How do creationists answer these questions: Are you an Ape? A Mammal? A Vertebrate?

[Doveaman]

And I have known quite a few folks who could pinch the crap out of you with their toes..
I was once a volunteer at a disabilities care center.We had one gentleman who had lost both arms..He could do everything within reason with his toes that a person with hands could do..in some cases,even better.

Could he do this? :

 

[freezerman2000]

Could he do this? :

strawman

 

[Doveaman]

strawman

denial

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Could he do this? :

No.

Evolution has led to modifications of man's feet compared to the feet of our common ancestor with apes. It was an advantage for mankind to walk upright, so our feet developed to provide stability and support.

Isn't evolution great?

 

[EternalDragon]

No.

Evolution has led to modifications of man's feet compared to the feet of our common ancestor with apes. It was an advantage for mankind to walk upright, so our feet developed to provide stability and support.

Isn't evolution great?

I would figure it is an advantage to have four hands. What is the advantage to walking upright? We can't get away from predators as quickly? Can't get to other food sources in the trees?

What was the advantage to loosing hair? Getting a good tan? (Which you know would have given a severe sunburn with pale skin).

You are attributing intelligent qualities to natural selection and mutations that are not possible and do not operate like that. If that is what happened then EVIDENCE PLEASE. (Not a bunch of semi-similar skulls lined up.)

 

[lasthero]

What is the advantage to walking upright?

We can carry tools and do things while we walk, for one thing. It's easier to pick up fruit from low-lying branches. Early humans also would appear more intimidating while they stood. Upright walking also requires less energy, which is good for a migratory species.

Seriously, you could have just typed 'advantages of walking up right' into Google. Sure, you don't buy the explanations, but it's not like they don't exist.

What was the advantage to loosing hair?

Having thick hair is actually a disadvantage in a hot climate. Like, say...Africa. We cool much more efficiently than other apes do. For instance, I can run about ten miles a day on a treadmill, in about an hour or so. I'm sweaty and tired at the end of it, but I can do it as long as I drink enough water beforehand. An ape could absolutely not do this. He would move faster than me, sure, but he'd tire before I did.

Not having fur allows us to live in a wider variety of climates. In hot climates, we do better, and in colder climates we can bundle up with fur. Other apes don't have that option.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

I would figure it is an advantage to have four hands. What is the advantage to walking upright? We can't get away from predators as quickly? Can't get to other food sources in the trees?

What was the advantage to loosing hair? Getting a good tan? (Which you know would have given a severe sunburn with pale skin).

You are attributing intelligent qualities to natural selection and mutations that are not possible and do not operate like that. If that is what happened then EVIDENCE PLEASE. (Not a bunch of semi-similar skulls lined up.)

Hmmmm, you are a creationist, and believe god created man.

Reading your reply, it appears you think the Christian god did a poor job of designing man. In fact, it sounds like you think you could have done a better job than your god.

Isn't it blasphemy or something for you to say you are smarter than your god? You are essentially calling him a dummy.

 

[EternalDragon]

Hmmmm, you are a creationist, and believe god created man.

Reading your reply, it appears you think the Christian god did a poor job of designing man. In fact, it sounds like you think you could have done a better job than your god.

Isn't it blasphemy or something for you to say you are smarter than your god? You are essentially calling him a dummy.

Not sure where you get that from. God created man well suited for what he needs to do. He created apes well suited for living in the wild and swinging from trees.

Of course you are looking at a fallen and imperfect world right now. It is not as it used to be.

 

[biggles53]

Not sure where you get that from. God created man well suited for what he needs to do.

No, you just said that it would have been better to have been 'created' with four hands.... You also said we would be better off walking on all fours, you questioned the advantage of upright walking. You also questioned our lack of body hair..

Tsk, tsk.....I guess its off to the fiery lake for you....!

He created apes well suited for living in the wild and swinging from trees.

Poor attempt at cop-out......you were criticising the design of man, not the other apes......do try to be honest.....

Of course you are looking at a fallen and imperfect world right now. It is not as it used to be.

More crappy cop-out......! You were talking about the original 'design', not what might have happened since.....

Guess you can add 'bearing false witness' to your sin.................wouldn't want to be you......!

 

[biggles53]

We can carry tools and do things while we walk, for one thing. It's easier to pick up fruit from low-lying branches. Early humans also would appear more intimidating while they stood. Upright walking also requires less energy, which is good for a migratory species.

Means we can see predators at a distance more readily too.....

 

[lasthero]

Means we can see predators at a distance more readily too.....

You would think, but early humans were actually pretty short. Most of what I read kind of shies away from that. Still, there are plenty of other reasons.

 

[USincognito]

And I’m saying the human feet are not adapted for grasping. It is adapted from stability and can be used as stability to climb trees.

