Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-23-2017 9:52 AM
410 online now:
caffeine, Diomedes, Faith, jar, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (6 members, 404 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,909 Year: 16,515/21,208 Month: 2,404/3,593 Week: 517/882 Day: 35/103 Hour: 5/11

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
9Next
Author Topic:   Human Evolution (re: If evolved from apes, why still apes?)
Crooked to what standard
Member (Idle past 3285 days)
Posts: 109
From: Bozeman, Montana, USA
Joined: 01-31-2008


Message 46 of 128 (453199)
02-01-2008 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by dwise1
02-01-2008 2:27 AM


Re: Congratulations to Kakip!!
quote:
Fish, m'boy, please get a clue.

First, I think it's 'Previously Refuted A Thousand Times', not that it matters. Your way works to.

Second, your refutes to this topic were seemingly against me. If you'll notice, the message you replied to never had any arguments for or against the topic, just a little encouragement and question.

Third, you just made my point. By constantly calling me a 'fish' (I know fully well what Ichthus is and its acronym (I think that it's Iesous Christos (h) Theos (h) Uios Sotos, in the original greek language).

Fourth, Creationism is not recycled feces. My point is thus: Every major civilization at the beginning of time (dated around 6,000 A.D. has believed not only in a God (or gods), but in a creation. There was absolutely no way that these civilizations, separated by at most seventeen thousand miles, the world's biggest (and possibly roughest) ocean, and the world's highest mountains. Therefore, the only explanation would be that all of these stories came from a real event. If you disagree, please do so and explain your theory on how these civilizations could have communicated the creation theory over this time.

P.S. Just as a side-note, evolutionism only came into being in the 1800's. According to creationists, that'd be only 200 out of 6000-8000 years, or 3%-2.5% of humanity. To evolutionists, it'd be 0.00013% of humanity. Either way, creationism has been accepted far longer and even now by far more people than evolutionism. By sheer numbers, let along the truth, creationism wins.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by dwise1, posted 02-01-2008 2:27 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Coyote, posted 02-01-2008 5:16 PM Crooked to what standard has responded
 Message 48 by Chiroptera, posted 02-01-2008 5:23 PM Crooked to what standard has not yet responded
 Message 54 by nator, posted 02-01-2008 5:52 PM Crooked to what standard has not yet responded
 Message 56 by molbiogirl, posted 02-01-2008 6:00 PM Crooked to what standard has not yet responded
 Message 57 by bluegenes, posted 02-01-2008 6:38 PM Crooked to what standard has not yet responded
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-28-2008 8:10 PM Crooked to what standard has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5859
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 47 of 128 (453210)
02-01-2008 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Crooked to what standard
02-01-2008 4:51 PM


quote:
My point is thus: Every major civilization at the beginning of time (dated around 6,000 A.D. has believed not only in a God (or gods), but in a creation. There was absolutely no way that these civilizations, separated by at most seventeen thousand miles, the world's biggest (and possibly roughest) ocean, and the world's highest mountains. Therefore, the only explanation would be that all of these stories came from a real event. If you disagree, please do so and explain your theory on how these civilizations could have communicated the creation theory over this time.

These commonalities work as well with evolution as with creationism. The idea of deities and creation could easily have started among some folks a million or two million years ago and have been passed down to succeeding generations. There is no scientific evidence that it reflects a real event, nor is that necessary for the idea to have been passed from generation to generation. We pass many myths from generation to generation.

quote:
Just as a side-note, evolutionism only came into being in the 1800's. According to creationists, that'd be only 200 out of 6000-8000 years, or 3%-2.5% of humanity. To evolutionists, it'd be 0.00013% of humanity. Either way, creationism has been accepted far longer and even now by far more people than evolutionism. By sheer numbers, let along the truth, creationism wins.

This "numbers" game is fine. Lets play it with scientific evidence. When we do that creationism and other ideas, such as a global flood, come up with no scientific support while the theory of evolution comes up with mountains of supporting evidence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-01-2008 4:51 PM Crooked to what standard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-01-2008 5:26 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6352
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 48 of 128 (453214)
02-01-2008 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Crooked to what standard
02-01-2008 4:51 PM


Re: Congratulations to Kakip!!
My point is thus: Every major civilization at the beginning of time (dated around 6,000 A.D. has believed not only in a God (or gods), but in a creation.... Therefore, the only explanation would be that all of these stories came from a real event.

