|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: From chimp to man: it's as easy as 1, 2, 3! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4090 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
but it'd take a bit more than shorter arms and a shave I'll take just those bonobo forearms, thank you. Man, what a hurting you could put on a softball with those forearms (400 ft. fly balls? No problem!), and there'd never be another jar I wouldn't be able to open.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
there'd never be another jar I wouldn't be able to open I think you'll find that Jar prefers to remain unopened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
as do most of us. we don't like having our insides exposed to the world for all to see--and besides, most people find looking at guts to be, at best, a naseating experience.
Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
42 Inactive Member |
Chimps are not ancestral to humans. Our common ancestor was hairy and swung in the trees, but they were not chimps. They were chimp-like, and they were human-like, but these apes (proconsul) gave rise to all the great apes and hominids, and its only the extinction of all the other hominids that allows us to exclude great apes from the hominids. In short, humans are basically chimps, and chimps (and other non-human primates) are basically humans. But humans are basically shrews, basically lizards, basically fish, depending on how basic you want to get. If we can bring ourselves to see humans as one animal amongst many, the skeletons speak for themselves.
Human Evolution in 42 Steps |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nO_JeZeBeL Inactive Member |
Apes on the run
If you’ve seen any of the countless reruns of the 1931 Marx Brothers film Monkey Business, you may remember this scene: Groucho and Chico are stowaways hiding in the ship-captain’s cabin. Chico, in his broken Italian-American accent, is trying to be impressive with his sailing knowledge. Chico: ”You know, my whole family was a-sailors. My father was a-partners with Columbus.’ Groucho: ”Columbus has been dead four hundred years!’ Chico: (Pause) ”Well, they told me it was my father.’ Marx Brothers fans loved ridiculous lines like that. They may not have been overly funny, but their wackiness gained them fans over several generations. Let’s apply that Monkey Business theme to the creation-evolution issue. Person A: ”You know, my whole family was once ape-like creatures. My ancestors were small chimp-like animals called autralopithecines, which have been found as fossils.’ Person B: ”But there are no fossils to prove that australopithecines evolved into humans.’ Person A: ”Well, they told me they were my ancestors.’ Many people would see the first dialogue as humorously ridiculous, but would dismiss the second as simplistic or even wrong. Yet one is as ridiculous as the other. The human-fossil record does not support evolution, and even some prominent evolutionists have admitted the problems”including David Pilbeam and Mary Leakey. Most people believe the fossil record does support evolution because they are told this by others who confuse wishful thinking with facts. This point has been brought out strongly in a new book by Marvin L. Lubenow”Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1992). Lubenow’s 25 years of research into the human-fossil issue has shown that our alleged evolutionary ancestors seem to be on the run. It is impossible to track them down. Vital evidence for the evolutionary side has included fakes, mistakes, datings that shift to fit the theory better, and classifications that go against clear anatomical evidence. Lubenow says that evolutionists have done some extraordinary waving of magic wands to make evidence against their theory disappear. For example, he points out that a well-preserved arm-bone fossil found in 1965 at Kanapoi, north Kenya, was found to be indistinguishable from a modem human’s arm-bone. But because it was regarded as being from a time before humans had evolved, it was suggested that it must be from an ape. This went against all the scientific evidence. If the Kanapoi fossil had been given human status, as it obviously should have been, it would have contradicted the theory of human evolution”because it would show that humans had been around before their alleged ape-like ancestors had evolved into them! ”As far as we can tell from the fossil record,’ Lubenow says, ”when humans first appear in the fossil record they are already human. It is this abrupt appearance of our ancestors in morphologically human form that makes the human fossil record compatible with the concept of Special Creation.’ Problems leap out when you study the human-fossil record in evolutionary terms. For instance, most people who have heard of Neandertal man believe the Neandertal people fit somewhere in the evolutionary line leading up to modem humans. But where do they fit? Although they were a race of humans, evolutionists have no idea where Neandertals came from or went. The Neandertals’ ”evolutionary’ origin is as mysterious as their alleged rapid disappearance. From a creationist point of view though, the Neandertals were simply a group of humans who lived in the past. When different ”types’ of fossil humans which allegedly evolved one into the other (such as Homo erectus, Homo sapiens, etc.) are discovered at the same place and/or at the same level, it is regarded as an evolution ”anomaly’. Such evidence is either lamely explained away or shelved and largely forgotten. But shouldn’t it alert evolutionists to the fact that their theory may be wrong? Marvin Lubenow has done a superb job in showing that the human-fossil record is contrary to the idea of human evolution and is strongly supportive of the idea of special creation. Both evolutionists and creationists would do well to study his assessment of the current state of human fossils. The wider this knowledge is made known the better. People need to know that it is not sufficient for them to believe that some fossil ape was their ancestor because, ”Well, they told me it was my ancestor.’
