Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8749 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-24-2017 1:41 PM
403 online now:
Asgara (AdminAsgara), DrJones*, edge, ooh-child, PaulK (5 members, 398 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: kmastes01
Happy Birthday: Roshankumar1234
Post Volume:
Total: 808,960 Year: 13,566/21,208 Month: 3,048/3,605 Week: 390/933 Day: 35/97 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
567Next
Author Topic:   A Critique of the "Evolution Essay" A GREAT DEBATE S1WC and anglagard ONLY
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2158
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 46 of 100 (352527)
09-27-2006 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Someone who cares
09-26-2006 10:52 PM


Re: Transitional Fossils
S1WC writes:

I know RAZD likes to attack me in particular, but I don't really reply in other topics anymore but this one, so don't expect me to defend myself on that linked topic.

For one thing, neither RAZD, myself, or anyone else around here who does not agree with your position is attacking your person. We simply disagree with your position, want to clarify ours, and dispell any false assertions.

Because the evolutionists here are feeling attacked, so they try to look good by putting me down and saying all sorts of things about me. But I don't worry, I've got the truth on my side, and the truth will always win. I know that Creation is the truth, and I don't worry. I just want you to see this for yourself.

See above. Also If truth is on your side in the particular, why are you revising the essay as we go?

I was willing to discuss this matter earlier, but you just ignored my post, take a look if you want to reply and continue debating about the definition of transitional fossils and how they relate to the evolution theory, and which one would be more meaninful and useful. I just figured if you ignored it, that you didn't have anything to say about it, so we continued debating other matter.

I think it would be best if this matter was deferred, lest the rest of the essay goes unexamined. Don't worry, much of your essay is dependent upon the definition of transitional fossils, if there is room for posts left, I personally guarantee it will be addressed again.

For the record, I disagree with much of what RAZD said there, especially the part where he says something like there are 4 facts, the earth being old, things evolving, etc. If RAZD would like, I could debate him one on one so that he would TRY proving these four points to be facts, because obviously they're not.

I'm sure that in the future, your desires can be accommodated.

Oh, and, are you going to get to replying to all those points above? It took me a long time to reply, and I'm hoping for a reply back...

I'm thinking of just going through the entire essay including your replies, before responding to such replies. Will see how this evolves.

May God bless you Anglagard!

And may God bless you as well S1WC!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Someone who cares, posted 09-26-2006 10:52 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Someone who cares, posted 09-29-2006 8:51 PM anglagard has responded

    
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3160 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 47 of 100 (353247)
09-29-2006 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by anglagard
09-27-2006 1:30 AM


Re: Transitional Fossils
quote:
For one thing, neither RAZD, myself, or anyone else around here who does not agree with your position is attacking your person. We simply disagree with your position, want to clarify ours, and dispell any false assertions.

But I feel he likes to attack me/my words in particular. Could be that it's just his way of posting, but he always likes to attack me/my words when I post. Like when I came back here for round two of debating, RAZD was suspended. Right after my post, he was de-suspended and already replying to me. I feel something strange in this. I don't know how the suspending/de-suspending process works, but it seems to me like he de-suspended himself just to reply to me or something.

quote:
See above. Also If truth is on your side in the particular, why are you revising the essay as we go?

The truth of Creation is on my side, Creation is the truth. But my(imperfect person's) arguments against evolution using sources with outdated pieces of information is not infallible. It can be wrong, or outdated, because we are fallible humans. But the Creation truth will never fail, that fact that God created everything and you and me will never go wrong. And since I revised my essay as I learned more, this shows that I am in search of the truth about the evolution matter as well, not just ignorant.

quote:
I think it would be best if this matter was deferred, lest the rest of the essay goes unexamined. Don't worry, much of your essay is dependent upon the definition of transitional fossils, if there is room for posts left, I personally guarantee it will be addressed again.

(I think you meant - NOT "much of your essay is...")

I also think we should finish debating the majority of the essay, I understand this. But you gave a link to RAZD's post where he was attacking my words when I said that we can't properly debate the matter of transitionals because we didn't come to an agreement on the definition, so I wanted to point out that I tried to debate this matter, but you ignored it. This was the point. I completely understand why it would be best to debate the rest of the essay first, I encouraged it myself earlier, but that post in the link against me is why I replied.

quote:
I'm sure that in the future, your desires can be accommodated.

Yes, I would like it, but RAZD didn't seem to want to debate me one on one when I proposed it, so I don't think he wants to now. But if he does, let me know, because I don't check up on those topics anymore, and any posts here other than your's and mine would be deleted.

quote:
I'm thinking of just going through the entire essay including your replies, before responding to such replies. Will see how this evolves.

We'll see what we will create here in a while... :)

quote:
And may God bless you as well S1WC!

Thank you. And I just want to let you know I don't hold any harsh feelings against you and hope you don't hold any against me. Peace. :)

"If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men." (Rom. 12:18)


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by anglagard, posted 09-27-2006 1:30 AM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by anglagard, posted 10-02-2006 12:29 AM Someone who cares has responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2158
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 48 of 100 (353390)
10-01-2006 2:02 AM


Hominid Evolution
Apologies to EvC directors for this long post. S1WC apparently will not follow any links I may post, either within or from outside of this forum, which necessitates the use of large cut and pastes from my sources.

From paragraph 4 S1WC essay downloaded on Nov. 30, 2006:

Let us now look at the major hominid finds, and test their validity, since many evolutionists still believe that they are true transitional forms between apes and man. But some evolutionists have already acknowledged the fact that some of them are false finds.

I think you should say false interpretations instead of false finds. Using the term false finds implies you believe all the fossils are faked. Is that what you are saying?

Point 10:

Ramapithecus is one of such finds. Based on merely some teeth, for about twenty years he was believed to be a hominid, a transition between ape and man. But he is now known to be just an extinct orangutan type of monkey.

False, I don’t know of anyone who claims orangutans are monkeys, they are considered great apes. This is the modern definition of hominid:

quote:
A hominid is any member of the biological family Hominidae (the "great apes"), including the extinct and extant humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. (This classification has been revised several times in the last few decades. See the Hominidae and history of hominoid taxonomy articles.)
This is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominid
Are you disputing this current definition? Are you using a past definition?

