Log in

View Full Version : Gods children or advanced apes ?


Dre Crabbe
2005-07-10, 03:32
People have debated on wether we are just animals with augmented cognitive skills or that we are a special species, gods chosen for his task ?

What do you think ? I myself am not sure about this... I was hoping some replies could help me make up my mind.

Paradise Lost
2005-07-10, 03:49
Using the scientific evidence we have it leans more towards a common descent or as you would put it, advanced apes.

If you want to place your faith in a book then we're the special creation of a creator that would have no reason to create us!

Going by the Christian version we're just advanced dirt and women are part of a rib. How could that be? Wouldn't taking a rib from Adam and using it to create something have the exact same DNA though?



EDIT: I forgot to state my opinion. The most intellectually honest answer of course is I don't know.

[This message has been edited by Paradise Lost (edited 07-10-2005).]

Rust
2005-07-10, 03:58
There is absolutely no reason to think that we are "God's children". There is, on the other hand, billions of reasons to think that we are the product of evolution.

I don't know about you (original poster) but I choose not to abandon logic, reason, and intelligence when formulating a belief.

flatplat
2005-07-10, 04:03
Judging by our behaviour, we're decended from the great apes, because we behave more like advanced apes than beings made in God's image.

NoName013
2005-07-10, 05:35
I'm a smart monkey..thats all. Don't worry about the afterlife or god..do you think this guy wastes his time on that stuff?

http://www.digital-biz.com/Adamess/india/smimages/ambmonk.jpg

Digital_Savior
2005-07-10, 05:42
Have you considered that we are the only species on the planet that is aware of "itself" ?

I have seen shows with dolphins that begin to recognize what they are seeing in a mirror, over extended periods of time (as will apes), but do they really think, "Hey, That's me ! I'm Flipper !"

That ability alone sets us apart, I think.

I am a Christian, so I do believe that we are created by God.

I have a bumper sticker on my car that says, "EVOLUTION: The missing links are still missing."

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

jsaxton14
2005-07-10, 05:55
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I have a bumper sticker on my car that says, "EVOLUTION: The missing links are still missing."

I hate it when these "missing links" are brought up. Every time an evolutionist finds a fossil that bridges one of these "missing links" one of you idiot creationists tells us "now you have two missing links."

Get a brain.

Paradise Lost
2005-07-10, 05:57
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I have a bumper sticker on my car that says, "EVOLUTION: The missing links are still missing."

You missing link advocates really piss me off. It's like you guys can see a pattern say like this.

2, 4, 6, ,10, 12, ,16

But can't make the logical jump that something is probably in there.

But most of you guys can go from nothing to a supreme being creating everything.

I know that evolution is a lot more complicated than that but can't you make a basic inference on it?

Rust
2005-07-10, 06:06
It's even worse than that. The problem isn't the lack of "missing links" as there are numerous "missing links"; the problem is they refuse to accept them because it would completely refute Christianity.

RogueEagle91
2005-07-10, 06:19
going off of your title, we (satanicaly speaking) are THE god's children. some advanced race came to earth, enslaved the apes/primitive humans, and bred with them to share their knowledge. this also gave way to better slaves. (note: the slavery was to help the gods home planet, not to be tyranical)

Paradise Lost
2005-07-10, 06:20
quote:Originally posted by RogueEagle91:

going off of your title, we (satanicaly speaking) are THE god's children. some advanced race came to earth, enslaved the apes/primitive humans, and bred with them to share their knowledge. this also gave way to better slaves. (note: the slavery was to help the gods home planet, not to be tyranical)

*cough* Occam's Razor *cough*

MasterPython
2005-07-10, 06:22
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I have seen shows with dolphins that begin to recognize what they are seeing in a mirror, over extended periods of time (as will apes), but do they really think, "Hey, That's me ! I'm Flipper !"



They have managed to teach gorillas sign language. Never done any serious investigating but Michael Crichton seems to beleive that they can pick themselves out of a series of photos. He does alot of research for all his novels so there is a good chance this happened in real life.

Beta69
2005-07-10, 07:49
Being able to recognize yourself is practically the definition of self awareness. Gorillas have been taught sign language and are self aware. Dolphins have been shown to be creative and self aware as well. Archaeological evidence shows neanderthals possibly understood death, burying the dead with artifacts.

Digital_Savior
2005-07-10, 07:58
quote:Originally posted by jsaxton14:

I hate it when these "missing links" are brought up. Every time an evolutionist finds a fossil that bridges one of these "missing links" one of you idiot creationists tells us "now you have two missing links."

