|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Why are there no human apes alive today? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4621 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
Actually, your evo researchers have tried to describe a scene of living intermediates. Mankind however shows that this is nonsense as it's closest sister species the chimp is absolutely nothing like us.
The human line is also the only line that has such enourmous differences between species at the Genus level.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4621 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
No, it is your researchers, grabbing at straws that are unable to tell the difference. Their credibility is shot.
"Why is there so much confusion regarding human origins, and what does the fossil record actually show? We think Jeremy Rifkin summed it up accurately." "What the record shows is nearly a century of fudging and finagling by scientists attempting to force various fossil morsels and fragments to conform to Darwin’s notions, all to no avail. Today the millions of fossils stand as very visible, ever-present reminders of the paltriness of the arguments and the overall shabbiness of the theory that marches under the banner of evolution (1983, p. 125)."http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&art...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4621 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
For me it is not about speech alone. It is about mankinds higher reasoning ability and perception.
Mankind was created with the ability to percieve an after life and offer glory to God. Chimps can not do this, and neither can any other organism. However I am happy to call any evolutionists an ape if this is what they wish.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4621 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
I don't know you bud. However, calling yourself a Catholic is an embarassment to all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4621 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
You have also learned that brain size has little to do with intelligence.
Many of your so called fossil evidence are fragments with the rest made up to suit. The control and use of fire is a complex task that apes cannot understand nor perform. Where you have found a hearth, you have found a fully human being. Do you think an ape can think to use flint or stick rubbing. Not on your life. ...and they did not have matches. File:Homo erectus.jpg - Wikipedia Above is an ape, not a person that can use fire. Its' brain is around 850(early)-1100(late). Look at the skull diagram. Now I tell you that common sense needs to leave the room if you think this skull belonged to a fire contolling ape. Much of the work on brain size in fossils are derived via the use of mathematical modelling that is biased and based on presumptions. Many of your fossils are just a few bones with the majority of the specimen reconstructed according to a wish list. "Much of the debate about the place of H. floresiensis in the primate tree is centered around its small size, in particular the small brain size. The argument raised has been that the evolution of such a small brain does not fit with what we know about primate brain evolution. "Our analysis, together with studies of brain size in island populations of living primates, suggests we should perhaps not be surprised by the evolution of a small brained, small bodied early human species." The findings also deepen our understanding of how our brains and bodies have evolved and the selection pressures that may have been responsible. The results show that selection has acted in both directions, usually resulting in evolution of bigger brains but also producing smaller ones." http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2010/01/100126220325.htm In fact bigger brains may be a reflection of better smell. Neanderthal had a larger brain than homo sapiens. So we have devolved..have we?!!!!!! Does this also mean that Neanderthals were smarter than Homo Sapiens? No. Researchers cannot understand the muddle around recent species like florensisensis and neanderthal. They have no hope of getting it right for anything older. All this nonsense about increasing intelligence and increasing brain sizes is mythical support for human evolution from ape to mankind. It only makes sense when there is no sense involved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4621 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
Let me say this.
Evos use all sorts of things to contstruct family trees. With so much homology around, all you have are wish lists. So when it suits you use 'likeness'. When it doesn't you use good old luck eg homology or convergent evolution or the plethora of other kinds of evolution to explain what should not be there, but is. TOE died many years ago. What you have now is many life lines plugged into a rescussitation machine to keep TOE alive in it's zombie state.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4621 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
The Catholic church threw its hat behind evolution way too soon. It was far more seemingly credible 20 years ago. It isn't anymore
The Pope should consider a rethink!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4621 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
Well evos come from the assumption of ancestry.
Biblical creationists come from the assumption of created kinds. Hence, it would be up to a creationist scientist to determine what variety of ape a human has. "Wood and Harrison cautioned that history has shown how uncritical reliance on a few similarities between fossil apes and humans can lead to incorrect assumptions about evolutionary relationships. They pointed out the cases of the Ramapithecus discovery in south Asia, which was touted in the 1960s and '70s as a human ancestor, and Oreopithecus bambolii discovered in Italy, which was assumed to be a human ancestor because of some of its skeletal features. After more detailed research was done on both of them, both were found to be fossil apes instead."Andhranews.net I am not trying to disprove evolution. I am suggesting it is not factual and should be classed as a faith. In relation to the thread topic, there is no good reason for a half hairy, apey creature to no have survived in Africa somehwere. The greatest distinction in organisms and the one that would stand out as evidence for TOE is such a creature. You do not have one around over the last 1000 years or so. You must invent a plethora of reasonings as to why NONE survived. Creationists do not need a plethora of reasonings and convoluted theories. The evidence is self explanatory. There are no hairy apey people around today because there never were any...Why? Because God created a variety of apes and then God created mankind...and that is what the fossil record demonstates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4621 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
You do not have a theory. You have a mess.
