How does creationism explain....

Originally posted by resistance
Riley -- Thanks for the tips on posting and for the interesting articles you put up.

No probs.

From what I know about Neanderthal, he was fully human.

What you 'know' is only what you want to believe and is clearly not based on facts. We have all given you facts and you have dismissed them without backing up your own position with facts.. please at least try.

If there are differences in the DNA,

It is not an 'IF'.. it is a fact. Deal with it.

that's not hard to fathom because over the years our genetic material is breaking down. We are living shorter lives, having more deformities, and we are just generally weaker. So I'd attribute this to the damage done to the DNA over the years.

It's funny how the actual genetic scientists didn't pick up this 'genetic damge' theory of yours. Care to provide proof? No? YOU HAVEN'T PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE. Please at least try. Read the links we have given you.. if you are right they should at least in part support your position. You have the opportunity to actually learn.. we live in an amazing age, never has the human race had so much knowledge available .. yet you seem to be viewing it through the eyes of somone pulled out of the dark ages. They didn't know any better.. you should and whats worse is you take it for granted. Also, if you truly believe god did it.. scientific knowledge would be just a means of seeing how; not something that disproves it's presence.

As to your hobbit skeleton -- all this does is show that there are or were people who lived on the earth who were small. Ever hear of pygmies? Maybe it's a child? Who knows? What does this have to do with proving evolution?

It's been proven that they are not pigmies, not midgets, not children, not deformed people, they are their own species.. [READ THE LINKS] it proves evolution as [even though I'm sure I've already briefed you on this], like neandathals and all other primates, they are yet another [yet recent] species on our family tree that are related to us yet are not us. As for your 'humans lived a thousands of years' -yeah. I saw that too. There are fairytales where wizards and witches lived long and magical lives, but, unlike yourself, I don't base what I know on mytholgy. I base it on proven facts. BTW.. humans are actually living longer than they ever have.. this has been proven too.

I've never tried to say there's not lots of "species" variation among kinds.

'Kind' is a biblical term not a scientific one. Your insistence on using it and the bible only proves that the anti-evolution conspiracy is actually working and that many are allowing themselves to be duped by it. Thankfully common sense, knowledge and science will prevail against this onslaught. Resist ignorance- don't keep embracing it.

[edit on 2-10-2005 by riley]

Riley -- I read your links and I went surfing on this thing. This is just another story on looking for the "missing link."

This discovery is actually a praoblem for the evolutionists, not the creationists. Why? Because these small people are obviously human, and this blows away the idea that man came from monkeys, then apes, then stood up and got tall, and bigger, and bigger.

It just goes to show that you can't go looking around for skulls and bones and trying to decide if they're human or not based on their size or how big their browline is.

I didn't see anything that "proves" there was not a genetic abormality here.

I'm not an expert on every new "find" the evolutionists present as their latest proofs. All I know is ALL of these finds turn out not to be what people thought in the beginning. Many times they were outright hoaxes.

So if you're all excited about this new discovery, hoping this is the proof they've been looking for all these many years, I'm just not excited, and not motivated enough to make myself a scientific expert on this particular ongoing story. It's enough for me to know we're talking about humans. I don't care if they're small or large. The Bible talks about giants existing on the earth at one time, before the flood. They were half demon and half human, and that's one reason God destroyed the earth in the flood, all except for Noah and his family and the ark.

I've heard the Illuminati military is breeding demons to humans in their underground tunnels, and doing all kinds of other breeding experiments, and will be trotting some of these creatures out to us and try to pass them off as "aliens."

The point is, NONE OF THIS PROVES EVOLUTION.

I'm interested in transitional life forms. That's what the paleontologists have been looking for all this time. A transitional life form will have a partially formed feather, or eye, or brain, or something. "Buds" aren't transitional forms. They are just what they are.

You and I both know that nobody is ever going to find anything that shows a scale turning into a feather, or a partially formed eye or leg or whatever. The only time you see anything like this is because a gene has been mutated, and it's considered a DEFORMITY. (like frogs born with missing limbs, or two heads, whatever).