Get a brain.

You'd think there'd be a hell of a lot more than just TWO specimen's, if the theory is correct !

Besides, there aren't even 2. That's wishful thinking.

Get a clue.

Rust
2005-07-10, 08:14
You didn't understand what he was saying at all.

He's saying that you would claim that evolutionists would need to find two more missing links; not that they are only two missing links.

So should you get the clue instead?

Beta69
2005-07-10, 08:36
A visual,

Ape ancestor ---- Missing link ---- Human.

Missing link = bob dole

Ape ancestor ---missing link --- Bob Dole ----missing link ---human.

To infinity and beyond.

Basically, some people will never be satisfied with the evidence (hell, they wont even look at it) and will claim the missing link still exists until we find the bones of every single living animal from ape ancestor to human.

Digital_Savior
2005-07-10, 09:18
Beta, that was funny. (the Bob Dole bit) *lol*

However, I would certainly entertain any evidence presented that definitively resembled a missing link. For even ONE species. JUST ONE !

But there hasn't been any. Which should be STRANGE to people of such scientific prowess, considering the tons of sediment that has already been excavated.

Digital_Savior
2005-07-10, 09:31
quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You didn't understand what he was saying at all.

He's saying that you would claim that evolutionists would need to find two more missing links; not that they are only two missing links.

So should you get the clue instead?

Yes, I should.

My bad.

In my defense, I am tired. I shouldn't be here.

I'll fix that right now...

*goes off to sleep*

Lou Reed
2005-07-10, 10:07
quote:Originally posted by NoName013:

I'm a smart monkey..thats all. Don't worry about the afterlife or god..do you think this guy wastes his time on that stuff?

htt p://www.di gital-biz.com/Adamess/india/smimages/ambmonk.jpg (http: //www.digi tal-biz.co m/Adamess/ india/smim ages/ambmo nk.jpg)





Ah http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

my seventeenth cousin billy from delhi. i havent seen him in a while

Atomical
2005-07-10, 14:30
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Beta, that was funny. (the Bob Dole bit) *lol*

However, I would certainly entertain any evidence presented that definitively resembled a missing link. For even ONE species. JUST ONE !

But there hasn't been any. Which should be STRANGE to people of such scientific prowess, considering the tons of sediment that has already been excavated.

Animal remains require near perfect conditions to turn into fossils.

Rust
2005-07-10, 15:25
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



However, I would certainly entertain any evidence presented that definitively resembled a missing link. For even ONE species. JUST ONE !

But there hasn't been any. Which should be STRANGE to people of such scientific prowess, considering the tons of sediment that has already been excavated.

That's a humongous lie on your part. I have shown you many of these so-called "missing links" in my time on totse. That you refuse to accept them because you have already decided them to be wrong before you even look at them, is another story.

Here, I'll provide them again:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC212.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214_1.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC215.html

Lou Reed
2005-07-10, 16:06
i trust the folks who talk about the folling

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

and if you think thats complicated

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html

because

they do this for a living. what REASON do they have to lie

your_daemon
2005-07-12, 20:56
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Have you considered that we are the only species on the planet that is aware of "itself" ?

I have seen shows with dolphins that begin to recognize what they are seeing in a mirror, over extended periods of time (as will apes), but do they really think, "Hey, That's me ! I'm Flipper !"

That ability alone sets us apart, I think.

I am a Christian, so I do believe that we are created by God.

I have a bumper sticker on my car that says, "EVOLUTION: The missing links are still missing."

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

How are you able to make a statement on a question you were not even able to answer yourself.

I also posted this in another post but another statement that Christians tend to use overwhelmingly to support their religion is that we are the only creatures that have ethics but(this was recently in TIME magazine)this has just been dissproved. It appears as if dogs,dolphins,monkeys, and rats also have codes of ethics that are not completely regulated by instinct.

Digital_Savior
2005-07-12, 21:28
quote:Originally posted by Atomical:

Animal remains require near perfect conditions to turn into fossils.

And yet there are SO MANY !

How odd that there aren't any that actually support evolution's claims.

Beta69
2005-07-12, 22:16
quote:And yet there are SO MANY !

Last time I read creationist literature, they claimed that if evolution was correct, we should find tons more fossils, the fact that they are rare was evidence the earth was only 6000 years old.

Now, you are saying there are many.