AND yes, there are creationists models. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creationmodels.html Evolutionists often call creationists ignorant. However evolutionists can also be very ignorant at times. Evos do not have an answer for every question and still believe. Likewise so can creationists that put their faith in an all powerful God as opposed to the reasonings of mankind. The evidence for the creation is all around and you mostly call it luck!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4621 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
I'll put another reply to this.
Simply this...I do not have the time to waste on educating evolutionists in the science they purport to understand and defend. I will engraciate you this time. One example is Heidelberg man. Only a jaw was found. Below is the link where you can see what you actually have and many are just a bone or two to reconstruct a theory about a complete organism. "There are a number of clear trends (which were neither continuous nor uniform) from early australopithecines to recent humans: increasing brain size, increasing body size, increasing use of and sophistication in tools, decreasing tooth size, decreasing skeletal robustness. There are no clear dividing lines between some of the later gracile australopithecines and some of the early Homo, between erectus and archaic sapiens, or archaic sapiens and modern sapiens. Despite this, there is little consensus on what our family tree is. Everyone accepts that the robust australopithecines (aethiopicus, robustus and boisei) are not ancestral to us, being a side branch that left no descendants. Whether H. habilis is descended from A. afarensis, africanus, both of them, or neither of them, is still a matter of debate. It is possible that none of the known australopithecines is our ancestor. "Prominent Hominid Fossils What you call a theory of evolution is no more than the evolution of a mess. TOE is a theory in evolution itself and has not predictive capability, is irrefuteable and should never be classed as anything more than a faith with wish lists as its basis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4621 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
Well I say what creationists have is at least as robust as the garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past.
I know some believer acccept TOE. Yet none have explained how human a human needs to be to gain salvation. How much will a believer discredit from the bible before he may as well throw the whole book away? The earth, its place in space, the nonsense about the need for an iron to core to differentiate the earth from other planets and why it came to be so, the impact scenario to explain the moon, water from comets being totally different to the water on earth requiring another explanation for waters arrival. etc etc Truly..there is more than you apparently know that is stron support for a biblical creation done in stages of days, time periods. I would need a book not a post to demonstrate all the evidence for creation, regardless of not having a convoluted theory such as evos have. Do not forget if kinds were created, we do not need the rubbish you guys have to come up with. We just need to sort out how many varieties of each kind God made. Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4621 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
We are talking about a science you have yet to imagine, let alone comprehend.
Perhaps God went into one of these stupid dimensions theorised, created each kind in a giant petrie dish and used dark matter as a transportation slide to fly them back to earth. This is no more nonsensical that saying the first living cell 'poofed' into existence all by itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4621 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
According to what? You mean your Linneaus system that presumes ancestry and may class a chimp as homo soon.
Your taxons mean nothing at all. They are just a forum for discussion and comparisons of your nonsense..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4621 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
I'll leave that for creationist scientists. We have already established neither side needs the answer to everything to have validity, apparently...eg TOE.
IDers have Baramins. You can learn what Sarfarti says for $10. Here is a link to just some creationist papers, books etc. Here is more references to creationist models below. We likewise still have questions, but to say creationists have no models or research base is ignorant. http://www.springerlink.com/content/h0369221622n8q00/?p=b... You lot keep harping on this 'no creationist model' line. The sad fact for you is that we do not need one that looks as convoluted as yours. Your science is in a mess and you have faith regardless. It is ignorance and bigotry alone than expects more from an opposing view than evolutionists themsleves can provide. Maybe, likely and possibly will never be science, no matter how much of it you put forward. Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mazzy  Suspended Member (Idle past 4621 days) Posts: 212 From: Rural NSW, Australia Joined: |
Your statement is a ***. Evos also believe life came into existence all by itself and cannot replicate same in a controlled laboratory environment, let alone expecting life would arise on it's own by luck.
After your researchers can 'poof' a living cell into existence from non life I may need to show how God created. I do not need to prove any fanciful claim any more than you do...and still believe! Edited by Mazzy, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024