• 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.

Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?

Do accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Doesn't matter/neutral/I am in the mist of research

  • Four is my favorite number


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Lion Of God said:
Reading these debates on Evolution vs Creation the truth of these verses really hits home:

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

2Th 2:10 and every type of evil to deceive those who are dying, those who refused to love the truth that would save them.
2Th 2:11 For this reason, God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.

Mar 13:22 For false christs and false prophets will appear and produce signs and omens to deceive, if possible, the elect.

The theory of evolution fits those verses very well.

In other words, in order to believe in evolution one has to be an unregenerate sinner. That is what I hear you saying when you connect these words to evolutionism.

I'm disappointed to hear yet another creationist express this kind of sentiments. It seems to me like a last resort after the end of a fruitless debate: "Now, I hear the Holy Spirit telling me that you're all useless compromisers so I'm not going to play your game!" There are other ways to resolve disputes ... we can simply "agree to disagree". We could sit down and instead of aiming to change others aim to learn why others believe what they believe.

Instead, I hear a creationist telling me that I'm not a Christian because I believe in evolution. Such charity.
 
Upvote 0

LoG

Veteran
Site Supporter
May 14, 2005
1,363
118
✟92,704.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
shernren said:
Instead, I hear a creationist telling me that I'm not a Christian because I believe in evolution. Such charity.

Charity? Yes definitely!! I am more concerned for you than you are. Instead of looking at it as a condemnation, pray for the leading and the truth of the Spirit. Is there a dependence on the witness of the natural mind?
The last verse says that it will even deceive the elect. I am not trying to tell you that you aren't a Christian. I am trying to tell you to please, please, please stop listening to the reasonings of the secular man and start praying for the wisdom of God and open your heart to receive it.
 
Upvote 0

john crawford

Well-Known Member
Sep 10, 2003
3,754
9
84
usa
Visit site
✟3,968.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
invisible trousers said:
Those are species, not races.
There is no evidence of those fossils belonging to different 'species' since most of them belonged to various racial members of the human race.

Excuse me? Nobody here has said anything about racism, other than you.
Of course not, since I am the only one pointing out the inherent racism in all Darwinist theories of human evolution from African apes. Calling African people different 'species.' Indeed.
You keep lying about claims made by evolution and refuse to provide a single piece of evidence which supports things you say.
No, I don't lie about claims made by evolution but do post plenty of evidence how racially prejudiced and bigoted such Darwinist theories inherently are. You don't seem to even know what 'inherent' means.
Why is this? Why do you keep lying about evolution?
I don't lie about evolution any more than I keep beating my wife. You have yet to point out one lie I have told.
I'm pretty baffled as to why a christian would go to such lengths to lie about things.
You are just supposing I am lying without providing any evidence to substantiate your odd belief, just like you suppose that African people evolved from non-human apes in Africa, without any evidence to substantiate those quasi-religious and pseudoscientific beliefs.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
I don't want to question your motives, but that is what it amounts to: a condemnation. Look at the context of the last verse you quoted:

Pray that this will not take place in winter, because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now--and never to be equaled again. If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them. At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect--if that were possible.
(Mark 13:18-22 NIV)

The specific "signs and miracles" will promote a false Christ who will imitate the coming of Jesus. I don't see anything of that sort in evolution. Also, here the phrasing clearly states that the elect cannot be deceived; therefore that those who are deceived are not the elect.

The origins debate is a lot more complicated than evil hardcore atheistic evolutionists -confused compromising Christian evolutionists - brave saintly resistant YECists.

I've prayed about it, meditated about it, wondered how other Christians just as honest and persistent in searching can come to completely different opinionis. If the Holy Spirit really does want to convert me back to wholesome YEC goodness He's taking an awfully long time.
 
Upvote 0

david_x

I So Hate Consequences!!!!
Dec 24, 2004
4,688
121
36
Indiana
✟28,939.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
You are just supposing I am lying without providing any evidence to substantiate your odd belief, just like you suppose that African people evolved from non-human apes in Africa,

No he says we all evolved from those apes, riducules at best but if they have enough faith to believe that then whatever.
 
Upvote 0

LoG

Veteran
Site Supporter
May 14, 2005
1,363
118
✟92,704.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
shernren said:
I don't want to question your motives, but that is what it amounts to: a condemnation.

