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.
Whichever religion you want - you just have to be vociferous and unbending in your certainty that you, and you alone, have discovered The Truth.
Just keep this in mind:No prob.. Everyone else can do it.
What a dumb response from the evolution side.
Of course the popular paradigm is going to get more " votes" because who wants to buck popular opinion? It's the same with any topic.
If votes don't matter then why bring up the alleged thousands of scientists who reject "Darwinian theory" in the first place?
You don't get to have it both ways.
The fossil evidence regarding human evolution is neither reproducible nor reliable. And since paleoanthropologists cannot explain what caused humans to evolve naked skin, bipedalism, large brain, and other human features, creationists can push the non-scientific idea that this unique evolutionary path was the result of “Intelligent Design.”
Acclaimed fossils might not depict human evolution
Lack of access to the original material is still a problem in paleoanthropology. In other sciences, discoveries and results can be reproduced or verified in independent laboratories. But a particular primate fossil is only found once. Others must trust that the fragments were found as claimed, that none were planted by a trickster, and none were intentionally kept hidden.
Acclaimed fossils might not depict human evolution
The bone fragments convinced specialists that Lucy was bipedal with an upright posture. No foot bones or hand bones were known from Lucy or from other Australopithecus. But Lucy was assumed to have had human-like feet...
The skull of Turkana boy was assembled from about 70 pieces, and many were missing. The brain case is said to be about 900 cc, and the age about 1.5 million years. The bones are said to show bipedality, and everyone assumes that the boy had human-like feet. However, the assembled skeleton has neither foot bones nor hand bones.
In the scientific descriptions that were published in 1993 (The Nariokotome Homo erectus skeleton), Alan Walker and Richard Leakey mentioned that a possible metatarsal (foot bone) was found “but it has some peculiar features and is from a part of the site that has yielded only questionable pieces.” The fossil collectors found fragments of many animals in the large volume of sediments.
Did they perhaps find hand bones or foot bones that suggested an arboreal lifestyle, and therefore could not belong to this skeleton?
Acclaimed fossils might not depict human evolution
It should be remembered, however, that arboreal apes are often bipedal when moving on the ground. YouTube videos show how gibbons walk and run like humans. The domesticated chimpanzee “Oliver” routinely walked comfortably in a fully upright position, leading some people to claim that he was a hybrid humanzee. A genetics test showed that he was not.
All chimpanzees can walk on two legs when carrying something, and must do so when moving about in waist-deep water.
Acclaimed fossils might not depict human evolution
No fossils would have formed along the coast of Bioko, because it was an erosional geologic environment without deposition of sediments.
Acclaimed fossils might not depict human evolution
Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain: and this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. - Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, p. 293.
So full of fail, but I will deal with this claim. Why do creationists always assume that only one example of species are found? Lucy was not the only Australopithecus afarensis ever found. She was not the first. She was not the last. Guess what were found in other digs? It rhymes with "Put Jones".Did you catch that? Since the foot bones and hand bones of Lucy and Turkana boy were never discovered, it's simply an assumption, rather than a provable fact, that they had evolved past an arboreal (tree-dwelling) lifestyle.
Why does that matter?
As those who believe in special creation have maintained all along, all fossils of supposed ape-to-man transitions are either fully ape or fully human.
Oh my! Oh my! Seriously? You are fully ape. I am fully ape. If you are human you are fully ape You cannot refute a scientific theory with a strawman argument. There is no "change of kind" in evolution.
"Ape", from Old English apa, is a word of uncertain origin. The term has a history of rather imprecise usage—and of comedic or punning usage in the vernacular. Its earliest meaning was generally of any non-human anthropoid primate, [c] as is still the case for its cognates in other Germanic languages.[5] Later, after the term "monkey" had been introduced into English, "ape" was specialized to refer to a tailless (therefore exceptionally human-like) primate.[6] Thus, the term "ape" obtained two different meanings, as shown in the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica entry: it could be used as a synonym for "monkey" and it could denote the tailless humanlike primate in particular.[7]
Some, or recently all, hominoids are also called "apes", but the term is used broadly and has several different senses within both popular and scientific settings. "Ape" has been used as a synonym for "monkey" or for naming any primate with a human-like appearance, particularly those without a tail.[7] Biologists have traditionally used the term "ape" to mean a member of the superfamily Hominoidea other than humans,[1] but more recently to mean all members of Hominoidea. So "ape"—not to be confused with "great ape"—now becomes another word for hominoid including humans.[3][d]
Ape - Wikipedia
Yes, the people in the gif are laughing at you.
There are no biological traits that other apes have that humans do not have. You may find something unique to gorillas, or orangutans, or chimps. But it a trait is had by gorillas and chimps we will have it too. In fact chimps are more closely related to use than they are to other apes. The fact that you and I are apes is not an assumption. In fact that is an error on your part since if you make that claim you take on a burden of proof. It is a conclusion drawn from endless evidence.You are just arguing over semantics, while missing the substance entirely. What is the traditional meaning of the word "ape"?
Why is it so hard to admit that it's just an assumption, rather than a provable fact, that Lucy and Turkana boy represent our evolutionary ancestors? Again, they were found without hand bones and foot bones, so they could have been tree-dwellers for all we know.