Originally posted by resistance
This discovery is actually a praoblem for the evolutionists, not the creationists.

I don't see how the discovery of a dwarf-sized group of humans on an isolated island is a "problem" for anybody. The more new scientific discoveries that we make, the better. Right?

Originally posted by resistance
Why? Because these small people are obviously human, and this blows away the idea that man came from monkeys, then apes, then stood up and got tall, and bigger, and bigger.

No one ever claimed that "man came from monkeys, then apes, then stood up and got tall, and bigger, and bigger." This claim is ludicrous and it is another example of the semantic warpage that creationists like to force upon scientific ideas. Man and ape shared a common ancestor, a "proto-ape."

Regarding your claim that evolutionary theory suggests that humans are growing larger, I would like to point out that humans are generally getting smaller as we are using our brains and mouse-clicking-fingers more and we are, on average, subjected to less manual labour in our pursuit of food and shelter.

The discovery of small humanoids living on an isolated island does much to further the case for evolution, obviously, as this is a case of a group of animals left on their own developing differently from surrounding animals.

Originally posted by resistance
It just goes to show that you can't go looking around for skulls and bones and trying to decide if they're human or not based on their size or how big their browline is.

Who is doing that? We are using the term "humanoid" to describe the familiarity between these animals and modern humans. To determine their actual relation to humans, we study and measure attributes far beyond simply observing their size and "browline."

Originally posted by resistance
I didn't see anything that "proves" there was not a genetic abormality here.

You are a layman, and no one is expecting you to make scientific conclusions about these creatures.

Originally posted by resistance
I'm not an expert on every new "find" the evolutionists present as their latest proofs. All I know is ALL of these finds turn out not to be what people thought in the beginning. Many times they were outright hoaxes.

Well, as you said, you're not an expert. One thing that you seem to be an expert in, however, is dismissive generalization.

Originally posted by resistance
So if you're all excited about this new discovery, hoping this is the proof they've been looking for all these many years, I'm just not excited, and not motivated enough to make myself a scientific expert on this particular ongoing story. It's enough for me to know we're talking about humans. I don't care if they're small or large. The Bible talks about giants existing on the earth at one time, before the flood. They were half demon and half human, and that's one reason God destroyed the earth in the flood, all except for Noah and his family and the ark.

Fascinating...

Originally posted by resistance
I've heard the Illuminati military is breeding demons to humans in their underground tunnels, and doing all kinds of other breeding experiments, and will be trotting some of these creatures out to us and try to pass them off as "aliens."

*Cough*...

Originally posted by resistance
The point is, NONE OF THIS PROVES EVOLUTION.

No, it does not prove evolutionary theory to be correct. It supports the theory.

Originally posted by resistance
You and I both know that nobody is ever going to find anything that shows a scale turning into a feather, or a partially formed eye or leg or whatever. The only time you see anything like this is because a gene has been mutated, and it's considered a DEFORMITY. (like frogs born with missing limbs, or two heads, whatever).

It can be quite difficult to find multi-million year old needles in multi-billion year old haystacks, I agree.

Zip

Originally posted by Zipdot


No one ever claimed that "man came from monkeys, then apes, then stood up and got tall, and bigger, and bigger." This claim is ludicrous and it is another example of the semantic warpage that creationists like to force upon scientific ideas. Man and ape shared a common ancestor, a "proto-ape."


Zip

Well, actually this is the claim. You can see this depicted in high school textbooks, at the Smithsonian, and lots of other places where the evolutionists want to make their point and take artistic license to do so. If I knew how to copy pics, I'd bring you one and put it up here. Got any advice on how to do that?

I assume you are referring to this artist's rendition of the evolution of man:



There are no monkeys or apes in that charicatured and oversimplified illustration.

Zip

Originally posted by resistance
Riley -- I read your links and I went surfing on this thing. This is just another story on looking for the "missing link."

This discovery is actually a praoblem for the evolutionists, not the creationists. Why? Because these small people are obviously human,

They have been proven not to be. Their skulls are way too small and their brain structure is completely different and their pelvises too small. A defining charactoristic of human beings is the large brain cavity and wide pelvis.. designed to accomidate the human head.