Human feet are adapted to our bipedal stance. They are derived from prehensile feet and we retain vestigial grasping function in our toes and to a certain extent our arches. I mentioned that I can pick things up with my toes if I drop something and people who live in tropical environments use their toes and arches to grasp and climb palm and coconut trees.

That because X-Men have a better grasp than you do of what prehensile feet would be like.

The FX folks on First Class took a general description of Hank's feet and digitally made a handfoot for the movie. That's hardly science there champ... that's fiction and the phrase is "creative license". Humans have vestigially prehensile feet btw, not fully prehensile. You need to read what people actually write.

It is no surprise that the feet they designed are similar to the different species of ape feet but not to the human feet:

Human feet are ape feet. Just like penguin flippers are bird wings and dolphin fins are mammalian forelimbs.

The human feet are not prehensile. They are designed/adapted for stability, not grasping.

All human feet are vestigially prehensile. Some are more prehensile, some less. Some can be exercised to be nearly fully prehensile.

A biological difference between humans and apes is that apes have prehensile feet and humans do not, and this is because humans are not apes.

You forget, it's not the differences that make a being not something but the similarities. We have all the characteristics of an ape, and no characteristics that would not make us an ape (wings, chitinous exoskeleton, chlorophyll, etc.)

 

[AV1611VET]

A QUESTION OF SPECIAL INTEREST TO CREATIONISTS

Richard Dawkins' "I am an ape" video on Youtube delivers a strong message. Dr. Dawkins tells a clergyman, "I am an ape. Are you an ape?" The pastor says, "No. I am absolutely NOT an ape."

As a disciple of Jesus Christ, how would you reply to Richard Dawkins' question?

"No."

Why?

Because man was made wholly apart from the animals, not daisy-chained.

There's a principle in accounting whereby a person posting numbers should always post from the same source.

Example:

You post $597.28 from the source document to the journal.

If you later post to the ledger, you should post from the source document to the ledger, not from the journal to the ledger.

Still later, if you post to the trial balance, you should post from the source document to the trial balance, not the ledger to the trial balance.

The theory is that, if you make a mistake back in step one, that mistake doesn't get perpetuated.

A bookkeeper might post $597.82 to the journal, but then post $597.28 to the ledger, if he followed the correct principle.

By the same token, man was made from God, not from a series of steps from cyanobacteria to man.

And how would you apply the same reasoning to the following questions?

Am I a Mammal?
Am I a Vertebrate?
Am I an animal?

Yes
Yes
No

 

[FatBurk]

"No."

Because man was made wholly apart from the animals, not daisy-chained.

There's a principle in accounting whereby a person posting numbers should always post from the same source.

Example:

You post $597.28 from the source document to the journal.

If you later post to the ledger, you should post from the source document to the ledger, not from the journal to the ledger.

Still later, if you post to the trial balance, you should post from the source document to the trial balance, not the ledger to the trial balance.

The theory is that, if you make a mistake back in step one, that mistake doesn't get perpetuated.

A bookkeeper might post $597.82 to the journal, but then post $597.28 to the ledger, if he followed the correct principle.

By the same token, man was made from God, not from a series of steps from cyanobacteria to man.

Yes
Yes
No

Here we have a perfect example of what I think is called "The certainty of ignorance", no evidence just certainty.
He's simply saying, "I know because I know because I know".

 

[AV1611VET]

Here we have a perfect example of what I think is called "The certainty of ignorance", no evidence just certainty.
He's simply saying, "I know because I know because I know".

I think someone doesn't understand bookkeeping.

 

[FatBurk]

I think someone doesn't understand bookkeeping.

Perhaps but I do understand when people are fooling themselves into believing things that are not true,
even if they want them to be true with all their heart.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps but I do understand when people are fooling themselves into believing things that are not true,
even if they want them to be true with all their heart.

Is that what you would say to the CFO, if you got a pink slip?

 

[FatBurk]

Is that what you would say to the CFO, if you got a pink slip?

A question deflection because you don't have an argument is not an argument.

 

[EternalDragon]

Perhaps but I do understand when people are fooling themselves into believing things that are not true,
even if they want them to be true with all their heart.

I agree completely with AV. In fact, I would say all his basic beliefs probably match mine. That would also go for many other Christians. Are we all fooling ourselves independently?

How do you know you are not fooling yourself?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I agree completely with AV. In fact, I would say all his basic beliefs probably match mine. That would also go for many other Christians. Are we all fooling ourselves independently?

No, institutionally.

How do you know you are not fooling yourself?

Because we base our beliefs on the facts -- get new facts, and we change our beliefs.

Folks like AV (and I assume you, since your beliefs match his) view such change as a sign of weakness -- others see it as a sign of intellectual honesty; something you wouldn't see from people fooling themselves.