I have no control over how you choose to interpret my post especially since it wasn't even in response to anything you posted. That you are taking offence to it is perhaps an indicator of something?

I've prayed about it, meditated about it, wondered how other Christians just as honest and persistent in searching can come to completely different opinionis. If the Holy Spirit really does want to convert me back to wholesome YEC goodness He's taking an awfully long time.

Well at least to you we aren't the "lying creationists" that another has termed us. Strange that for almost 6000 years us lying creationists were attempting to subvert the elect by insisting that they take the "myth" literally. I guess you can be thankfull that God through the agnostic prophet Darwin revealed that it all was just a hoax and that reality is that He simply created one cell and set it into action while He sat back to enjoy the show. Waiting for the day when those silly son's of His would be making fools of themselves by denying what all the materialistic people said was obvious, simply because we had the stupidity to take Him at His Word. Ahh us creationists are truly like sheep led to the slaughter.:sigh:
 
Upvote 0

john crawford

Well-Known Member
Sep 10, 2003
3,754
9
84
usa
Visit site
✟3,968.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
david_x said:
No he says we all evolved from those apes, riducules at best but if they have enough faith to believe that then whatever.
Notto can only say that we all evolved from apes if he can prove that African people did first. Since he can't do anything more than post a gallery of fossils skulls representing various racial groups throughout the world, and has no evidence of human evolution in Africa, it is reasonable to assume than no racial groups in the world today evolved from non-human apes in Africa.
 
Upvote 0

invisible trousers

~*this post promotes non-nicene christianity*~
Apr 22, 2005
3,507
402
✟28,218.00
Faith
Non-Denom
john crawford said:
There is no evidence of those fossils belonging to different 'species' since most of them belonged to various racial members of the human race.

Prove or retract.

"Because I say so" doesn't cut it, homes.

Of course not, since I am the only one pointing out the inherent racism in all Darwinist theories of human evolution from African apes. Calling African people different 'species.' Indeed.

Did you know that people of different races are members of the same species? People from all over the world are different races, but are still homo sapiens! Strange how that works :)

No, I don't lie about claims made by evolution but do post plenty of evidence how racially prejudiced and bigoted such Darwinist theories inherently are. You don't seem to even know what 'inherent' means.

Yes, you do lie about claims made by evolution, and no, you have not provided a single piece of evidence which shows evolution is racist. In fact, you've shown a deliberate misunderstanding of some of the most basic concepts of evolution, such as "species".

I don't lie about evolution any more than I keep beating my wife. You have yet to point out one lie I have told.

I keep telling you, and you keep ignoring me. Here, I'll paraphrase it for you:

John: Evolution is racist!
it: Evolution makes no claims about race.
John: Look, evolution is racist!
it: Evolution makes no claims about race. Could you provide evidence which shows evolution is racist?
John: Evolution is racist because I say so!
it: No? Uh..ok... why are you lying about claims made by evolution?
John: Evolution is racist!

When you say that the theory of evolution is racist, but in reality where the theory has nothing to do with race, you're lying. It's pretty simple.

You are just supposing I am lying without providing any evidence to substantiate your odd belief, just like you suppose that African people evolved from non-human apes in Africa, without any evidence to substantiate those quasi-religious and pseudoscientific beliefs.

I am not supposing because you continually lie about claims made by evolution.

Oh, evidence?

hominids20lu.jpg


* (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
* (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
* (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
* (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
* (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
* (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
* (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
* (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
* (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
* (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
* (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
* (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
* (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
* (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

Notice how these fossils weren't all found in africa.

Once again, you're going to wave your hands and dismiss it without providing any substantiation. You can keep ignoring it, but it won't go away.

Lion of God said:
Well at least to you we aren't the "lying creationists" that another has termed us.
You are more than welcome to respond to me directly, but it's kind of moot since when I said lying creationists, it was meant in a different context. Feel free to ignore that, however.

And when someone says evolution claims xxx or yyy when evolution does not claim xxx or yyy, it makes them a liar. There is no debate here.

david_x said:
No he says we all evolved from those apes, riducules at best but if they have enough faith to believe that then whatever.
yaaay more hand waving :) You may be surprised, but I do have faith :cool: I just have faith that God has decided to leave us evidence how He created us, and have faith that He gave us brains so we can figure all this stuff out :)

I take it from this thread that the YECs here are totally cool with a God who has left mountains of evidence which shows evolution, an old earth, old universe, etc, but has decided to fool all his followers into believing it?

