How did apes evolvle into humans?

[L'Anatra]

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.

You know what?

Don't play the "my wife isn't white" card anymore. It sounds suspiciously like something white families used to say back in the 60s and 70s to be politically correct: "I have friends who are black."

I'm starting to wonder if you're not racist, John. You talk about it all the time.

 

[dr.p]

Partially correct. My view is biased based upon the documented autrocities commited against my ancestors. HOWEVER, my view is in no way distorted.

How is being biased any different from having a distorted view? Which ancestors are those, by the way? I think we all have some ancestors that had atrocities committed against them at some point.

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.

You do realize my God did all those things to keep that nation holy so that Jesus Christ (whose teachings you say you follow,) could come to save and teach the world LOVE? Also that we are all descended from that same race according to the Bible? Also that any of those who were joined (in marriage or in servitude or any other way) were considered part of the nation of Israel? God's chosen people are those who love Him and obey Him.

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

Yes. But consider Soddom and Gomorrah. Abraham appeared to argue with God about destroying the city, asking if there were 5 righteous people in it, if He would relent. God, of course, said yes. The angels found 4 when they went and removed them before destroying the city.

I like to think that if God had never had that conversation with Abraham, that He would have removed ALL of the righteous people from the city any way. In fact, I'm convinced of it. Because I know Him to be a very loving and merciful God.

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

I'm not arguing that they weren't favoured. I said they went through a lot of hard things also, whether favoured or not... God killed many of them, and also raised up armies to defeat them at certain points. And all of it was because they sinned against God.

Have you not read all of the parts in Jeremiah about how UPSET God was with Israel because of all the horrible things they'd done? Or how they were enslaved to the Egyptians for hundreds of years? And the Babylonians? Things like that are all throughout the OT.

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.

That's not what I meant to say... I meant to say "He is a God of Justice -- therefore, judgement will come to those who do such things." If anyone has done wrong, God has judged them already.

Yes, I am.

Good stuff I'm pro-life, too.

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.

So you don't kill the animals MERCILOUSLY, but because you need food. And you would never make them suffer as they die, right?

You have dominion over the lives of those animals. You have the right to take their lives to suit your own (honestly) selfish purposes. You do so mercilously though because you know they can feel pain, and making them suffer needlessly would just be cruel.
("Selfish," as used there, is not meant to be derogatory in any way, it's just apt; I eat meat also, and thank God for it.)

Now... can you compare that to the actions in the OT of the ONE who created ALL HUMANS? Did God tell them to act mercilously when taking control of the land? No. He expected the opposite, I'm sure, as He is very consistent throughout the entire Bible in what He expects to be in our hearts. But there was a purpose for the actions.

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.

So if those "pests" (which God created to clean up things decaying, and to do various other helpful things) pose a threat of some kind, then you take their lives? Once again, you have every right to, and I do so as well.

But... can you compare your actions in this situation also to the actions of God in the OT? Couldn't there have been something very important God was trying to protect? Why do you think He would take such measures to protect the nation of Israel and to purify them (through trials and what-not,) even when they continually sinned against Him and worshipped false idols?

No, that is against my personal morals. Have you?

Yes, I have. When I was a teenager, I hurt quite a few people for various reasons. Nothing like bloodshed. More emotional hurt than anything. I am ashamed of those things, but I have done them.

You've really never done anything to harm someone else? You've never said a harsh word to anyone because you were angry with them and wanted to hurt them? Never talked down to anyone because you thought they were beneath you in any way?
If you've really done nothing, wow... you're the only one I've ever met.

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

To clarify, I was referring to the colonists when I said: 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.

No, not all things are God's will... when did I say that? Simply, He gave us free will, allows us to do stupid and horrible things, and allows bad things to happen for good reasons. And He can bring the very best out of the very worst, in any situation.

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.

My research has shown just the opposite But I look for the good in all of it. It was penned by men, but under the influence of the Holy Spirit... which I think most people have a lot of trouble understanding these days, because they really don't know how the Holy Spirit works through people.

My God is a god of love, but also of righteousness, truth and justice. In this world, there are usually steep prices for all of those things, required by God and man... even by people just like you.

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?

