Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Man, Monkey or Both?

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by The Blind Eye
 


It doesn't make me happy, it's just accurate. See that "deny ignorance" written in large letters above? That's something we should strive to achieve, not micturate on.

Every time you say something like "man is a monkey", or "monkeys includes apes", etc., you are merely making your argument look more and more tenuous, and are bringing your own intellect and knowledge into question with every utterance.

So, here we go again:

Man is an ape.
Monkeys are not apes.
Apes are not monkeys.
Not all apes are men.
Monkeys and apes are primates.




posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   
If as you say, that i am...


bringing my own intellect and knowledge into question with every utterance.

...then for those who receive my intentions here in such a shallow manner, all i can say is abandon your filter for a moment. What is repeatedly missed here is the opportunity to erase some of the excessive lines we have drawn... that separate us from one another and the web of life, but unfortunately this point is missed with the continued obsession over labels.

Here's a simple exercise to help you gain some insight into what i am trying to accomplish here. Look at a map or globe without any countries labeled or borders drawn... now look at that map upside down... and tell me what you see.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by The Blind Eye
 


I agree with you about the arbitrary nature of geopolitics, but there are tangible differences between every single primate, and one does not need to know prior primates to be able to understand that. Show a map of Chad and Tibet to an alien, and they'll scratch their heads as to how the two relate. Give them a Gibbon and a Bonobo, and they'll see the relationship (and differences) as soon as they run them through the Abtuctatron 9000.

I appreciate trying to bring a new perspective on things, I really do, but this is a dangerous forum to do so in, as there are a lot of uneducated people in here, and it would be a shame for them to think your innovative perspectives represent the actual truth, instead of a novel way to view the animal kingdom for sheer enjoyment.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
I appreciate trying to bring a new perspective on things, I really do, but this is a dangerous forum to do so in, as there are a lot of uneducated people in here, and it would be a shame for them to think your innovative perspectives represent the actual truth, instead of a novel way to view the animal kingdom for sheer enjoyment.


Well i appreciate the note of appreciation, though i don't think you understand my intent. Sure quite a few posters as well as myself have monkeyed around on this topic, but my original inquiry still stands and it has nothing to do with amusing myself. I am genuinely curious about why and how we distance ourselves from acknowledging the simple fact that we are apes/monkeys. (see how i used that forward slash, kinda clever hey?)

Some approaches to derailing this awareness are indirect and unintentional (science) others direct and intentional (religion). What motivates us to deny what is so obvious is what i find to be the most intriguing.

As far as people learning the proper names/labels/categories for each primate in it's correct order of lineage, such attention to detail does not serve my purpose. What i am interested in is picking out the primates that look and act the most like us, i prefer to use monkey as an umbrella that includes apes and man. Why? ...to make it simple, if i labor over the names the objective is diluted... which is interesting to note in itself for it is the belaboring over labels and categories that maintains a division within our minds that we are not one and the same.

If you fear that people will leave this thread misinformed about the proper names/labels/categories, not to worry, you have repeatedly set the record straight. This thread is an exploration into our comfort zone in acknowledging what we really are versus what we hope we are, not a regurgitation of a science text book.



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by The Blind Eye
 


Use the word 'primate', then
It's perfectly suited for the use you intend.

You might also want to read that link, as I'm pretty sure it has all your answers.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
How about this before you believe in Evolution, prove that this guy is wrong
vvvvvvvvvvv

Lee Strobel - The Case for a Creator

Lee Strobel is very Credible and is the Author of the book, and Created a DVD, and you can watch the DVD for free on youtube

Until you prove this guy wrong, Evolution is a hoax.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by 100Grand
 


Ok i'll play... if we embrace the creationist theory... then how are we not monkeys... i mean apes... i mean primates?


We basically look and act the same... and our dna and skeletons show that we are related. If god or better yet an alien swooped in from the sky to tweak our development of the years, great... but it doesn't change the fact that we are primates.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by The Blind Eye
 


Yea we ALMOST look and act the same, so anything with 4 legs is the same? I'm still failing to see where you had legitimate evidence for evolution, like i said watch that show, and if you can prove HIM wrong then i might just throw out creationism.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
davesidious, remember saying this...