You're all cool with God being a total liar and deceiver, yes?
 
Upvote 0

invisible trousers

~*this post promotes non-nicene christianity*~
Apr 22, 2005
3,507
402
✟28,218.00
Faith
Non-Denom
john crawford said:
Notto can only say that we all evolved from apes if he can prove that African people did first. Since he can't do anything more than post a gallery of fossils skulls representing various racial groups throughout the world, and has no evidence of human evolution in Africa, it is reasonable to assume than no racial groups in the world today evolved from non-human apes in Africa.

Those are species, not races. It would be hilarious for you to try to show which racial groups are represented and at which arbitrary point they become "human".
hominids20lu.jpg

* (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
* (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
* (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
* (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
* (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
* (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
* (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
* (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
* (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
* (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
* (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
* (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
* (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
* (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

there is much more info at http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Keep up with the lying! It makes you a good christian witness to the rest of us.

edit: here I can give you some words (via http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html) since the pictures apparently mean nothing to you:

Introduction

The word "hominid" refers to members of the family of humans, Hominidae, which consists of all species on our side of the last common ancestor of humans and living apes. Hominids are included in the superfamily of all apes, the Hominoidea,
the members of which are called hominoids. Although the hominid fossil record is far from complete, and the evidence is often fragmentary, there is enough to give a good outline of the evolutionary history of humans.

The time of the split between humans and living apes used to be thought to have occurred 15 to 20 million years ago, or even up to 30 or 40 million years ago. Some apes occurring within that time period, such as Ramapithecus, used to be considered as hominids, and possible ancestors of humans. Later fossil finds indicated that Ramapithecus was more closely related to the orang-utan, and new biochemical evidence indicated that the last common ancestor of hominids and apes occurred between 5 and 10 million years ago, and probably in the lower end of that range (Lewin 1987). Ramapithecus therefore is no longer considered a hominid.

The field of science which studies the human fossil record is known as paleoanthropology. It is the intersection of the disciplines of paleontology (the study of ancient lifeforms) and anthropology (the study of humans).

Hominid Species

The species here are listed roughly in order of appearance in the fossil record (note that this ordering is not meant to represent an evolutionary sequence), except that the robust australopithecines are kept together. Each name consists of a genus name (e.g. Australopithecus, Homo) which is always capitalized, and a specific name (e.g. africanus, erectus) which is always in lower case. Within the text, genus names are often omitted for brevity. Each species has a type specimen which was used to define it.

Sahelanthropus tchadensis

This species was named in July 2002 from fossils discovered in Chad in Central Africa (Brunet et al. 2002, Wood 2002). It is the oldest known hominid or near-hominid species, dated at between 6 and 7 million years old. This species is known from a nearly complete cranium nicknamed Toumai, and a number of fragmentary lower jaws and teeth. The skull has a very small brain size of approximately 350 cc. It is not known whether it was bipedal. S. tchadensis has many primitive apelike features, such as the small brainsize, along with others, such as the brow ridges and small canine teeth, which are characteristic of later hominids. This mixture, along with the fact that it comes from around the time when the hominids are thought to have diverged from chimpanzees, suggests it is close to the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees.

Orrorin tugenensis

This species was named in July 2001 from fossils discovered in western Kenya (Senut et al. 2001). The fossils include fragmentary arm and thigh bones, lower jaws, and teeth and were discovered in deposits that are about 6 million years old. The limb bones are about 1.5 times larger than those of Lucy, and suggest that it was about the size of a female chimpanzee. Its finders have claimed that Orrorin was a human ancestor adapted to both bipedality and tree climbing, and that the australopithecines are an extinct offshoot. Given the fragmentary nature of the remains, other scientists have been skeptical of these claims so far (Aiello and Collard 2001). A later paper (Galik et al. 2004) has found further evidence of bipedality in the fossil femur.

