|
Author
|
Topic: EVOLUTION'S FRAUD HAS CONTRIBUTED TO ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE:
|
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4648 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: 02-02-2005
|
|
Message 25 of 323 (524670)
09-18-2009 1:31 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Archangel
09-17-2009 9:27 PM
|
|
Archangel, the evidence is not based on just a few fossils. Hundreds of transitional hominid skeletons and skulls have been found, many of them near complete. If you want the evidence, don't start with people with a strong interest in refuting the evidence. They will only give you the strawmen. Start with the authorities who accept it, and then be a skeptic. Take the evidence that people actually accept to the skeptics, and then ask them to explain it. For example, examine this image, because it is a great place to start. Millions of us evos accept this image as representative of the evidence for common descent with other primates. It is from TalkOrigins.org, and the images are collected from the Smithsonian Institution. The letters in the image correspond to the specimens in the list, so you can verify them by clicking on the links in the list.
- (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
- (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
- (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
- (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
- (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
- (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
- (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
- (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
- (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
- (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
- (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
- (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
- (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
- (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern
None of those skulls are the examples you listed, except for the Neanderthal skulls, (J), (K) and (L). Three skulls, not just one. Do a Google search and you will find many more of them. For more details, go to this page at AnswersInCreation.org La Ferrassie 1
Shanidar 1
Shanidar 2
La Chapelle-aux Saints 1
Le Moustier
Notice the consistently jutting eyebrow ridges and the protruding mouths. They are the closest human relatives, but they still show those transitional features, from primitive apes, in their skulls. No human alive today has a skull that look remotely like these. And you just can't explain them with arthritis or rickets. Edited by ApostateAbe, : Missed a few Neanderthals Edited by ApostateAbe, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Archangel, posted 09-17-2009 9:27 PM | | Archangel has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 31 by Archangel, posted 09-18-2009 8:29 AM | | ApostateAbe has replied |
|
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4648 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: 02-02-2005
|
|
|
Message 45 of 323 (524765)
09-18-2009 1:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 31 by Archangel
09-18-2009 8:29 AM
|
|
I marvel that you could suggest that I could be accused of being guilty of Gish Gallup while attempting to frame an argument in light of the widely varied expansion of the debate subject offered by the opposition. For example, ApostateAbe offers up this series of ape skulls from T.O. and attempts to pass them off as different evolutionary steps of what became we human beings: The assumption is ridiculous as all they have in support that these skulls represent evolutionary ancestors at all are the skulls themselves. But no evidence that these aren't just examples of extinct Apes? ... Can Abe actually say that these APE skulls even belong to the same family/genus of Ape? Because I see no obvious resemblance at all. From the width/shape of the skulls to the protruding of the brow ridges. I mean at every level of rationale I see no way to prove that these skulls represent any true and real connection to human development or evolution. With every piece of evidence you post, you prove my point that no real and verifiable evidence exists which supports your belief in evolution. Sure, he will place every single fossil skull of a primate found in some manufactured category of human based evolution, but that doesn't mean it is a true or reliable assumption at all. And only if we are able to absolutely prove you wrong will you even consider that an error has been made. And even then, evolutionists will just poo poo it as part of the process of getting to your so called truth. But the truth to evolution is whatever furthers your agenda and doesn't impede the overall fairy tale evolution is promoting.
Archangel, you are right that you are certainly not guilty of the Gish gallop. And I think you have a very good objection to the set of Neanderthal skulls. To be honest, I am not sure why it is that anthropologists think they all belong to the same species. They could be three different species, for all I know. Here is the important point: THIS IS THE EVIDENCE THAT WE ACCEPT FOR EVOLUTION. Not the Piltdown Man. Not the Nebraska Man. Not the Orce Man. The skulls that are actually offered to the public as evidence are the skulls that you should be focused on if you want to disprove evolution. I think you are a very good thinker, and I hope you stay with us. Shake off the condescension and the dismissals and the unjust attacks against you. You are doing good.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 31 by Archangel, posted 09-18-2009 8:29 AM | | Archangel has not replied |
|
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4648 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: 02-02-2005
|
bluescat48 writes: There is no genus of apes. Apes occur in a number of Genera, such as Pan, Gorilla & Homo. You, I & everyone else on this forum is an ape.
An "ape" is the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, which includes humans. But, in conventional English, apes are the set of species that includes that superfamily but excludes humans, similar to how the common people use the word, "animal."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 46 by bluescat48, posted 09-18-2009 1:35 PM | | bluescat48 has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 55 by Archangel, posted 09-19-2009 7:13 AM | | ApostateAbe has replied |
|
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4648 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: 02-02-2005
|
|
|
Message 62 of 323 (524830)
09-19-2009 11:42 AM
|
Reply to: Message 55 by Archangel
09-19-2009 7:13 AM
|
|
Archangel writes: NO AA, an Ape is a big monkey which was created by God will all of the other lower animals. It is not related to us in any way which is evidence by the fact that it is still living just as it did on that first day of creation. As for the fossils you attempt to label as our human ancestors, they too were lower animals who although interesting, simply went extinct and no longer exist. Most likely because of pressure and over hunting by human beings. Not because we evolved from them in any way over hundreds of thousands, or millions of years. You must stop expecting me to explain my worldview according to your evolutionist definitions of life and how it came to be as it is.
