Two quick articles on human evolution:

[Jimmy D]

No one has ever been able to find a fossil that shows that an ape-man actually existed, which must be a frustration for many because until they do, they can't really progress beyond having just a set of theories.

Could you tell us specifically what you mean by “ape man”.

Is it an hairy man with a chimpanzee like head? Does it have a body more like a chimpanzee?

What do you mean exactly?

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm not sure you can rely on the fact checking of a site that publishes:
FLORIDA FISHERMAN LOST AT SEA FOR 14 DAYS CLAIMS HE WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY MERMAIDS

A cousin of mine claimed the same thing happened to him, but I always thought there was something fishy about it.

 

[Paul James]

They found a skull from one part of Africa, an arm from somewhere else, and a jawbone. It was discovered that the skull was that of an ape, the arm was from a baboon and the jawbone was from a pig. What they did was to put these bones together, and filled in the rest from their own imagination. No full set of bones has been found of any of these intermediate ape/man species. It was a total hoax, like the Pitdown man.

Actually, I saw a report that they found more bones at the site where they found the ones that purported to be "Lucy", and when analysed were found to be ape and not human. So it appears that "Lucy" may have been more ape than human.

I just wonder if it is not the actual evidence that atheists can't accept, but that they won't accept it as contrary to what they believe is humanoid. If atheism is actually a rebellion against God than that would explain everything. That why, old mate, I am not going to argue with them. They can believe what they want. I am like you. I believe in creation and that is all that matters to me!

 

[Paul James]

If Sub's brain can't understand the question, then you are admitting that evolution is true and thus your brain can't understand it either. And if your brain was created by God, then so was Sub's, and thus he is capable of understanding the question. Or are you suggesting that your reality is not the same as his reality?

I don't see any point in using logic to defend Creation to atheists, because it is not a matter of logic, but of will. You people want to believe what you believe and you don't want to believe any different. That's why I don't use my time and energy arguing the point because I know I wouldn't ever get anywhere. I just say what I believe and people can take it or leave it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, I saw a report that they found more bones at the site where they found the ones that purported to be "Lucy", and when analysed were found to be ape and not human. So it appears that "Lucy" may have been more ape than human.

I just wonder if it is not the actual evidence that atheists can't accept, but that they won't accept it as contrary to what they believe is humanoid. If atheism is actually a rebellion against God than that would explain everything. That why, old mate, I am not going to argue with them. They can believe what they want. I am like you. I believe in creation and that is all that matters to me!

Find a valid source please. Not a creationist one. They are infamous for getting the science wrong.

And why do you want to believe a falsehood?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see any point in using logic to defend Creation to atheists, because it is not a matter of logic, but of will. You people want to believe what you believe and you don't want to believe any different. That's why I don't use my time and energy arguing the point because I know I wouldn't ever get anywhere. I just say what I believe and people can take it or leave it.

Oh my! You have that one hundred percent backwards. It is the creationists that cannot reason rationally. You believe a story that was meant for children. It is not history. The proper way for a Christian to treat Genesis is as a series of morality tales.

If we only use the scientific method there is no evidence at all for the creation story.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If Sub's brain can't understand the question, then you are admitting that evolution is true and thus your brain can't understand it either. And if your brain was created by God, then so was Sub's, and thus he is capable of understanding the question. Or are you suggesting that your reality is not the same as his reality?

I think that it may be

 

[Kylie]

I don't see any point in using logic to defend Creation to atheists, because it is not a matter of logic, but of will. You people want to believe what you believe and you don't want to believe any different. That's why I don't use my time and energy arguing the point because I know I wouldn't ever get anywhere. I just say what I believe and people can take it or leave it.

Ah, that's where you're mistaken.

If I am going to try to get you to believe the same thing as me, I present a well-thought-out argument for it. If I wanted to convince you that the sky had polka dots, I wouldn't just beg you to believe me, I'd tell you to go and have a look for yourself and go with what your senses tell you. I've yet to see creationists do the same thing.

 

[Paul James]

Ah, that's where you're mistaken.

If I am going to try to get you to believe the same thing as me, I present a well-thought-out argument for it. If I wanted to convince you that the sky had polka dots, I wouldn't just beg you to believe me, I'd tell you to go and have a look for yourself and go with what your senses tell you. I've yet to see creationists do the same thing.

Good. I am not asking anyone to believe me. Doesn't matter whether people believe me or not. People will believe what they choose to believe, and good on them.

 

[Paul James]

Could you tell us specifically what you mean by “ape man”.

Is it an hairy man with a chimpanzee like head? Does it have a body more like a chimpanzee?

What do you mean exactly?

I can answer that question. It is one that has no forehead and the slope facial features of an ape, but has the spinal hole at the centre of the base of the skull that shows that it usually walks on two legs and not four. An ape that walks on four legs has the spinal hole more to the rear of the base of the skull so it can walk on four legs and face forward. It it went up on two legs it would face down and not forward. So, an ape-man would have a ape-skull with the hole in the centre of the base. To date, they have never found one like that, but it would turn everything upside down if someone did!

 

[Paul James]

A cousin of mine claimed the same thing happened to him, but I always thought there was something fishy about it.