Ardipithecus ramidus

This species was named in September 1994 (White et al. 1994; Wood 1994). It was originally dated at 4.4 million years, but has since been discovered to far back as 5.8 million years. Most remains are skull fragments. Indirect evidence suggests that it was possibly bipedal, and that some individuals were about 122 cm (4'0") tall. The teeth are intermediate between those of earlier apes and A. afarensis, but one baby tooth is very primitive, resembling a chimpanzee tooth more than any other known hominid tooth. Other fossils found with ramidus indicate that it may have been a forest dweller. This may cause revision of current theories about why hominids became bipedal, which often link bipedalism with a move to a savannah environment. (White and his colleagues have since discovered a ramidus skeleton which is about 45% complete, but have not yet published on it.)

More recently, a number of fragmentary fossils discovered between 1997 and 2001, and dating from 5.2 to 5.8 million years old, have been assigned first to a new subspecies, Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba (Haile-Selassie 2001), and then later as a new species, Ardipithecus kadabba (Haile-Selassie et al. 2004). One of these fossils is a toe bone belonging to a bipedal creature, but is a few hundred thousand years younger than the rest of the fossils and so its identification with kadabba is not as firm as the other fossils.

Australopithecus anamensis

This species was named in August 1995 (Leakey et al. 1995). The material consists of 9 fossils, mostly found in 1994, from Kanapoi in Kenya, and 12 fossils, mostly teeth found in 1988, from Allia Bay in Kenya (Leakey et al. 1995). Anamensis existed between 4.2 and 3.9 million years ago, and has a mixture of primitive features in the skull, and advanced features in the body. The teeth and jaws are very similar to those of older fossil apes. A partial tibia (the larger of the two lower leg bones) is strong evidence of bipedality, and a lower humerus (the upper arm bone) is extremely humanlike. Note that although the skull and skeletal bones are thought to be from the same species, this is not confirmed.

Australopithecus afarensis

A. afarensis existed between 3.9 and 3.0 million years ago. Afarensis had an apelike face with a low forehead, a bony ridge over the eyes, a flat nose, and no chin. They had protruding jaws with large back teeth. Cranial capacity varied from about 375 to 550 cc. The skull is similar to that of a chimpanzee, except for the more humanlike teeth. The canine teeth are much smaller than those of modern apes, but larger and more pointed than those of humans, and shape of the jaw is between the rectangular shape of apes and the parabolic shape of humans. However their pelvis and leg bones far more closely resemble those of modern man, and leave no doubt that they were bipedal (although adapted to walking rather than running (Leakey 1994)). Their bones show that they were physically very strong. Females were substantially smaller than males, a condition known as sexual dimorphism. Height varied between about 107 cm (3'6") and 152 cm (5'0"). The finger and toe bones are curved and proportionally longer than in humans, but the hands are similar to humans in most other details (Johanson and Edey 1981). Most scientists consider this evidence that afarensis was still partially adapted to climbing in trees, others consider it evolutionary baggage.

Kenyanthropus platyops

This species was named in 2001 from a partial skull found in Kenya with an unusual mixture of features (Leakey et al. 2001). It is aged about 3.5 million years old. The size of the skull is similar to A. afarensis and A. africanus, and has a large, flat face and small teeth.

Australopithecus africanus

A. africanus existed between 3 and 2 million years ago. It is similar to afarensis, and was also bipedal, but body size was slightly greater. Brain size may also have been slightly larger, ranging between 420 and 500 cc. This is a little larger than chimp brains (despite a similar body size), but still not advanced in the areas necessary for speech. The back teeth were a little bigger than in afarensis. Although the teeth and jaws of africanus are much larger than those of humans, they are far more similar to human teeth than to those of apes (Johanson and Edey 1981). The shape of the jaw is now fully parabolic, like that of humans, and the size of the canine teeth is further reduced compared to afarensis.

Australopithecus garhi

This species was named in April 1999 (Asfaw et al. 1999). It is known from a partial skull. The skull differs from previous australopithecine species in the combination of its features, notably the extremely large size of its teeth, especially the rear ones, and a primitive skull morphology. Some nearby skeletal remains may belong to the same species. They show a humanlike ratio of the humerus and femur, but an apelike ratio of the lower and upper arm. (Groves 1999; Culotta 1999)

Australopithecus afarensis and africanus, and the other species above, are known as gracile australopithecines, because of their relatively lighter build, especially in the skull and teeth. (Gracile means "slender", and in paleoanthropology is used as an antonym to "robust".) Despite this, they were still more robust than modern humans.