Again you are yet to provide any evidence of your own.. why?
Perhaps you should see what has already been discussed and try catch up with the rest of the class:

Noahs Arc and Dinos
Evolution misconceptions.
Evolution where the evidence?

Please be sure to read them properly so you do not parrot arguments young eathers have already lost.

and this blows away the idea that man came from monkeys, then apes, then stood up and got tall, and bigger, and bigger.

:shk:

I didn't see anything that "proves" there was not a genetic abormality here.

The dna proves they were not human.. you lack of understanding of this irrelevent.

So if you're all excited about this new discovery, hoping this is the proof they've been looking for all these many years, I'm just not excited, and not motivated enough to make myself a scientific expert on this particular ongoing story.

Given it contradicts your beliefs I wouldn't expect you to get excited.

It's enough for me to know we're talking about humans.

Keep telling yourself that.. ignorance is bliss apparently.

[edit on 2-10-2005 by riley]

resistance:

designed to penetrate through your 12-years of government school propaganda delivered to you by adults trained in brainwashing techniques to use on impressionable young minds.

No, actually, my studies in Physical Anthropology in UNIVERSITY told me that evolution is viable. My PEERS in university as well.

As well as the entire scientific community. I'm sure your church study group is full of fascinating and intelligent people, but I'll take the word of scholars from Yale, Harvard, Oxford, etc, when it comes to scientific study.

the "science of evolution," the science of looking for proof for 200 years of one single transitional life form

Wrong again. Evolution does NOT posit that ALL life came from 1 specific amoeba OR that there is one "transitional" species... This is YOUR misunderstanding and YOUR misinterpretation.

It's very easy to deny the Theory of Evolution when you are mostly unaware of its' main thesis.

You are making the atom into a god, saying the atom is self-existant and as Minerva said above, that the atom "strives toward life and toward complexity." You are ascribing god-like qualities to the atom.

Pardon? Can you walk me through how I am ascribing god-like qualities to a single celled organism by saying that evolution is viable?

God is EVERYWHERE, as you should know, since you claim to be Christian. God is in every cell, every atom, everything.

I am saying atoms have god-like qualities? Omniscience? Omnipresence? If you can find the sentence where I ascribe these qualities to an atom, I would be happy to discuss it with you.

Otherwise, since you seem to have an extremely limited grasp of science, evolution, theology, and are constantly misinterpreting simple statements, let's just say that Evolution wins this round.

Better luck next time.

jako


ps

There is no evidence anywhere of any creature evolving into another kind.

That statement is exactly what I mean when I say you have very very limited scientific knowledge. There is evidence EVERYWHERE that WE evolved from primates. Your own ignorance of this is confusing, if not a little embarassing.










[edit on 3-10-2005 by Jakomo]

[edit on 3-10-2005 by Jakomo]

Wrong again. Evolution does NOT posit that ALL life came from 1 specific amoeba OR that there is one "transitional" species... This is YOUR misunderstanding and YOUR misinterpretation.

It's very easy to deny the Theory of Evolution when you are mostly unaware of its' main thesis.

You are making the atom into a god, saying the atom is self-existant and as Minerva said above, that the atom "strives toward life and toward complexity." You are ascribing god-like qualities to the atom.

Pardon? Can you walk me through how I am ascribing god-like qualities to a single celled organism by saying that evolution is viable?

God is EVERYWHERE, as you should know, since you claim to be Christian. God is in every cell, every atom, everything.

I am saying atoms have god-like qualities? Omniscience? Omnipresence? If you can find the sentence where I ascribe these qualities to an atom, I would be happy to discuss it with you.

Otherwise, since you seem to have an extremely limited grasp of science, evolution, theology, and are constantly misinterpreting simple statements, let's just say that Evolution wins this round.

Better luck next time.

jako
ps

There is no evidence anywhere of any creature evolving into another kind.

That statement is exactly what I mean when I say you have very very limited scientific knowledge. There is evidence EVERYWHERE that WE evolved from primates. Your own ignorance of this is confusing, if not a little embarassing.