Point 11:

Piltdown man was an ape’s jaw placed with a human skull, but for 45 years paleontologists called it ape human, and they wrote about 500 books on it! [4]

False, actually “Piltdown Man” was strongly challenged since its discovery by a host of suspicious scientists. From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html

quote:
The reaction to the finds was mixed. On the whole the British paleontologists were enthusiastic; the French and American paleontologists tended to be skeptical, some objected quite vociferously. The objectors held that the jawbone and the skull were obviously from two different animals and that their discovery together was simply an accident of placement. In the period 1912-1917 there was a great deal of skepticism. The report in 1917 of the discovery of Piltdown II converted many of the skeptics; one accident of placement was plausible -- two were not.
It should be remembered that, at the time of Piltdown finds, there were very few early hominid fossils; Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens were clearly fairly late. It was expected that there was a "missing link" between ape and man. It was an open question as to what that missing link would look like. Piltdown man had the expected mix of features, which lent it plausibility as a human precursor.
This plausibility did not hold up. During the next two decades there were a number of finds of ancient hominids and near hominids, e.g. Dart's discovery of Australopithecus, the Peking man discoveries, and other Homo erectus and australopithecine finds. Piltdown man did not fit in with the new discoveries. None the less, Sir Arthur Keith (a major defender of Piltdown man) wrote in 1931:
It is therefore possible that Piltdown man does represent the early pleistocene ancestor of the modern type of man, He may well be the ancestor we have been in search of during all these past years. I am therefore inclined to make the Piltdown type spring from the main ancestral stem of modern humanity...
In the period 1930-1950 Piltdown man was increasingly marginalized and by 1950 was, by and large, simply ignored. It was carried in the books as a fossil hominid. From time to time it was puzzled over and then dismissed again. The American Museum of Natural History quietly classified it as a mixture of ape and man fossils. Over the years it had become an anomaly; some prominent authors did not even bother to list it. In Bones of Contention Roger Lewin quotes Sherwood Washburn as saying
"I remember writing a paper on human evolution in 1944, and I simply left Piltdown out. You could make sense of human evolution if you didn't try to put Piltdown into it."
Finally, in 1953, the roof fell in. Piltdown man was not an ancestor; it was not a case of erroneous interpretation; it was a case of outright deliberate fraud.

Additionally, my research using WorldCat, the catalog of all cataloged books, indicates only 50 books were written on Piltdown Man. Your source is plain wrong.

Point 12:

Hesperithecus was made from just a pig’s tooth! It was used as a hominid for 14 years until the truth was discovered.

False, this claim, that “Hesperihecus” (normally spelled Hesperithecus) was used as a hominid of 14 years is shown as the dishonest claim of a single individual. From http://members.aol.com/ps418/dl2.html

quote:
In this section, we will look at some of LaPointe's more outrageous claims. LaPointe claims:
"Hesperithecus was actually created from one pig's tooth but it fooled the entire paleontology field and dental experts for fourteen years"
LaPointe clearly is in error regarding almost all the basic facts surrounding Hesperithecus. Firstly, the only scientist who seemed to think that the tooth in question belonged a primate (not necessarily a human ancestor) was H.F. Osborn, who described the tooth in 1922.

As to the 14 year claim:

quote:
Aside from his completely bogus and deceptive claim that it "fooled the entire paleontology field," he is also incorrect to suggest that it fooled anyone for 14 years. The molars were first described by Osborn in 1922, and by 1927 articles appeared in Science, Nature, the New York Times, and the Times of London which confirmed that the molars came from a peccary, not a primate. This gives us just 5 years, not 14.

Point 13:

Orce man’s fallacy was the skull cap, it wasn’t a human or monkey skull cap, it was the skull cap of a donkey.

This is a false claim from Duane Gish, the small size of this piece makes it of unknown origin. From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_orce.html

quote:
By the next paragraph, Gish is exaggerating even further, and is calling the disputed fragment a "donkey's skull". It is not a skull, and it was not necessarily from a donkey.
It is easy to score cheap rhetorical points by implying that scientists are so incompetent that they cannot tell the difference between a human and a donkey. A more charitable explanation, which turns out to be the correct one, is that the bone is genuinely difficult to identify, as proved by the fact that debate over its status has continued for over 10 years.


Point 14:
Lucy’s inner ear structure, skull structure, and other bones show that she was most likely related to the pygmy chimpanzee.

False, here is the Lucy fossil, please show us where the inner ear is located.

Point 15:

She did not even walk like humans do. When a knee joint for one find of Lucy was requested, they found one more than about 200 feet lower in the earth and about two miles away from the rest of her! [5] How could that joint have possibly belonged to that particular Lucy find?

False, several have claimed and some have issued retractions. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html

quote:
The claim is not only false, it is clearly shown to be false in Johanson's published writings about "Lucy" (e.g., Johanson and Edey 1981, ch. 7-8) and it has been pointed out repeatedly to its proponents that it is false. Despite this, none of the major proponents of the claim has publicly retracted it. One major proponent has privately agreed that it is false, and a few creationists have agreed to stop repeating it. One minor proponent made a public retraction.

Here is how this lie has been handled by those who have repeated it.

quote:
To summarize: At least eighteen creationists have made this bogus claim. Three have never responded in any way to questions about it (Girouard, Menton, Willis). Another two have not responded to further inquiries (Brown, McAllister). Only five have shown a willingness to discuss the matter (Chittick, the Nuttings, Sharp, Taylor), but one (Chittick) cut off correspondence. Four have agreed that the claim was in error and agreed to stop making it (Hovind, McAllister, Sharp, Taylor), and two agreed to stop making it if further investigation showed that the claim was bogus (the Nuttings) but have continued to repeat it. One (Arndts) has indicated a willingness to believe that the claim is in error but no interest in researching further or offering a correction because the article in which he made the claim just used it as an example of a type of error in reasoning. One (LaHaye) has insisted that the claim is not in error, but agreed to stop making it at the request of the Institute for Creation Research. Three (Baugh, Huse, Mehlert) have not yet been contacted for comment. One (Brown) now denies having made the claim at all. Only three (Menton, Morris, Sharp) have issued public corrections or clarifications.

Anyone need a definition of integrity?

Point 16:

Boisei was based on a skull that was put together from about 400 pieces! Plus it had a large crest on the top of the skull, a characteristic which is special only to apes. It had no human characteristics to make it a hominid, it was an ape.