Well, if it were truly a real event only 6000 years ago (I think your dating is, er, a bit off), then I would expect that the majority of creation myths would agree substantially in most of their details. But since all creation myths are very, very different, I think we can conclude that they are not based on any real event in the recent past.


Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-01-2008 4:51 PM Crooked to what standard has not yet responded

  
Crooked to what standard
Member (Idle past 3285 days)
Posts: 109
From: Bozeman, Montana, USA
Joined: 01-31-2008


Message 49 of 128 (453217)
02-01-2008 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Coyote
02-01-2008 5:16 PM


quote:
his "numbers" game is fine. Lets play it with scientific evidence. When we do that creationism and other ideas, such as a global flood, come up with no scientific support while the theory of evolution comes up with mountains of supporting evidence.

Well, how about fossils of animals that seem to have died violent deaths, or fossils that cover two or more sedimentary layers, or layers that were considered older are above 'younger' ones. Or even that pollen spores have been found in the Grand Canyon inside of rocks that are supposedly so old life wasn't even beginning to form, let alone plants. It seems that

  • The animals that died violent deaths indicate a flood
  • The fossils that are in two layers indicate a flood (or rapid sediment deposition)
  • Evolution is either wrong or vastly incorrect in its timescale.

    Is this not evidence?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 47 by Coyote, posted 02-01-2008 5:16 PM Coyote has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 50 by molbiogirl, posted 02-01-2008 5:35 PM Crooked to what standard has not yet responded
     Message 51 by Chiroptera, posted 02-01-2008 5:38 PM Crooked to what standard has not yet responded
     Message 66 by obvious Child, posted 02-02-2008 6:38 PM Crooked to what standard has not yet responded

      
  • molbiogirl
    Member (Idle past 81 days)
    Posts: 1909
    From: MO
    Joined: 06-06-2007


    Message 50 of 128 (453224)
    02-01-2008 5:35 PM
    Reply to: Message 49 by Crooked to what standard
    02-01-2008 5:26 PM


    Okey dokey. I'm calling your bluff.

    Well, how about fossils of animals that seem to have died violent deaths ...

    What on earth does this prove? An animal that dies a violent death and that is then fossilized proves ... um ... that the animal died a violent death and was then fossilized.

    You can't tell from a fossil that it "died in a flood". If, by some stretch of the imagination you think you can, please tell me how. And back up your "theories" with evidence from the scientific literature. Your word is not good enough for me.

    ... or fossils that cover two or more sedimentary layers, or layers that were considered older are above 'younger' ones.

    Cites, please.

    No creo babble from AIG, ICR, ad nauseum.

    From the scientific literature.

    And, just in case you have never bothered to look for proper evidence:

    www.scholar.google.com

    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed

    Or even that pollen spores have been found in the Grand Canyon inside of rocks that are supposedly so old life wasn't even beginning to form, let alone plants.

    Cites, please.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 49 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-01-2008 5:26 PM Crooked to what standard has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 79 by Eclogite, posted 02-28-2008 1:51 AM molbiogirl has responded

      
    Chiroptera
    Member
    Posts: 6352
    From: Oklahoma
    Joined: 09-28-2003
    Member Rating: 5.2


    Message 51 of 128 (453225)
    02-01-2008 5:38 PM
    Reply to: Message 49 by Crooked to what standard
    02-01-2008 5:26 PM


    Is this not evidence?

    To repeat what molbiogirl just said, no, statements written by an anonymous poster on an internet message board are not evidence.

    You really need to give us sources for these claims so that they can be checked out.


    Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
    His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
    And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
    A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 49 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-01-2008 5:26 PM Crooked to what standard has not yet responded

      
    nator
    Member (Idle past 2082 days)
    Posts: 12961
    Joined: 12-09-2001


    Message 52 of 128 (453227)
    02-01-2008 5:40 PM
    Reply to: Message 41 by Crooked to what standard
    01-31-2008 11:10 PM


    Re: Congratulations to Kakip!!
    quote:
    (Christianity isn't a cult)

    Certain kinds of Christianity are.