So you did not go to public school? Do you have other reasons to believe in evolution besides that your peers and professors told you it was so? Even if there's no proof and it makes no kind of common sense? The "entire scientific community" does NOT believe in evolution. Not by a long shot. Perhaps the entire well-funded establishment community does, but people who are being paid to agree are not credible. Obviously their jobs and prestige are on the line. There are plenty of scientists who disagree with these other what I call pseudoscientists, who advocate what the Bible calls "science so-called."

My reference to looking for 200 years for one transitional life form does not mean looking for the one creature from whom all others came from. I realize evolutionists claim that life occurred spontaneously many times and that each one of these "took off" on its evolutionary journey. My reference to the lack of any proof of ANY transitional life form referred to finding anything in nature today living or any fossile that would show a transitional life form of any kind, of one kind changing into another, so that we have for example a reptilian scale morphing into a feather, a half-formed eye, or half-formed brain, or halfa-formed leg or foot or toes or fingers. Everything we see shows a completed organism, which is proof for Creation science, not evolution. OVERWHELMING proof literally.

And since you yourself claim that God is everywhere, why do you think what we see around us came about by accident? Where do you think the atoms came from? Did God make them? Or do you believe as a purist evolutionist that the atoms are self-existant, not created? If that's your belief, then you are in fact ascribing god-like qualities to the atom.

And if you believe that God created the atom but that the atom then went on to form everything we see around us with no help from God, then you are STILL ascribing godlike qualities to that thing God created, the atom. And the Bible says that's called idolatry, worshipping the creature more than the Creator.

I've not discussed whether it was one one-celled creature or many one-celled creatures that started the evolutionary "process." The idea of one or many to me is just plain ridiculous. A creation needs a creator. A building needs a builder. It's simple.

So you tell me.



[edit on 5-10-2005 by resistance]mod EDIT, to remove the lengthy quote of the immediately preceding post

[edit on 5-10-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by resistance
Riley -- I read your links and I went surfing on this thing. This is just another story on looking for the "missing link."

This discovery is actually a praoblem for the evolutionists, not the creationists. Why? Because these small people are obviously human,

They have been proven not to be. Their skulls are way too small and their brain structure is completely different and their pelvises too small. A defining charactoristic of human beings is the large brain cavity and wide pelvis.. designed to accomidate the human head.

Again you are yet to provide any evidence of your own.. why?
Perhaps you should see what has already been discussed and try catch up with the rest of the class:

Noahs Arc and Dinos
Evolution misconceptions.
Evolution where the evidence?

Excuse me, Riley. Nobody but nobody has said these people are not "human." Nobody. I've read all the articles on them and everybody agrees they're human. They are intelligent human beings with tools, culture,

mod EDIT to shorten quote

[edit on 5-10-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by resistance
Do you have other reasons to believe in evolution besides that your peers and professors told you it was so? Even if there's no proof and it makes no kind of common sense?

I don't "believe in evolution," I support the theory of evolution. Do you understand the difference in connotations?

While arguably there is a lack of "proof" for evolution, there is undeniably a vast amount of evidenciary support for the theory. As they say, "common sense" ain't so common these days, apparently, as evolution, to me, is about as straightforward as theories come. To me, and like-minded analytical individuals, the theory of evolution makes much more sense than current alternative ideas.

Originally posted by resistance
The "entire scientific community" does NOT believe in evolution. Not by a long shot. Perhaps the entire well-funded establishment community does, but people who are being paid to agree are not credible. Obviously their jobs and prestige are on the line. There are plenty of scientists who disagree with these other what I call pseudoscientists, who advocate what the Bible calls "science so-called."

It is great that you have an opinion on the issue, as long as you are aware that this is merely your opnion - the opinion of a complete layman. Let me shoot some statistics your way -

(Source = News item in ReligionToday for 1999-DEC-29.)
Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that:

97% do not believe the world was created in six days.
80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.

97% of British Christian leaders don't believe that the Earth was created in 6 days. That's pretty damn significant.

