Is a skeptic missing the compassionate part of their being, while only focusing on logic?

[KCfromNC]

I literally saw no facts to adress, so I didn't. You can point them out again if you wish, I really didn't see any.

My post made sense. Doesn't really bother me one way or the other if some don't understand it.

 

[VirOptimus]

for one that is not what I asked for. Again we can post links that contradict each other all night. And by the way wikipedia is the last resource I would use in debate. You can create an account, log in, and alter any page you want at random. So that is hardly objective data. It works well for fast food data but has errors when someone uses it for scientific or medical reasons, I have a host of links to provide if you want. But what will help this debate along is giving arguments for your views, I typically don't post links as people will just find some bias in the host of the link, as I did with yours. So if you copy the arguments to the forum, it leaves a paper trail of your arguments and allows you to see what the arguments are. Anyway, just trying to help you.

As you are factresistant I cant really help you.

I have shown you that humans are by definition apes. If your religious bias makes it so that you cant understand that, well, thats on you.

Also, you dont understand how wikipedia works.

 

[Ken-1122]

well just for example, let analyze that. Humans have a radial ilium bone as I posted a picture above. Apes have a flat ilium. This is for knuckle walking, a radial ilium is for 360 degree motion of a biped. Also apes have what is called a 'shovel face,' So when you see a skull you can instantly tell if it is ape like or human like, you can post any skull picture and see the difference. Thirdly, humans have a nose ridge, a bone that sticks out at the top of the nose. Apes again have a shovel face and no nose ridge. So there are a few of the many differences between apes and humans, I have not even talked about the structure of the hands and feet. So again evidence supports that humans are not apes apparently. Lastly, apes can not mate with humans, so biologically the reproductive systems of both mammals are incompatible. So this proves they are not the same 'type' of animal.

It sounds like you are referring to "modern apes" the apes that walk the earth today; not the creature humans, monkey's modern apes, chimpanzee's etc. evolved from which no longer exists.

 

[Ophiolite]

It sounds like you are referring to "modern apes" the apes that walk the earth today; not the creature humans, monkey's modern apes, chimpanzee's etc. evolved from which no longer exists.

You have pinpointed one of the simple fundamentals of evolutionary theory that creationists seem to have profound difficulty in understanding. At least @createdtoworship put a bit more effort into his "attack" than the traditional, "if we are descended from apes, how come there are still apes around today?"

 

[Shemjaza]

What I was saying is that most homo genus species are related to humans but I never said I researched all human species, but I told you the defining differences between homo and Australopithecus species so you can check yourself. A shovel face is ape like, and a nose ridge is homo sapien like. And habilis from what it looks like looks like an ape to me, it has a shovel face, and if you want to disprove that, just find a skull of habilis that has a nose ridge like a human does. But the only way to prove habilis is a transition of ape to man is to have one mate with both a human and an ape, and if it produces fertile offspring you know it's related to both ape and human. But seeing we can't do that objectively, there is no evidence of a transition factually speaking, and thus no evidence of macro evolution. There is an ongoing debate over this from discovery institute's casey luskin and some secular scientists, they are back and forth on it, but you can read the latest edition here:
On Hominid Fossils and Universal Common Ancestry, Denis Lamoureux Distorts | Evolution News

It's an ape who walked on two feet and crafted tools out of stone. It is literally a transitional species.

The nose structure of modern humans is distinctive... but you can see the variation of modern humans, Neanderthals, erectus and others to see that it didn't come out of nowhere and is a trivial change.

 

[createdtoworship]

As you are factresistant I cant really help you.

I have shown you that humans are by definition apes. If your religious bias makes it so that you cant understand that, well, thats on you.

Also, you dont understand how wikipedia works.

I don't see any real evidence here on this thread that apes are human or vice versa. no on has posted anything here, just links (which I posted links refuting said links), so we are at square one, with no evidence. Thanks for the conversation.

 

[createdtoworship]

It's an ape who walked on two feet and crafted tools out of stone. It is literally a transitional species.

The nose structure of modern humans is distinctive... but you can see the variation of modern humans, Neanderthals, erectus and others to see that it didn't come out of nowhere and is a trivial change.

Habilis was a biped? I only seen skulls of that species, if you have images of a pelvis I can tell you right away if it walked upright or knuckle walked, I presume it will have a flat ilium blade. But again no one even desired to even TRY to debate this logically, they just made statements with no supporting documentation. And so I can simply say I disagree with it, as a matter of opinion and refute any other opinion out there. It all boils down to your sources.

