Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 156 (8161 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-24-2014 11:09 AM
80 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: NAME OF THE ROSE
Post Volume:
Total: 741,768 Year: 27,609/28,606 Month: 2,666/2,244 Week: 70/710 Day: 13/57 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2627
28
2930
...
72NextFF
Author Topic:   Why are there no human apes alive today?
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 809 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 406 of 1075 (621689)
06-28-2011 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 405 by Portillo
06-28-2011 2:05 AM


Re: More evolved?
Thats your opinion not mine.

And this is the problem with you Creationists. You think that opinion is on par with facts.

There is no "truth" in your worldview.

If *** will trick someone into believing in your magic, then *** is perfectly okay.
If the facts of reality disagree with your mythology, then the facts must be changed.

This is why we fight you.

Facts are facts. Your _opinion_ of them doesn't matter.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by Portillo, posted 06-28-2011 2:05 AM Portillo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by Portillo, posted 06-28-2011 5:01 AM Nuggin has responded

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 658 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 407 of 1075 (621693)
06-28-2011 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 406 by Nuggin
06-28-2011 3:23 AM


Re: More evolved?
quote:
There is no "truth" in your worldview.

I believe that God exists. Just because someone on the Internet says Im a liar does not change my belief.

Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by Nuggin, posted 06-28-2011 3:23 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 408 by Pressie, posted 06-28-2011 5:21 AM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 410 by Nuggin, posted 06-28-2011 1:06 PM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 412 by bluescat48, posted 06-28-2011 1:22 PM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 416 by Mazzy, posted 06-29-2011 3:46 PM Portillo has not yet responded

Pressie
Member
Posts: 844
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 408 of 1075 (621694)
06-28-2011 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 407 by Portillo
06-28-2011 5:01 AM


Re: More evolved?
No, Portillo, we do have the evidence that you were not telling the truth. Just because you don't have the ability to understand that you were telling porkies, does not change the fact that you were certainly not telling the truth. Other people can see exactly where you have have been twisting reality, because we can point at the exact place where you did the deed.

Your perception about what you think to be true does not change facts. You were not communinicating verifiable facts to people. You did the opposite.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by Portillo, posted 06-28-2011 5:01 AM Portillo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by Percy, posted 06-28-2011 7:24 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 13355
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 409 of 1075 (621697)
06-28-2011 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 408 by Pressie
06-28-2011 5:21 AM


Missing Links
To refresh people's memories, this excursion into confusion between lying and being wrong began with Portillo's Message 349 where he apparently repeated a claim that he'd made before and that had been rebutted before.

Portillo claimed that scientists were engaging in deception by periodically announcing they'd found the missing link, when in reality it doesn't exist. But the hugely divisive field of human origins brings no honor upon itself, ruled as it as more by personality and ego than by evidence with the resulting exaggerated claims that imply greater certainty than is possible, and they only invite this confusion on the part of that portion of the public that remains skeptical of evolution.

That being said, it is one of the most frustrating things at a discussion board when one encounters someone who stops arguing against rebuttals to his position, then after a brief while simply reintroduces the position into the discussion as if it had never been rebutted. I can't think of anything that has driven me more crazy than this kind seeming dishonesty. Our expectation is that someone who is being forthright will, when reintroducing a point, set the context and say something like, "Some who don't agree have argued that...", instead of just putting it out there like the point had never been made and rebutted before.

But there is another side to this, and that's that it is most often the case that rebuttal wasn't perceived as rebuttal because it wasn't understood, and I think that's the case here. In my experience most creationist lack of understanding or misunderstanding is extremely persistent. Those who remember Bolder-dash will recall that he never understood any argument about the non-random nature of evolution, and for him it as if the rebuttals to his claims that evolution was random had never been made.

Some people are so entrenched in their beliefs that there isn't enough time left in the universe to persuade them otherwise. Anyone know anybody who believes in magnetic bracelets or astrology or ghosts or any of that stuff? Ever succeeded in convincing them these things are hokum? Doesn't happen often, I'm sure. It helps to keep in mind this natural human intransigence that we all have.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by Pressie, posted 06-28-2011 5:21 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 411 by Nuggin, posted 06-28-2011 1:11 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 809 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 410 of 1075 (621727)
06-28-2011 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by Portillo
06-28-2011 5:01 AM


Re: More evolved?
I believe that God exists. Just because someone on the Internet says Im a *** does not change my belief.