Sorry.. I did miss commenting on that. Let me do that now:

You are obviously NOT a Christian, as you can't possibly believe Jesus died for your sins after making a comment like that. So please, give yourself a new-age title... something more appropriate, so that you don't get people more confused than they already are... at least do it for their sakes... please. I'm not trying to be harsh, just honest.

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.

You follow those teachings of Christ that you find pleasant. Were Christ in you, you would not speak so callously against the God He came to preach to us, calling God "Father".

You call the same God that Jesus proclaimed "blood-thirsty"... that God is the One who commanded Israel not to ingest the blood of animals, because the life is in the blood, and it is precious (Lev. 17:13-14). That God is the said to Cain, "The voice of your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground?" (Gen. 4:10) Wasn't He the One who allowed His only begotten Son to be beaten more than any other human ever was; spit on, humiliated, broken and pierced, so that we have a chance to be redeemed by His precious blood?

Contrast, if you will, God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac (Gen. 22). Abraham was completely willing to do so for the God He loved, even after begging with THE SAME GOD to spare the lives of those in Soddom and Gomorrah... a request either of us would have made.

Why would a man who values life that much be willing to offer up his son? Why would Jesus, a man whose teachings you follow (some of them), allow Himself, and say it's His purpose, to be sacrificed for the cause of a God that you find so unjust and unreasonable?

What is it that causes your bias, I wonder?

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

I don't know what the Chapman Role is. I just know I have Cherokee blood in my veins. What more do I need? I don't need to be on a list to be a descendent of my ancestors.

 

[Jet Black]

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?

if you look up the proper definition of ape, then it turns out that we are apes. apes are basically mammals, with forward facing eyes, opposable thumbs, flexible digits, no tail and so on. so by the definition of apes, we are apes. It is also interesting to note that we have the same density of hair follicles all over our bodies as all the other 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.

no, this is commonly known as a strawman. First of all you seem to be under the misconception that all dinosaurs were huge, they weren't, but I will get back to that in a bit. your more fundamental error is a misunderstanding of evolution. You seem to be under the impression that it occurs in an individual, in a single generation, however this is not the case. evolution occurs to populations, when under secective pressure of some sort as a result of environmental conditions, certain traits result in those individuals having more babies, and those traits becoming dominant in the breeding group. so for example it has been seen many times, that small island populations for example tend to shrink from their mainland size over a number of generations. The island that the Homo Florenesis fossil was recently found on is home to a number of pygmy species. so that is problem 1; your misunderstanding of evolution.

Secondly you don't know much about dinosaurs, so you have created a strawman in your example: Dinosaurs came in a massive variety of sizes from the really massive ones, through Tyrannosaurus Rex and right down to Compsognathus, which was about the size of a chicken. The evidence indicates that it is some of these smaller dinosaurs that evolved into birds. that is problem 2; your lack of knowledge about dinosaurs

now both of these are what is known as a strawman. A strawman is where one makes a weaker version of the opponent's actual argument, and then proceeds to show that the weaker version is false. It does not address the actualy argument, as we can see here. your falsification of your model does not address the evolution of birds, because you have neither correctly represented the process of evolution, nor have you correctly represented the range of dinosaurs.

I can go into more detail if you like on the evolution of birds, and there are other posters around even more able than me, but first I want you to appreciate that your concepts regarding evolution and dinosaurs are inherently wrong, rendering your argument fallacious and this needs correcting in order to provide a better foundation for your learning.

 

[Tomk80]

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

BWAHAHAHAHA. John, really. What you are saying here is so utterly stupid it just blew up a series of irony meters. And I didn't even connect them yet! I need read no further. You have no idea what you are talking about, both when it comes to what evolution entails and when it comes to what racism entails.

lol, if I call everyone the same, including me, I'm a racist. lol. Okay, this is really the funniest thing I've read all day and it probably is the funniest thing I'm gonna read the rest of the day. And that's saying a lot, because I was planning on reading Terry Pratchett's 'Good Omens' tonight.

 

[RoboMastodon]

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.

Let's see...
Humans...
Animalia (we are animals)
Chordata (we are chordates)
Mammalia (we are mammals)
Primates (we are primates)
Hominoidea (we are apes)
Hominidae (we are great apes)
Homo (we are homonids)
sapiens (we are humans)

yup... we're apes.

