Ape-like Creatures & Cave Paintings - Page 2

Grant · 09-13-2006, 08:59 PM

Why would God plant fossils in the ground? Its one thing if its just set out like that with protiens and such but fossils? I'll look into it...

EDIT:
1- to put fuel in out cars
2- aleins put them there as a practical joke

mplltt · 09-26-2006, 01:48 AM

I have one word: Bonobos!! They evolved to have orgasms and have intercourse in the missionary position. This was also taught by the catholic church that people should have innercourse in the missionary position because it made them less like animals. What is an animal? What is an orgasm? How is this related to humans? What makes us human? How do learning about Bonobos help us learn about the church? What are the policies of the church that have created the word, "missionary" position? What are our beliefs in God and the sanctity of sex if there is a god? What is it that christians believe that creates controversy over evolution when we are confronted with sex? What are our ways to believe that we just evolved and are not just like animals? What are our belief structure of true belief in a higher power if we choose to control and not understand? What are our losses? What are our complaints? What is humanity? How do we become more evolved? How can we become human without losing connection with all that is life? How do we believe that we are free? How is politics and belief in sex a real dicotomy within our own belief structure? What is evolutionary in life that we see every day, you and I can relate to? How do humans make devolution and yet create? Why do we choose only one of many positions? What is our task in life? What are our belief structures? How do we relate our belief structures to humans if we are too much like animals, yet why are we not questioning enough? Where are our intuitions? What is intuition? What are our complications with egotistical human desire to educate through religion? What is religious belief that makes us not religious? THESE ARE ALL QUESTIONS THAT YOU CAN APPROACH A CHRISTIAN WITH IN RELIGIOUS REASONING ABOUT EVOLUTION. Is evolution about believing in forgiveness?

Grant · 09-27-2006, 12:15 AM

that is what i like to call a "fart load" of questions. i couldnt derive any general meaning or purpose of that post... haha

mplltt · 09-27-2006, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grant

that is what i like to call a "fart load" of questions. i couldnt derive any general meaning or purpose of that post... haha

What is your question of purpose for meaning; anything specific in that post interest you? Do you question yourself too much with the post or the establishment? Is the establishment making you ready to post something apathetic? Are you going to just sit here and read this. You don't believe that I make sense enough or are you just going to go insane looking at this?

**George** · 09-27-2006, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grant

that is what i like to call a "fart load" of questions. i couldnt derive any general meaning or purpose of that post... haha

You and me both man. I physically can't read more than half that post without having to stop and rest my eyes.

**SithLord** · 09-28-2006, 08:07 AM

Either way, that post had me scouring the internet for video of bonobos going at it in the missionary rofl

NeanderThal · 10-18-2006, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grant

Ape-like Creatures:
"This is something thats been gnawing at me for a while.

Yes, there were ape-like creatures in Africa. Thats not disputable. I don't see how this evidence against creationsim though.

This doesn't mean that what we see today as humans didn't exist. I'm sure thousands of years from now they'll be digging up ape-like fossils from our time. We certainly exist though.
There have only been about a dozen excavations that could be concluded as "ape-like". Prehaps if there were thousands of apes and nothing that looks like a present-day human, I would consider this and therefore re-evaluate my position on creationsim. Its not very many though...
Please stay on-topic. We can discuss the carbon dating not lining up and whatnot later on or elsewhere. I certainly want to. However, please only discuss my arguments for now.

OK Here you go:
It simply comes down to creationists ignoring "common sense" & actual "evidence", & Using numbers & facts that simply are wrong, to appease their base, while making claims of unprovable "magic stories" when trying to enter a scietfic discussion they simply shouldn't be a part of.
For Example:
1 - ubenow (1992) found that there were fossils from almost 4,000 non modern (non-homo sapien) hominid individuals already catalogued as of 1976, many more since then. As of 1999, there were fossils of about 150 Homo erectus individuals alone, Over 90 Australopithecus robustus, 150 Australopithecus afarensis, Over 500 individual Neanderthals, and on and on ..... (Handprint 1999). Foley (2004) lists some of the more prominent fossils.....
No "modern" humans have ever been found with or near these fossils, or in the layers of earth known to come from the time of these fossils (even if one "refuses" to agee on what that "time" may be). The exception is Neaderthal, which both pre-dated & then co-existed with modern (homo sapien) humans in Europe until they went extict 25-30,000 years ago. They are considered a seperate branch of Homonids that we did not directly "evolve" from, but shared some much earlier ancestor with.
That "12" number you mention may possibly be from just 1 single early species, but it is used to appease the base & falsely confuse people into thinking that Creationist ideas are "on par" with actual scientific study.
2 - Using the Term "ape like species" .. The fossil record is actually loaded with extinict forms of clearly "human like" species, homonids, going all the way back to a few of "ape like" homonids. Some, such as Homo Erectus, Neaderthals, Homo Habilis, used & created tools, spearheads & clothing ect .... (Modern apes & chips also have a fossil record of their own evolutionary ancestors, since the "split" was so many millions of years ago. (Contrary to uninformed myths, no one claims we have evolved from current apes or "monkeys", but rather we are both related in the very distant past) ...Again, a creationist trying to simplify the entire wealth of knowledge of human evolution , to uninformed school aged kids, by saying things like "Only A dozen "ape -like" fossils" are the shakey basis for evolution, is a shame.
3 - "Pulling things out of thin air" - "Perhaps the cave painting people all wrote books too", "Perhaps there were Neanderthal train stations & we haven't found 'em yet" ... "Maybe Human bones in the ground for a long time somehow completely reconfigure & re-materialize into looking like a different species" ...

