Page 12 of 20 FirstFirst ... 6789101112131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 297

Thread: Explaining Evolution And Why GOD is NOT LIKELY

  1. #166
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    24/27 Christian nations went to war during WWI..you say...I'm not going to fact check that for the moment...but assuming that's correct...THANK YOU FOR PROVING MY POINT ABOUT RELIGION!!!?
    Maybe if you would try and rationally discuss the topic, instead of trying to beat everyone down ranting and raving because you believe you are right, you would have seen long ago that I agreed that religion as a whole has been the ruin of mankind.

    FALSE RELIGION!

    All religions claim to worship a loving God (if it's one with a deity of course) But all religions do not practice love amongst themselves and toward others. That does not mean each and every individual does not, speaking on the faiths as a whole. If everyone lived according to the way Jehovah intended, things would be perfect on earth. But very few actually live to serve Jehovah, even though many claim to know him.

    This is why Jehovah is set to rid the earth of false religion very soon. If you pay attention, world leaders as a whole are fed up with it. It's crumbling all around us, and not many are seeing it.

    Jehovah, the God of the bible blames false religion more than anything for the wicked state of mankind.

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    No saying that there will people that call unto Jesus means...even if you're devout in your faith, you got a chance of being assed out at the Pearly Gates. Dead and mother****ers still can't get into the club...THAT'S FUNNY.
    The problem with that is, Jehovah has a specific criteria for how he wants to be worshipped. If carried out accordingly, this form of worship only benefits us
    Don't lie, steal, covet, murder, fornicate. Love Jehovah your God above all, and love your neighbor as yourself. If the whole world lived by these things, the world would be stress free in every single way. So all God wants us to do is love him and love eachother, and live forever doing so.

    Problem is, all religions except 1 in the whole world actually want this. Not even professed Christians in the world. They say they worship God, but do not wanna do what God says. Christians will enlist in the army, and go to war. So in effect they sign up to go kill their neighbor. What makes them any better than the Iraqi's? Christian leaders will urge their followers into politics, and big business, when their leader said to be no part of the world. The bible says in 1john 5:19 We know we originate with God,(TRUE DISCIPLES OF CHRIST WHO SERVE JEHOVAH) but the whole world(WHOLE WORLD AS IN THOSE IN OPPOSITION TO JEHOVAH, WHETHER RELIGIOUS, OR GOVERNMENT) is lying in the [power of the] wicked one.

    This logically explains why the world is in such peril. Most of the world is under Satan's influence whether they know it or not. Satan is running the world! NO WONDER IT'S JACKED UP!

    But, there is a people on earth who live to do just as God says we should. That is why they are said to be no part of the world. Cuz the world does not care to do what God says to do. Even those who really should (Christians as a whole)


    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    The warheads are not armed. Most nations have deactivated their nuclear arsenals. The two largest being USA, and former USSR. You got a better chance of dying plugging in your toaster than the threat of nuclear war.
    Like I said, it does not bother me whether they are pointed in this direction with the fuse lit, Jehovah will not let mankind ruin his earth. Period. That is what I rely on. You saying they have defused it just further strengthens my faith there (even though I am amazed you would trust the world governments enough to believe that lol)

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    At the end of the day the positive advancements science completely and utterly outweigh the benefits of any/all religions on this planet earth. What achievements has religion accomplished?

    From science we have...

    This computer
    Cars
    Manufacturing
    Medicines
    DVD's
    Breast Implants
    PS3
    Jack Daniels


    I could go on and on...about the great things science has done for mankind.
    Science has made advancements that truly benfit mankind. But most of your list, if abused can cause serious problems for men (especially the cars, and Jack Daniels) Car pollution is part of the reason why the air is so unclean, and the ozone is tore up. Science must not have accounted for that. It's helping to ruin the earth. And I have mentioned warfare already.
    You will never hear me say that science as a whole is not a worthy endeavor. But it all depends on the intentions of the scientists.

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    Let's see religion...hmm...

    Wars of idiocy
    Homophobia
    Incest
    Rape
    Racism
    Genocide
    Holy War
    Torture
    Insanity
    Slavery
    Women regarded as 2nd class human beings
    Destruction of many African and Latin American/ Native American cultures
    Destruction of Black Americans.
    False religion, yes. Not the TRUTH. The true religion enlightens on how God views these things and what it takes to please him. It's your choice, no arm wrestling you to baptism. Jehovah will deal with those who choose to remain out of his love.

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    The earth is not going to stand forever going to collapse into the sun in 500 million years due to the sun finally running out of hydrogen fuel...throwing off the orbit pulling the earth into it when the Sun turns into a red dwarf star. So Jehvoah lied.
    Says who? Earth's all powerful and all knowing minds of science? These minds that are only using on avg, what, 10 % of their brain capacity? These scientists who have made many, many mistakes in their calculations in various fields? The brilliant minds who can't reverse the effects of aging? The brilliant minds who use an inconsistent method of dating, but rely on it anyway to try and prove they have figured it all out?