I don't give a crap about changing your belief.

You can believe whatever the hell you want. It doesn't matter.

What matters is reality. You people are trying to get the rest of the world to change reality to fit your beliefs and you are willing to *** to do it.

That's unacceptable to anyone who supports reality. It SHOULD be unacceptable to anyone claiming to be moral.

However, it hasn't even slowed you down.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by Portillo, posted 06-28-2011 5:01 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 809 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 411 of 1075 (621729)
06-28-2011 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 409 by Percy
06-28-2011 7:24 AM


Evil Creationist or Stupid Creationist
But there is another side to this, and that's that it is most often the case that rebuttal wasn't perceived as rebuttal because it wasn't understood, and I think that's the case here. In my experience most creationist lack of understanding or misunderstanding is extremely persistent.

This comes down to an age old debate about Creationists.

"Are they Evil or just stupid?"

You are of the camp that they are just stupid. I disagree. I think they are profoundly evil. While clearly some (most) are likely both evil and stupid, it's simple impossible for me to believe that someone able to operate a computer is incapable of understanding such basic sentences as:

"Scientists don't call it a missing link, the news media does. They just want to sell stories, so they use that title a lot."

There really aren't that many SAT words in that statement. For EVERY CREATIONIST on EVERY FORUM to get this wrong EVERY TIME would require more coordinated stupidity than is capable.

No, they are denying things because, to them, doing harm to children through the propagation of ignorance is their highest calling.

Put simple, they *** because they are bad people who want to do harm - evil.

Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by Percy, posted 06-28-2011 7:24 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 687 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 412 of 1075 (621732)
06-28-2011 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by Portillo
06-28-2011 5:01 AM


Re: More evolved?
I believe that God exists.

So what does that have to do with this topic?

topic writes:

Why are there no human apes alive today.

Whether god exists or not is totally irrelevant.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by Portillo, posted 06-28-2011 5:01 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 1008 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 413 of 1075 (621735)
06-28-2011 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 404 by Nuggin
06-27-2011 7:37 PM


Re: More evolved?
Nuggin writes:

You can't repeatedly make the same errors in the face of evidence without knowingly being dishonest.

If I remember correctly, the practice of knowingly asserting falsehoods in a debate goes by the name of "arguing in bad faith."

It's possible that Portillo actually hasn't understood that the facts he's used to support his position have been refuted. He could ask for a clarification, but that hasn't happened, and I think that any reasonable person would have to admit that the evidence has been explained clearly enough. Or Portillo could have rebutted with either a clarification of his own position or additional supporting evidence, but that hasn't happened either.

So I'll also have to agree that he's arguing in bad faith, which essentially means that the debate is over.


Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by Nuggin, posted 06-27-2011 7:37 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by Coyote, posted 06-28-2011 1:53 PM ZenMonkey has acknowledged this reply

Coyote
Member
Posts: 4824
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 414 of 1075 (621739)
06-28-2011 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 413 by ZenMonkey
06-28-2011 1:36 PM


New subtitle
So I'll also have to agree that he's arguing in bad faith, which essentially means that the debate is over.

Fixed it for you.

This is why evidence, logic, and the real world has no effect on some creationists.

They are not arguing from a fact-based position, but from faith.

That's stupid and anti-rational, but not necessarily evil.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 413 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-28-2011 1:36 PM ZenMonkey has acknowledged this reply

Taq
Member
Posts: 5371
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 415 of 1075 (621754)
06-28-2011 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 403 by Portillo
06-27-2011 6:23 PM


Re: More evolved?
Im not lying. This my opinion and belief.

So what do you call it one someone's opinions and beliefs are directly contradicted by the facts, but they keep pushing those opinions and beliefs as if they were not contradicted by the facts?

