Ignorance and God

reply to post by melatonin


I have a question about this relative ape of ours. Was the ape we all descended
from smart? If so, how can it bring an off spring of both humans and apes? Humans are intelligent, while apes are animals who know nothing about the world around them. Why did we evolve and apes remain the way they are?

reply to post by Equinox99


Apes are stupid now? What kind of planet are you on?

Originally posted by AncientVoid
reply to post by Equinox99

 

Apes are stupid now? What kind of planet are you on?

ehhh... I think what equinox is getting at is...

No ape ever slowed down the speed of light. Man did though.

reply to post by depth om


Man slowed down speed of light now? Show me link plz...
Just heard that light is getting slower, but it was later dismissed or something, don't remember.

reply to post by AncientVoid


Read through this a bit

I'm just saying no ape is smarter than ourselves.

Originally posted by AncientVoid
reply to post by Equinox99

 

Apes are stupid now? What kind of planet are you on?

I think you misunderstood me. I never stated apes are stupid, I said they are blind to the world around them. An ape knows nothing about geography, science, religion, manufacturing, business, or anything out of the jungle, so therefore they are less intelligent then us.
So back to my questions, can you answer them please?

[edit on 21-9-2007 by Equinox99]

reply to post by Equinox99


I'm no scientist but it's the same reason why we see the different races in humans, evolution. I think our relative didn't start off smart, but intelligence grew with evolution.

Edit:
Btw, what does the bible or the church 2000 years ago say about other races. Did they even knew there were other races?

[edit on 22-9-2007 by AncientVoid]

[edit on 22-9-2007 by AncientVoid]

reply to post by AncientVoid

I'm no scientist but it's the same reason why we see the different races in humans, evolution. I think our relative didn't start off smart, but intelligence grew with evolution.

Edit:
Btw, what does the bible or the church 2000 years ago say about other races. Did they even knew there were other races?

Races didn't evolve, anymore than man did. What the Bible tells us is that God created mankind (races) on the 6th day:

Gen.1:26 And God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness:........

27.So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created He them.

31.And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


That was mankind, or the various races. Adam, from whom Christ would come, was not created until the 8th day.

Gen.2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


This man was Adam. In the manuscripts there is a difference in man in general and in "the man" - Adam.


Of course those of ancient times knew there were other races. The differences are obvious to see so why wouldn't they? As far as our intelligence evolving...why do you believe that? Don't be fooled by the cave man movies because that is all they are - movies, imagination. God placed us here to "have dominion, replenish, till the ground", etc. so of course we started off with intelligence. Without it we would have become extinct fairly quickly.


......Whirlwind

reply to post by AncientVoid

The shape of the earth

ISA 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

I'm afraid I still don't understand the point you are trying to make. You keep saying "flat earth" and yet show where it states "circle of the earth". Please elaborate.


........Whirlwind

Originally posted by Equinox99
I have a question about this relative ape of ours. Was the ape we all descended from smart?

It would have been smarter than most other mammals of its time. Across the primates we find that brain size is related to social group size. We find a similar relationship across other mammal groups (e.g., carnivores, cetaceans).

If so, how can it bring an off spring of both humans and apes? Humans are intelligent, while apes are animals who know nothing about the world around them. Why did we evolve and apes remain the way they are?

Apes never remained the same.

If we follow from the immediate ape-like ancestor of human and chimps. The decendents include all the homonids, including homo sapiens. Some of which were probably not a direct ancestor of ours.

It would also have included the two current chimp species. Common and bonobo. Which are quite distinct species, both morphologically and behaviourally.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by whirlwind
You have skulls and bones of apes, some extinct but none are human. Lucy, Piltdown, etc - fakes.


...lucy wasn't a human and is far from a fake.
piltdown, yes, that was a fake. the same scientists that originally claimed it openly admitted that they had been fooled.

I know Lucy wasn't human or fake. She was a genuine ape but she was presented as human, until recently.

As I've told you before, the earth itself is millions or billions of years old - humans are not. So....proof of an ancient earth is not the same as proof of ancient humans.


...um, yes but the ancient skeletons are the proof of ancient humans. and before that we have neanderthals and cro magnon man, the "hobbit" species, homo erectus, homo hablis and the austreleopithicines (i probably butchered the spelling on the last one)
there is a clear evolutionary tree that formed.