    You trust these guys with your life? More power to you.




    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    And if you're Jehovah is right that the earth will stand forever...us dropping nuclear warheads....the earth should be perfectly fine...the fact it wouldn't is another example..of your GOD being a LIAR.

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    The Department of Energy
    International Atomic Energy Commission
    The UN Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    I trust Jehovah when he says he will bring to ruin those who are ruining the earth. Nuclear warheads being dropped would destroy the earth. He won't let that happen. What's nut though, is that you trust the UN. EVEN A LITTLE BIT THATS SCARY!



    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    What's your source for Jehovah? One book..and no one even knows the author real identity.

    Hmm...let me think which one has more credibility.
    But you know the author... You have said Jehovah quite a bit this post. So you now know who the author of the bible is.
    He're a question. Do you think the most advanced science book will be applicable and practical over 1500 years from now? Now do you think the Bible will be?, And you want to compare that knowledge to the wisdom of God, which has stood the test of time and is still very much so practical??



    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    The reason people are so concerned about Iran having a nuclear program is because of RELIGION. If they weren't the fanatical **** nuts...like you people...we wouldn't have to worry about them. See these folks actually believe in Revelation prophecy alot more than you do, and they are too crazy and too fanatical with their religion...to be trusted with such a device. If it wasn't for religion...they would not be as crazy and radical as they are. So until they stop being all radical and ****...they can't be trusted. Kind of like taking a BB gun away from a kid who can't resist shooting out windows. He's just not using it responsibly.
    Well again, say them people. Because a true worshiper of Jehovah is the last person on earth anyone is concerned with aquiring nuclear weapons. That is false religion at it's finest. Jesus said not everyone saying Lord lord will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens. That implies that there will be those who claim to know and worship in truth, but have no idea what truth is. Therefore, if you are worried about a religious group blowing up half the world, it is safe to say that According to Jesus, they do not have the truth. Or else they would not even be thinking of such nonsense.

    Just test it for yourself. When was the last time a bomb went off and someone said it was Jehovah's witnesses? Last time a war was going on a Jehovahs witnesses were there to support it? When is the last time you went to a presidential election rally somewhere and a hopeful was speaking in front of an audience of Jehovah's witnesses? Why? Because we stay out of worldy affairs like Jehovah tells his true followers to do. Therefore, we give a witness, even to those who don't believe what we do that Jehovah is our ruler. And that is why he has revealed the truth of his word to us. And that is why we are the only people in the world preaching the Kingdom message of truth.


    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    Your GOD is just as made up as Anglicans, Evangelicals, Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, Calvanists, Protestants, Catholics, and Mormons.

    Are you going to say that all these Christian groups are FAKE? When they are just as devout?

    NOW THAT'S ****ING HYPOCRISY.
    Actually, the God of the bible is not made up, you just choose to ignore him. Personal reasons.

    Becuase people are devout, does it have to mean they are worshipping the right way? Devil worshippors are devout too, is that ok?(not comparing these faiths to devil worshipors, just illustrating a point) Jesus said those doing the will of his father will be saved. So it's quite simple, you do Jehovahs will you will be saved. If you are not, then are you a follower? A true follower follows, not make their own rules and doctrines on what Serving God is. The Jews were God's people once. Even they had to abandon some things of their faith to be accepted By God into Christianity.

    Same way with the Christian faiths of today. While they have the bible and some knowledge of the word, through false teachings and reasonings, they are being mislead. And it is misleading others.

    If the religion is not doing what God says, why would Jehovah back them?



    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    U know it's cute when a 5 year old rambles about their imaginary friend...it's a shame when you still do it at 25.

    Wait I take it back...you gave us one thing...CHAMPAGNE...invented by monks. And entertainment.
    Word?

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    So why didn't your Jesus cure everyone? What he was too busy to go further out into the valley that day?
    He cured as many that believed my friend. Read on it.

    He plans on curing the entire human race of disease and old age, restore the earth to full glory and supreme living conditions, even ressurect people!

    He showed he could do some of these things on a small scale (resurrected Lazarus and others, walked on water to stop a storm, cured a wealth of infirmities)

    Better question for you, do you want to live to see it happen?

  2. #167
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Why do we have an appendix?

    I know why. Just want to hear the religious viewpoint. Why did God give us an organ that isn't used at all? An organ that can be fatal to us? How could an all powerful, all knowing, perfect designer screw up like that?

    Why do whales have femur bones? Why did God give whales thigh bones? They don't have legs. It's a useless bone that serves no function.
    Last edited by LJ4ptplay; Jul 28, 2008 at 11:16.

  3. #168
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    Why do we have an appendix?

    I know why. Just want to hear the religious viewpoint. Why did God give us an organ that isn't used at all? An organ that can be fatal to us? How could an all powerful, all knowing, perfect designer screw up like that?