 

[VirOptimus]

I don't see any real evidence here on this thread that apes are human or vice versa. no on has posted anything here, just links (which I posted links refuting said links), so we are at square one, with no evidence. Thanks for the conversation.

No, your links refuted nothing.

You are in error.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, your links refuted nothing.

You are in error.

again that is just opinion sir, and since none of us are a PhD in biology or other related field, really our opinions don't matter.

 

[VirOptimus]

again that is just opinion sir, and since none of us are a PhD in biology or other related field, really our opinions don't matter.

No its not opinion.

Its a fact that humans are classified as apes. I have shown links, but you can look it up yourself.

You dont know my education or degrees.

 

[createdtoworship]

duplicate

 

[createdtoworship]

No its not opinion.

Its a fact that humans are classified as apes. I have shown links, but you can look it up yourself.

You dont know my education or degrees.

Your link was refuted already from my link. Again when it comes to links, the person who has the last word wins. That's how it works. But if you want to continue this debate, just post the facts themselves as you find them on your source links, and then it will make it harder to refute what you say.

@VirOptimus

 

[VirOptimus]

Your link was refuted already from my link. Again when it comes to links, the person who has the last word wins. That's how it works. But if you want to continue this debate, just post the facts themselves as you find them on your source links, and then it will make it harder to refute what you say.

@VirOptimus

Dude, thats not how a debate works.

I have already shown you this fact with credible links.

 

[createdtoworship]

Dude, thats not how a debate works.

I have already shown you this fact with credible links.

You can post all the links you want, the thing is I posted credible differences ON THIS FORUM. So to me, that refutes any hypothetical link. Besides, I did post a link of my own showing the differences as well that was written by scientists and experts in the field. So at this point I assume you cannot or do not wish to do your own homework on this, so I will label this as refuted, if that is ok.

 

[VirOptimus]

You can post all the links you want, the thing is I posted credible differences ON THIS FORUM. So to me, that refutes any hypothetical link. Besides, I did post a link of my own showing the differences as well that was written by scientists and experts in the field. So at this point I assume you cannot or do not wish to do your own homework on this, so I will label this as refuted, if that is ok.

You dont get to do your own definitions.

The family Hominidae (hominids), the great apes, also include four genera comprising three extant species of orangutans and their subspecies, two extant species of gorillas and their subspecies, two extant species of chimpanzees and their subspecies, and one extant species of humans in a single extant subspecies.

Ape - Wikipedia

 

[Shemjaza]

Habilis was a biped? I only seen skulls of that species, if you have images of a pelvis I can tell you right away if it walked upright or knuckle walked, I presume it will have a flat ilium blade. But again no one even desired to even TRY to debate this logically, they just made statements with no supporting documentation. And so I can simply say I disagree with it, as a matter of opinion and refute any other opinion out there. It all boils down to your sources.

I'm not aware of an actual pelvis, but multiple skulls and feet show that it was upright, rather then a semi quadruped like a chimp or gorilla.

Even Lucy's pelvis demonstrate a more upright locomotion then a modern "ape".

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm not aware of an actual pelvis, but multiple skulls and feet show that it was upright, rather then a semi quadruped like a chimp or gorilla.

Even Lucy's pelvis demonstrate a more upright locomotion then a modern "ape".

All of this is unvalidated, we would need to see pictures of pelvis, to see how the legs attached, feet are not good enough. Lucy is proven to be a knuckle walker from actual photos of the pelvis, I can provide a link again if you wish.

 

[createdtoworship]

duplicate

 

[createdtoworship]

You dont get to do your own definitions.

The family Hominidae (hominids), the great apes, also include four genera comprising three extant species of orangutans and their subspecies, two extant species of gorillas and their subspecies, two extant species of chimpanzees and their subspecies, and one extant species of humans in a single extant subspecies.

Ape - Wikipedia

sir even your own link refutes what you are saying. You said apes were humans by definition, and your link says they are both hominids, but they are not the same. Besides I searched 17th century works on taxonomy, and no such term "hominid" so it is safe to say that either darwin or his predecessors had a part in coining the taxonomical term: "hominidae" which appeared within the same few decades of "origin of species." So using that term to prove common ancestry is circular reasoning.
@VirOptimus

 

[VirOptimus]

sir even your own link refutes what you are saying. You said apes were humans by definitions, and your link says they are both hominids, but they are not the same. Besides I searched 17th century works on taxonomy, and no such term "hominid" so it is safe to say that either darwin or his predecessors had a part in coining the taxonomical term: "hominidae" which appeared within the same few decades of "origin of species."
@VirOptimus

.....

You cant read?