Paranthropus Boisei, formerly known as Australopithecus Boisei by many physical anthropologists, is an offshoot of the human family tree and is not a direct ancestor to humans, according to essentially all physical anthropologists. Yes, just like humans, it was an ape. For reference, here is a pretty good example of the tree:

Point 17:

Neanderthal man was found to be pure human, whose brain was deformed by arthritis. [6] Neanderthal had arthritis and was crippled, that is why he would have walked stooped, but not because his whole civilization was like that, and not because he came from a monkey, he was a human. [7]

False, there is more than one Neanderthal specimen, there are fossils from over 400 Neanderthals, are you stating that each and every one had a brain deformed by arthritis, including children? From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html

quote:
Amazingly, a century after scientists knew otherwise, most creationists still believe that Neandertals were merely modern humans, deformed by diseases such as rickets, arthritis or syphilis. Some, but by no means all, Neandertals have been found with signs of health problems such as arthritis. But Neandertals have many distinctive features, and there is no reason why these diseases (or any others) would cause many, let alone all, of these features on even one, let alone many, individuals. Modern knowledge and experience also contradicts the idea that disease is a cause of Neandertal features, because these diseases do not cause modern humans to look like Neandertals.

There are now 5 DNA analyses so far on Neanderthals clearly showing they are not identical to Homo Sapiens. From http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=532389

quote:
We indeed show that the absence of Neanderthal mtDNA sequences in Europe is compatible with at most 120 admixture events between the two populations despite a likely cohabitation time of more than 12,000 y. This extremely low number strongly suggests an almost complete sterility between Neanderthal females and modern human males, implying that the two populations were probably distinct biological species.

Point 18:

Neanderthal and Homo Erectus had brain sizes like those of modern humans.

Essentially false depending on the definition of “brain sizes like those of modern humans.” On average, Neanderthal brains were 10% larger in volume and Homo Erectus brains were 75% of the volume of the average human. The larger size of the Neanderthal brain case is usually attributed to its more robust body, where limbs are 50% more massive than a human of the same height.

Point 19:

Neanderthal fossils were found in the same layers as modern human fossils, according to evolutionists, Neanderthal should be layers below modern humans to make him a valid ape-human transition.

False, every physical anthropologist considers Neanderthals in Europe contemporary with early Homo Sapiens in Africa. Additionally, Neanderthals are not considered direct ancestors, but rather cousins. See above.

Point 20:

The skulls of Neanderthal were the only ones with brow ridges, which is supposed to show it to be sub human.

False, Homo Erectus would be appalled by this insult. See this picture?


Click to enlarge

Can you tell us which of the fossil pictures have brow ridges and which are classified as Neanderthals? How about which are human and which are chimpanzee?

Point 21:

But, there are variations in human skulls, one of which is brow ridges. [8] Using the skull of Neanderthal man, an artist can draw either a human, or a monkey; this is not a method to rely upon, and is not proof of anything, pictures are not valid proof in the first place.

You have stated previously that you wanted pictures of fossils, now you don’t? You just stated only Neanderthals have brow ridges and now that some humans have brow ridges?
At any rate, feel free to post pictures of verified modern humans with brow ridges like classic Neanderthals.
Also, do the humans with brow ridges, however slight, all have brains deformed by arthritis, as you previously claimed for all Neanderthals?

Point 22:

There is a class of hominids called Homo Erectus. Homo Erectus was thought to be sub human because of a small brain size, but it is now known that this size of a brain is the size of an average European person’s brain. [9]

False, Homo Erectus had a brain volume of 950-1100cc making it 75% of modern humans. If I was a European, I would feel insulted. :)

Point 23:

So Homo Erectus is not hominid, he is just human.

False by definition, Homo Erectus is a hominid, humans are hominids.

Point 24:

Another class of hominids is Homo Sapiens. Modern Homo Sapiens, Neanderthal, and older Homo Sapiens and Homo Erectus, all lived at the same time, they all lived together. [10]

I do know of one possible example concerning Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals in Israel for a short period of time. However, this is considered the exception. Modern Homo Sapiens did not live with any other species of Homo since 35,000 years ago since by then all others were extinct (with the debatable exception of Florensis). Not sure you want to say they all lived together, like in some hippie commune.:)

Point 25:

They could not have been various degrees of evolving monkeys changing into humans. Pliopithecus was named a hominid because it was a cross between the spider monkey and a gibbon. [11] Proconsul was just an extinct type of an ape. No human characteristics in him. Dryopithecus was based on only a lower jaw and some teeth fragments, but later those bones were known to be just an extinct ape’s bones. [12] Nothing human about him either, he is not a hominid. Oreopithecus was based on only some teeth and the remains of a pelvis, it is also an extinct ape. [13] Australopithecus Africanus was the skull of a baby ape with underdeveloped features, it had no human features. [14] It’s just that baby apes and human babies look similar when very young. Not that it is a hominid. Robustus was based on merely a skull. That skull even had a crest on it, the special feature of only apes. Cro Magnon Man is not in any way non human.

Is this information on human lineage from the fold-out in the 1966 Time-Life publication Early Man? I just ask because I have not seen any discussion of any hominid finds from the last 40 years in your essay. Are you stating that the Taung Child is the only fossil of Australopithecus Africanus contrary to the several examples listed here? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html#africanus

Also, once again, humans are apes.

Point 26:

It was only thought to be a hominid, because of cave drawings that were found and were thought to be something primitive. [15]

Humans are Hominids.

Point 27:

A Homo Erectus, called Rhodesia Man, had tooth decay, this is something that primitive man would not have; and, he had two holes in his skull that look like modern bullet holes. [16]

Are you saying there is absolutely no evidence of tooth decay in primitive humans? While it is true that ‘primitive’ humans have less tooth decay than modern humans, I don’t know of anyone stating tooth decay in ‘primitive’ humans is absolutely impossible. As to bullet holes, that’s a new one.

Point 28:

Nebraska man was also based on a pig’s tooth, just like Hesperithecus!

False, there is no “like,” Nebraska man is Hesperithecus. From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html

quote:
Few if any other scientists claimed Nebraska Man was a human ancestor. A few, including Osborn and his colleagues, identified it only as an advanced primate of some kind. Osborn, in fact, specifically avoided making any extravagant claims about Hesperopithecus being an ape-man or human ancestor:
"I have not stated that Hesperopithecus was either an Ape-man or in the direct line of human ancestry, because I consider it quite possible that we may discover anthropoid apes (Simiidae) with teeth closely imitating those of man (Hominidae), ..."
"Until we secure more of the dentition, or parts of the skull or of the skeleton, we cannot be certain whether Hesperopithecus is a member of the Simiidae or of the Hominidae." (Osborn 1922)
Most other scientists were skeptical even of the more modest claim that the Hesperopithecus tooth belonged to a primate. It is simply not true that Nebraska Man was widely accepted as an ape-man, or even as an ape, by scientists, and its effect upon the scientific thinking of the time was negligible.