I wouldn't know if you butchered the spelling or not (I doubt if they would care anyway).

Madness, as you can tell, I am not a scientist but the skulls I have seen, Discovery channel, etc. (I'm very scientific) do not look human to me. They are still ape like and a scientist claiming they are early man does not make them early man......they are still ape, perhaps an extinct species of ape but ape nevertheless.

and once more, we have human skeletons that are well before the dates you mentioned

and i have looked into it, i was wrong. homo sapiens came about 130,00 years before the present day in africa, not 100,000... probably earlier, but for the sake of argument i'll say 130,000 because we have a 130,000 year old anatomically modern human skeleton
we were colonizing Eurasia and Oceania 40,000 years ago
we arrived in the Americas 10,000 years ago...
isn't that odd, you put the date of humanity's origin well after we had started colonizing continents outside of the one we started in

Where is the 130,000 year old anatomically correct human skeleton? How do you know it is that age? How do you know we were colonizing anywhere 40,000 years ago, etc., etc. The dates scientist use constantly change. You question my belief in a book that is unchanged through time and yet you believe what men tell you, even though it continues to change.


............Whirlwind

reply to post by melatonin

My lack of faith isn't really bolstered by evolution. Even without evolutionary theory the best answer for the origin of species would be 'don't know'.

Fair enough. I know because it is written but if you don't believe in that Word it will just be a fairy tale to you.

I guess we can scrub off cosmology then, my bad. I'd love to know what standard you judge the evidence by, I'm guessing it's got little to do with scientific validity. The rest seem to still stand.

Your guess is correct. As you can tell I was never the one with my hand up in science classes. Thank goodness the world also needs those of us that use the other side of their brain or I would have been lost. However, that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the scientist and what they have accomplished.

For instance:..There is no proof of any human, any time, any where, being older than 10,000-14,000 years old. Only very gullible people believe the evolutionist spiel. They trust their teachers telling them that. It is not true and there is no proof.


There's lots of evidence that homo sapiens go back much further than 14,000 years. The oldest dating thus far for modern humans is 190,000 years ago:

Now, are you going to deny these well-dated fossils? They used a bit of good old geology, chemisty and physics to date them. So, rather than there being no proof, there is lots. Indeed, there are many other specimens dating much older than 14,000 years. We have evidence of modern humans in Israel around 100,000 years ago, in china around 40,000 years ago, europe about 35,000 years ago, maybe even earlier. In australia, we can date humans around 40,000 years ago, and perhaps in north america by then.

Of course I'm going to deny them. Please read the account given by Madness in my soul. The dates he gives as truth don't coincide with your truths.....Why? Because scientist can't decide themselves. The numbers, years, etc. are constantly changing.

The Bible is NOT a book of myths. Evolution of man from ape is.


Myths are unsupported. Evolution of humans from an earlier proto-ape is another well-supported claim. If your knowledge of the evidence of the historical existence of humans is comparable to that for evolution, you may well have some gaps to fill.

It is a claim because that is what they wish to believe. Evolution is their religion. If evolution was true we would still be in that process. There would still be half ape/half man walking earth. They aren't here and never were. Also consider, how did evolution cause one male and one female at the same time to procreate? Where are the skeletal remains of those 1/2 creatures. If they have been here for the thousands of years claimed they should be found in many, many places......It didn't happen.

There may be gaps to fill and I certainly don't have all the answers but I know, because it is written, that God created man in His image and He is not an ape now nor was He ever....nor were we.



..............Whirlwind

Originally posted by whirlwind
I know Lucy wasn't human or fake. She was a genuine ape but she was presented as human, until recently.

well, she was an ape... and you are an ape. i am an ape as well.
however, she was only presented as a hominid, and austrelopithicine (i think i spelled that wrong), not a homo sapien.

I wouldn't know if you butchered the spelling or not (I doubt if they would care anyway).

Madness, as you can tell, I am not a scientist but the skulls I have seen, Discovery channel, etc. (I'm very scientific) do not look human to me. They are still ape like and a scientist claiming they are early man does not make them early man......they are still ape, perhaps an extinct species of ape but ape nevertheless.

ok, i'm only claiming that homo sapien is human, the rest are proto-humans. hominids.

Where is the 130,000 year old anatomically correct human skeleton?

i believe the smithsonian has it, i'm not quite sure of the exact location.

How do you know it is that age?

radiometric dating methods.