    Start a thread, we'll discuss it.

    quote:
    or "utterly and willful[ly] ignorant".

    Any belief which contradicts reality requires willful ignorance.

    Christians who deny Evolution, for example, certainly are willfully ignorant.

    Start a thread, we'll discuss it.

    quote:
    Then, as far as I can tell, whenever a creationist comes with a counter-example to an evolutionist, they only state the counter-example.

    I've been called many things by Creationists, such as stupid, evil, immoral, supportive of murder, racist, accused of hating people who believe in God, a liar, and lots of other not very nice names.

    You want I should provide examples?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 41 by Crooked to what standard, posted 01-31-2008 11:10 PM Crooked to what standard has not yet responded

        
    nator
    Member (Idle past 2082 days)
    Posts: 12961
    Joined: 12-09-2001


    Message 53 of 128 (453229)
    02-01-2008 5:45 PM
    Reply to: Message 45 by dwise1
    02-01-2008 2:27 AM


    Re: Congratulations to Kakip!!
    quote:
    But what really blows our minds is: who are these people's religous leaders, preachers, who are feeding them this kind of crap? It's one thing for a completely ignorant newbie to be taken in, but a religious leader? Oh, please, let that false religion self-destruct as soon as possible!

    I believe it.

    Remember, ICANT tells us that he has been a church pastor (leader) for many years, and what he knows about science would fit into half a thimble, and the religiously-based misconceptions and falsehoods he believes would fill a book or two.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 45 by dwise1, posted 02-01-2008 2:27 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

        
    nator
    Member (Idle past 2082 days)
    Posts: 12961
    Joined: 12-09-2001


    Message 54 of 128 (453230)
    02-01-2008 5:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 46 by Crooked to what standard
    02-01-2008 4:51 PM


    Re: Congratulations to Kakip!!
    quote:
    Creationism is not recycled feces. My point is thus: Every major civilization at the beginning of time (dated around 6,000 A.D. has believed not only in a God (or gods), but in a creation. There was absolutely no way that these civilizations, separated by at most seventeen thousand miles, the world's biggest (and possibly roughest) ocean, and the world's highest mountains. Therefore, the only explanation would be that all of these stories came from a real event. If you disagree, please do so and explain your theory on how these civilizations could have communicated the creation theory over this time.

    1) There are thousands of creations stories, and many, many of them are mutually contradictory.

    2) People ignorant of the processes of nature made up many stories to explain why things appeared and happened the way they did. We humans are curious and we like to know the answers to why things happen. Lots of times, we make stuff up. People do it all the time.

    Ever read about cargo cults?

    I mean, Apollo doesn't really drive the sun across the sky in his firey chariot every day, does he? People used to belive all sorts of things about why the sun appeared to move as it does, but we know now that there is no supernatural or mystical explanation needed to explain the apparent movement of the sun.

    3) Just becasue "everybody" believes something doesn't make it true.

    Edited by nator, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 46 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-01-2008 4:51 PM Crooked to what standard has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 55 by Chiroptera, posted 02-01-2008 5:55 PM nator has not yet responded

        
    Chiroptera
    Member
    Posts: 6352
    From: Oklahoma
    Joined: 09-28-2003
    Member Rating: 5.2


    Message 55 of 128 (453232)
    02-01-2008 5:55 PM
    Reply to: Message 54 by nator
    02-01-2008 5:52 PM


    I mean, Apollo doesn't really drive the sun across the sky in his firey chariot every day, does he?

    Sure. Every society, even ones seperated by long distances, have a myth about the sun. So, by Ichthus' argument, this particular myth is probably true.

    Edited by Chiroptera, : but -> by


    Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
    His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
    And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
    A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 54 by nator, posted 02-01-2008 5:52 PM nator has not yet responded

      
    molbiogirl
    Member (Idle past 81 days)
    Posts: 1909
    From: MO
    Joined: 06-06-2007


    Message 56 of 128 (453236)
    02-01-2008 6:00 PM
    Reply to: Message 46 by Crooked to what standard
    02-01-2008 4:51 PM


    Re: Congratulations to Kakip!!
    First, I think it's 'Previously Refuted A Thousand Times', not that it matters. Your way works to.