Point 29:

Java man was thought to be a hominid due to a smaller brain size, but that size is still within the range of human brain sizes. His middle ear structure is just like a human’s ear structure. He is human. Same with Peking man, brain size makes evolutionists believe he is a hominid.

Java Man and Peking Man are examples of Homo Erectus, a hominid with brow ridges and an average of 75% of the cranial capacity of modern humans.

Point 30:

Homo Habilis is a mix between two classes of hominids, this is not real, and not valid.

Not real in what way? Are you claiming all the 11 fossils mentioned here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html#habilis are fake?

Point 31:

The plain rocks found by paleontologists are sometimes called the tools of hominids!
[17]

For the sake of brevity, I will just refer to this website: http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/stones.html
I know you will probably refuse to look, but this post is long enough as it is.

Point 32:

Many human footprints were also called the footprints of hominids. Also, due to such impossible previous dates for hominids, paleontologists have had to change their dates many times. What inaccuracy!

Science changes its findings when better evidence is discovered. YEC changes no conclusion, despite overwhelming evidence, occasionally even to the point of deliberate dishonesty in many cases as shown above under point 15, among others.

Point 33:

Using the dating methods of evolutionists, modern humans were dated as about four and one-half million years old! But this is before the Australopithecines group even existed according to evolutionist dates! That makes all Australopithecines invalid for classification as hominids!

Where does anyone say this? By which dating method? Please elaborate.

Point 34:

Many different evolving “steps” of hominids were found together is the same layers! But this could not be possible, since each “step” of advancing hominids had to take “millions” of years according to evolutionists! Meaning that they should be many layers apart. But they aren’t!

False, in the case of Olduvai Gorge for one example. From http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/australo_1.htm

quote:
The oldest fossil hominids have been recovered from sites in East Africa, especially in the Great Rift Valley. One of the most important sites there is Olduvai Gorge. It is an approximately 30 mile (48 km.) long, eroded canyon complex cutting into the Serengeti Plain in Northern Tanzania. It is only about 295 feet (90 m.) deep, but its neatly stratified layers of dirt and rock interspersed with easily datable volcanic ash and lava layers cover the last 2.1 million years of geological and evolutionary history. The remains of many australopithecines and early humans have been found at Olduvai. When these ancient hominids lived there, it was a grassland that probably had abundant food sources.

Point 35:

Some skulls of modern humans were found in the same layers as Ramapithecus, a supposed hominid. Which is another good reason to doubt the validity of hominids being real.

I presume you are a hominid. If you doubt your own existence, you may want to brush up on your Descartes. :)

Point 36:

Also, we have another similar situation, where fossils of modern humans were found in the same layers as Peking and Java man. So, Peking and Java man could not have been transitions from ape to man, if modern man lived in the same time span.

Why not, if Homo Erectus was going extinct while early Homo Sapiens was ascending, would such a small overlap be impossible. How would that preclude one evolving from the other? This may be beside the point anyway, many physical anthropologists today consider Homo Ergaster, not Homo Erectus, the likely direct ancestor of Homo Sapiens.

Point 37:

The Australopithecines fossils are just the same as monkey fossils according to bone structures, they are apes, not hominids.

False, humans are hominids, humans are great apes. Apes are not monkeys (hint: no tail).

Point 38:

As we have seen, most hominid finds were believed to be true for a long time, then the truth came out, and they were known to be false.

Are you stating all the fossils are forgeries? Or do you mean they were misidentified? You do realize that you are saying that most human, Neanderthal, H. Erectus, H. etc. fossils are now “known to be false.” Known to be false by whom? Also, if they are false, then why bother arguing they are all human or not human? See subsequent reply.

Point 39:

There seems to be a pattern going here. First, paleontologists find a tooth or skull or another fossil, and they claim it is from a hominid. They draw pictures of how the hominid would look. The news spreads like wildfire. Books are written; hopes are raised. Then, the truth is found sometime later. The hominid is put down, hopes fall. This pattern may very well continue with any finds now and in the future.

False, how has this been true of any of the following, (type fossil discovery date at end):

Sahelanthropus tchadensis TM 266-01-060-1 Brunet et al. 2002
Orrorin tugenensis BAR 1000'00 Senut et al. 2001
Ardipithecus ramidus ARA-VP 6/1 White et al. 1994
Australopithecus anamensis KP 29281 M. Leakey et al. 1995
Australopithecus afarensis LH 4 Johanson et al. 1978
Australopithecus africanus Taung Dart 1925
Australopithecus garhi BOU-VP-12/130 Asfaw et al. 1999
Australopithecus aethiopicus Omo 18 Arambourg & Coppens 1968
Australopithecus robustus TM 1517 Broom 1938
Australopithecus boisei OH 5 L. Leakey 1959
Homo habilis OH 7 L. Leakey et al. 1964
Homo rudolfensis KNM-ER 1470 Alexeev 1986
Homo ergaster KNM-ER 992 Groves & Mazak 1975
Homo erectus Trinil 2 Dubois 1894
Homo antecessor ATD6-5 Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997
Homo heidelbergensis Mauer 1 Schoetensack 1908
Homo neanderthalensis Neandertal 1 King 1864
Homo sapiens - Linnaeus 1758

Remember, boisei, robustus, and aethiopicus are considered under the genus Paranthropus by many physical anthropologists.

ABE - To contrast, there is Piltdown Man, a forgery, and Hesperithecus/Nebraska Man, a misrepresentation of fact. Your argument here is very weak IMO.

Point 40:

The truth is, fossils finds don’t help evolution. The fossil finds don’t support a pathway to man, they only mess it up and confuse scientists even more.

I’m sorry, the physical anthropologists do not seem anywhere near as confused as you are considering the above statements. They know the difference between a monkey and a hominid. :)

Edited by anglagard, : completeness


Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Nighttrain, posted 10-03-2006 4:21 AM anglagard has not yet responded
 Message 54 by Someone who cares, posted 10-07-2006 1:38 AM anglagard has not yet responded
 Message 55 by Someone who cares, posted 10-16-2006 11:38 PM anglagard has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2158
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 49 of 100 (353523)
10-01-2006 7:28 PM


Genetic Relationships and Bad Sources
From where I left off:

S1WC writes:

“In fact, it has even been suggested that apes evolved from man!” [18]

Your source indicates Duane Gish is the one responsible for this statement. Since humans are apes (no tail for one thing), what is this supposed to mean?
Skip that one as a point I say, do you disagree?