Originally posted by davesidious
... this is a dangerous forum to do so in, as there are a lot of uneducated people in here, and it would be a shame for them to think your innovative perspectives represent the actual truth...

...and here you were worried about me calling apes/men, monkeys


100Grand, you seem to be itching to debate about creationism, but there is no reasonable rational debate. Theology and science should stick to their own respected fields, but if you must... first it should be noted that Strobel is a writer and lawyer, not a scientist. I'll admit he's a great speaker, and can make his arguments almost sound plausible, but don't be so easily mislead by this misguided showman, evolution is undeniable. Sure, there are a few tiny gaps in evolution, but there are gaps in nearly every theory, and gaps don't contradict one another. However facts can and I'm sorry to say this, but the facts contradict creationism.

It's also important to note that Strobel's 'spring forth' period is approximately 65-70 million years. Not exactly what i would consider 60 seconds of 24 hours... and as for the expectation for millions of transitional fossils to be found in order to prove evolution. No educated person would expect such. Fossilisation is a rare occurrence... and the records that we do have are well beyond sufficient in proving evolution.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by The Blind Eye]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Radiometric dating supposedly proves that the Earth is billions of years old. The theory behind radiometric dating sounds very convincing. But does it actually work in practice? When someone tells us that a certain rock is a billion years old, how can we confirm this? No one was there to see it, right?

A recent letter-writer says that radiometric dating is proven because many different methods all give the same results. This would be interesting if true, but it simply isn’t. Many different methods have been proposed to estimate the age of the earth, and they give results ranging from billions of years (e.g. radiometric methods), to a million or so (e.g. influx of salts into the oceans), to thousands (e.g. decay of the Earth’s magnetic field).

One researcher, Dr. David Plaisted, searched the technical journals for studies that compared the results of different dating methods on specific samples. He found only one such study, comparing Potassium-Argon to Rubidium-Strontium, and, he writes, “the results were not good”. He cautiously concludes, “[A]n assumption of agreement appears to be without support so far.”

There are many examples of disagreement.

Potassium-Argon tests on a lava flow from Rangitoto volcano in New Zealand dated it at 400,000 years. Buried in the lava flow are trees trunks, which were carbon-14 dated to 225 years.

Five samples from a lava flow in Washington state were dated by Potassium-Argon, giving ages ranging from 340,000 to 2.8 million years. That’s quite a range! Another dating method gave an even younger age: Eyewitnesses watched that lava flow being formed when Mt. St. Helens erupted in 1980.

Lava flows from Hualalai Volcano in Hawaii were dated at 140 million to 2.96 billion years. In fact Hualalai erupted in 1801.

In some cases the evolutionists offer explanations of what went wrong. They say the lava from Hualalai was under water for many years, which caused certain chemical and physical effects that contaminated the sample. Maybe so. But are they then telling us that all the other sites that have been dated to such long ages were never, ever, in all those supposed billions of years, ever under water or otherwise contaminated?

If when you CAN corroborate the evidence, someone is repeatedly proven to be wrong, perhaps you should be cautious about taking their word for it in cases where there is no way to test their claims.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by 100Grand
Lava flows from Hualalai Volcano in Hawaii were dated at 140 million to 2.96 billion years. In fact Hualalai erupted in 1801.


Another case for the proverbial "devil is in the details", sure something was dated millions to billions of years old but it wasn't the lava. Note the title of the scientific article your claim is referencing:

Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii, J.G. Funkhouser and J.J. Naughton, Journal of Geophysical Research 73:14 pp. 4601-4607 (15 July 1968) www.agu.org...

The operative word here is "Inclusions". The objective of the research was not to date the lava: their focus was to date the rock contaminants of olivine inclusions (xenoliths) that were carried up from the depths of the earth by the lava.

The hypothesis was that this date measuring method wouldn't work, because the inclusions had spent a long time in the magma chamber where they were heated long enough for Argon to escape, estimating that the Potassium/Argon ages would be unreliable.
The research result proved the assumptions were correct. K/Ar dating should not be used on xenoliths... and the article clearly states (on page 4603) that the surrounding lava was dated correctly, at approximately zero.

