Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Noinden

Heh
Einstien had an average size brain yet his thought process was no where near average...
Brain size is not an accurate indication of intelligence...
Now if certain areas of the brain are larger as was the case for Einstien then because of his brain it is believed to make an intellectual difference...

Einstein had a noticeably larger corpus callosum, which is the brain circuit that connects the two hemispheres of the brain. Surely this is beneficial because it helps your concepts of logic and love meet in a harmonious union where they can both understand each other. The left cerebral hemisphere of logic, which currently dominates our society (left-brain controls the right hand - most people are right-handed), needs to be balanced by our right hemisphere, which accounts for love and intuition. This is indicative of why these narrow-minded, logic-based thinkers cannot fathom the love of our Father, they are imbalanced, orientated in a "logical" state that leaves no room for love. They see the ugly side of love (have we not all been hurt most by love?) and choose to logically ignore such a threat. Yet the consequence of this purposeful negligence is lovelessness.

a reply to: cooperton

compassion without wisdom is just as reckless as wisdom without compassion is cold. nothing is clear cut in love, so you have to have some sense of discernment just as you would need a sense of heart when making difficult choices where the options are all too clear. love and logic are opposites, certainly, but their relationship is not one of hierarchy. its a partnership. three dimensions make the two sides which are the other half of each other, aka one. 3, 2, 1. presto. the balance every coin needs to spin.



it should be noted that this is irrelevant to the origin of humanity and has more bearing on the psychology of humanity

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: peter vlar

No, again no and again NO

I don't believe they are not humans, sapien sapiens

Can you understand that simple uncomplex statement

What I understand is that you keep yelling about evidence not assumption. What I understand is that your view in this case is all assumption and you have shown no evidence to support your position. You yell and pouts do stomp your feet but are the biggest hypocrite I've come across in some time.

Look at the above sentence. "I don't believe they are not humans, sapiens sapiens". That's not evidence that's assumption and qualifiers.

I believe they could be homo sapien sapiens, simple, no?

Here you go again with the "I believe" routine. This isn't the X-Files and Mumder actually collected and presented evidence. You've done nothing of the sort.

Just different race

If they are a different race then they aren't HSS. You refuse to grasp some of the most fundamental concepts in biology.

Neanderthal had a larger brain capacity compared to us. Does that make them less human, not sapien sapiens

Another bit of repeated trip with no context. What exactly is the point that you're trying to make? That you don't know a basic axiom of mammalian physiology? Cranial capacity is a direct correlation to body mass. Neanderthal had more lean muscle mass than we do, more mass overall. This is why their cranial capacity was slightly larger.

Evidence not assumption

Anytime you want to skip over your own assumptions Mulder, feel free to provide any evidence supporting your beliefs regarding Neanderthal. I spent years researching and studying Neanderthal as a professional. You're just a keyboard warrior who's panties are in a bunch about something you don't know enough about to understand just how little you know. Evidence not assumption? Anytime you want to put up please do so. I'm not holding my breath though.

^Yeah Peter, those citations and evidence are coming any day now, I swear!
`

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Barcs, you don't know what really happened 100 yeqr ago never mind thousands of years ago

It's all assumption

I dismiss you

Your assumptions have been utterly demolished, you didn't even back up your claims. There is nothing to dismiss because you haven't made any arguments at all, just lies and blind denial. Are you going to deny everything that happened more than 100 years ago now as well? Because I DO know numerous things that happened. You don't have to witness something first hand for it to be a fact. Are you going to deny the civil war? It was all just a big hoax right?

I just don't see the evidence

When you refuse to even read it beyond a single word on the first page, that is what's gong to happen. I posted a comprehensive list of 29+ pieces of evidence that show common decent. I asked you before to debunk a single one and you couldn't. That's really all I need to know.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
Modern Humans have brain capacities ranging from 950cc to 1800cc...
It is believed over the last 20000 years that mankind's brain capacity is deminishing...
Brain matter lost during this time is equivalent to about the same size as a tennis ball in both males and females...

