How did apes evolvle into humans?

[john crawford]

QUOTE=Nathan Poe:

"Is baking racist because Chocolate cake comes from non-cake?"

No, because chocolate cake is not biologically classified as an organism.

Creationists don't have any theories at all -- Certainly nothing in line with the evidence.

It may be questionable whether any of Professor Lubenow's theses may be classified as 'scientific' theories but there is no doubt that he makes a strong case for evidence of racism in neo-Darwinst theories of human evolution in Africa.

"Good for Oxford. How about the scientific definition?"

What is it?

"The alternative would be for Creationists to accept macroevolution, which their pride prohibibits them from doing."

Nothing wrong with pride in the intelligence God created men and women with originally.

 

[Tomk80]

Why do you assume and surmise that?

It follows directly from your reasoning. Since you say that it is racist to refer to our ancestors as non-human, and our ancestors include archaebacteria (all at the bottom of the tree of life), according to your own reasoning considering archaebacteria as non-human is racist.

 

[Tomk80]

"Homo sapiens are apes, Homo neanderthalensis are apes, Homo erectus are apes. Chimps are apes. Our common ancestor was an ape. Were's the racism?"

Associating, categorizing and classifying any members of the human race or their 'human' ancestors with either sub-human or non-human species in accordance with the principles of evolution is a form of scientific racism found only in neo-Darwinst principles and theories.

But we do it to all of them, including ourselves. How is that racist? If I say that I'm an ape, you are an ape, every homo sapiens is an ape, every homo neanderthalensis is an ape, every homo erectus is an ape, where am I being racist? I'm not singling anyone out as better than the other. We are all apes.

 

[john crawford]

QUOTE=corvus_corax:

"Of course, you not only believe that evolution is racist, but you dont believe in evolution at all, so his statement was obviously lost on you"

Another missing link, I suppose.

"Now, sir, you are changing your tune (or so it appears)
To begin with evolution was supposedly racist due to the "non-sapiens" classification of other members of the Homo genus
Now, however, we have your above statement in which the various species of Homo arent even needed. You appear to be saying that ANY evolution from ANY non-human species is inherently racist. This, of course, appears to be a completely idiotic statement. I would appreciate some clarification."

Of course, and I certainly apreciate being given the opportunity to try to clarify some of Professor Lubenow's theories. When he says that any and all theories of human evolution based on the superficial and artificial division of mankind into several sub-human and non-human species for evolutionist purposes alone, he means to imply that such theoretical classifications, speculations or theories based merely on observed physical characteristics and differences in human fossil skull morphologies are intrinsically and inherently racist because they have consequential racial implications for certain members of the human race and their 'human' ancestors.

 

[Nathan Poe]

QUOTE=Nathan Poe:

"Is baking racist because Chocolate cake comes from non-cake?"

No, because chocolate cake is not biologically classified as an organism.

So you're just going to completely ignore the analogy, then?

It may be questionable whether any of Professor Lubenow's theses may be classified as 'scientific' theories but there is no doubt that he makes a strong case for evidence of racism in neo-Darwinst theories of human evolution in Africa.

No doubt to you, perhaps. The man sounds like a paranoid loon to me.

"The alternative would be for Creationists to accept macroevolution, which their pride prohibibits them from doing."

Nothing wrong with pride in the intelligence God created men and women with originally.

So you're saying that stubborn egotism isn't a sin? I suppose we truly do make God in our own image...

 

[dr.p]

I'm very aware of it, actually.

For example, to prove my point of God being a racist and commanding the genocide of those not among his "chosen":

So, you're aware that your view is askew from what the text and context says, but you're still arguing your point... okay.

Deuteronomy 7:2-24 (New International Version)

2and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.(This included women and children) [a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles [b] and burn their idols in the fire. 6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession. (A racist statement.)

Context... God sent the Israelites out against 7 nations that were all, individually, mightier than Israel. He did this to give them the land He had promised their fathers. From the Bible's perspective, there is ONE God, and these other nations were against Him. There was purpose; it wasn't random; it wasn't racist... God made a promise and kept it.

Also note that there were quite a few times where God delivered Israel into the hand of their enemies for long periods of time because they sinned against Him... and sent plagues after them and other things... So He didn't really show that much favouritism, just kept them separate for a greater purpose: the lineage of Jesus.

He did allow it though to be committed in his name (supposedly)

God allows lots of things to be committed in His name... rest assured, God is a god of JUSTICE.

How is putting women and innocent children to the sword commanded by him of his chosen people not the same? Life is life in my view. All life is sacred, especially women and children.

So you're anti-abortion, right? You're a vegan? You don't squish bugs, right? You've never intentionally caused or wished anyone harm in any way?

I dunno, beats me. I'm just expressing my viewpoint is all. There are different ways to view history. Some view and celebrate Columbus as a hero. Others of us view him as the origination of the great genocide committed against the Native Americans. Your view depends upon where you sit on the fence in the matter. If your family was among those slaughtered by the Israelites, I'd assume your viewpoint would be different on the mattter as mine is. I see the Biblical account of God as one of a war God with the thirst for blood and sacrifices. He allowed his own son to be sacrificed to himself...no?