Point 41:

How strange! But there are other ideas to which evolutionists hold on to, like similarities between apes and man.
Evolutionists say that apes and humans are very similar, this is supposed to support their belief that apes evolved into humans. Let us look at this idea. Henry Morris wrote,
“Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people’s closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: “Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man’s closest relative.” “Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man’s closest relative.” “Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man’s closest relative.” “On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man’s closest relative.”” [19]
So, who are we really related to? The monkey, the donkey, the chicken, the garter snake, or the butter bean? Hmmm? How about non of those?

By the monkey, do you mean chimpanzee? For the umpteenth time Chimpanzees are not monkeys, for one thing, no tail.

As to the assertion concerning human and donkey milk:

quote:
We have not found a direct comparison of human and chimpanzee milk chemistry. R. E. Sloan, et al., showed that human milk proteins (whey and casein) were much more like macaque milk than donkey milk (Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 1961, 4:47-62). Human and chimpanzee milk lysozymes are identical. Even this limited comparison disproves the creationist claim that the donkey is our nearest relative based on milk chemistry.

Concerning chicken tear enzymes:

quote:
The enzyme referred to here is lysozyme, which is found in human milk, tears, leukocytes, and so forth. Variants exist in tissues of other species, for example, in chicken egg whites. Prager and Wilson showed that chicken lysozyme differs from human lysozyme by fifty-one out of 130 amino acids (in E. F. Osserman, Lysozyme, Academic Press, 1974, pp. 127-141). Chimpanzee lysozyme is identical to human lysozyme. It is apparent that the creationists either had not bothered to look at this paper when they made their claims or they believe that fifty-one is less than zero.

Concerning garter snake cholesterol levels:

quote:
Cholesterol is a simple lipid (a wax) and its structure doesn't vary among species. Furthermore, its concentration can vary several hundredfold in an individual human depending upon diet and genetic background. Therefore, it is a useless molecule for determining genetic similarity. This datum isn't just wrong, it's nonexistent.

Concerning butter bean blood chemistry:

quote:
Blood antigen A. This is one of the molecules that determine blood types. They are called glycoproteins because they have sugars attached to a protein. Butterbeans contain a sugar configuration that is similar enough to the glycoprotein sugar that it can react with antibodies directed against the A blood type if the butterbean sugar is at a high concentration (Gottschalk, Glycoproteins, 1972). Chimpanzees have blood antigens that are identical or nearly identical to those of humans (J. Ruffie, "Immunogenetics of Primates" in Perspectives in Primate Biology edited by A. B. Chigrelli, Plenum Press, 1972, p. 217). Butterbeans, having no blood, obviously have no blood antigens.

The above refutations are courtesy the National Center for Science Education at http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8661_issue_07_volume_3_number_1__3_4_2003.asp

Don’t you feel a bit silly quoting the crackpot Morris as a source?

Point 42:

Another thought - if we are 99% similar to apes, why do we rule over them as if they were lower than us by so much? I mean, if the ape is so related to us, how come we as humans have so much power over them? Why do we act like kings over all animals, if the ape was our great, great ancestor? Shouldn’t the ape have great power if it’s descendants a long way down are humans, the ones with power over the whole animal kingdom? When did the great power feature evolve? We as humans have morality, a characteristic no monkey or any other animal has. We also have intelligence, a complex spoken language, and ethical values. [20] So how is this? When humans evolved, morality evolved as well?!? Intelligence? A very complex spoken language? Ethical values? The ability to read and write? Excellent comprehension? Great reasoning skills? Mathematical comprehension? Everything else?

I am not sure what you intend by this. Of course humans have greater power than other species, primarily due to science and its derivative, technology, how does this disprove evolution? Some of these attributes, such as ethical values and morality are subjective human-centered opinions that have no empirically valid cross-species application. For example, power over others, human or not, is not necessarily moral or ethical in application.

From the eminently quotable Henry Morris:

quote:
Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.

Don’t you feel a bit dirty quoting the crackpot Morris as a source?

To be fair, the source, Richard Trott, does not consider Morris a racist, just a buffoon, see the source at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/racism.html

How’s that for an example of quote mining? Perhaps with enough practice I could get as good at it as Morris and Gish.

Also, there is a lot of human variance in such qualities as “Intelligence? A very complex spoken language? Ethical values? The ability to read and write? Excellent comprehension? Great reasoning skills? Mathematical comprehension?” Some counterexamples among individuals are readily available over the internet, as can be seen above.

ABE - Upon reflection, I guess you are arguing that because of civilization, humans can't be related to other life forms and therefore evolution is not true. I would be cautious in using that argument because the same scientific methodology that currently sustains modern society, that same ability in math, reasoning, and comprehension, is also used by the biosciences and geosciences to support evolution.

As an aside, there are arguments that the sciences should be diminished in areas where they conflict with particular views of a minority of self-proclaimed personally inerrent interpreters of various religions, primarily in Christian fundamentalist belief systems in the US.

The problem with any attempt to diminish or eliminate broad areas of the sciences is that such an action would automatically diminish any technology dependent upon scientific advancement for its productivity and efficiency. Such an action would condemn the economy, military, education, and health system of any given nation that adopted such an attack upon selected sciences to permanant second-rate status in all fields mentioned above.

At that point, such a given nation would easily fall prey to other political forces that would have a less anagonistic view of science. A scenario that would be considered "evolution" by the inevitable victors.

Point 43:

Yet another fact, apes have 48 chromosomes, but humans have 46 chromosomes. This is a very big difference, and a very important one. Chromosomes play a big role in animals and humans. Also, aside from all this, there are many other differences between apes and humans, too many to count!

Let’s see how big that difference in chromosomes is, shall we?

From Wikipedia Chimpanzee Genome Project article at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_Genome_Project

quote:
Human and common chimpanzee chromosomes are very similar. The primary difference is that humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than do other great apes. In the human evolutionary lineage, two ancestral ape chromosomes fused at their telomeres producing human chromosome two. There are only nine other major chromosomal differences between chimpanzees and humans: chromosome segment inversions on human chromosomes 1, 4, 5, 9, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18. After the completion of the Human genome project, a Common Chimpanzee genome project was initiated. In December of 2003, a preliminary analysis of 7600 genes shared between the two genomes confirmed that certain genes such as the forkhead-box P2 transcription factor, which is involved in speech development, have undergone rapid evolution in the human lineage. Several genes involved in hearing were also found to have changed rapidly during human evolution, suggesting selection involving human language-related behavior. Differences between individual humans and Common Chimpanzees are about 10 times the typical difference between pairs of humans.

Apparently, some of these differences between chimpanzees and humans have been directly traced to specific genes. Wonder what the future of genetic analysis may hold for the assertions of Morris and Gish?