I would call this dishonesty. What about you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by Portillo, posted 06-27-2011 6:23 PM Portillo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by Mazzy, posted 06-29-2011 4:34 PM Taq has responded

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1088 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 416 of 1075 (621922)
06-29-2011 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by Portillo
06-28-2011 5:01 AM


Re: More evolved?
Portillo...just so you know, I agree with your post 349.

In the case of humans Ardi, although not the missing link, is proposed as an intermediate. Ardi is now being refuted by some reasearchers as not being in the human line.

This is the sort of thing you can see and I can see, and it happens often.

I can see no rebuttal at all to your post. I see some talk about what a kind is, some questioning some statistics, another suggesting your family are illiterate, another suggesting to not pay attention to news headlines. These are not rebuttals.

Here is a rebuttal to the ignorant evolutionists totally unaware of the garbage bin of evo delusions past, and prepared to follow the flavour of the month like sheep to the slaughter.

"Some of the most solid evidence for Ardi being included in the hominin branch is her small canine teeth. But the researchers are quick to point out that other ancient non-hominin species, including Oreopithecus and Ouranopithecus, also came to have reduced canine teeth, "presumably as a result of parallel shifts in dietary behavior in response to changing ecological conditions," the researchers suggest in their article. "Thus, these changes are in fact, not unique to hominins."

The placement of a hole at the base of the skull, known as the foramen magnum, also might suggest Ardi as an upright walker, and thus perhaps a solid hominin. But in looking to other apes, "this feature is more broadly associated with differences in head carriage and facial length, rather than uniquely with bipedalism," Wood and Harrison note. Some extinct primates, such as Oreopithecus bambolii, evolved outside of the human line but nevertheless possessed similarly hominin-like traits, which, the authors write, "encourage researchers to generate erroneous assumptions about evolutionary relationships."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=was-ar...

I have also posted links to Lluc a flat faced primates and rebutted the fossil evidence as being either ape or human, with no intermediate all all being found.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2009/06/090602083729.htm

Ardi, meant to be very similar to the common ancestor, and thought to be in the human line that is a now being refuted is yet another example of lost intermediates, if not common ancestors.

Here is a flavour of the year shot down in flames and delegated to the evolutionary garbage bin of delusions past.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2010/03/100302131719.htm

"However, Kirk, Williams and their colleagues point out that short snouts and deep jaws are known to have evolved multiple times among primates, including several times within the lemur/loris lineage. They further argue that Darwinius lacks most of the key anatomical features that could demonstrate a close evolutionary relationship with living haplorhines (apes, monkeys, humans, and tarsiers)."

So above we see that really evolutionary researchers themselves in their rebuttal of Darwinius as a human ancestor have confirmed that human traits have evolved multiple times and is not necessarily anything to do with human lineage, as I have asserted.

The thread is about the human line and human ape intermediates not being around. Evolutionary bla bla bla is not a refute to either of us. Any so called support for TOE could be delegated to the garbage bin of delusions at any time. This is not just headlines, This was research put up in 2009. Then boofheads have the hide to swear at you when it is they themselves that are ignorant.

here is another intermediate delegated to the garbage bin of evolutionary delusions, "Little foot"
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...61208-little-foot.html

Here is more:

The study reconsiders the evolutionary relationships of fossils named Orrorin, Sahelanthropus and Ardipithecus, dating from four to seven million years ago, which have been claimed to be the earliest human ancestors.

Ardipithecus, commonly known as 'Ardi', was discovered in Ethiopia and was found to be radically different from what many researchers had expected for an early human ancestor.

Nonetheless, the scientists who made the discovery were adamant it is a human ancestor.

"We are not saying that these fossils are definitively not early human ancestors," said co-author Terry Harrison, a professor in NYU's Department of Anthropology.

"But their status has been presumed rather than adequately demonstrated, and there are a number of alternative interpretations that are possible," he added.

Wood and Harrison cautioned that history has shown how uncritical reliance on a few similarities between fossil apes and humans can lead to incorrect assumptions about evolutionary relationships.

They pointed out the cases of the Ramapithecus discovery in south Asia, which was touted in the 1960s and '70s as a human ancestor, and Oreopithecus bambolii discovered in Italy, which was assumed to be a human ancestor because of some of its skeletal features.