On the scale of one to ten it would be up to ten that it was just a tale, so intelligent people wouldn't swim with the story or swallow it hook, line and sinker, so it would be difficult to wriggle out of pretending it is true story, and so they would just flap helplessly like a fish out of water!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good. I am not asking anyone to believe me. Doesn't matter whether people believe me or not. People will believe what they choose to believe, and good on them.

Actually no, that is not true. Only the irrational can "choose to believe". If one is reasoning rationally belief is not a choice. Scientists accept the theory of evolution because they reason rationally.

 

[Subduction Zone]

On the scale of one to ten it would be up to ten that it was just a tale, so intelligent people wouldn't swim with the story or swallow it hook, line and sinker, so it would be difficult to wriggle out of pretending it is true story, and so they would just flap helplessly like a fish out of water!

And Genesis on that scale rates eleven.

 

[Shemjaza]

Actually, I saw a report that they found more bones at the site where they found the ones that purported to be "Lucy", and when analysed were found to be ape and not human. So it appears that "Lucy" may have been more ape than human.

Lucy was by no means a human, and no one claimed she was. She was way, way closer to the branch where chimps and humans split then she was to modern humans.

If you saw her when she was alive you'd just think she was a funny looking chimp. Weird, would be how she moved and walked. Despite her disproportionately long (for a human) arms, she would have stood straight and strode around on her legs, not knuckle walked like a gorilla or chimp.

I just wonder if it is not the actual evidence that atheists can't accept, but that they won't accept it as contrary to what they believe is humanoid. If atheism is actually a rebellion against God than that would explain everything. That why, old mate, I am not going to argue with them. They can believe what they want. I am like you. I believe in creation and that is all that matters to me!

Remember that Christians who accept evolution probably out number atheists of all stripes... so it's a useless angle of attack against the science of evolution.

 

[Paul James]

Lucy was by no means a human, and no one claimed she was. She was way, way closer to the branch where chimps and humans split then she was to modern humans.

If you saw her when she was alive you'd just think she was a funny looking chimp. Weird, would be how she moved and walked. Despite her disproportionately long (for a human) arms, she would have stood straight and strode around on her legs, not knuckle walked like a gorilla or chimp.


Remember that Christians who accept evolution probably out number atheists of all stripes... so it's a useless angle of attack against the science of evolution.

I don't doubt that there are many godly Christians who believe in progressive creation (evolution by another name). I don't attack evolution at all. I just describe the evidence as I know it.

The lecturer I was viewing held up "Lucy's" skull, and demonstrated that it had the spinal hole in the centre of the base which showed that she walked on two legs. The skull also had a forehead and flat, human facial bones. This showed that she was fully human - well, the skull anyway. Whether the skull that was found matched the bones which were discovered to be those of an ape, then that is another story. The only explanation I have about that is that probably the skull was found in a different location than the bones.

So, until they find a full skeleton, involving a ape-like skull with the spinal hole in the middle, and bones that show a combination of human and ape characteristics, then the jury is still out as far as I am concerned.

 

[Shemjaza]

I don't doubt that there are many godly Christians who believe in progressive creation (evolution by another name). I don't attack evolution at all. I just describe the evidence as I know it.

The lecturer I was viewing held up "Lucy's" skull, and demonstrated that it had the spinal hole in the centre of the base which showed that she walked on two legs. The skull also had a forehead and flat, human facial bones. This showed that she was fully human - well, the skull anyway. Whether the skull that was found matched the bones which were discovered to be those of an ape, then that is another story. The only explanation I have about that is that probably the skull was found in a different location than the bones.

So, until they find a full skeleton, involving a ape-like skull with the spinal hole in the middle, and bones that show a combination of human and ape characteristics, then the jury is still out as far as I am concerned.

The lecturer obviously didn't communicate accurately, because Lucy was not "fully human". Her skull was more like a chimps then a humans. Except that she was upright. (They also have lucy's hips to demonstrate her stance.)

The assertion that skull was found in a different location than the bones is a commonly presented lie.

Also, the very curious thing is that bones of Lucy's body are more human looking than her skull.

 

[Paul James]

The lecturer obviously didn't communicate accurately, because Lucy was not "fully human". Her skull was more like a chimps then a humans. Except that she was upright. (They also have lucy's hips to demonstrate her stance.)

The assertion that skull was found in a different location than the bones is a commonly presented lie.

Also, the very curious thing is that bones of Lucy's body are more human looking than her skull.

I've learned not to be drawn into an endless debate by the results of others who have tried to get anywhere, so I will leave it right there.

 

[Shemjaza]

I've learned not to be drawn into an endless debate by the results of others who have tried to get anywhere, so I will leave it right there.

I'll respect you wish to stop this conversation after this.

But I feel it needs to be said that your statements about "Lucy" were actually false... and demonstrably so. If you don't wish to engage with the toing and froing of an internet forum debate, that's fine, but you owe it to yourself to investigate the details about Lucy's structure and discovery. Otherwise you will be unwittingly promoting lies.

 

[Kylie]

Good. I am not asking anyone to believe me. Doesn't matter whether people believe me or not. People will believe what they choose to believe, and good on them.

Do you, as a Christian, really believe that it doesn't matter if I don't believe in God?

 

[Paul James]

Do you, as a Christian, really believe that it doesn't matter if I don't believe in God?

Does it matter to you? If not, then it doesn't make any difference whether it matters to me or not.