Australopithecus aethiopicus

A. aethiopicus existed between 2.6 and 2.3 million years ago. This species is known from one major specimen, the Black Skull discovered by Alan Walker, and a few other minor specimens which may belong to the same species. It may be an ancestor of robustus and boisei, but it has a baffling mixture of primitive and advanced traits. The brain size is very small, at 410 cc, and parts of the skull, particularly the hind portions, are very primitive, most resembling afarensis. Other characteristics, like the massiveness of the face, jaws and single tooth found, and the largest sagittal crest in any known hominid, are more reminiscent of A. boisei (Leakey and Lewin 1992). (A sagittal crest is a bony ridge on top of the skull to which chewing muscles attach.)

Australopithecus robustus

A. robustus had a body similar to that of africanus, but a larger and more robust skull and teeth. It existed between 2 and 1.5 million years ago. The massive face is flat or dished, with no forehead and large brow ridges. It has relatively small front teeth, but massive grinding teeth in a large lower jaw. Most specimens have sagittal crests. Its diet would have been mostly coarse, tough food that needed a lot of chewing. The average brain size is about 530 cc. Bones excavated with robustus skeletons indicate that they may have been used as digging tools.

Australopithecus boisei (was Zinjanthropus boisei)

A. boisei existed between 2.1 and 1.1 million years ago. It was similar to robustus, but the face and cheek teeth were even more massive, some molars being up to 2 cm across. The brain size is very similar to robustus, about 530 cc. A few experts consider boisei and robustus to be variants of the same species.

Australopithecus aethiopicus, robustus and boisei are known as robust australopithecines, because their skulls in particular are more heavily built. They have never been serious candidates for being direct human ancestors. Many authorities now classify them in the genus Paranthropus.

Homo habilis

H. habilis, "handy man", was so called because of evidence of tools found with its remains. Habilis existed between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago. It is very similar to australopithecines in many ways. The face is still primitive, but it projects less than in A. africanus. The back teeth are smaller, but still considerably larger than in modern humans. The average brain size, at 650 cc, is considerably larger than in australopithecines. Brain size varies between 500 and 800 cc, overlapping the australopithecines at the low end and H. erectus at the high end. The brain shape is also more humanlike. The bulge of Broca's area, essential for speech, is visible in one habilis brain cast, and indicates it was possibly capable of rudimentary speech. Habilis is thought to have been about 127 cm (5'0") tall, and about 45 kg (100 lb) in weight, although females may have been smaller.

Habilis has been a controversial species. Originally, some scientists did not accept its validity, believing that all habilis specimens should be assigned to either the australopithecines or Homo erectus. H. habilis is now fully accepted as a species, but it is widely thought that the 'habilis' specimens have too wide a range of variation for a single species, and that some of the specimens should be placed in one or more other species. One suggested species which is accepted by many scientists is Homo rudolfensis, which would contain fossils such as ER 1470.
 
Upvote 0

invisible trousers

~*this post promotes non-nicene christianity*~
Apr 22, 2005
3,507
402
✟28,218.00
Faith
Non-Denom
continued...

Homo georgicus

This species was named in 2002 to contain fossils found in Dmanisi, Georgia, which seem intermediate between H. habilis and H. erectus. The fossils are about 1.8 million years old, consisting of three partial skulls and three lower jaws. The brain sizes of the skulls vary from 600 to 680 cc. The height, as estimated from a foot bone, would have been about 1.5 m (4'11"). A partial skeleton was also discovered in 2001 but no details are available on it yet. (Vekua et al. 2002, Gabunia et al. 2002)
Homo erectus (Fossils)

H. erectus existed between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago. Like habilis, the face has protruding jaws with large molars, no chin, thick brow ridges, and a long low skull, with a brain size varying between 750 and 1225 cc. Early erectus specimens average about 900 cc, while late ones have an average of about 1100 cc (Leakey 1994). The skeleton is more robust than those of modern humans, implying greater strength. Body proportions vary; the Turkana Boy is tall and slender (though still extraordinarily strong), like modern humans from the same area, while the few limb bones found of Peking Man indicate a shorter, sturdier build. Study of the Turkana Boy skeleton indicates that erectus may have been more efficient at walking than modern humans, whose skeletons have had to adapt to allow for the birth of larger-brained infants (Willis 1989). Homo habilis and all the australopithecines are found only in Africa, but erectus was wide-ranging, and has been found in Africa, Asia, and Europe. There is evidence that erectus probably used fire, and their stone tools are more sophisticated than those of habilis.

