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.
Always weaseling - it is the YEC non-scientist way.It most certainly is an answer, and the correct one, just like if the milkshake was no longer here (extinct, if you will), and you can only theorize as to what flavor it was, or if it even was a milkshake.
And he is like this in EVERY thread he starts. It is like they think we cannot see what they do or something.Because you avoided the question by raising information unrelated to the topic. Firstly by asking why there's stronger physical evidence of early hominid settlements and tool use, and then secondly by raising a non-sequitur that Homo erectus is extinct.
Now you've evaded a third time, by failing to answer the question and then making another total non sequitur.
Given this, and your subsequent "answers", I'm forced to conclude you're not an honest interlocutor or good faith participant here and as a result are incapable of answering the question.
Now, what book has blandishments about lying, I wonder?
When the members of the species Homo erectus were alive, were they human or animal (or both)?I think I'll just go with (c)... 'extinct.'
Well, since you don't like my 'extinct' answer, the only other one I have is 'I don't know'... what's yours (and connecting dots doesn't count)? I don't think there's any undisputed evidence that they even coexisted (as in playing house etc.) with modern humans... do you have any? I suppose you can find all kinds of articles online, pro and con. But, when it's all said and done, I'd venture to say that no one knows for sure, and it's like modern man just appeared out of the blue about 200,000 years ago or more (according to time as we think we understand it).When the members of the species Homo erectus were alive, were they human or animal (or both)?
I don't think there's any undisputed evidence that they even coexisted (as in playing house etc.) with modern humans... do you have any?
I suppose you can find all kinds of articles online, pro and con. But, when it's all said and done, I'd venture to say that no one knows for sure, and it's like modern man just appeared out of the blue about 200,000 years ago or more (according to time as we think we understand it).
I hate to start ping-ponging articles, but like I said this is your opinion, and no one knows for sure. This article is 10 years old and it seems to dispute your thoughts on the subject. Even so, I noticed they couldn't keep from connecting dots either.I'd say we can answer pretty definitively that yes Homo sapiens and Homo erectus coexisted. The answer has been a tentative 'yes' for at least 30 years, and that yes has continued to get firmer and firmer over the last decade.
In all probability, humans and homo erectus coexisted together for more than 150,000 years. To put this into context, humans have been the only surviving hominid species for about 40,000 years (and possibly as little as 30,000 years). Which means we coexisted with our ancestors for much longer than we've been on our own.
Do you have a definition of human? A method of identifying what it means?Well, since you don't like my 'extinct' answer, the only other one I have is 'I don't know'... what's yours (and connecting dots doesn't count)? I don't think there's any undisputed evidence that they even coexisted (as in playing house etc.) with modern humans... do you have any? I suppose you can find all kinds of articles online, pro and con. But, when it's all said and done, I'd venture to say that no one knows for sure, and it's like modern man just appeared out of the blue about 200,000 years ago or more (according to time as we think we understand it).
Maybe not... just that particular point in time makes me wonder what made us take a step like that (breaking from the natural norm), if we were a lower animal form. Another good point though.
Interesting. Can you find any articles from legitimate sources showing evidence for the coexistence of humans and ceratopsian dinosaurs, as indicated at the Creation museum?I hate to start ping-ponging articles, but like I said this is your opinion, and no one knows for sure. This article is 10 years old and it seems to dispute your thoughts on the subject. Even so, I noticed they couldn't keep from connecting dots either.
Scientists show that modern humans never co-existed with Homo erectus
Actually, you're right, provided I’m hamstrung to a scientific explanation. But, there is definitely a gray area where science even fails to link the two, without connecting dots of course. Like I said in my previous statement, also with the link I posted, there’s no absence of controversy about it even in scientific circles. In addition, if genomics (often science’s trump card on the subject) was the end-all argument, I feel that science would not have failed in a definite physical connection between the two.Do you have a definition of human? A method of identifying what it means?
Personally I don't think you can create a hard line between "human" and "animal" so it's not a useful distinction.
Well put... I guess I'm just cautious when it comes to connecting dots based on changes in behavior, adaptations, etc.I don't think the question is much different to others like why are we constantly developing new tech, why do we obsess over what food to eat and so on. Things of this sort will alter humanity on evolutionary timescales, but within the span of a human life they are just examples of human behaviour, we don't get to see where it is all going.
Fair enough, I don't necessarily align with all thoughts on either side.Interesting. Can you find any articles from legitimate sources showing evidence for the coexistence of humans a ceratopsian dinosaurs, as indicated at the Creation museum?
If not, I am curious why you expect from evolution research that you do not expect from your own side.
AKA, double standards.
Well put... I guess I'm just cautious when it comes to connecting dots based on changes in behavior, adaptations, etc.
Yes, I’ve never really denied the logical line of thinking that evolution encompasses, and that’s why I’m supportive of microevolution. The problem with evolutionists is they won’t except anything less than the whole nine yards (goo to you as they say). As a disclosure, I’ll just say that I don’t think there is evidence (without speculation) that this is remotely the case, and I believe we were created… so anything suggesting another possibility seems illogical to me, if for no other reason evidenced by the need for speculation in the scientific theories.Some or a lot of it is arbitrary. Necessity is the mother of invention, and all that. Changes in living conditions force people to adapt, those who don't adapt don't pass on their genes. There are lots of other interesting ideas too, for example it may be that domesticating dogs led to greater success in hunting, which meant more protein and calories, supporting the development of bigger brains. Lots of different influences over very long periods of time.
What is your impetus for this position? I gather from your posting history that it is almost entirely due to your religionism, not from a depth of understanding of the science. If this is not correct, please indicate your rationale.As a disclosure, I’ll just say that I don’t think there is evidence (without speculation) that this is remotely the case,
Why do you believe this? Your religious indoctrination? Again, from your posting history I cannot see where there is any real science involved. If it is your mere religious beliefs, who cares? If it is something rational, tangible, scientific, you do a very good job of hiding it.and I believe we were created
You mean speculation so-called by religionists?… so anything suggesting another possibility seems illogical to me, if for no other reason evidenced by the need for speculation in the scientific theories.
Of course its from faith... do you think I'm going to deny it? And, if I start having any doubts, all I have to do is listen to self-proclaimed scientists for a little while and the thought passes.What is your impetus for this position? I gather from your posting history that it is almost entirely due to your religionism, not from a depth of understanding of the science. If this is not correct, please indicate your rationale.
If you're so sure of what I know and don't know, why did you even ask?Why do you believe this? Your religious indoctrination? Again, from your posting history I cannot see where there is any real science involved. If it is your mere religious beliefs, who cares?
Don't scientists, such as yourself, do this as well?You mean speculation so-called by religionists?
What do you make of the fact that there are both old earth and young earth creationists? People using the same source material coming to dramatically different conclusions.
Mutation is a chemical change that occurs as a life form is conceived or initially develops... it has nothing to do with instinct or choice.I think that the OP is interesting, in that it presents a case without "mutation" as a choice of styles of adaptation.
What is interesting is that it comes up against the argument that you have to gamble adaptations (with mutation), in order to develop them (and that adaptational styles are irrelevant, while you survive this way) - which I try to address here.
It seems there is a double bind, that Evolutionists both want the change, but not the instinct that encourages it?
Any way, very interesting stuff (I will be checking back, definitely)
Mutation is a chemical change that occurs as a life form is conceived or initially develops... it has nothing to do with instinct or choice.
It isn't a presupposition, it's merely an evidenced fact.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?