Archangel, that is perfectly fair. I'll do that. I would like to help you. If you want to convince people like us that evolution is wrong and apes are not related to humans, then start with the evidence that we accept. Do not start with the evidence that creationist authors claim we accept. I am not asking you to believe that apes are related to humans. I am not asking you to believe that the image of the skulls from TalkOrigins.org represents an evolutionary transition. I am asking you to believe that this is the evidence that we accept. Deal? 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 55 by Archangel, posted 09-19-2009 7:13 AM | | Archangel has not replied |
|
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4648 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: 02-02-2005
|
|
|
Message 65 of 323 (524834)
09-19-2009 12:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 64 by RAZD
09-19-2009 12:10 PM
|
|
Re: What is fraud? Let's review the FACTS
RAZD, good Lord. Did you get permission from your publisher to put a copy of your book on the Internet?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 64 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2009 12:10 PM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 66 by Huntard, posted 09-19-2009 1:10 PM | | ApostateAbe has not replied |
|
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4648 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: 02-02-2005
|
|
|
Message 78 of 323 (524902)
09-19-2009 11:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 74 by Archangel
09-19-2009 10:20 PM
|
|
Re: Neanderthals are apes!!!
Archangel, that is an eloquent sermon, and I am afraid that it will fall on deaf ears, in part because you introduced the sermon with a few seeming errors. Firstly, about the Neanderthals. It really should not be difficult to believe that there are signs that Neanderthals shared many qualities with humans, especially from your perspective. That is because the leading creationists say that the "Neanderthal" fossils are of humans. If you don't believe me, look at your own original post, your quote from NWcreation.net. Just as human as us! Secondly, we generally cannot name the scientists who discovered the Neanderthal fossils. At least I can't. I would have to look it up. Quiz an evolutionary biologist (who doesn't specialize in paleoanthropology) about the names of people who discovered of Neanderthal fossils, and he is likely to be slightly embarrassed that he cannot remember any names at all. Edited by ApostateAbe, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 74 by Archangel, posted 09-19-2009 10:20 PM | | Archangel has not replied |
|
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4648 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: 02-02-2005
|
|
|
Message 83 of 323 (524913)
09-20-2009 4:23 AM
|
Reply to: Message 81 by Archangel
09-20-2009 3:50 AM
|
|
Re: Neanderthals are apes?
Archangel, I know you are trying to do the right thing, and I think to that end that you need to understand us. We take reason and the truth very seriously. To us, quoting a falsehood as if it is correct is no different (or hardly different) from the falsehood emerging from your own mind. Maybe you don't adhere to it, but that is the convention among us. When you quote the arguments used to support your position, then they become your own arguments. I happen to think that NWcreation.net has a better position than you seem to have--if given a choice between human and ape, it is much more likely that "Neanderthal" remains are humans, not apes. So, if we put all that petty nonsense aside, and you start to look at the transitional features of those skulls, then you may understand why we have the position that we do. If you have an objection, then I would be glad to hear it. Edited by ApostateAbe, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 81 by Archangel, posted 09-20-2009 3:50 AM | | Archangel has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 84 by Archangel, posted 09-20-2009 7:02 AM | | ApostateAbe has replied |
|
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4648 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: 02-02-2005
|
|
|
Message 98 of 323 (524938)
09-20-2009 11:14 AM
|
Reply to: Message 84 by Archangel
09-20-2009 7:02 AM
|
|
Re: Neanderthals are apes!!!
Archangel, like I said, I am trying to help you, because I know you are trying to do the right thing. We have different conventions than you do about what counts as deception. I am not going to continue to argue about whether or not it was right for you to do as you did, because it isn't an important point of contention. Now that you know our convention, it may help you so that you avoid doing it again, right or wrong. Regardless, I suggest a better method for you in starting topics: Use the evidence that we ourselves say that we accept, as in the images of the fossil skulls that have been posted. They have names, and you can look them up. For example, do a little research on the specimen La Ferrassie 1. Is it an ape skull? A human skull? A fraud? We need your perspective on this, because it is one of the many skulls that we use to conclude that there were Neanderthals and that we share a common ancestry with modern apes. It is better not to quote from creationist sites in your opening post. The evidence that anti-evolutionists claim that we accept is almost always irrelevant, and it is likely to be a step backward for you making a difference in the way we think.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 84 by Archangel, posted 09-20-2009 7:02 AM | | Archangel has not replied |
|
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4648 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: 02-02-2005
|
|
|
Message 101 of 323 (524947)
09-20-2009 2:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 100 by Coyote
09-20-2009 2:02 PM
|
|
Re: Neanderthals are apes!!!
Coyote writes: Doesn't the new creationist museum have a sign something to be effect, "Believe, don't think" -- I don't have time to search for a photo right now.
Is this it?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 100 by Coyote, posted 09-20-2009 2:02 PM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
ApostateAbe
Member (Idle past 4648 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: 02-02-2005
|
Archangel, evolutionists have been accused of being dogmatists. This is in part because Darwin said a lot about evolution when he first proposed his theory in The Origin of Species, but almost nothing in the book has changed. It seems like everything in the book has been accepted as part of the current theory, despite all of the advances made in genetics, paleontology, embryology, and so on. I don't know about you, but that really does strike me as suspicious. I would have more confidence if Darwin's original theory contained more proven falsehoods, like what happens with every other scientific pioneer. That is why it seems a little strange to see you say, "Only in evolution science must they revamp the current thinking and redefine it constantly based on new and undeniable observations which completely negate prior beliefs." From my perspective, the problem is more in the reverse. The popular media reports do tend to overblow the significance of every new find, and that seems to mislead people about how conservative the ToE seems to be.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 103 by Archangel, posted 09-21-2009 7:58 AM | | Archangel has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 111 by Peepul, posted 09-21-2009 10:56 AM | | ApostateAbe has not replied | | | Message 112 by Modulous, posted 09-21-2009 11:05 AM | | ApostateAbe has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