    Second, your refutes to this topic were seemingly against me. If you'll notice, the message you replied to never had any arguments for or against the topic, just a little encouragement and question.

    Third, you just made my point. By constantly calling me a 'fish' (I know fully well what Ichthus is and its acronym (I think that it's Iesous Christos (h) Theos (h) Uios Sotos, in the original greek language).

    Fourth, Creationism is not recycled feces. My point is thus: Every major civilization at the beginning of time (dated around 6,000 A.D. has believed not only in a God (or gods), but in a creation. There was absolutely no way that these civilizations, separated by at most seventeen thousand miles, the world's biggest (and possibly roughest) ocean, and the world's highest mountains. Therefore, the only explanation would be that all of these stories came from a real event. If you disagree, please do so and explain your theory on how these civilizations could have communicated the creation theory over this time.

    P.S. Just as a side-note, evolutionism only came into being in the 1800's. According to creationists, that'd be only 200 out of 6000-8000 years, or 3%-2.5% of humanity. To evolutionists, it'd be 0.00013% of humanity. Either way, creationism has been accepted far longer and even now by far more people than evolutionism. By sheer numbers, let along the truth, creationism wins.

    What does any of this BS have to do with the OP?

    Please try to stay on topic. Don't clutter up the thread with OT crap.

    In case you've forgotten:

    OP writes:

    If humans were said to be.. or be related to gorillas.. or chimpanzees or of those african apes, why is there still such things as gorillas and other apes.. wouldnt there be all humans if the apes have evolved into these humans.. how are these apes still maintain all the perfect DNA as to what exactly they are as apes, when apes have evolved into humans.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 46 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-01-2008 4:51 PM Crooked to what standard has not yet responded

      
    bluegenes
    Member
    Posts: 3119
    From: U.K.
    Joined: 01-24-2007
    Member Rating: 3.5


    Message 57 of 128 (453261)
    02-01-2008 6:38 PM
    Reply to: Message 46 by Crooked to what standard
    02-01-2008 4:51 PM


    Icthus writes:

    Either way, creationism has been accepted far longer and even now by far more people than evolutionism. By sheer numbers, let along the truth, creationism wins.

    So on this basis, you believe that the sun goes round the earth, presumably, and that diseases are caused by evil spirits.

    In your earlier post, you talked about the rudeness of evolutionists, but it cuts both ways, I can assure you, and we've all been called names and condemned to eternal damnation by your creationist brethren. Love thy enemy, indeed, but not if he's an evolutionist.:rolleyes:

    On the topic, do you understand what is ridiculous about it?

    The main point isn't that, as a creationist, you clearly don't believe that you descend from other (extinct) species. What evolutionists often react strongly to is the misrepresentation of evolutionary theory by so many creationists.

    If you're a young earth Christian creationist, for example, and I kept saying that you believed that mankind was made out of leaves by the angels 2,000 years ago, and then argued against that, I would be arguing against something I'd invented myself, a straw man, and you might well object, correctly, to my having misrepresented your beliefs.

    That's so often the case when creationists argue against evolution.

    "By all means disagree", we could say to the guy who started this thread, "but at least learn what it is you're disagreeing with."

    The evolutionary view is that we descended from a common ancestor with the chimps, and going back further, the gorillas, and even further, the other apes, but all branches have evolved into the modern versions and are different from the common ancestors. There's no reason why the other branches should be extinct, which is why there are still apes. Just like there are lots of different members of the cat family who descend from a common ancestor, some species more recently related than others.

    Welcome to EvC, and the culture wars!;)


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 46 by Crooked to what standard, posted 02-01-2008 4:51 PM Crooked to what standard has not yet responded

      
    skepticfaith
    Member (Idle past 3161 days)
    Posts: 71
    From: NY, USA
    Joined: 08-29-2006


    Message 58 of 128 (453278)
    02-01-2008 6:59 PM
    Reply to: Message 4 by NosyNed
    12-23-2007 7:42 PM


    Re: Congratulations to Kakip!!
    quote:
    This question is used as an example of the most utterly, obviously stupid questions that creationists ask. If one had the very tiniest amount of a clue about what the evolutionary model was about and one thought for just a small moment it would be obvious that this is very, very dumb.