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nO_JeZeBeL Inactive Member |
If We Resemble Apes, Does That Mean We Evolved from Apes? by David N. Menton, Ph.D.
Edited by AdminModulous, : Copyrighted material removed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
This point has been brought out strongly in a new book by Marvin L. Lubenow”Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1992). How exactly can you bring out a 'new' book which is 14 years old? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminWounded Inactive Member |
We do not argue by cut and paste on this site. Any more large cut and pastes from other web sites will result in your suspension. Argue in your own words or not at all!
TTFN, AW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nO_JeZeBeL Inactive Member |
what a stupid thing to say.
there are plenty of indoctrinated individuals on this site who believe in the fairy tale for grown ups -evolution. their education came from fairy tales told at school. their arguments hold no weight against true scientific data, however, it is pointless rewording passages when an article of much higher authority can silence tens of message threads by deluded evolutionists. your suspension is pathetic and only proves your inability to debate the truth. professing to be wise, you became fools! monkeys? haha.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminWounded Inactive Member |
We try not to argue from authority here either.
If you wish to actually contribute to the debate you will be welcome here, if you just want to cut and paste and sling insults then you won't. TTFN, AW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nO_JeZeBeL Inactive Member |
evolution vs creation?
and you make it sound like a fair debate. here you are deciding what is a valuable contribution and what is not. i consider an educated scientist who happens to be a creationist as a much better authority on answering evolutionists superstitions. that is the whole point of this forum. your members think they are ridiculing christianity, yet when i cut and paste an article which shoots down everything they believed it, you tell me to stop. well that proves your line of debate is very one sided. knowledge is power. the creationists have this knowledge which you wish to suppress. fine, but don't pretend christians dont have the asnwers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminWounded Inactive Member |
well that proves your line of debate is very one sided. So would you consider my cutting and pasting a page from Talk.Origins a substantial rebuttal? Suppose I pasted the text from several different papers in as my entire post. There is no guarantee that you understood a single word of what you C+P'ed. That is why we ask for people to make their case in their own words, otherwise we could all spend our time rebutting each others C+Ps and talking past each other all the while. TTFN, AW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4466 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
First post, Apes on the Run
This is an article from AiG's Creation Magazine.Apes on the Run | Answers in Genesis Second post, If We Resemble Apes, Does That Mean We Evolved from Apes? This is an article from the Missouri Association for Creation, written by David N. Menton, Ph.D, and copywrited.GenNet.org Your use of both these articles without attributing them to their authors is plagarism. This, along with your refusal to follow the forum guidelines, is why you may be suspended. Make no mistake about that. Edited by IrishRockhound, : edited to fix link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nO_JeZeBeL Inactive Member |
bottom line thats what we are doing anyway.
where did you get your information from? we are only as blind as the fool who gave us the information in the first place. naturally one person must be right and we both believe we are that person. members here do not stand with primary authority on any matters. they all relay the stories they hear in the news... ultimately, i have to battle your information from a creationist academic because they are the ones who understand the implications and falsehoods of the evolutionist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPhat Inactive Member |
Hello, No Jez. If you will notice, this is a Science Forum.
What we attempt to do around here is to break our arguments and discussions up into either science based ones or faith/Belief based ones. This side of the board is for science only. Unless you understand what it is you are presenting, you simply have no room to cut and paste anything---even if it is from Stephen Hawking!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024