Remember the chromosome difference? Here is what the article says:

quote:
The results of the chimpanzee genome project suggest that when ancestral chromosomes 2A and 2B fused to produce human chromosome 2, no genes were lost from the fused ends of 2A and 2B. At the site of fusion, there is approximately 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B. Additional linked copies of the PGML/FOXD/CBWD genes exist elsewhere in the human genome, particularly near the p end of chromosome 9. This suggests that a copy of these genes may have been added to the end of the ancestral 2A or 2B prior to the fusion event. It remains to be determined if these inserted genes confer a selective advantage.
• PGML. The phosphoglucomutase-like gene of human chromosome 2. This gene is incomplete and may not produce a functional transcript [6].
• FOXD. The forkhead box D4-like gene is an example of an intronless gene. The function of this gene is not known, but it may code for a transcription control protein.
• CBWD. Cobalamin synthetase is a bacterial enzyme that makes vitamin B12. In the distant past, a common ancestor to mice and apes incorporated a copy of a cobalamin synthetase gene (see: Horizontal gene transfer). Humans are unusual in that they have several copies of cobalamin synthetase-like genes, including the one on chromosome 2. It remains to be determined what the function of these human cobalamin synthetase-like genes is. If these genes are involved in vitamin B12 metabolism, this could be relevant to human evolution. A major change in human development is greater post-natal brain growth than is observed in other apes. Vitamin B12 is important for brain development, and vitamin B12 deficiency during brain development results in severe neurological defects in human children.
• CXYorf1-like protein. Several transcripts of unknown function corresponding to this region have been isolated. This region is also present in the closely related chromosome 9p terminal region that contains copies of the PGML/FOXD/CBWD genes.
• Many ribosomal protein L23a pseudogenes are scattered through the human genome.

For those who prefer, here is that picture:

It appears to me that not only are chimpanzees and humans related, scientists are now honing in on just how related, exactly where related, and exactly what sequence of chemicals results in what makes us related (and different as well).

Heaven forbid they may use this evil science to cure diseases or make life more comfortable!

So what have Gish and Morris (or more accurately, the legacy of Morris), contributed to civilization lately?

The change from ape to man is too great to have ever occurred. Even more so, for a single cell to evolve into humans! But similarities between apes and man are not the only similarities that evolutionists bring up.

Give me a week. Have done enough damage already. :)

Edited by anglagard, : ABE in point 42 and correct example of passive voice


Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Someone who cares, posted 10-17-2006 12:30 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2158
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 50 of 100 (353544)
10-02-2006 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Someone who cares
09-29-2006 8:51 PM


Message Concerning RAZD GD
S1WC writes concerning RAZD and Great Debate possibility:

But I feel he likes to attack me/my words in particular. Could be that it's just his way of posting, but he always likes to attack me/my words when I post. Like when I came back here for round two of debating, RAZD was suspended. Right after my post, he was de-suspended and already replying to me. I feel something strange in this. I don't know how the suspending/de-suspending process works, but it seems to me like he de-suspended himself just to reply to me or something.

I do not remember the exact circumstances concerning any suspension, but I do know that RAZD is not an admin to my knowledge and therefore can't de-suspend himself.

As to the possibility of a GD, RAZD has replied in this thread www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=139&m=38#38 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=139&m=38#38">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=139&m=38#38 as he is not supposed to reply in this one.

This is what he stated:

I'll debate SW1C - as said before - when he meets my precondition of changing the grossly erroneous misrepresentation regarding lucy and the knee fossil in his "essay" that has already been pointed out to him, ie - he demonstrates that he can debate in good faith and admit when he is just plain wrong

This is the message, which I deliver here as a matter of courtesy, since you have stated you do not read the other threads.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Someone who cares, posted 09-29-2006 8:51 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Someone who cares, posted 10-17-2006 12:41 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 1403 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 51 of 100 (353810)
10-03-2006 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by anglagard
10-01-2006 2:02 AM


Re: Hominid Evolution
From paragraph 4 S1WC essay downloaded on Nov. 30, 2006:

Scary stuff, Angla. Can we expect any more missives from the future? :D

Ah, Gish, Gary Parker, Henry Morris---a stroll down Wacko Lane.

Btw, great post.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by anglagard, posted 10-01-2006 2:02 AM anglagard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by AdminNosy, posted 10-03-2006 9:05 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4752
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 52 of 100 (353843)
10-03-2006 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Nighttrain
10-03-2006 4:21 AM


Great Debate Do Not Butt IN
Nighttrain, this is not an open forum. Please stay out of it. Thanks.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Nighttrain, posted 10-03-2006 4:21 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3160 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 53 of 100 (354901)
10-06-2006 7:59 PM


Real Busy
I would just like to warn you that I'm now going to be more busy than before, so I really don't know when and if I'll have time to reply any time soon. I have warned before that this may happen, and it looks like this debate will really slow down and maybe hault. I will try to get here and reply to this, I appreciate you actually debating me, but I've just got another load added to my back, so I don't know when I'll get a moment of free time to respond... Be patient, even if it may take a month for me to reply. I haven't forgot about this debate. :)


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by anglagard, posted 10-17-2006 1:31 AM Someone who cares has responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3160 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 54 of 100 (354944)
10-07-2006 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by anglagard
10-01-2006 2:02 AM


Re: Hominid Evolution
quote:
Let us now look at the major hominid finds, and test their validity, since many evolutionists still believe that they are true transitional forms between apes and man. But some evolutionists have already acknowledged the fact that some of them are false finds.

I think you should say false interpretations instead of false finds. Using the term false finds implies you believe all the fossils are faked. Is that what you are saying?


Yes, thank you, I have updated the essay to be more precise there. Just want to let you know I wrote the majority of my essay while on vacation... So you get the idea of my circumstances.

Point 10: Ok, this may not be the most proper thing to do, but I just use the term "monkey" to refer to apes, monkeys, chimps, and the like. I didn't go technical on this matter, but do you think I really should? I'm just referring to those hairy creatures in the trees and on land, kind of like one kind.

As for the term hominid, it's probably an older definition, but I found one on Google that works: "human ancestor" from www.sensesofwildness.com/africa/GLOSSARY.HTM

If I were to write a new essay, I would use a different term to refer to the supposed "human ancestors" to be more modern. (By the way, I have started thinking about possibly writing a better, more definitive, more detailed essay on evolution with my newly gained knowledge, like a whole new one.)

Point 11: MOST paleontologists believed he was ape human for 45 years, probably the evolutionist ones. And I'm only citing my source, I didn't make this up off the top of my head.