95% of scientists support the theory of evolution - and that has nothing to do with funding or anything else, because a large percentage of those scientists support theistic evolution - up to 40%, according to this probably biased source. So... While you are entitled to your opinion, the numbers clearly show that scientists who hold theistic views are not in any way held to be "less credible" than their atheist peers.

Originally posted by resistance
My reference to looking for 200 years for one transitional life form does not mean looking for the one creature from whom all others came from. I realize evolutionists claim that life occurred spontaneously many times and that each one of these "took off" on its evolutionary journey. My reference to the lack of any proof of ANY transitional life form referred to finding anything in nature today living or any fossile that would show a transitional life form of any kind, of one kind changing into another, so that we have for example a reptilian scale morphing into a feather, a half-formed eye, or half-formed brain, or halfa-formed leg or foot or toes or fingers. Everything we see shows a completed organism, which is proof for Creation science, not evolution. OVERWHELMING proof literally.

Your views of evolution producing "half-formed" traits is evidence of your misunderstanding of the basic theory of evolution. Please educate yourself.

Originally posted by resistance
And if you believe that God created the atom but that the atom then went on to form everything we see around us with no help from God, then you are STILL ascribing godlike qualities to that thing God created, the atom. And the Bible says that's called idolatry, worshipping the creature more than the Creator.

Oh, please. Skew your own semantics any way you wish, but you cannot affect mine. I will continue to ask questions and seek answers, because, you see, I am open minded. The Bible arguably does not condemn open-mindedness.

This news article was released a few days ago - you may be interested in it. (It's scientific, though, so you may not understand it.)



Zip

EDIT: You may also be interested in this ATSNN article from worldwatcher: Catholic Church No Longer Swears by Truth of The Bible

[edit on 10/5/2005 by Zipdot]

Originally posted by Zipdot

While arguably there is a lack of "proof" for evolution, there is undeniably a vast amount of evidenciary support for the theory.

You provided no "proof." The paleontologists are still digging, still looking. All the evidence is to the contrary. (but why should you believe your lying eyes?)

I don't care if the Catholic church, the Washington Post, blah, blah, all believe in evolution. I don't consider that proof. I just think these people are deluded, or worse.

Hehe, nice.

Apparently we're not having a conversation here. As far as I'm concerned, you're a troll, and I'm not taking your bait.

Zip

Originally posted by resistance
Excuse me, Riley. Nobody but nobody has said these people are not "human." Nobody. I've read all the articles on them and everybody agrees they're human.

1. No they don't.
2. Show me proof.
3. Stop blatently making stuff up.

They are intelligent human beings with tools, culture,

I guess that makes chimps human beings too.. they use 'tools' to dig up termites.

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by resistance
Excuse me, Riley. Nobody but nobody has said these people are not "human." Nobody. I've read all the articles on them and everybody agrees they're human.

1. No they don't.
2. Show me proof.
3. Stop blatently making stuff up.

They are intelligent human beings with tools, culture,

I guess that makes chimps human beings too.. they use 'tools' to dig up termites.

Riley -- I've got a better idea. You're the one who brought this issue up. How about if YOU bring in some quotes to prove that the scientists are saying these "hobbits" are NOT humans. Go ahead and find me a quote, bring me a link, and you prove it. Put up or shut up, and do not accuse me of "blatantly making stuff up." These people do not use sticks to poke around in the dirt. They have a civilization and culture. We do not judge people by the size of their brain or the size of their bodies. People are people.

Originally posted by resistance
Riley -- I've got a better idea. You're the one who brought this issue up. How about if YOU bring in some quotes to prove that the scientists are saying these "hobbits" are NOT humans. Go ahead and find me a quote, bring me a link, and you prove it.

I did.. you ignored it.. just as you've ignored and dismissed all the other evidence you've been presented. Not ONCE have you presented any evidence yourself.. [could you at least try? You've been asked about a dozen times now] instead you have opted to call people liars.. and then you even decided to kill the last slither of your credibilty by talking about humans being cross bred with demons. Neandethals have different dna and hobbits are unable to carry human babies because they are NOT human though they may be ver close to being human.. the difference being is simply the change of one species to another.