    I dont think this really as dumb as you claim beacause:
    quote:
    If your parents have children how come they are still around and/or if you exist do your cousins have to die?

    This is not even an answer!
    Quite clearly, the layman will always be ignorant of genetics but is not understanding how come the proposed ancestor resembles the creature still alive together.

    So the question is if we evolved so much from some apelike creature how come the chimps we see today are not much different from this proposed ancestor?

    I guess the answer is they have changed too, but not as much and certainly did not evolve the big brain we have now.

    Here is something that I always wondered - is it plausible to think that another creature alive now can evolve into a new creature given a few million years to a creature more intelligent than a human ? Assume that the human race went extinct today ..


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 12-23-2007 7:42 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 59 by molbiogirl, posted 02-01-2008 7:12 PM skepticfaith has responded
     Message 60 by bluegenes, posted 02-01-2008 7:39 PM skepticfaith has responded

      
    molbiogirl
    Member (Idle past 81 days)
    Posts: 1909
    From: MO
    Joined: 06-06-2007


    Message 59 of 128 (453290)
    02-01-2008 7:12 PM
    Reply to: Message 58 by skepticfaith
    02-01-2008 6:59 PM


    Re: Congratulations to Kakip!!
    So the question is if we evolved so much from some apelike creature how come the chimps we see today are not much different from this proposed ancestor?

    And the answer is: Chimps are radically different from the common ancestor. As are we.

    btw. Chimps differ from humans by less than 1% genetically.

    Here is something that I always wondered - is it plausible to think that another creature alive now can evolve into a new creature given a few million years to a creature more intelligent than a human ? Assume that the human race went extinct today ..

    OK. Humans. Gone.

    Something else evolves.

    Much as a new dominant lifeform evolved once the previous dominant lifeform (dinosaurs) went extinct long, long ago.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 58 by skepticfaith, posted 02-01-2008 6:59 PM skepticfaith has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 61 by skepticfaith, posted 02-01-2008 7:57 PM molbiogirl has responded

      
    bluegenes
    Member
    Posts: 3119
    From: U.K.
    Joined: 01-24-2007
    Member Rating: 3.5


    Message 60 of 128 (453303)
    02-01-2008 7:39 PM
    Reply to: Message 58 by skepticfaith
    02-01-2008 6:59 PM


    Re: Congratulations to Kakip!!
    skepticfaith writes:

    Here is something that I always wondered - is it plausible to think that another creature alive now can evolve into a new creature given a few million years to a creature more intelligent than a human ? Assume that the human race went extinct today ..

    I think it's plausible, yes, although if you'd said "tens of millions of years" then it would be even more likely. If a species happened to take the road of rapidly increasing intelligence immediately after our extinction, then a few million years could be enough.

    However, it's by no means inevitable, and the world could find itself in fifty million years with nothing as intelligent as us.

    The fact that ourselves and the dolphins seem to have greatly increased brain size and intelligence separately argues in favour of your suggestion happening eventually. Big brains are hungry, and take up a lot of food, but if they enable the organism to bring in more food than they consume, they are a clear advantage.

    But you also have to get the right kind and combinations of mutations, which may be why it's taken so much time and evolution to produce animals as intelligent as some of the modern mammals.

    So the question is if we evolved so much from some apelike creature how come the chimps we see today are not much different from this proposed ancestor?

    We don't really know how similar the chimps are to the ancestor, but I agree that they are probably much more so than us.

    They've probably stayed in a similar environment, so natural selection would act as a more conservative force. It would preserve already good adaptions in them, whereas new characteristics that were beneficial in our new environment would have been selected for in our line.

    They are basic tool users, so the common ancestor quite likely was, but tool use must've become much more central for our ancestors, so good tool using brains and hands help an individual to survive, produce more children and feed them, and therefore have more influence on the genome of the future population.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 58 by skepticfaith, posted 02-01-2008 6:59 PM skepticfaith has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 62 by skepticfaith, posted 02-01-2008 8:02 PM bluegenes has responded

      
    Prev123
    4
    56
    ...
    9Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017