About the number of books written on it, there are actually 2 sources I know of which document this number "500 books" - Early Man and Bones of Contention. 2 sources is a pretty good backup for this.

Point 12: I don't know who's right about this, but I used this info from the websites in the Bibliography section of my essay. And your source for the quote there is AOL Members? What's that, can we trust it?

Point 13: If they debated it for 10 years, how can you be so sure that Duane Gish's statement is false?

Point 14: Lucy is part of the australopithecines group, and computer x-ray scans of their inner ear structures show them to be chimplike because man's inner ear structure is different.

Point 15: I was citing Duane Gish. I am not a paleontologist and I was not there to witness it. But I researched and used Duane Gish's statement.

Point 16: Boisei was an ape, man was not.

Point 17: Maybe not all, but probably a lot of them. They are human, just with a larger brain capacity and a few other characteristics. When he was put on display or something, he was put together improperly, with head way forward and a few other things to make him look more ape like, but this was noticed.

As for the quote on DNA, I saw the words "almost" and "probably," which are words of uncertainty, this means that it could be wrong.

Point 18: I used the word "like," yes I know that Neanderthal had slightly bigger brain capacity, but it's not like it's way out of the ball park of the human brains. And Homo erectus brain capacities are about like the brain capacities of the Europeans in size.

Point 19: But tell me about the ages they give to Neanderthals and humans.

Point 20: Ok, my source may have been wrong, I changed my essay to make it more precise.

Point 21: I stated I would like to see pictures of actual fossil finds. But in my essay I was referring to the artist drawings of ape humans from just looking at a skull or something to the sort.

Point 22: I saw another statement that said Homo Erectus had brain sizes varying from 800 to 1300 cc, and there is a statement that says average European person's brain capacity corrected to brain size is 1297cc. http://christianparty.net/rushton.htm

And I myself am European. I do not mean to insult myself. It's just the truth on averages.

Point 23: I was using the term "hominid" as in ape-human.

Point 24: I meant "together" as in same time periods for some of them. Contemporaries.

Point 25: The 3 cited statements numbered 11, 12, 13 are from Early Man. Number 14 is from Brain Dance. Check out Works Cited for details.

No, I think there are probably more than Taung Child.

Humans are not apes. Humans are humans. Apes are apes. Period. That's the way God made it.

Point 26: As I mentioned before, I used the definition in the "ape-human" sense, probably an older definition.

Point 27: I was citing. I don't know of any "primitive men" who had tooth decay, do you?

And to top it off, I read in Bones of Contention, he was found in a zinc and lead mine. That just totally debunks him as anything but humans.

Point 28: I was not aware of this at the time, thank you. I have deleted that sentence.

Point 29: I explained above the European average brain capacity.

Point 30: No, I meant that the class "Homo Habilis" is a combo of two other taxons, it's not a separate taxon. It's invalid to use since it's a combo.

Point 31: I slightly skimmed it, but really. Some of the rocks that are claimed the tools of ape-men could be just plain rocks. It's possible, right?

Point 32: We don't need to change our conclusions on the main topic - God created the heavens and the earth, no proof goes against that, though some interpretations of evolutionists may seem to do so. But we, at least you've seen me, can change some of the data we use against evolution as we learn more. How many times have I updated my essay already? See?

Point 33: Remind me a bit later. I will try to dig up my notes and look up my sources to see about this.

I have to go. To be continued.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by anglagard, posted 10-01-2006 2:02 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3160 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 55 of 100 (356965)
10-16-2006 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by anglagard
10-01-2006 2:02 AM


Re: Hominid Evolution
Ok, I have a little bit of time, will answer what I can, probably won't be able to reply to all right now.

Continuing where I left off:

Point 33: I have found the source for this, here it is: http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/emcon.htm

A dating method isn't specified, but it does point out the contemporariness of modern humans and Australopithecines.

Point 34: What is the point of that quote? I don't see how it falsifies what I wrote there.

Point 35: As I have stated, I use the term "hominid" to refer to ape-humans. Do you have any other problems with this piece of information?

Point 36: Yes, this does pose a problem. If the "not so fit" human lived with the "better" fit human, they would not live long before the "better" fit humans would eliminate the "not so fit" ones, because they supposedly have "more capability" and compete better to get the food sources and so on... When the "better" human exists, the "not so good" human is supposed to be gone, for the "better" one is "more fit for survival." Natural selection is "supposed" to eliminate the weaker species.

Homo Ergaster? Boy, if you don't keep up with them(evolutionists), you'll be behind, using the outdated info and definitions... :) That's the first time I hear of Homo Ergaster, maybe you could keep me "up to date" by telling me a bit more about this new group?

Point 37: Once again, I used the term "hominid" to...-you get the idea. And the word "monkey" to refer to all the...-you get the idea. I've stated this before.

Point 38: I am speaking of the frauds - Pildown man, Archaeoraptor, maybe Archaeopteryx, so on so forth... False as in "fraud."

Point 39: Yes, the "To contrast" part is what I mean. You know... The skull cap of a donkey, the pig's tooth, the Piltdown hoax, archaeoraptor(the piltdown bird), and possibly Archaeopteryx, etc...

Point 40: Must I repeat, I was using the term hominid to mean the "ape-humans." I think you could understand this if you read my essay and considered what I was saying in context.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by anglagard, posted 10-01-2006 2:02 AM anglagard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by DrJones*, posted 10-17-2006 1:42 AM Someone who cares has responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3160 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 56 of 100 (356966)
10-17-2006 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by anglagard
10-01-2006 7:28 PM


Re: Genetic Relationships and Bad Sources
quote:
Your source indicates Duane Gish is the one responsible for this statement. Since humans are apes (no tail for one thing), what is this supposed to mean?
Skip that one as a point I say, do you disagree?

I, as well as most/all? Creationists believe that we are NOT apes. We believe God created humans in His image, having a soul, an excellent ability to think and reason, to comprehend, to speak, etc. The characteristics which separate us from the animals. So this statement, used by a Creationist, does have a point and reason.

Point 41: I repeat, I used the term "monkey" generally, to refer to the whole group of hairy creatures on land and in trees.

Donkey milk: Your quote says this, "We have not found a direct comparison of human and chimpanzee milk chemistry." But we have found a close comparison of donkey and human milk chemistry. So this statement holds.

Chicken tear enzyme: Let's do some math: 51 out of 130 amino acids differ. That leaves 79 amino acids same/similar. 79 is greater than 51, correct? So the chicken tear enzyme is more similar than not when compared to human enzyme. Thus this statement holds.