How do you know we were colonizing anywhere 40,000 years ago,

well, we were colonizing them at least 40,000 years ago because we've found evidence that humans were there at that point.

The dates scientist use constantly change.

yes, the dates actually get pushed a bit further back, if anything. but that's only because NEW EVIDENCE COMES THAT SHOWS THAT THE DATE NEEDS TO BE CHANGED.

You question my belief in a book that is unchanged through time and yet you believe what men tell you, even though it continues to change.

...consistency in ignorance isn't something to be proud of...and the bible has changed quite a bit. i'd recommend reading "misquoting jesus"

i mean, the book does state that the earth is a circular disc....
and that there is water above the sky..

what you believe should be dependent on what evidence you have, the more evidence we gather, the closer we get to the truth.

reply to post by whirlwind


one more thing, i looked into it, my info was outdated. mel is correct and more up to date on his info.

...mel tends to be the more reliable source.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

well, she was an ape... and you are an ape. i am an ape as well.
however, she was only presented as a hominid, and austrelopithicine (i think i spelled that wrong), not a homo sapien.

Lucy was a Male, pygmy chimp with climbing muscles that didn't walk upright but on his knuckles and his rib cage was ape like, not man like. Her/his claim to being in the evolutionary chain to human was kicked out in 1994. The one before her, claiming to be human, was kicked out when she/he came along. But....and this is very important, our school books still claim "her" as a missing link.

There were 22 tests done on Lucy to get the year desired to date her. Knowing that, how can you put credence in any of their dating techniques?

She was ape but we are not, nor ever have been.

WW - Where is the 130,000 year old anatomically correct human skeleton?

Madness - i believe the smithsonian has it, i'm not quite sure of the exact location.

WW - How do you know it is that age?

Madness - radiometric dating methods.

The same methods that dated Lucy?

How do you know we were colonizing anywhere 40,000 years ago,


well, we were colonizing them at least 40,000 years ago because we've found evidence that humans were there at that point.

What evidence? Human skeletons? And by what method were they dated?

The dates scientist use constantly change.


yes, the dates actually get pushed a bit further back, if anything. but that's only because NEW EVIDENCE COMES THAT SHOWS THAT THE DATE NEEDS TO BE CHANGED.

You must consider the possibility of their dating methods to be incorrect.

You question my belief in a book that is unchanged through time and yet you believe what men tell you, even though it continues to change.


...consistency in ignorance isn't something to be proud of...and the bible has changed quite a bit. i'd recommend reading "misquoting jesus"

It is far from ignorance to know how, when and by whom one was created and where that said person will go after this flesh life. I recommend reading His Word instead of writings by atheist that wish to disprove Him.

I have not read the book you recommend so I can't comment on it. I do know that the Old Testament is protected by the Massorah and it has not changed (the manuscripts).

i mean, the book does state that the earth is a circular disc....
and that there is water above the sky..

what you believe should be dependent on what evidence you have, the more evidence we gather, the closer we get to the truth.

The earth is circular so I don't understand what you mean. As far as "water above the sky" you must be referring to:


Gen.1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

I don't really understand that scripture. Some have said that earth was surrounded by a protective layer of liquid. It filtered sunlight and kept earth in a more perfect state without storms, etc. They say that is where the flood waters came from when the firmament fell.

Other than that explanation I'm afraid you're on your own with that one.




...........Whirlwind

[edit on 22-9-2007 by whirlwind]

Originally posted by whirlwind
Of course I'm going to deny them. Please read the account given by Madness in my soul. The dates he gives as truth don't coincide with your truths.....Why? Because scientist can't decide themselves. The numbers, years, etc. are constantly changing.

Because we have lots of different data?

We have data for modern humans at 130,000 years in africa as well. Maybe that is all that MIMS has seen.

We have data for them at 190,000 years in africa. We have data elsewhere at 40,000 years.

All are well outside 14,000 years.

As time progresses we develop better and more accurate methods of analysis. This allows better estimates of dating. Thus, someone may analyse a fossil find and suggest they are 130,000 yrs. But then new methods come and allow a better analysis, finding that they may well be as old as 190,000 yrs. At no point did they even come close to 14,000 yrs.

Science doesn't deal in unmoving absolute truth. We're not so dogmatic

The evidence wins every time.

But at least we have clarified the extent of your science denial. You will throw out elements of geology, chemistry, physics, and biology for your little book of stories.