After more detailed research was done on both of them, both were found to be fossil apes instead.

The study will be published in the upcoming issue of the journal Nature.
http://www.andhranews.net/...ient-fossils-not-human-1209.htm

So above we see some fossils no longer human ancestors but apes, once AGAIN delegated to the garbage bin of delusions, of once irrefuteable evidence for TOE.

You evos have no intermediates and no common ancestors for the human line. What you do have is a hope list of support for human evolution. You HOPE it doesn't get tossed aside.

So basically, I see that it is some evolutionists here that are unable to defend their 'so called' evidence for evolution with any more than faith, and wish lists......

They are also unable to explain why there are no intermediates around today with any more than possibly likely and maybe.

Evos just know there aren't any intermediates here with us today and they need to explain it with what ever twoddle they can come up with.

You, Portillo, are doing just fine..........Don't listen to this lot of TOE faithful, particularly not Nuggin.

Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by Portillo, posted 06-28-2011 5:01 AM Portillo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 417 by Cat Sci, posted 06-29-2011 4:29 PM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 418 by Taq, posted 06-29-2011 4:29 PM Mazzy has responded
 Message 421 by ZenMonkey, posted 06-29-2011 4:45 PM Mazzy has responded
 Message 441 by DBlevins, posted 06-30-2011 4:56 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
Cat Sci
Member
Posts: 9702
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 417 of 1075 (621930)
06-29-2011 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 416 by Mazzy
06-29-2011 3:46 PM


Re: More evolved?
They are also unable to explain why there are no intermediates around today with any more than possibly likely and maybe.

Manatees, Emus, Pinguins, etc.

Message 194 never got a reply...

Evos just know there aren't any intermediates here with us today and they need to explain it with what ever twoddle they can come up with.

Holy shit, you can read minds!?

That is so cool.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by Mazzy, posted 06-29-2011 3:46 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 5371
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 418 of 1075 (621931)
06-29-2011 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 416 by Mazzy
06-29-2011 3:46 PM


Re: More evolved?
In the case of humans Ardi, although not the missing link, is proposed as an intermediate. Ardi is now being refuted by some reasearchers as not being in the human line.

So what features must a fossil have in order for you to consider it transitional? How did you determine that the fossils in the picture below were not transitional?

What criteria are you using?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by Mazzy, posted 06-29-2011 3:46 PM Mazzy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 422 by Mazzy, posted 06-29-2011 4:54 PM Taq has responded

Mazzy 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1088 days)
Posts: 212
From: Rural NSW, Australia
Joined: 06-09-2011


Message 419 of 1075 (621932)
06-29-2011 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 415 by Taq
06-28-2011 4:03 PM


Re: More evolved?
If ones beliefs being contradicted by the facts means someone should give up their beliefs then you should not be an evolutionist.

Evos have one belief "It ll evolved", the rest is delusion, wish and hope listing.

The evolutionist paleontologists C. A. Villee, E. P. Solomon, and P. W. Davis admit that man emerged suddenly on Earth-in other words with no evolutionary ancestor before him-by saying, "We appear suddenly in the fossil record."

http://nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com/...ion_error.php

What is dishonest is the evolutionists claim that the evidence for human ancestry with todays apes is solid. It isn't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by Taq, posted 06-28-2011 4:03 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 420 by Cat Sci, posted 06-29-2011 4:42 PM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 423 by Taq, posted 06-29-2011 5:03 PM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 432 by Taq, posted 06-30-2011 3:59 PM Mazzy has not yet responded
 Message 433 by Joe T, posted 06-30-2011 4:01 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
Cat Sci
Member
Posts: 9702
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 420 of 1075 (621935)
06-29-2011 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 419 by Mazzy
06-29-2011 4:34 PM


Re: More evolved?
This might be too far of an aside, but if humans didn't evolve from another species, then how did we get here? I know the answer is God did it, but how? Did we just magically appear fully formed one day? There's no way that could work...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by Mazzy, posted 06-29-2011 4:34 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
2627
28
2930
...
72NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014