Garter snake cholesterol: Typical of the evolutionists, just put down the statement by saying it's useless... Hmmm... Statement still holds, no proof was brought forth to disprove it.

Butter bean to blood chemistry: The discussion is of "chemistry", not antigens. Thus the statement holds, for this statement was speaking of chemistry, and by chemistry it is true.

quote:
Don’t you feel a bit silly quoting the crackpot Morris as a source?

No, and it is not polite to call people names just because they point out facts which displease you. Do you see Creationists calling evolutionists bad names?

Isn't what was used above by the evolutionist a strawman? Attacking a point that was not said that way?

Point 42: You just said that ethical values and morality are subjective, but then say having power over others is not ethical? Using your own statement, this matter is subjective, to you, so this can't be used.

How does it disprove evolution? Well, evolutionists have yet to account for the "evolution" of the soul.

Yes, there is variation among humans in those points. But the ape doesn't have any! Can you account for this? Grunting into speaking, picking fleas to writing great literary works, breaking branches to playing wonderful pieces in concerts on man-made instruments???

Science does not conflict with my religion, IT ONLY SUPPORTS IT WHEN SEEN THROUGH THE CREATIONIST'S GLASSES AND USING CREATIONISTS' INTERPRETATIONS!!! If all the "proof" for evolution were to be based on a Creation model, there would be PERFECT harmony! THIS IS WHAT I WANT YOU TO SEE! Please! Put on the Creationist glasses and examine the evidence, there is a PERFECT harmony! TRY IT!

Point 43: Well, just how much do those chromosomes do for us? Our 23 pairs of chromosomes carry all our hereditary information! They carry the genetic information from one generation to the next! They determine whether you were born a male or female! All of your features of your father and mother and grandfather and grandmother, the chromosomes carried it! They do a BIG part in making you what YOU are! How you learn, what you look like, how your sock drawer looks! (Mine organized because my grandfather was like that, also, my grandfather liked keeping himself busy - I find this in me, my mom likes to do the work before the play/rest, I find this in me, so on and so forth. You can probably relate yourselve to your parents and grandparents as well!) Those chromosomes are very important! 2 of them can carry much important hereditary information!

And I am not amazed to learn that some similarities can occur between humans' and chimps' chromosomes, because they had ONE Creator!

Enough damage? I didn't take that as damage... I thank you for helping me revise my essay and make it more correct in a couple of points, but that wasn't damage. I like to explain myself and defend myself and correct my writing when someone calmly shows me my mistakes (unlike some of my other experiences). I didn't feel damage, I felt a need to clarify myself and point out a few things to you, and I hope you think about them!


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by anglagard, posted 10-01-2006 7:28 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3160 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 57 of 100 (356967)
10-17-2006 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by anglagard
10-02-2006 12:29 AM


Re: Message Concerning RAZD GD
Ok, thank you for that information regarding de-suspension, I didn't know about it (haven't been suspended :) ). But it does feel fishy when I come, and then he gets de-suspended and replies to me. Or when I come, sign in, and then a few moments/minutes later, I see a few names go on or off the "online now" list, as if some members are hiding, not wanting to reply, or getting signed in JUST to reply to me... Weird. Maybe it's just me.

Thank you for delivering the message. But I believe, and you can post this where RAZD usually posts, that a good debater will debate me without setting circumstances, or first debate the issue of hindrance (currently Lucy), and then debating other matter. But right now, it takes me about a week to find enough free time and will power to reply, so I probably won't participate very often in debates. But I will try to respond to this one and try to finish it. One step at a time.

Peace be with you. May God help you see that HE is your Creator, and that HE made you in HIS image. Once more, peace.


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by anglagard, posted 10-02-2006 12:29 AM anglagard has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2158
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 58 of 100 (356971)
10-17-2006 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Someone who cares
10-06-2006 7:59 PM


Re: Real Busy
Just wanted to give you the opportunity to catch up. As said before, I intend to go through the entire essay before responding to your subsequent explanations.

I believe it is quite honorable of you to admit making some mistakes. Perhaps the next revision of your essay will see significant improvement as a result of this process. In the future, I intend to provide an essay concerning my theological beliefs in which all will be welcome to correct.

I understand you are busy with the business of living, as I often am. Understood, I will be patient and not race to the end before providing you an opportunity to respond.

Now the ball appears to be in my court, will proceed through the next few paragraphs soon.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Someone who cares, posted 10-06-2006 7:59 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Someone who cares, posted 10-19-2006 11:39 PM anglagard has responded

    
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1647
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004


Message 59 of 100 (356973)
10-17-2006 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Someone who cares
10-16-2006 11:38 PM


Re: Hominid Evolution

DO NOT INTRUDE!


Doing so knowingly should get you suspended without this warning.

Homo Ergaster? Boy, if you don't keep up with them(evolutionists), you'll be behind, using the outdated info and definitions... That's the first time I hear of Homo Ergaster, maybe you could keep me "up to date" by telling me a bit more about this new group?

I realize that this is a great debate and I'm intruding but dude, Homo ergaster was classified way back in 1975, its hardly a new group.

Edited by AdminNosy, : Added a warning!


Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Someone who cares, posted 10-16-2006 11:38 PM Someone who cares has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Someone who cares, posted 10-19-2006 11:44 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

  
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3160 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 60 of 100 (357607)
10-19-2006 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by anglagard
10-17-2006 1:31 AM


Re: Real Busy
I can see why you would want to go through the entire essay first-because otherwise we would still be sitting on the first few topics. :) And that wouldn't be good.

quote:
I believe it is quite honorable of you to admit making some mistakes. Perhaps the next revision of your essay will see significant improvement as a result of this process. In the future, I intend to provide an essay concerning my theological beliefs in which all will be welcome to correct.

Thank you.

Actually, I was kind of thinking about writing a whole new essay,with different, more precise discussions, longer essay as a whole, more detailed, more "up to date", etc. Because I have gained much new knowledge since I first wrote this essay, which is my first essay on the subject by the way.

I would hope that others like RAZD can see that I truly can "debate in good faith" by counting the times I confessed to error and updated my essay.

As for your essay, it should be interesting. I hope that when you write your essay and post it on the world wide web you will understand how I felt writing mine and having others constantly attack it. I don't really mind debating material where I was really mistaken, it helps me learn, but I feel that some of the other more controversial debating where we can't get anywhere is excessive. Maybe you'll understand this when others take apart your essay, one possible member being me... To make it fair. :) :) :)


"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by anglagard, posted 10-17-2006 1:31 AM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by anglagard, posted 01-25-2007 12:18 AM Someone who cares has responded

  
Prev123
4
567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017