 

[ebia]

BWAHAHAHAHA. John, really. What you are saying here is so utterly stupid it just blew up a series of irony meters. And I didn't even connect them yet! I need read no further. You have no idea what you are talking about, both when it comes to what evolution entails and when it comes to what racism entails.

lol, if I call everyone the same, including me, I'm a racist. lol. Okay, this is really the funniest thing I've read all day and it probably is the funniest thing I'm gonna read the rest of the day. And that's saying a lot, because I was planning on reading Terry Pratchett's 'Good Omens' tonight.

At this rate he will be claiming that saying anything about anything is racist.

 

[Elduran]

At this rate he will be claiming that saying anything about anything is racist.

He's pretty much already claiming that. After all, he apparently thinks that by saying something about the entire human species at the same time you can still be racist, which is quite obviously not true just from the definition of the word.

 

[Tomk80]

He's pretty much already claiming that. After all, he apparently thinks that by saying something about the entire human species at the same time you can still be racist, which is quite obviously not true just from the definition of the word.

I think we'll need to define a new word for John. Something like 'specist' as opposed to 'racist' .

 

[ebia]

I think we'll need to define a new word for John. Something like 'specist' as opposed to 'racist' .

I still suspect he really means offensive (as in he is offended). He's just dug himself into too big a hole to admit it.

 

[Jet Black]

I still suspect he really means offensive (as in he is offended). He's just dug himself into too big a hole to admit it.

well he did say it was racist because it is a European theory. funny definition of racism. I suspect you are right.

 

[john crawford]

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

Racist theories about members of the human race may be racially motivated.

Racial theories about members of the human race may be racist.

Evolutionist theories about the origins and ancestry of the human race may be both racially motivated and racist.

Neo-Darwinist theories about the evolution of members of the human race from ancestors of African apes are both racial theories and racist because they purposefully and intentionally identify and classify certain members of the human race as the immediate descendents of non-human primates of African ancestry and descent.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Neo-Darwinist theories about the evolution of members of the human race from ancestors of African apes are both racial theories and racist because they purposefully and intentionally identify and classify certain members of the human race as the immediate descendents of non-human primates of African ancestry and descent.

Not "certain" members, John, ALL members. We are ALL decendents of non-human primates of African ancestry. Every last one of us.

 

[john crawford]

QUOTE=Nathan Poe

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

Calling any member of the human race an ape, in accordance with the tenets of theoretical evolutionism, is a form of scientific racism.

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

That's just one aspect of the scientific racism inherent in theoretical evolutionism. There are so many other aspects of racism inherent in theories of human evolution from primordial ancestors of African apes that it boggles the mind.

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

No. The claim of theoretical superiority and supremacy, based on the African "evidence," is both pertinent and relevent to the charge that it is race-based, Afrocentric and racist.

 

[john crawford]

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.

The dino=bird theory of evolution is just as bad as the ape=man theory since there is no fossilized evidence of either. The important thing to remember about theoretical evolutionism is that extinct species of dinosaurs, birds, apes and humans have no civil rights, but living members of the current human race do.

Any creationist can file a civil lawsuit against theoretical racism being taught in public schools. Whether they eventually win their case or not will depend on how many similar lawsuits have been filed.

 

[notto]

Any creationist can file a civil lawsuit against theoretical racism being taught in public schools. Whether they eventually win their case or not will depend on how many similar lawsuits have been filed.

Take it to court and call the press. Please! I could use the laugh.

 

[sidiousmax225]

I'm starting to think that John is just senile.

 

[john crawford]

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!

Of course it is possible that humans didn't "evolve" from ape-like ancestors!

In real science, anything is possible, even the possibility that the Genesis account of creation is literally true.

Anti-biblical evolutionists, of course, will staunchly and naturally deny that this possibilty even exists.

 

[john crawford]

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

Ad homimen attack!

 

[notto]

Of course it is possible that humans didn't "evolve" from ape-like ancestors!

In real science, anything is possible, even the possibility that the Genesis account of creation is literally true.

Anti-biblical evolutionists, of course, will staunchly and naturally deny that this possibilty even exists.

Actually, no. Creationism has been falsified by several independent lines of evidence. Once something is falsified, it cannot be true.

 

[sidiousmax225]

Ad homimen attack!

Nope, 4 posts above this one.