My ancestors were among those slaughtered by the early American colonists... so my view is on directly the fence. But they did things (intentionally and un-) that I just have to accept... and I don't think they did God's will in much of it, if any... but I can't speak for God.

Good question. Current fundamentalist Christian teaching is that the majority of humanity will perish in everlasting fire!? Doesn't it? I don't prescribe to that thought or teaching, but it is being taught everywhere by most fundamentalist Christians.

I don't know what the Bible really says about torment being everlasting. I'm still investigating that, personally. But I know that if I trust God, it'll become clear.

You seem to just not like anything you hear in the Bible when it comes to death or judgement. You've got a Christian icon... so I assume you're Christian... but you don't believe the God you believe in truly has good reasons for what He has done and allowed?

As I said, depends upon where you're sitting. You miss my points as well, given that you are not of Native American descent.

As I hinted at above, I AM descended from the Cherokee nation.

 

[dr.p]

Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. (KJV)

Looks the same to me.

Did Hitler create the Jews?

 

[dr.p]

Your point makes good Christian sense to me even though God once drowned all apes and humans in water except Noah's human family and two apes.

Evil... evil was the world... evil worse than we see today.

 

[Smilin]

So, you're aware that your view is askew from what the text and context says, but you're still arguing your point... okay.

Partially correct. My view is biased based upon the documented autrocities commited against my ancestors. HOWEVER, my view is in no way distorted.
As I pointed out, it is clearly documented the genocide ordered by your God against the people occupying the so-called promised land. And as I showed you, with scriptural reference, your God chose ONE RACE to be his chosen favorites above all other races. That is discremenation, and cannot be denied.

Context... God sent the Israelites out against 7 nations that were all, individually, mightier than Israel. He did this to give them the land He had promised their fathers. From the Bible's perspective, there is ONE God, and these other nations were against Him. There was purpose; it wasn't random; it wasn't racist... God made a promise and kept it.

Through the slaughter of innocent women and children by his chosen people.

Also note that there were quite a few times where God delivered Israel into the hand of their enemies for long periods of time because they sinned against Him... and sent plagues after them and other things... So He didn't really show that much favouritism, just kept them separate for a greater purpose: the lineage of Jesus.

Again, not by your biblical account. Reread the passage I posted earlier.
The were favored above all nations.

God allows lots of things to be committed in His name... rest assured, God is a god of JUSTICE.

So, you admit that your God allowed the genocide of women, children, and Native Americans out of JUSTICE? What did they do wrong, may I ask? Children are innocent.

So you're anti-abortion, right?

Yes, I am.

You're a vegan?

No, I'm not. I eat red meat. Animals were given to us for that purpose by the traditions I subscribe to. Do I MERCILOUSLY kill animals, heavens no.
Do I hunt for sport? NO. We raise our own beef, pork, and lamb, yes. While animals are sacred in my culture, they are here for that purpose. To provide food.

You don't squish bugs, right?

Indiscremently, no. I do kill the big spiders in the bath tub, and squash the occasional roach bug, as well as swat flys. They are pests, spread disease, and pose a threat to my children, i.e, the brown recluse spider. So, yes I do "squash" bugs.

You've never intentionally caused or wished anyone harm in any way?

No, that is against my personal morals.

Have you?

My ancestors were among those slaughtered by the early American colonists... so my view is on directly the fence. But they did things (intentionally and un-) that I just have to accept... and I don't think they did God's will in much of it, if any... but I can't speak for God.

Examples? It is not me to judge you or your ancestors, but as if you claim;
all things are God's will! No?

You seem to just not like anything you hear in the Bible when it comes to death or judgement.

The Bible is a book written by man which my research has shown to be full of errors, impossibilities,etc. It was written by men and IMO is severly flawed.
I don't like God portrayed as the God of War so to speak as he is portrayed in the OT. And to be fair, I take MUCH more concern with other matters as well which the Bible speaks of, not just those of senseless murder and everlasting punishment by your God of lust for blood whether through sacrifice or genocide. You never commented on the one statement I made that your God required the sacrifice of his son...essentially sacrificing himself to himself in order that mankind might be saved frome eternal damnation.?????
Comments?

You've got a Christian icon... so I assume you're Christian... but you don't believe the God you believe in truly has good reasons for what He has done and allowed?

Yes, I am a Christian. A follower of Christs teachings, specifically those of love, compassion, and forgiveness. I don't believe a God who truly cared for his creation would allow or caused the things documented in the OT and preached at me continuously.

As I hinted at above, I AM descended from the Cherokee nation.

So I'm assuming you are listed in the Chapman Role then? Care to share?

Be well,
Smilin

 

[Smilin]

Did Hitler create the Jews?

That's a red herring. You're detracting from the issue.

You stated:
Don't forget that Hitler, born Jewish, used a thin veil of Christianity for appeal in order to slaughter God's chosen people. That's murder. That's deceit. That's psychotic. That's not the same as what you find in the OT.

And then Primate noted:
Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. (KJV)

Looks the same to me.