Note how easy it is to make false conclusions based on missing just one detail of relevant info.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Blind Eye
reply to post by 100Grand
 


Ok i'll play... if we embrace the creationist theory... then how are we not monkeys... i mean apes... i mean primates?


We basically look and act the same... and our dna and skeletons show that we are related.


All of creation is related in some way or another to the rest of creation.


Originally posted by The Blind Eye
If god or better yet an alien swooped in from the sky to tweak our development of the years, great... but it doesn't change the fact that we are primates.


...i live with an open mind.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

"IF" the earth were created as per the "young earth" hypothesis, it could have been created "aged"
...meaning any age testing done, "150 million, 3 billion, 5 billion, whatever, we still wouldn't know for sure, that it wasn't created already aged a few thousand years ago, even though the tests show the earth old.

Any creation requires a creator, why some would belive something as simple as their computer monitor have a creator but something as vastly complex as our known universe not have one, is beyond me.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Solofront
Any creation requires a creator, why some would belive something as simple as their computer monitor have a creator but something as vastly complex as our known universe not have one, is beyond me.


Because you only know monitors have makers because you know they are a product of industry. But applying this logic to the universe is a logical fallacy, because you can't know where it came from and have never seen a universe being made.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarkSide
Because you only know monitors have makers because you know they are a product of industry. But applying this logic to the universe is a logical fallacy, because you can't know where it came from and have never seen a universe being made.


So your saying some forms of creation don't require a creator then?



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Solofront

Originally posted by DarkSide
Because you only know monitors have makers because you know they are a product of industry. But applying this logic to the universe is a logical fallacy, because you can't know where it came from and have never seen a universe being made.


So your saying some forms of creation don't require a creator then?


Putting aside the fact that we haven't seen anything being created (a monitor is assembled of matter that already existed for a long time), calling the universe a creation is making an assumption.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
humans and monkeys aren't the same. might have some similiar traits but they're different. whats the point here



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
As is assumming that I evolved over eons!


Maybe you could answer my question at the end of the topic here;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Or just give me some sort of rough estimate please, either here or there.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solofront
As is assumming that I evolved over eons!


Except it's not an assumption, but a well supported and widely accepted scientific theory.


Maybe you could answer my question at the end of the topic here;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Or just give me some sort of rough estimate please, either here or there.


Maslo got there first



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by heavenzmovie
humans and monkeys aren't the same. might have some similiar traits but they're different. whats the point here


Good point, what is the point? I forget... ah hell with it!


Since my fellow primates are still having a hard time grasping the fact that we are under the same umbrella... let's try this angle; take someone with the same IQ as an ape or monkey... note how their language comprehension and attention spaces are roughly at the same level. Despite a couple differences in physical attributes they are essentially the same. ...point? Point being we are more alike then different, and it is the over emphasis in nitpicking the differences in little details that keeps us from recognizing that we are no better/different then an ape... or monkey for that matter. To think we are divine beings made in the image of god is self-delusional narcissistic bull, we use to stroke our own egos... the sooner we got off our pillars and acknowledge that we are animals, the sooner we can stop acting as if we are god himself.

[edit on 22-1-2010 by The Blind Eye]



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
"Except it's not an assumption, but a well supported and widely accepted scientific theory. "

That's what a theory is, an ASSUMPTION.


Originally posted by The Blind Eye
the sooner we got off our pillars and acknowledge that we are animals, the sooner we can stop acting as if we are god himself.

[edit on 22-1-2010 by The Blind Eye]


A child is egotistical if he thinks he can survive without the support of his/her parents, just like we are when we think we can go our way with out God.

I know I don't deserve a place in heaven, but because I accepted the gift that God gave me then there is my place.

Imagine a vehicle, there is no possible way it can exist without a creator(human), just like inside the simplest life form.
Inside the simplest living things, exist "machines" way more complex than a vehicle. Just because they are so small, compared to our standards, we think it is simple, haha guess again. These biological "machines" can not exist with out a creator. If you think life these things can be put together naturally, then obviously you havn't done the research, and can't comprehend just how complex these things are.

I was just like you 2 months ago, thinking I can live my life without God, and somehow after this short life, maybe have a place outside of this world or not. I have come to realize this is not a reality!









 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join