But I would ask how old you think the universe is? How old is the earth? How do you determine these dates? How do you determine scientific validity?

It is a claim because that is what they wish to believe. Evolution is their religion. If evolution was true we would still be in that process. There would still be half ape/half man walking earth. They aren't here and never were. Also consider, how did evolution cause one male and one female at the same time to procreate? Where are the skeletal remains of those 1/2 creatures. If they have been here for the thousands of years claimed they should be found in many, many places......It didn't happen.

This clearly shows how little you understand of evolution.

Ultimately, I couldn't really care less what you believe, as long as you keep your myths out of science.

ABE: I tried to find a good post I made at some point about the relaibility of dating techniques, if I eventually do, I'll post it. But it shows how good the tecniques are when used properly. But this link to Roger Wiens should do. It's just for people in your position from a Xian physicist.

[edit on 22-9-2007 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

The evidence wins every time.

No, the belief in the numbers they profess wins every time, every time it is changed it is believed.

But at least we have clarified the extent of your science denial. You will throw out elements of geology, chemistry, physics, and biology for your little book of stories.

But I would ask how old you think the universe is? How old is the earth? How do you determine these dates? How do you determine scientific validity?

My "little book of stories" doesn't give an exact age of the earth. It does state that "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" but it doesn't say when that was. I determine it's age using science that proves it is ancient through the things you name, geology, chemistry, etc. So...I believe it is millions or billiions of years old - not the 6,000 years some claim and that agrees with His Word.

It is a claim because that is what they wish to believe. Evolution is their religion. If evolution was true we would still be in that process. There would still be half ape/half man walking earth. They aren't here and never were. Also consider, how did evolution cause one male and one female at the same time to procreate? Where are the skeletal remains of those 1/2 creatures. If they have been here for the thousands of years claimed they should be found in many, many places......It didn't happen.



This clearly shows how little you understand of evolution.

Do you, as a believer in evolution, have an answer for those questions. You are correct when you say I have little understanding of evolution as I don't believe there is anything to understand. It is not true. There are adaptions within each living thing. If you wish to call that evolving then okay but they do not change to a different entity. They stay within their species.

Ultimately, I couldn't really care less what you believe, as long as you keep your myths out of science.

Well....there isn't much fear of me injecting my beliefs in science so you can rest easy. On the other hand, I do care what you believe. Please consider more of Him in your science. He is there.


.........Whirlwind

reply to post by melatonin

ABE: I tried to find a good post I made at some point about the relaibility of dating techniques, if I eventually do, I'll post it. But it shows how good the tecniques are when used properly. But this link to Roger Wiens should do. It's just for people in your position from a Xian physicist.

I just noticed your edit. Thank you.


........Whirlwind

Originally posted by whirlwind
No, the belief in the numbers they profess wins every time, every time it is changed it is believed.

It is the evidence that changes.

For example, if I find a new human fossil that is reliably dated at 220,000 yrs old, then the earliest known human fossil will now be 220,000 years old.

I determine it's age using science that proves it is ancient through the things you name, geology, chemistry, etc. So...I believe it is millions or billiions of years old - not the 6,000 years some claim and that agrees with His Word.

How do you think they have determined that the earth is 4.6 billion years old?

It is a claim because that is what they wish to believe. Evolution is their religion. If evolution was true we would still be in that process. There would still be half ape/half man walking earth. They aren't here and never were. Also consider, how did evolution cause one male and one female at the same time to procreate? Where are the skeletal remains of those 1/2 creatures. If they have been here for the thousands of years claimed they should be found in many, many places......It didn't happen.

OK. I'll do my best to clarify the problem you have here.

1. We are still evolving. A new mutation is the APO-milano mutation found in one familial group in Italy. It is a beneficial mutation that protect against heart disease, which is a bit of an issue in western societies. Maybe in 10,000 years it will be fixed in the population.

2. Why would we expect there to be a ape/human walking the earth? We have lots of fossils of other hominids over the last few million years. Many have since gone extinct.

3. I have absolutely no idea what the female/male procreation bit means. I can't parse it into anything meaningful. You'll need to explain the issue more clearly.

4. We have lots of fossils of '1/2' creatures, or I think you really mean 'transitionals'. From Lucy to Habilus to erectus.