Homo ergaster

Some scientists classify some African erectus specimens as belonging to a separate species, Homo ergaster, which differs from the Asian H. erectus fossils in some details of the skull (e.g. the brow ridges differ in shape, and erectus would have a larger brain size). Under this scheme, H. ergaster would include fossils such as the Turkana boy and ER 3733.

Homo antecessor
Homo antecessor was named in 1977 from fossils found at the Spanish cave site of Atapuerca, dated to at least 780,000 years ago, making them the oldest confirmed European hominids. The mid-facial area of antecessor seems very modern, but other parts of the skull such as the teeth, forehead and browridges are much more primitive. Many scientists are doubtful about the validity of antecessor, partly because its definition is based on a juvenile specimen, and feel it may belong to another species. (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997; Kunzig 1997, Carbonell et al. 1995)

Homo sapiens (archaic) (also Homo heidelbergensis)

Archaic forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 500,000 years ago. The term covers a diverse group of skulls which have features of both Homo erectus and modern humans. The brain size is larger than erectus and smaller than most modern humans, averaging about 1200 cc, and the skull is more rounded than in erectus. The skeleton and teeth are usually less robust than erectus, but more robust than modern humans. Many still have large brow ridges and receding foreheads and chins. There is no clear dividing line between late erectus and archaic sapiens, and many fossils between 500,000 and 200,000 years ago are difficult to classify as one or the other.

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (also Homo neanderthalensis)

Neandertal (or Neanderthal) man existed between 230,000 and 30,000 years ago. The average brain size is slightly larger than that of modern humans, about 1450 cc, but this is probably correlated with their greater bulk. The brain case however is longer and lower than that of modern humans, with a marked bulge at the back of the skull. Like erectus, they had a protruding jaw and receding forehead. The chin was usually weak. The midfacial area also protrudes, a feature that is not found in erectus or sapiens and may be an adaptation to cold. There are other minor anatomical differences from modern humans, the most unusual being some peculiarities of the shoulder blade, and of the pubic bone in the pelvis. Neandertals mostly lived in cold climates, and their body proportions are similar to those of modern cold-adapted peoples: short and solid, with short limbs. Men averaged about 168 cm (5'6") in height. Their bones are thick and heavy, and show signs of powerful muscle attachments. Neandertals would have been extraordinarily strong by modern standards, and their skeletons show that they endured brutally hard lives. A large number of tools and weapons have been found, more advanced than those of Homo erectus. Neandertals were formidable hunters, and are the first people known to have buried their dead, with the oldest known burial site being about 100,000 years old. They are found throughout Europe and the Middle East. Western European Neandertals usually have a more robust form, and are sometimes called "classic Neandertals". Neandertals found elsewhere tend to be less excessively robust. (Trinkaus and Shipman 1992; Trinkaus and Howells 1979; Gore 1996)

Homo floresiensis

Homo floresiensis was discovered on the Indonesian island of Flores in 2003. Fossils have been discovered from a number of individuals. The most complete fossil is of an adult female about 1 meter tall with a brain size of 417cc. Other fossils indicate that this was a normal size for floresiensis. It is thought that floresiensis is a dwarf form of Homo erectus - it is not uncommon for dwarf forms of large mammals to evolve on islands. H. floresiensis was fully bipedal, used stone tools and fire, and hunted dwarf elephants also found on the island. (Brown et al. 2004, Morwood et al. 2004, Lahr and Foley 2004)
Homo sapiens sapiens (modern) (Fossils)

Modern forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 195,000 years ago. Modern humans have an average brain size of about 1350 cc. The forehead rises sharply, eyebrow ridges are very small or more usually absent, the chin is prominent, and the skeleton is very gracile. About 40,000 years ago, with the appearance of the Cro-Magnon culture, tool kits started becoming markedly more sophisticated, using a wider variety of raw materials such as bone and antler, and containing new implements for making clothing, engraving and sculpting. Fine artwork, in the form of decorated tools, beads, ivory carvings of humans and animals, clay figurines, musical instruments, and spectacular cave paintings appeared over the next 20,000 years. (Leakey 1994)