Put up or shut up,

:shk:
I might have to start taking bets.
Not only is abusing people and name calling against ATS rules.. but so is knowingly posting false information which you clearly have. I'm not sure what happens when someone posts false information that they actually believe though. Interesting. Tell me again how humans killed the dinos off?

and do not accuse me of "blatantly making stuff up."

Just one example of many: "maybe Neandathals had damaged dna." Obviously you just made this up as there is no scientific evidence that supports this fiction.. it's called grasping at straws.

These people do not use sticks to poke around in the dirt. They have a civilization and culture. We do not judge people by the size of their brain or the size of their bodies. People are people.

I completely agree that they have culture.. this does not make them human. Point is that chimps and great apes have a very basic culture as well.. as did neandathals. Human beings just have a very advanced culture in contrast. We are more evolved than our primate cousins.. give them time and they'll probably catch up.

Edit. PLEASE PROVIDE EVIDENCE YOURSELF. It gets irritating when someone repetitively demands proof, are given more than needed yet do not provide ANY themselves and then have the gall start demanding even more.. when you stop trolling I will answer your other questions.. seems little point posting links you will only ignore.

[edit on 6-10-2005 by riley]

[edit on 6-10-2005 by riley]

Riley --

You are forcing me to go drag out quotes regarding your assertions on this topic. You have never produced one single quote from anyone that said these "hobbits" are not human. You call me a liar. You are too lazy to defend your own position and force me to go surfing when this is YOUR baby. You show it. "Put up or shut up" is not an insult. It's an honest statement that you should follow.

You seem to think that humanity is determined by the size of one's skull, that having a culture matters not at all. You are entitled to your opinion but don't accuse me of lying because I disagree and challenge you to show me one person who agrees with your assessment that the little people found in Indonesia are not fully and completely human.

So I challenge you, produce me one quote from one scientist that says flat out that these little people are not human. Just one. Go for it. It's utterly ludicrous. There are no such quotes, and you know there aren't. So stop calling me a liar. I don't have to post links to every article that's ever been written so people can go read them and see if they call them human or not. All you have to do is find one quote that says they aren't human. Just one. This is your baby so do it.

[edit on 6-10-2005 by resistance]

First, one request, resistance Please, please figure out the quote system it makes it very hard to sort out your posts from the quoted material.

Now really quickly to address the Homo floresiensis, this is a very new find and there is much debating going on in the scientific community about the specimens. The two main theories are a seperate species that branched from Homo erectus seperate from Homo sapiens. The second is that the fossils are a severly diseased anchient Homo Sapien. There are problems with boththeories that must be addressed.
bbc article
Go a google search and you will find more. I would also recommend searching through some peer-reveiwed journals, though I doubt there will be much available in them as of yet. It will be an interesting case to follow and study especially any prospective anthropologists out there.

SilentLoneWolf -- I've been warned and fined by the administrators, and just got their messages. I won't excessive-quote anymore. Thanks.

As to the debate about what kind of title to put on this "find" I'm really not all that interested. The point is the skeletons are of human beings.

[edit on 6-10-2005 by resistance]

Originally posted by resistance

As to the debate about what kind of title to put on this "find" I'm really not all that interested. The point is the skeletons are of human beings.

The whole point is that they evolved into a seperate type of human, fitting in with a unique island ecosystem of small animals, such as micro elephants. It is the ultimate proof of evolution and natural selection.

As to the debate about what kind of title to put on this "find" I'm really not all that interested. The point is the skeletons are of human beings.

Ok resistance for once I agree with you, while homo florensis is a member of the homo family they are not human beings the way you regard them. They are a seperate sub-genus and our most recent common ancestor was millions of years in the past.
For example lets take the Canis family which includes dogs,wolfs,jackels,foxes and many other mammels. The family is split into genus's Aplox(eg Artic fox)
Canis (eg wolf, jackel, coyote) Nyucertuetes (raccoon dog) Vulpis(foxes).
So calling homo florensis a human being is a bit like calling a fox a wolf or a raccon dog a jackel,similaritys yes , same species no.