Well....there isn't much fear of me injecting my beliefs in science so you can rest easy. On the other hand, I do care what you believe. Please consider more of Him in your science. He is there.

I think science does fine without contamination from religious faith. You see the problem here is that if I was like you, I would not be a true scientist. I would be looking to confirm my pre-existing beliefs. The conclusion would already be determined. That's not the scientific way. Sorry.

Many people of faith can be good scientists, they assess the evidence on its merits, they keep their faith out of science. They follow where the evidence leads. They accept the good science we have. That includes evolution and dating techniques. Indeed, it was Xian geologists who threw out the young earth idea.

[edit on 22-9-2007 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

Originally posted by whirlwind
No, the belief in the numbers they profess wins every time, every time it is changed it is believed.

Mel - It is the evidence that changes.

For example, if I find a new human fossil that is reliably dated at 220,000 yrs old, then the earliest known human fossil will now be 220,000 years old.

I understand what you are saying and would agree with that process but that is not what I meant. Take for instance the Lucy dating. It was the dating that changed, not Lucy.

I determine it's age using science that proves it is ancient through the things you name, geology, chemistry, etc. So...I believe it is millions or billiions of years old - not the 6,000 years some claim and that agrees with His Word.



How do you think they have determined that the earth is 4.6 billion years old?

By the same methods we have discussed, which is why I don't quote a date for the age of the earth at all. There is no doubt in my mind that earth is ancient - exactly how old it is I don't know. Your quote of 4.6 billion years is acceptable to me as I don't know. My point is that it doesn't disagree with the account God gives.

It is a claim because that is what they wish to believe. Evolution is their religion. If evolution was true we would still be in that process. There would still be half ape/half man walking earth. They aren't here and never were. Also consider, how did evolution cause one male and one female at the same time to procreate? Where are the skeletal remains of those 1/2 creatures. If they have been here for the thousands of years claimed they should be found in many, many places......It didn't happen.


OK. I'll do my best to clarify the problem you have here.

1. We are still evolving. A new mutation is the APO-milano mutation found in one familial group in Italy. It is a beneficial mutation that protect against heart disease, which is a bit of an issue in western societies. Maybe in 10,000 years it will be fixed in the population.

2. Why would we expect there to be a ape/human walking the earth? We have lots of fossils of other hominids over the last few million years. Many have since gone extinct.

3. I have absolutely no idea what the female/male procreation bit means. I can't parse it into anything meaningful. You'll need to explain the issue more clearly.

4. We have lots of fossils of '1/2' creatures, or I think you really mean 'transitionals'. From Lucy to Habilus to erectus.

1. I understand what you have termed as evolving with the Italian gene. It is not becoming a separate species. It may mutate within people but the people do not become something else as in ape becomes man. When I speak of evolution that is what I mean, the evolution of man from ape or one animal species into another.

2. I would expect that if evolution (ape to man) was true then it would be a continuing process. There are still apes, there is still man and there are no in betweens. Fossils are ape or are man.

3. I didn't phrase that well. What I mean is how did one piece of evolutionary material work out evolving into a male while another piece evolved into a female (animal, human, whatever) at the same time so they could procreate and have offspring? If they didn't do that at the same time would not the species simply die off?

4. I do mean transitionals (thank you). My point is where are they now. For evolution to be a fact it must be a continous process. Where are the "living" transitionals? To me, we would see a constant state of flux in the process.

Well....there isn't much fear of me injecting my beliefs in science so you can rest easy. On the other hand, I do care what you believe. Please consider more of Him in your science. He is there.


I think science does fine without contamination from religious faith. You see the problem here is that if I was like you, I would not be a true scientist. I would be looking to confirm my pre-existing beliefs. The conclusion would already be determined. That's not the scientific way. Sorry.

Of course science gets along fine....I was speaking about you adding more about Him.

Many people of faith can be good scientists, they assess the evidence on its merits, they keep their faith out of science. They follow where the evidence leads. They accept the good science we have. That includes evolution and dating techniques. Indeed, it was Xian geologists who threw out the young earth idea.

Okay, that proves my point. The world could use more like that although I don't think he threw the young earth idea far enough.

By the way, I realized I watch entirely too much television. In your previous post you said "keep your religion out of my science" (or something like that) and I wanted to retort - then keep your chocolate out of my peanut butter. That makes two in two days, the cave man ad and this one. I need to do some restructuring on my time.


........Whirlwind