I have a question for some of you creationists-why do you find it so insulting to be related to apes

reply to post by Conclusion

Like how did they build all those awesome gigantic structures. To believe we are more intelligent than they, well it shows how....well you know.

Slaves, lots and lots of slaves. But even if you don’t know how they did it that doesn’t mean you can claim they had the same level of scientific understanding as today. Something you overlook is the fact that if knowledge has been lost then you can’t claim it existed; by definition it’s lost.

So again, are you suggesting that mankind has always had televisions, microwaves and fibre optic cables? If not then science has done a hell of a lot, if you are then please feel free to prove it.


Also, I’ve not said anything about the relative intelligence of ancient and modern man; while there is some evidence to suggest that IQ is increasing I won’t make the claim that we are more intelligent than humans of thousands of years ago. I will however say that we are vastly more knowledgably and as evidence of this point to the large amount of scientific literature, backed up by consistent testing, that exists today compared to the large amount of bunk that exists from thousands of years ago.

Man, everyone needs to stop grouping everyone else up into overly broad and generalized groups.

There are people who aren't creationists who don't believe in evolution, there are people who ARE creationists and who do believe in evolution. I don't understand the line people draw in their minds, this "us vs. them" mentality is just a poorly thought out mental pathway.

Myself, I'm a bit of both. I don't see why, if there is a god, if god does something then it's automatically supposed to be unexplainable or supernatural.

Big bang for example, who's to say that if god created the universe he didn't do it with a big bang-like event.

I know the common arguments about how god isn't needed so we can disregard the idea of a god. Occams razor has become nothing more than a crutch and people who rely on it are, often, of the same stock as these creationists whom everyone makes fun of for using the same, faulty, arguments over and over again.

Nobody is doing anything but clutching at straws.
Insanity

reply to post by ShiningSabrewolf


Get your hands off me you damn dirty ape! Sorry couldn't resist this just so led into it.It has nothing to do with being evolved from apes the problem becomes it would invalidate the bible.When someone believes something religiously (every pun intended) there is no way they can allow anything to counter there beliefs.

Reply to post by Conclusion

Yes, I know all about quantum physics and string theory. I however, am prone to say that the evidence will never exist to prove ordisprove creationists/evolutonists/whoever else. I believe humankind, as we know it today, is surely on a course to extinction. We kill each other everyday. Wehave weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION. We clearly do not love each other as we should. Our worst enemy is't some biblical prediction, some alien invasion, or massive global scale natural disaster. Our worst enemy is in fact, ourselves....


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


I agree. Their is a theory of cyclical rises and falls of mankind. They destroy theirselves and the remanents start again.

Reply to post by Conclusion

It is very true. The only problem is that mankind looks beyond the evidence of man vrs man and looks toward man vrs supernatural/alien.

All one has to do is examine history books closer and more in deth and we will find our true enemy. There is no need for speculation if we only examine our past.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


It seems as if mainstream archeologists do not want the truth about certain finds out. It would raise many more questions, but isn't that what finding the truth is all about?

reply to post by Daniem


No I fully believe in science. I simply think our minute understanding of science is but the tip of an iceberg. God is the ultimate scientist, biologist, and chemist ect... Just because you cannot explain everything to your limited understanding of science does not make it less real. Yes if monkey’s evolved into humans then the monkey would not longer be. Why would a creature need to evolve if to only stay in their current state? If monkey’s evolved then would we not have to assume that all monkeys evolved, why did some evolve and not all? It is elementary dear my Watson. Animals did not evolve from sea creatures so there is no need to discuss why some still exist. Evolution is a theory which is defined by an educated guess that is not fact and is not based on any tangible evidence. Just because I do not believe the same theory as you does not make me uneducated. Someone brought up a very good point on another thread and I think it deserves being brought up again. Why would you think humans evolved from our complete opposite? Humans do not have body hair like a monkey, monkey’s do not have facial or head hair like humans. This is just one example of many that I think you can research without me drawing a complete picture.

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by ShiningSabrewolf

 

Get your hands off me you damn dirty ape! Sorry couldn't resist this just so led into it.

It has nothing to do with being evolved from apes the problem becomes it would invalidate the bible.When someone believes something religiously (every pun intended) there is no way they can allow anything to counter there beliefs.

Why not get your dirty paws of my pretty draws?... Anyway the same can be said for the lice picking bunch, if you believe so utterly in what you think is science you can not stand to invalidate your beliefs either. There are only two sides of the road; God and satan so not believing in God only leaves one option being a slave to satan. His theory of evolving has seduced many. You can call it Scientology, evolution, the big bang on and on but these all have one auther and that is satan.