Nothing was said about the Creation of the Jews. According to the OT, only two people were actually ever created: Adam and Eve.

So, now, lets stay on topic and I'll reask: What is the difference?

 

[dr.p]

That's a red herring. You're detracting from the issue.

You stated:
Don't forget that Hitler, born Jewish, used a thin veil of Christianity for appeal in order to slaughter God's chosen people. That's murder. That's deceit. That's psychotic. That's not the same as what you find in the OT.

And then Primate noted:
Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. (KJV)

Looks the same to me.


Nothing was said about the Creation of the Jews. According to the OT, only two people were actually ever created: Adam and Eve.

So, now, lets stay on topic and I'll reask: What is the difference?

That is the difference. God created man... He is in control of life and death. Hitler was just... evil.

I don't like the thought of women and children being killed any more than you do. And I'm not dispassionate about it. I just believe that God wouldn't have told them to do things like in He did in Hosea without good reason IF He's the same God that's in the New Testament, which I believe Him to be.

 

[john crawford]

It follows directly from your reasoning. Since you say that it is racist to refer to our ancestors as non-human, and our ancestors include archaebacteria (all at the bottom of the tree of life), according to your own reasoning considering archaebacteria as non-human is racist.

You forget that Creationists don't abide by neo-Darwinist racial theories, concepts or tenets of human descent from non-human mammals, primates, Australopithicene apes or "archaebacteria." We're only concerned about the human racism inherent in evolutionist theory and leave other forms of evolutionist racism for animal rights activists to deal with.

 

[john crawford]

But we do it to all of them, including ourselves. How is that racist? If I say that I'm an ape, you are an ape, every homo sapiens is an ape, every homo neanderthalensis is an ape, every homo erectus is an ape, where am I being racist? I'm not singling anyone out as better than the other. We are all apes.

To call any or all members of the human race "apes" is racist. As members of the human race, creationists may choose to be offended by your neo-Darwinist speculations that all African, Asian and European people are apes and consider it racist because you are singling out the one European theory of human ancestry, descent and origins as superior to all other human concepts and beliefs about our common biological heritage and descent.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You forget that Creationists don't abide by neo-Darwinist racial theories, concepts or tenets of human descent from non-human mammals, primates, Australopithicene apes or "archaebacteria." We're only concerned about the human racism inherent in evolutionist theory and leave other forms of evolutionist racism for animal rights activists to deal with.

Again confusing "racial" with "racist."
John, there are a number of free online dictionaries which are readily available...

 

[Believer-in-Christ]

I don't see how such a transformation could take place. We might have had more hair back in the old days but were we apes?
the same with the Dinosaurs turning into birds. It's totally rediculous because it would require the Mr T-Rex to shrink in size and grow some feathers. It doesn't really fit.

 

[john crawford]

But we do it to all of them, including ourselves. How is that racist? If I say that I'm an ape, you are an ape, every homo sapiens is an ape, every homo neanderthalensis is an ape, every homo erectus is an ape, where am I being racist? I'm not singling anyone out as better than the other. We are all apes.

To call any or all members of the human race "apes" is racist. As members of the human race, creationists may choose to be offended by your neo-Darwinist speculations that all African, Asian and European people are apes and consider it racist because you are singling out the one European theory of human ancestry, descent and origins as superior to all other human concepts and beliefs about our common biological heritage and descent.

 

[Nathan Poe]

To call any or all members of the human race "apes" is racist.

Calling us all apes is racist? I assure you, we're all equally apes.

As members of the human race, creationists may choose to be offended by your neo-Darwinist speculations that all African, Asian and European people are apes and consider it racist because you are singling out the one European theory of human ancestry, descent and origins as superior to all other human concepts and beliefs about our common biological heritage and descent.

So the racism is in singling out the European theory, as opposed to the Chinese, Egyptian, or Aborigine theory?

And the fact that this one European theory just so happens to fit the facts better than any other is irrelevent?

 

[random_guy]

I don't see how such a transformation could take place. We might have had more hair back in the old days but were we apes?
the same with the Dinosaurs turning into birds. It's totally rediculous because it would require the Mr T-Rex to shrink in size and grow some feathers. It doesn't really fit.

Remember, it's not like transformers where a T-Rex turns into a bird. T-Rex is just one species of dinosaur, and a large one. However, check out these links detail just some of the evidence of the dino-bird link.

A post here about a news article discovering more evidence for dino-bird.
http://www.christianforums.com/t1857411-more-evidence-for-dino-bird-common-ancestry.html

A neat site about dinosaurs plus information about the dino-bird theory. It also talks about the science that paleontologist do and what constitutes as good science.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/dinobuzz.html

 

[Mountain_Woman]

So, is it possible that maybe humans didn't evolve from apes?
Does anyone here believe the scripture? And if so, maybe you should read Genesis one more time!

 

[sidiousmax225]

So, is it possible that maybe humans didn't evolve from apes?
Does anyone here believe the scripture? And if so, maybe you should read Genesis one more time!

Great job with you reading the thread and all. Wait....ohhh, that's right, YOU DIDN'T!