Maybe you should huddle with the rest of the creationists and come up with a consistent answer. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Atomical wasn't correct. "near perfect" conditions are not needed, just the right conditions. Which is why we find fossils in different states of preservation. Some are found in heavy decay, some are found nicely preserved and others aren't found at all but leave a mold behind that can be filled to see what the bone used to look like.

These conditions are rare compared to the life span of an individual animal.

quote:How odd that there aren't any that actually support evolution's claims.

It must be so nice to have a belief that turns a blind eye to evidence. Did you bother to even click on any of those links let alone follow them?

You might be able to honestly argue that fossils haven't provided 100% conclusive evidence for evolution, but you can't honestly say that they provide no support at all.

The fact that fossils provide evidence against creationism should be ignored as well.

Rust
2005-07-13, 04:22
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

And yet there are SO MANY !

How odd that there aren't any that actually support evolution's claims.

Are you blind?

I posted links of fossils that both support evolution and refute creationism. Use your eyes.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-13-2005).]

jsaxton14
2005-07-13, 09:32
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

And yet there are SO MANY !

How odd that there aren't any that actually support evolution's claims.

Whales with legs are the first fossils that come to mind. Wait, God must have put those there to test the unbelievers!

Digital_Savior
2005-07-13, 10:14
quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

But can't make the logical jump that something is probably in there.

Faith in an Intelligent Designer seems much more plausible than making stuff up and saying that it "probably exists", when there is no reason to believe so.

2...4...7...10

Yeah, I want to see 3, 5, 8, and 9.

Since you say, "Evolution is true ! We know it, we just haven't proven it yet !", I don't see how you have any less FAITH in something that isn't there than I do.

If you are going to teach a theory in schools, thus forcing the beliefs of said theory (since no opposing theory is presented), I would expect a little bit more evidence supporting it.

My kids will believe that they are glorified apes, and therefore a victim of their own circumstance (instead of something in control of it), based on theories that aren't even close to being proven.

The Bible is just as good to me, if not better.

Digital_Savior
2005-07-13, 10:17
quote:Originally posted by Beta69:



Last time I read creationist literature, they claimed that if evolution was correct, we should find tons more fossils, the fact that they are rare was evidence the earth was only 6000 years old.

Now, you are saying there are many.

Maybe you should huddle with the rest of the creationists and come up with a consistent answer. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Maybe you should get out a dictionary and look up the word "sarcasm", as it seems to have escaped your understanding at this point.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 07-13-2005).]

Digital_Savior
2005-07-13, 11:00
quote:Originally posted by Rust:

It's even worse than that. The problem isn't the lack of "missing links" as there are numerous "missing links"; the problem is they refuse to accept them because it would completely refute Christianity.

I honestly would accept even ONE missing link, if the evolution community could provide just ONE shred of evidence that is not completely falsified later on.

They grasp at straws to make their theory come to life, and it always fails.

Look at how many times they thought something was a "missing link" - http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c008.html and http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Fake_fossils

More triumphant success for evolutionist's - http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa022800a.htm

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

And someone else asked why scientist's who support evolution would try to make things up to prove that they are right:

"Why are evolutionists so intent on finding something to make their story sound credible that they are still using Haeckel's hundred year old faked embryo pictures and falling for crudely faked fossils? The answer is desperation. In true science, scientists let the evidence lead to them to new discoveries. For the disciples of the religion of evolutionism, it's the other way around. The story comes first and the evidence has to be made to fit the story. For 140 years evolutionists have been looking for their smoking gun. Some bit of evidence that would really support their story.

The fossil gaps between families and the higher classifications are both so large and so persistent that some evolutionists have even invented a theory to explain them away called punctuated equilibrium. The theory is that change in animals in the past was so quick that it left no record of its happening. This truly is the perfect theory; the proof of its happening is that there is no evidence of its ever having happened. The more that these evolutionists find no evidence of change ever having happened, the stronger their punctuated equilibrium theory gets, at least to them." http://www.projectcreation.org/creation_station/station_detail.php?PRKey=9

If evolutionist's are wrong, there is only one other remotely viable theory...Creation.

If Creation is true, they must admit they are wrong, and boy is pride a wench. They don't want God to exist, because they enjoy being their own gods.

That's why.

Digital_Savior
2005-07-13, 11:03
quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Are you blind?

I posted links of fossils that both support evolution and refute creationism. Use your eyes.