Charles Darwin deserves to be laughed at. He was an outright racist whose theory, after 150 years, has still not been demonstrated by the actual evidence, and yet reductionists and materialists have the gall to laugh at anyone who questions his theory.
Why is it so hard to admit that it's just an assumption, rather than a provable fact, that Lucy and Turkana boy represent our evolutionary ancestors? Again, they were found without hand bones and foot bones, so they could have been tree-dwellers for all we know.
Charles Darwin deserves to be laughed at. He was an outright racist whose theory, after 150 years, has still not been demonstrated by the actual evidence, and yet reductionists and materialists have the gall to laugh at anyone who questions his theory.
Charles Darwin deserves to be laughed at. He was an outright racist whose theory, after 150 years, has still not been demonstrated by the actual evidence, and yet reductionists and materialists have the gall to laugh at anyone who questions his theory.
Your source seems to be cherry-picking the evidence - should we tear our hair out that two Australopithecus specimens have missing bones? I don't think so - "Australopithecus afarensis is one of the longest-lived and best-known early human species—paleoanthropologists have uncovered remains from more than 300 individuals..." Smithsonian National Museum of Natural HistoryThis is very interesting. In what sense is the fossil evidence regarding human evolution not reproducible?
Here is one example:
How is the fossil evidence regarding human evolution not reliable?
Here is one example:
Did you catch that? Since the foot bones and hand bones of Lucy and Turkana boy were never discovered, it's simply an assumption, rather than a provable fact, that they had evolved past an arboreal (tree-dwelling) lifestyle.
Why does that matter?
As those who believe in special creation have maintained all along, all fossils of supposed ape-to-man transitions are either fully ape or fully human.
The above article only confirms this, which is why the author presents an alternative explanation for human evolution, the aquatic ape theory, while admitting that it cannot be supported by fossil evidence.
Wow. Just wow. This is what's classically called an ad hoc explanation. If the fossil evidence doesn't support the traditional theory of human evolution, make up a new one.
Perhaps good old Charlie was right all along too:
I have to revisit this. First off Darwin grew up in a time of racism and was demonstrably less racist than most. His theory did not rely on racism at all. We have come a long time since Darwin, you lose every time that you make such poor arguments. Science does not make the mistake that you do with the Bible. We do not claim that things are true because of the people that came up with the idea, though Darwin was amazingly correct with how little evidence that he had. But progress does not begin and stop with him Since his time evolution has gone through massive changes as we learned more and more.
And clearly you have no idea at all what is and what is not evidence. Would you like to discuss the topic? It is well defined in the sciences. The evidence for evolution is endless and creationists cannot seem to find any that opposes it.
For some reason I think the Muses, in charge of arts & sciences, are working overtime.Newton invested in slavery.
I'm not sure that snide little insults are the best way of conducting a mature discussion.Charles Darwin deserves to be laughed at.
I think I've already pointed out to you that this is nonsense. He was passionately opposed to slavery. I've posted details of the relevant work to consult to inform yourself about this. If you keep repeating the same errors it will become tedious.He was an outright racist whose theory,
Making bald statements that are not only demonstrably wrong, but have been repeatedly shown to be nonsense may make you feel better and enhance your standing among like minded fellows, but it is ultimately a rather sad site.after 150 years, has still not been demonstrated by the actual evidence,
No. Scientists, Christian, Hindu, Moslem, atheist and agnostic, despair of those who attack the theory without having knowledge of the theory or anything scientifically meaninful to offer in its place. Laugh? We are more inclined to cry out of pity for them.and yet reductionists and materialists have the gall to laugh at anyone who questions his theory.
I'd love to see evolution competently questioned.I'm not sure that snide little insults are the best way of conducting a mature discussion.
I think I've already pointed out to you that this is nonsense. He was passionately opposed to slavery. I've posted details of the relevant work to consult to inform yourself about this. If you keep repeating the same errors it will become tedious.
Making bald statements that are not only demonstrably wrong, but have been repeatedly shown to be nonsense may make you feel better and enhance your standing among like minded fellows, but it is ultimately a rather sad site.
No. Scientists, Christian, Hindu, Moslem, atheist and agnostic, despair of those who attack the theory without having knowledge of the theory or anything scientifically meaninful to offer in its place. Laugh? We are more inclined to cry out of pity for them.
Indeed. Almost all discoveries in science have arisen from probing, difficult questions and unsettling challenges. The only thing unsettling about the challenges from anti-evolutionists on this forum is that I'm related to the authors.I'd love to see evolution competently questioned.
I'm sure any researcher would be fascinated by
a challenge, a real question.
Garbage of the " how come still monkeys"
or falsehoods of every sort, zero data ever is
not a challenge or a serious question.
We always try to explain and reason.
Laughing at is treating with contempt.
We have had quite a dose of contempt from
at least three of our recent creationist posters.
?Indeed. Almost all discoveries in science have arisen from probing, difficult questions and unsettling challenges. The only thing unsettling about the challenges from anti-evolutionists on this forum is that I'm related to the authors.
I presume the authors of the anti-evolution sentimentson this forum are human, so I am related to them. Only if they are AIs, or aliens would this not be the case. (And since I don't rule out panspermia for the origin of life on Earth, they might be relatives also.)
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?