[edit spelling]

Reply to post by Conclusion

Honestly, I couldn't tell you what finding the truth is all about.

I personally believe the truth is in each of us and we only have to find out who we are to discover it. That is of course, my opinion, which I am entitled to, as are each one of us as human beings.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Melissa101

Someone brought up a very good point on another thread and I think it deserves being brought up again. Why would you think humans evolved from our complete opposite?

Complete opposite? Wut?

- From AronRa's 10th FFoC.

“Primates” are collectively defined as any gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebrial cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle.

Our similarities far outstrip our differences. Further, humans are a species of Great Ape and, while descended from monkeys, to skip that phylogenetic clade introduces far more differences between human and monkey than between human and ape - our closest relatives. (I.E. tail to coccyx transition)

However, there is no trait diagnostic to all monkeys which all apes do not also possess either fully or vestigially. Further, there is no diagnostic trait universal to all apes which humans do not also share either fully or vestigially.

Humans do not have body hair like a monkey, monkey’s do not have facial or head hair like humans.

Monkeys also live and subsist in shaded trees with much smaller brains that use up far less daily calorie intake as well as outputting less heat as a result. In humans, the loss of hair is a means for the sweat glands to help more efficiently cool the body by providing greater skin/sweat contact area - rather than having the sweat run off onto long fur where it would only insulate heat. The reason we kept hair on our heads is for insulation of heat during the cool Savannah nights - also explaining why we kept pubic hair, to help insulate and regulate the temperature of our reproductive organs (in males, among other mechanisms). Women have also kept their pubic hair, but lost the thick facial hair. However, it can still grow rather thick on some women in old age or with certain body chemistry.

The AAH has some ideas on how and why humans lost their hair as well, but there is far too little evidence at this point to verify or validate it's claims.

Yes if monkey’s evolved into humans then the monkey would not longer be. Why would a creature need to evolve if to only stay in their current state?

Er, populations diverge. The more divergent and isolated segments of the population become - the faster evolution works upon those isolated populations because unique mutations spread faster in smaller gene pools.

Apes, and by extant hominids, represent populations who diverged into new environments favoring new and different mutations.

If monkey’s evolved then would we not have to assume that all monkeys evolved, why did some evolve and not all?

They all have. There is no monkey species alive today which was around when monkeys and apes split.

Animals did not evolve from sea creatures so there is no need to discuss why some still exist.

lol, check the fossil record.

Evolution is a theory which is defined by an educated guess that is not fact and is not based on any tangible evidence.

Evolution is a fact. It's been demonstrated not only in animal and plant husbandry over thousands of years, but has also been demonstrated in the lab with single-celled microbes.

Just because I do not believe the same theory as you does not make me uneducated.

Your mischaracterization of evolution suggests otherwise.

No I fully believe in science.

Science isn't a methodology which is to be "believed". It's conclusions are "accepted" tentatively by preponderance of evidence.

what you think is science

Define science for us please. In your own words, not copy/pasted from an outside source, and one which allows for the support of your conclusions.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by Lasheic]

reply to post by dragonridr

It has nothing to do with being evolved from apes the problem becomes it would invalidate the bible.

The human sex chromosome invalidates the bible, because the base template for the human body is the X (female) chromosome. The Y (male) chromosome is an incomplete chromosome containing modifications to the base template.

This is why a female baby can be/IS born (XX), and a male baby is born (XY), but a baby born (YY) is impossible and will not develop. It miscarries and is flushed from the mother's body.

Therefore, "Eve" could not have been an afterthought to "Adam". "Eve" would have had to have been created first and foremost - with her body being used as the template to be modified for "Adam". Not the other way around.

Yet if Genetics disproves the story of Adam and Eve, then why does Darwin catch so much flack from Creationists and not Gregor Mendel?

reply to post by Conclusion

A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with this ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion).

No, it only supposes the level of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has been roughly static for the last 60,000 years - since that is the approximate limit to carbon dating techniques. Carbon dating can be verified in it's accuracy by dating objects of known age.

Why are you bringing up anything that has to do with "billions" of years? The Earth's atmospheric composition has changed several times over the course of it's existence. We know this. It doesn't have anything to do with carbon dating, which is limited to objects of only about half a hundred thousands years old at best. The only thing that matters in regard to carbon dating is the atmospheric composition of the earth 60,000 years ago.



It's true that the carbon exchange reservoir is not static all around the globe. This was discovered by Hessel de Vries in the late 50's. Identification of these outliers have lead to calibration methods which take into account the variance of C-14 reservoirs. When you present a sample for carbon dating, you have to provide documentation on the location and environmental conditions of where the sample was found. This not only helps identify and remove possible contaminants which could bork the sample age given, but is crucial for the calibration of the test.