Faydwyn · 10-23-2006, 01:52 AM

Grant,

I mean no offence, but I question how much research you have done; or if you have done research, your understanding of what you might have found. My suggestion would be to do some (more?) research about the Scientific Method, Evolution and Anthropology, particularly Physical Anthropology, or take an Anthro class if you can. Look at NON-Creationist/ID sources. ID is not science, it does not hold up to the Scientific Method and you should find out why.

Scientists aren’t crazy people hell bent on disproving your religion. They have better things to do.

Do you go to a priest or a doctor when you are sick? You go to a doctor because a doctor knows more about medicine. The doctor has spent years in training. So who knows more about evolution? A priest or the scientist who has spent years in training and who has spent years studying evolution?

Faydwyn · 10-23-2006, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paula62

What I've never understood is the lack of rudimentary writing examples. I'm not talking about the precursors to alphabetic writings, but a rudimentary beginning alpahbet system. It seems as if there was not written language, and then there was all of it. We don't seem to have examples of the equivalent of a five year olds notes.
Or have I missed that somewhere?

The beginnings of writing were things like keeping track of items sold or traded. Higher thought processes were there before writing was developed; therefore, the writing would have been organized, even if it wasn’t complicated. In other words, the thought(s) behind the writing were complex even if the writing itself was not (yet).

While we don’t know everything about how writing began, we do know quite a bit. Cuneiform is earliest known form of writing; so maybe looking into its origins will answer your questions.

**George** · 10-24-2006, 07:55 AM

Excellent posts. Lot of good points. I'd like to see some responses to those.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeanderThal

OK Here you go:
It simply comes down to creationists ignoring "common sense" & actual "evidence", & Using numbers & facts that simply are wrong, to appease their base, while making claims of unprovable "magic stories" when trying to enter a scietfic discussion they simply shouldn't be a part of.
For Example:
1 - ubenow (1992) found that there were fossils from almost 4,000 non modern (non-homo sapien) hominid individuals already catalogued as of 1976, many more since then. As of 1999, there were fossils of about 150 Homo erectus individuals alone, Over 90 Australopithecus robustus, 150 Australopithecus afarensis, Over 500 individual Neanderthals, and on and on ..... (Handprint 1999). Foley (2004) lists some of the more prominent fossils.....
No "modern" humans have ever been found with or near these fossils, or in the layers of earth known to come from the time of these fossils (even if one "refuses" to agee on what that "time" may be). The exception is Neaderthal, which both pre-dated & then co-existed with modern (homo sapien) humans in Europe until they went extict 25-30,000 years ago. They are considered a seperate branch of Homonids that we did not directly "evolve" from, but shared some much earlier ancestor with.
That "12" number you mention may possibly be from just 1 single early species, but it is used to appease the base & falsely confuse people into thinking that Creationist ideas are "on par" with actual scientific study.
2 - Using the Term "ape like species" .. The fossil record is actually loaded with extinict forms of clearly "human like" species, homonids, going all the way back to a few of "ape like" homonids. Some, such as Homo Erectus, Neaderthals, Homo Habilis, used & created tools, spearheads & clothing ect .... (Modern apes & chips also have a fossil record of their own evolutionary ancestors, since the "split" was so many millions of years ago. (Contrary to uninformed myths, no one claims we have evolved from current apes or "monkeys", but rather we are both related in the very distant past) ...Again, a creationist trying to simplify the entire wealth of knowledge of human evolution , to uninformed school aged kids, by saying things like "Only A dozen "ape -like" fossils" are the shakey basis for evolution, is a shame.
3 - "Pulling things out of thin air" - "Perhaps the cave painting people all wrote books too", "Perhaps there were Neanderthal train stations & we haven't found 'em yet" ... "Maybe Human bones in the ground for a long time somehow completely reconfigure & re-materialize into looking like a different species" ...