LMAO, citation definitely needed. Why do you guy just keep making stuff up? I don't understand your purpose of even posting. You guys must really hate creationists to make them look this bad.

a reply to: Barcs

Who's lying?
Do you ever know what you are talking about?
You are so simple minded yet see yourself as clever...

discovermagazine.com...

www.npr.org...

Cro-Magnon man, who lived in Europe 20,000 to 30,000 years ago, had the biggest brains of any human species.  In comparison, today's human brain is about 10 percent smaller. It's a chunk of brain matter "roughly equivalent to a tennis ball in size," McAuliffe says.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

I guess I just picture tennis balls as being much bigger than 110cc. Cro magnon were taller and stronger than modern humans, so it actually makes sense that they had larger heads and larger brains. That doesn't mean they were more intelligent, however, as the brain to body ratio was virtually the same. HSN also had bigger brains. It's not just the brains that shrunk, it's our physical features as well.

a reply to: Barcs

So are you using my argument that brains size being larger is not an accurate indication of intelligence?

I'm not really going to fault you I know what people were once taught what some are still taught today...

Anyway it's not your fault because science and especially scientists make false assumptions daily...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

But you're ignoring the WHY in this equation. Body mass is proportionally smaller in 21st century humans than it was in the EMH who first entered Europe across the caucuses 40-50 KA. Because cranial capacity in mammals is directly correlated with the mass of the organism in question, if the organism has a reduced mass on average across population points, then yes the capacity is going to be slightly less. If in 1000 years, people stop living in front of their TV and stop eating like crap and their proportionate mass increases, their average cranial capacity will likewise increase.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Barcs

So are you using my argument that brains size being larger is not an accurate indication of intelligence?

Not exclusively.

a reply to: peter vlar

Ah yes diet that is the supposed contributing factor...
So you are saying we are indeed less intelligent now...
We don't even know the importance of diet and exercise...
Sounds like an argument against evolution to me...
And well it should because evolution is contained within species and you will see positive and negative changes proportionally based on extenuating factors which contribute to introducing these changes...

a reply to: Raggedyman

Neanderthals were never "Just rock apes" and many creationists are indeed saying it is a science! You and your fellows gave cited from creationist science sources, well OK cyt and pasted

What annoys you is that science is willing to consider change with evidence.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Well we do raggedyman is a dishonest fool and many of us have said as much!

Evidence to refute t.he OP premise has been provided and ignored QED he is a fool and dishonest when he asks for evidence after it has been shown!

a reply to: Raggedyman

Then you are blind or wilfully ignorant. I would bet a lot that you refused to read any of the examples provided.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

You don't understand science based on the commentsbyiuh have just made. The theory of evolution has been verified as the best model. Just because you have not understood it, it does not mean it is so. It is not something tow believe it just IS just like chemical reactions. You do not have to believe potassium and water will react either, go on try it.

a reply to: Noinden

The theory of evolution is flawed because you are unwilling or unable to see where means you are the one who is fooled...
Verified the best model by evolutionists?
I'm sure they are indeed in full support of thier faith in thier model...just like you...
How is this factual and unbiased or proof?

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Elucidate these flaws then. But it best not be things like the second law of thermodynamics which only bapplies to simple closed systems, which this is not.

Now once again with feeling... Evolutionist is not a word. Evolution is a theory in scuebce. There are no gravitational ists, thermodynamists, or Sn1ists for example.

Again if you do not understand how scientific methods work yoiy may not critique it !

My faith (a form of polytheism) is not challenged by either science or other faiths. You should aim for that neighbour!

a reply to: Noinden

Wrong again...

www.dictionary.com...

I don't believe much you have to say...
You assume to know things that just are not so...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about intelligence. Not once. A blue whale has a brain the size of a Volvo does that make them the most intelligent creature on Earth? That's what you're saying by implying that cranial capacity corresponds to intelligence. How a brain is organized has far more importance than its size.

a reply to: peter vlar

You are showing you don't even read threads...
You are arguing for me... for my argument is that brain size is not an indication of greater intelligence...
I never once said any otherwise you are clearly confused...