Haven't looked at them yet. I see just fine.

flatplat
2005-07-13, 13:04
quote:Originally posted by jsaxton14:

Whales with legs are the first fossils that come to mind. Wait, God must have put those there to test the unbelievers!

If God really put them there as a test then I failed...

Monochrome
2005-07-13, 14:26
Look up genetics for a missing link. We share just about 98% of our genes with the great apes.

Rust
2005-07-13, 16:46
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I honestly would accept even ONE missing link, if the evolution community could provide just ONE shred of evidence that is not completely falsified later on.

Bullshit. And what's worse, you know it. One missing link would refute Christianity completely. You're not strong enough to make such a commitment to reason. You've already made your mind along time ago, a commitment to irrationality; ironically that makes one of the articles below even more laughable.

quote:

Look at how many times they thought something was a "missing link" - ht tp://www.c hristianan swers.net/q-eden/edn-c008.html (http: //www.chri stiananswe rs.net/q-e den/edn-c0 08.html)



From the article:

"Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) - 150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.

This is wrong. Neanderthal man is still considered a different species in the genus "hominids".

Ramapithecus - once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realized that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape).

It was regarded as a hominid, at first, because the whole set of bones was not completely found. As they found the bones, they consensus changed to an ancient type of orangutan. How does that show anything wrong?

Eoanthropus (Piltdown man) - a hoax based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years.

Yes. It was a hoax. A hoax done over 60 years ago. Science isn't omnipotent. It cannot stop people from making hoaxs. What it CAN do is expose those hoaxs. Which is exactly what it did over 50 years ago. Yes, this has been exposed over 50 years ago. Science, over a decade old, proved to be correct.



Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man) - based on a single tooth of a type of pig now only living in Paraguay.

Bold face lies. Refuted here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC002.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html

Pithecanthropus (Java man) - now renamed to Homo erectus. See below.

It IS a missing link, since it is homo-erectus, another completely different species in the genus family, which is a transition from other hominids to our current species.



Australopithecus africanus - this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like.

Again, wrong. It IS considered to be on the line from apes to humans.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/garhi_cg.html



Sinanthropus (Peking man) was once presented as an ape-man but has now been reclassified as Homo erectus (see below).

Correct. What they fail to state is that the "reclassification" was done decades ago, not "now".



quote: http://wik i.cotch.ne t/index.ph p/Fake_fos sils]http: //wiki.cot ch.net/ind ex.php/Fake_fossils[/URL]



This link is very similar to the above, which I already dealt with. If you want to to reply to something in specific, tell me.

quote:

More triumphant success for evolutionist's - http://p aranormal. about.com/library/weekly/aa022800a.htm (http: //paranorm al.about.c om/library /weekly/aa 022800a.ht m)



Well since we're speaking of triumphant successes, then why not show true successes and not bullshit? You wouldn't want that would you?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html



quote:Why are evolutionists so intent on finding something to make their story sound credible that they are still using Haeckel's hundred year old faked embryo pictures and falling for crudely faked fossils? The answer is desperation. In true science, scientists let the evidence lead to them to new discoveries. For the disciples of the religion of evolutionism, it's the other way around. The story comes first and the evidence has to be made to fit the story. For 140 years evolutionists have been looking for their smoking gun. Some bit of evidence that would really support their story.

This coming from someone who I am assuming is a Christian? Is that hilarious irony on purpose? Is this satire and you don't even know it? I wouldn't be surprised.

The fact is your own articles above refute this one! If Scientists had their minds made up, they wouldn't have reclassified the above specimens to fit the evidence! The article you provided proves that Scientists base themselves on evidence and not pre-concieved as Christians do. Thank you DS you just refuted this article completely.

The reality is that Christians are the ones who have already made up their minds. They believe the bible to be true, to the point of abandoning all scientific knowledge, as they must do if they believe light doesn't travel at the speed we say (which would refute creationism).

Rust
2005-07-13, 16:48
quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Haven't looked at them yet. I see just fine.

I have provided them before, as I said.

In any case, if you haven't looked at them, then shouldn't you refrain from making these claims? Or are you making you mind before seeing all the evidence? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Beta69
2005-07-13, 16:50
No, I just assume most creationists believe whatever crap comes out of their mouth until they say otherwise.

I once had a grown man tell me that the scientific explaination of why the sky is blue is wrong and his creationist version was right. He was serious.

Then there are the large amount of people who think evolution can be destroyed by a poor highschool science education (2ndLoT). They are serious as well.