Even within the last 100,000 years, the long-term trends towards smaller molars and decreased robustness can be discerned. The face, jaw and teeth of Mesolithic humans (about 10,000 years ago) are about 10% more robust than ours. Upper Paleolithic humans (about 30,000 years ago) are about 20 to 30% more robust than the modern condition in Europe and Asia. These are considered modern humans, although they are sometimes termed "primitive". Interestingly, some modern humans (aboriginal Australians) have tooth sizes more typical of archaic sapiens. The smallest tooth sizes are found in those areas where food-processing techniques have been used for the longest time. This is a probable example of natural selection which has occurred within the last 10,000 years (Brace 1983).
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
david_x said:
Those that display the fruits of the spirit,(love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, self control.)
Those who do the work of the spirit, show the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. (drink poison but not die, pick up deadly snakes without bein' bit)

And what if those who show the fruits of the Spirit disagree about how long it took to create the universe? Who is hearing the Spirit correctly? How do you know?
 
Upvote 0

john crawford

Well-Known Member
Sep 10, 2003
3,754
9
84
usa
Visit site
✟3,968.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
invisible trousers said:
Did you know that people of different races are members of the same species? People from all over the world are different races, but are still homo sapiens! Strange how that works
The fact that H. sapiens consists of various racial groups is itself evidence of the inherent racial aspects of Darwinist theories of human evolution. Every H. sapiens fossil presented by Darwinists as evidence of evolution was a former member of a racial group in some part of the world. If you don't think Homo erectus also consisted of various different racial groups all over the world, you don't know much about the inherent racial aspects of human evolution since raciation is a preliminary requisite in order for one species to evolve into another.

What do you think? A small population of H. erectus in Africa suddenly evolved into African H. sapiens during the course of a thousand years and no other populations of erectus developed racial traits in China or India over a million years? Where's your Darwinist imagination?
Yes, you do lie about claims made by evolution, and no, you have not provided a single piece of evidence which shows evolution is racist.
You lie when you claim that I have not provided a single peice of evidence which shows that Darwinist theory is inherently racist.
In fact, you've shown a deliberate misunderstanding of some of the most basic concepts of evolution, such as "species".
Oh, yeah. Prove that H. habilis, rudolfensis, ergaster and erectus were differenent 'species' of people in Africa.
I keep telling you, and you keep ignoring me.
I keep telling you that Darwinism is inherently racist and you just keep on ignoring me.
When you say that the theory of evolution is racist, but in reality where the theory has nothing to do with race, you're lying. It's pretty simple.
You say the theory of evolution is not racist, but in reality I prove that Darwinist theories of human evolution are inherently racist because they are theories about the origins of the human race and various racial groups within it.
I am not supposing because you continually lie about claims made by evolution.
Yes you are "supposing" and are lying if you say you are not "supposing."
Oh, evidence?
Yes, evidence.
* (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
* (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
* (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
* (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
* (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
* (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
* (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
* (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
* (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
* (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
* (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
* (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
* (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
* (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern
Notice how these fossils weren't all found in africa.
Yes, and notice how the chronological order shows African humans (D, E and E) first evolving from non-human African apes (A and B) before Neanderthals or Homo sapiens even existed. Eurasian Neanderthals are theorized to have evolved in Africa but no Neanderthal fossils have ever been found there, and Eurasian Homo sapiens are said to be descended from and biologically equal to a regional/racial type of African Homo sapiens which Darwinists claim originated from non-human African apes.
Once again, you're going to wave your hands and dismiss it without providing any substantiation. You can keep ignoring it, but it won't go away.
Who me? Ignore the inherent racism in Darwinism? Bring it on.
And when someone says evolution claims xxx or yyy when evolution does not claim xxx or yyy, it makes them a liar. There is no debate here.
Then there is no debate about the fact that when someone says evolution does not claim xxx or yyy when evolution does claim xxx or yyy, it makes them a liar.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
john crawford said:
You say the theory of evolution is not racist, but in reality I prove that Darwinist theories of human evolution are inherently racist because they are theories about the origins of the human race and various racial groups within it.

By that criterion, the stories of Adam and of Noah & his sons are also racist in that they are about the origins of the human race and various racial groups within it.