[edit on 25-8-2009 by Lasheic]

reply to post by Lasheic

Therefore, "Eve" could not have been an afterthought to "Adam". "Eve" would have had to have been created first and foremost - with her body being used as the template to be modified for "Adam". Not the other way around.

God created the universe, why couldn't He have created a man first with X and Y chromosomes and then create a woman with two X chromosomes? Saying that God can create a universe but not create a man with an X and Y chromosome before making a woman with two Xs is like saying that you can read "Gone with the Wind" but not "Junie B. Jones".

reply to post by Mike_A

Slaves, lots and lots of slaves.

That's not quite the whole story though. I think this guy may be on to something.



Our ancient ancestors certainly weren't stupid. There were every bit as intelligent as any of us, or more-so. This doesn't mean they had advanced technology beyond our means, merely that they made due with what they had in novel ways which we may not have thought of.

reply to post by Totakeke


Because (Y) is the modification. Even if you supposed he made man first in living form, he had to have created the design for woman (X) first in concept to then modify into man.

Woman could not have been an afterthought as the Bible depicts.

Further, why do humans use the XY/XX chromosome pairing if they were created separate and uniquely from other creatures, specifically primates (who also share the XY/XX sex chromosome)? If such were the case that males developed first, then why not have humans use the same sex chromosome pairing as birds (ZZ being male, with ZW being female)?

Rather than attempting Olympic caliber mental gymnastics to try to explain away this discrepancy - is it not far easier and evident to suggest that humans evolved from mammals, primates specifically, and that the bible was written by male-dominant desert nomads who had no concept of genetics or the mechanism of sexual reproduction?



Edit: By the way, it should be noted that even basic human behavior and instinct validate evolution rather than special creation. For example, why do newborn babies and infants incessantly grasp and tug at hair, and with such strength? In fact, their grasp can be so strong that they can suspend their body weight.



Now why would a baby do this? Perhaps because we're related to this group of fellows....



Notice how the mother doesn't have to hold onto the baby to secure food or run from perceived danger? Why would a human baby do this, if the hair on their mother is too sparse and fine to grasp to?

It's what's known as a vestigial behavior, one which our ancestors used but is now useless due to the lack of hair to grasp onto. Note that infants ALSO have this grasping instinct with their feet as well - despite the fact that our feet are no longer useful for grasping much else than our undies and wet towels from the bathroom floor without bending over.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by Lasheic]

reply to post by Jomina

The question immediately coming to mind regarding the 46/48 chromosome issue that HAS to be answered is, how?

It's never been seen to occur in any other species, aside from when WE as humans, in a lab, DO it to them. Otherwise, never. What does that tell you? Logically?

Logically, I tells me you haven't bothered looking into the subject. To give just one example...

PubMed: Chromosomal phylogeny of Robertsonian races of the house mouse on the island of Madeira: testing between alternative mutational processes.

The ancestral karyotype of the house mouse (Mus musculus) consists of 40 acrocentric chromosomes, but numerous races exist within the domesticus subspecies characterized by different metacentric chromosomes formed by the joining at the centromere of two acrocentrics. An exemplary case is present on the island of Madeira where six highly divergent chromosomal races have accumulated different combinations of 20 metacentrics in 500-1000 years.

The case of the Maderian Mice: From one species to six.

Britton-Davidian collected hundreds of mice from about 40 locations around the island and found six distinct populations. The common brown house mouse of Europe, presumably the ancestor of the Madeira mice, has 40 chromosomes, but the six families of Madeiran mice have between 22 and 30.

The current families of Madeiran mice are not short of genetic material. They have not lost any DNA. What happened is this: over time, some of the chromosomes fused together, packing more DNA into some chromosomes. Each of the six unique populations of mice on Madeira has its own special assembly of fused chromosomes.

I actualy know people that behave like apes lol

so, some of us didnt fall far from the tree

I'm a Creationist by choice. I'd like to say that if God chose to employ evolution as a means to get to us, which I have no problem entertaining, I have no issue with being kin to the apes. I think they are cool. And in this day and age, I believe they tend to act more humane than we do.

reply to post by Valhall


But there are three problems with that. For one, the Bible describes God creating all creatures within a few literal days, not over millions of years. Second, God wouldn't need to use evolution to create humans. Third, the Bible also says that man sinned against God and allowed death (among other things) to enter the world. There's no way there could have been death before man since it was man who brought death into the world by sinning.