So, was your most recent post in this thread sarcasm as well?



quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Maybe you should get out a dictionary and look up the word "sarcasm", as it seems to have escaped your understanding at this point.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Beta69
2005-07-13, 17:13
quote:Rust

From the article:

"Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) - 150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.

This is wrong. Neanderthal man is still considered a different species in the genus "hominids".

It's amazing, even that article has never bothered to look at the evidence. The claim of Neanderthal man being just a human with rickets (the disease) is one of the biggest BS claims I've heard.

Not only is it Not admitted by any competent scientist, the disease doesn't match Neanderthal. One of it's key features is the lose of calcium in bones causing them to be thin and brittle. One of the key features of Neanderthal are thick bones. (There are more differences between Rickets and Neanderthals).

It's amazing that a "christian" organization would blatantly lie to people to push it's own agenda.



Getting back on track a bit. Recent evidence shows that Neanderthal isn't in our direct lineage but is an offshoot from one of our common ancestors. Ritual burial sites have been found for Neanderthals, showing they have more than a basic understanding of death and community, they also included basic tools. If Neanderthal aren't part of our direct lineage but related by an earlier common ancestor, it shows that the beginning of our intelligence rests in earlier apes and is not as special as we currently think.

SThornton
2005-07-14, 02:42
God's children, direct decendent? NO, my mom and dad had me, so thats not correct.

ANIMALS - duh. Ask an biologist fuckhead.

Another thing to think about is our brains are completely exact to that of a monkey. The way scientists found out what each part of a monkeys brain was, was by zapping a part of the brain and observing what the monkey lost, ie Left Arm, Eye Sight, ability to speak, Smell, Right toe, etc.

We are only smarter. Why? Africa used to be a rainforest, monkeys survived on only vegetation, when the climate change happened and Africa became largely desert, the plants died, we had to switch to only protein. Going to a source of only vegetaion to meat(protein) was surely going to change our bodies chemistry. All the extra protein made is accumulated to the brain growth.

[This message has been edited by SThornton (edited 07-14-2005).]

Hexadecimal
2005-07-14, 03:03
I'm going to argue that many humans aren't even as smart as our ape relatives...imbeciles just still have a more developed linguistic capability. The ability to express a thought doesn't mean the thought is better designed than one that cannot be expressed accurately. How often do you see a monkey on camera hit its head on a low branch? How often do you see some idiot smash his head against a low cieling?

flatplat
2005-07-14, 12:49
quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

I'm going to argue that many humans aren't even as smart as our ape relatives...imbeciles just still have a more developed linguistic capability. The ability to express a thought doesn't mean the thought is better designed than one that cannot be expressed accurately. How often do you see a monkey on camera hit its head on a low branch? How often do you see some idiot smash his head against a low cieling?



Maybe monkeys are more co-ordinated than us...

I don't think fossils are the only evidence of evoloution. Genetics has also hepled us in this field. The closer two spiecies are related, the more DNA they share, suggesting at a common ancestor.

You can also observe changes in a species over only a handful of generations, showing that life on Earth does not stand still.

Pepper Moths are a good example. (The one thats always in biology textbooks, that is) Over a few decades, populations of this moth in certain parts of Britain adapted to the growing pollution levels. Trees were being blackend by emmissions from factories, making the lighter moths more visible, and more likly to be eaten by predetors. So the darker ones survived, and bred. The whole poplulation of moths in these areas slowly became a darker, less visible colour.

Other examples of species changing is the rapid change in bacteria strains (the reason why antibiotics aren't as effective as they once were)and our own selective breeding attempts.

Thats it then, my first serious post for this thread.

Beta69
2005-07-14, 19:35
quote:Genetics has also helped us in this field. The closer two spiecies are related, the more DNA they share, suggesting at a common ancestor.

It's so much better than that. Not only do we share a lot of DNA, including junk DNA and broken functions (in the future with genetic manipulation it would be possible to turn off genes in a fetus that stops the growth of a prehensile tail in humans.) But one half of twin nested hierarchy provides some amazing genetic evidence.

Certain protein sequences and RNA provide good evidence. These sequences and RNA can vary a large amount while providing the exact same function, because only a small bit of them is really needed to carry it's function out. To test this, scientists have transplanted protein sequences from mice genes into wheat cells and the wheat cells functioned perfectly fine. Now the amazing thing is the difference between sequences matches the evolutionary history. That is, a mouse and a rabbit have protein sequences that better match than a mouse and a bird, etc.