What else do you expect any theory of human origins to be about?

I suppose you consider any theory about the origin of frogs and the various species/varieties of frogs to be racist in respect to frogs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Numenor
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
38
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟33,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
I have no control over how you choose to interpret my post especially since it wasn't even in response to anything you posted. That you are taking offence to it is perhaps an indicator of something?

Precisely. I refuse to blame you for the fact that it came across to me as a condemnation. I respect your admission that you did not intend to condemn me. ... but that does not take away the fact that it did sound like a condemnation. I accept that it could be my fault; but at the same time, it is dangerous to throw Scripture at people without looking carefully at the context and implications of it.

Well at least to you we aren't the "lying creationists" that another has termed us. Strange that for almost 6000 years us lying creationists were attempting to subvert the elect by insisting that they take the "myth" literally. I guess you can be thankfull that God through the agnostic prophet Darwin revealed that it all was just a hoax and that reality is that He simply created one cell and set it into action while He sat back to enjoy the show. Waiting for the day when those silly son's of His would be making fools of themselves by denying what all the materialistic people said was obvious, simply because we had the stupidity to take Him at His Word. Ahh us creationists are truly like sheep led to the slaughter.

Hey, don't take it out on me! LOL. I do sympathise with you for being called a "lying creationist", but to be honest I think that often evolutionists are on the worse side of the insults, knowingly or not. Not that I'm saying we have a right to hit back or anything, but ... do try to sympathise.

What I really, really don't get is why people assume that we believe what we believe simply as a compromise or a way to get atheistic scientists off our back. As if we would believe in a theory regardless of its supposedly anti-Christian implications.
 
Upvote 0

john crawford

Well-Known Member
Sep 10, 2003
3,754
9
84
usa
Visit site
✟3,968.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
gluadys said:
By that criterion, the stories of Adam and of Noah & his sons are also racist in that they are about the origins of the human race and various racial groups within it.
Stories of Adam and Noah are not being taught in public school science classes like Darwinist racial theories of human origins are.
I suppose you consider any theory about the origin of frogs and the various species/varieties of frogs to be racist in respect to frogs.
Frogs aren't classified as racial groups with civil rights by the U.S. Gov't as far as I know.
 
Upvote 0

john crawford

Well-Known Member
Sep 10, 2003
3,754
9
84
usa
Visit site
✟3,968.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Lion of God said:
There is another thread for discussions pertaining to Evolution and Racism
Since this thread is on the validity of evolution as a scientific theory, and pertains to our acceptance or rejection of it as such, religious and racial reasons given for rejecting it may be seen to be as equally valid and pertinent as scientific reasons themselves.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
john crawford said:
Stories of Adam and Noah are not being taught in public school science classes like Darwinist racial theories of human origins are.

Frogs aren't classified as racial groups with civil rights by the U.S. Gov't as far as I know.

Irrelevant.

I take your lack of objection to mean you agree the biblical story of origins is just as "racist" as evolution, and, in fact, that no theory of human origin or variation could be anything but "racist" by your criterion.
 
Upvote 0

invisible trousers

~*this post promotes non-nicene christianity*~
Apr 22, 2005
3,507
402
✟28,218.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Lion of God said:
Well at least to you we aren't the "lying creationists" that another has termed us. Strange that for almost 6000 years us lying creationists were attempting to subvert the elect by insisting that they take the "myth" literally. I guess you can be thankfull that God through the agnostic prophet Darwin revealed that it all was just a hoax and that reality is that He simply created one cell and set it into action while He sat back to enjoy the show. Waiting for the day when those silly son's of His would be making fools of themselves by denying what all the materialistic people said was obvious, simply because we had the stupidity to take Him at His Word. Ahh us creationists are truly like sheep led to the slaughter.

Few things. First, you are more than welcome to respond to me directly. Second, "lying creationists" in the proper context meant creationist organizations which knowingly perpetrate lies and falsehoods about the theory of evolution, not individuals posting in this thread. Third, and most importantly, God is the Word, not the bible. I'm not inclined to believe someone's views about the bible when they butcher such a simple and important concept. Making the bible the Word is a kind of idolatry, which I don't think God likes too much.

This is fun and all, but I'll be off in the evolution racism thread.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.