act like anything else than what we are.
So if a poodle acts like a dog, that's okay; but if a human acts like an ape, it's not okay?
Is that a YES or a NO?A description of how humans act is a description of how one ape species acts. Humans are apes, so a description of a human is a description of an ape species.
So no one should wonder why Klebold & Harris went bananas?
Sorry apes building huts 1.7mya and apes leaving footprints 3.7mya after Ardi having chimp feet at 4.4mya are both examples of the non plausible.
Anything is possible, but an ape or half witted human will never build a hut no matter how many times you demonstrate it to them.
A curved fingered tree dweller 3ft tall never have left human footprints either, no matter how much they try to humanize afarensis in desperation.
Clearly there is evidence of fully functioning mankind present at the time of these apes, which should disprove evolution and give support to creationist paradigms.
You went bananas a long time ago. Or was that Last Thursday, with all of those previous memories being magicked into our brains?
So no one should wonder why Klebold & Harris went bananas?
Is that a YES or a NO?
(I can tell I made a good point.)
Why, when some go bananas, it's treated like a crime.What is so hard to understand?
*sigh*Sorry apes building huts 1.7mya and apes leaving footprints 3.7mya after Ardi having chimp feet at 4.4mya are both examples of the non plausible.
Only in your wildest dreams. The tools they made use of at that time were far simpler than those produced by the simplest human societies.Clearly there is evidence of fully functioning mankind present at the time of these apes, which should disprove evolution and give support to creationist paradigms.
You do realize that humans are apes too, right? That never quite seems to sink in. And yes, we do have Australopithecus foot bones:For example a curved fingered ape must have left these footprints no matter how ridiculous it sounds and the fact that they thought Lucy should still have apey like feet, because according to TOE humans could not possibly have been around 3.7mya to leave these footprints. So let's pretend she has near human feet, although we have found none, and flogg this off to the public as evidence for evolution!
Why, when some go bananas, it's treated like a crime.
*sigh* You are really really grasping at straws here.Its a name change that alters the dating to fit your predetermined paradigm. GET IT!
a) Where did he say that? What, specifically were his words, and what was the full context?
b) There were swarms of life that led up to the Cambrian.
a. Origins of Species pages 313-330 anyway in there somewhere.
oncedeceived said:a. Origins of Species pages 313-330 anyway in there somewhere. I tried to look it up online but couldn't find it.a) Where did he say that? What, specifically were his words, and what was the full context?
b) There were swarms of life that led up to the Cambrian.
b. Really and what do you have to back this up?
Page 584 said:ON THE SUDDEN APPEARANCE OF GROUPS OF ALLIED SPECIES IN THE LOWEST KNOWN FOSSILIFEROUS STRATA. There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. Most of the arguments which have convinced me that all the existing species of the same group are descended from a single progenitor, apply with equal force to the earliest known species. For instance, it cannot be doubted that all the Cambrian and Silurian trilobites are descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Cambrian age, and which probably differed greatly from any known animal. Some of the most ancient animals, as the Nautilus, Lingula, etc., do not differ much from living species; and it cannot on our theory be supposed, that these old species were the progenitors of all the species belonging to the same groups which have subsequently appeared, for they are not in any degree intermediate in character.
page 591 said:The several difficulties here discussed, namely, that, though we find in our geological formations many links between the species which now exist and which formerly existed, we do not find infinitely numerous fine transitional forms closely joining them all together. The sudden manner in which several groups of species first appear in our European formations, the almost entire absence, as at present known, of formations rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian strata, are all undoubtedly of the most serious nature. We see this in the fact that the most eminent palaeontologists, namely, Cuvier, Agassiz, Barrande, Pictet, Falconer, E. Forbes, etc., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, etc., have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species. But Sir Charles Lyell now gives the support of his high authority to the opposite side, and most geologists and palaeontologists are much shaken in their former belief. Those who believe that the geological record is in any degree perfect, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory. For my part, following out Lyell's metaphor, I look at the geological record as a history of 591the world imperfectly kept and written in a changing dialect. Of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved, and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, more or less different in the successive chapters, may represent the forms of life, which are entombed in our consecutive formations, and which falsely appear to have been abruptly introduced. On this view the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished or even disappear.
a) Fine, I'll look it up. Here it is:a. Origins of Species pages 313-330 anyway in there somewhere. I tried to look it up online but couldn't find it.
b. Really and what do you have to back this up?
Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures. Here we encounter a formidable objection; for it seems doubtful whether the earth, in a fit state for the habitation of living creatures, has lasted long enough. Sir W. Thompson concludes that the consolidation of the crust can hardly have occurred less than twenty or more than four hundred million years ago, but probably not less than ninety-eight or more than two hundred million years. These very wide limits show how doubtful the data are; and other elements may have hereafter to be introduced into the problem. Mr. Croll estimates that about sixty million years have elapsed since the Cambrian period, but this, judging from the small amount of organic change since the commencement of the Glacial epoch, appears a very short time for the many and great mutations of life, which have certainly occurred since the Cambrian formation; and the previous one hundred and forty million years can hardly be considered as sufficient for the development of the varied forms of life which already existed during the Cambrian period. It is, however, probable, as Sir William Thompson insists, that the world at a very early period was subjected to more rapid and violent changes in its physical conditions than those now occurring; and such changes would have tended to induce changes at a corresponding rate in the organisms which then existed.
After going through the book, I found nothing within pages 313-330. The earliest mention of the cambrian appears to be around here, is this what you were talking about perhaps?
He go's on about this topic for a while but concludes as follows.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?