    Why do whales have femur bones? Why did God give whales thigh bones? They don't have legs. It's a useless bone that serves no function.

    My wife asked me those same questions once, and I don't know enough to say why, or why not. Good question though.

    That said, that does not mean he screwed up. And keep in mind with mankind, we are imperfect and die. That was not his original intention. It is apparent though that as time passed humans began to live shorter lives biblically. Who knows what function the organ had then. Patriarch times seen people live a long time compared to us.

    But Good question.

  4. #169
    Member KnicksFan4Realz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix,AZ
    Posts
    406
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    My wife asked me those same questions once, and I don't know enough to say why, or why not. Good question though.

    That said, that does not mean he screwed up. And keep in mind with mankind, we are imperfect and die. That was not his original intention. It is apparent though that as time passed humans began to live shorter lives biblically. Who knows what function the organ had then. Patriarch times seen people live a long time compared to us.

    But Good question.
    A perfect GOD like designer LOGICALLY CAN'T **** UP THE DESIGN OR IMPROVE ON IT....

    I'm gonna respond to the post above a bit later when I got more time. I got a few patients coming in a 1...but I'll have plenty time after my office hours to finish you off later.

    OH AND BY THE WAY...

    I AM RIGHT!!!

  5. #170
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    My wife asked me those same questions once, and I don't know enough to say why, or why not. Good question though.

    That said, that does not mean he screwed up. And keep in mind with mankind, we are imperfect and die. That was not his original intention. It is apparent though that as time passed humans began to live shorter lives biblically. Who knows what function the organ had then. Patriarch times seen people live a long time compared to us.

    But Good question.
    The answer is, we evolved from primates that needed the appendix to digest raw meat. The whale evolved from Ambulocetus, a mammal that walked on land and swam in the sea. These are called vestigial structures, structures or organs that have lost all or most of their original function through evolution.

  6. #171
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    The answer is, we evolved from primates that needed the appendix to digest raw meat. The whale evolved from Ambulocetus, a mammal that walked on land and swam in the sea. These are called vestigial structures, structures or organs that have lost all or most of their original function through evolution.
    Problem is, there is not proof those primates existed. They have not found one in any form.

    I'll never understand how you guys can put faith in a science that can be TRULY proven.

    Same way you will never understand it appears how we worship an invisible sky daddy as you say.

    Is what it is.

  7. #172
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    A perfect GOD like designer LOGICALLY CAN'T **** UP THE DESIGN OR IMPROVE ON IT....

    I'm gonna respond to the post above a bit later when I got more time. I got a few patients coming in a 1...but I'll have plenty time after my office hours to finish you off later.

    OH AND BY THE WAY...

    I AM RIGHT!!!
    But all humans after Adam have a birth defect. We're imperfect. That means physically, mentally, we are not at our peak as a species. But Adam once was.

  8. #173
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    Problem is, there is not proof those primates existed. They have not found one in any form.

    I'll never understand how you guys can put faith in a science that can be TRULY proven.

    Same way you will never understand it appears how we worship an invisible sky daddy as you say.

    Is what it is.
    Australopithecus


    Homo habilis



    Tools of Homo habilis:


    Homo erectus


    Homo habilis

    2.4 million years ago to 1.5 million years ago

    Homo habilis, which actually means "handy man," may have been the first species to make and use primitive stone tools. About five-feet-tall and weighing 100 pounds, H. habilis had a brain that was larger than the largest Australopithecus brain, but smaller than the Homo erectus brain.

    Homo erectus

    1.8 mya to 300,000 years ago

    The first example of Homo erectus, known as "Java Man," was discovered in Indonesia in 1893. Fossil remains of H. erectus have since been found throughout Africa and Asia, making it the first known wide-ranging hominid. Despite the primitive appearance of its skull, the H. erectus skeleton is very similar to that of modern humans, although more robust (thicker and heavier). H. erectus was probably the first hominid to use fire.

    Homo heidelbergensis

    800,000 to 200,000 years ago

    Sometimes classified as Homo sapiens archaic, this species contains a range of specimens that share features with both H. erectus and modern humans. In general, its brain was larger and more rounded than H. erectus, but smaller than that of a modern human. Fossil remains of H. heidelbergensis have been found in Africa and Europe.

    Homo neanderthalensis

    230,000 to 30,000 years ago

    Neanderthals are classified by some as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis -- a subspecies of H. sapiens. Averaging five-and-a-half feet in height and possessing short limbs, Neanderthals were well-adapted to living in a cold climate. Attached to their thick, heavy bones were powerful muscles. The Neanderthal brain cavity was larger than that of today's humans, but that may be related to the Neanderthals' greater bulk in general. Neanderthals were mostly found in Europe, and their skeletons show they lived brutal lives. Earlier theories suggested that modern humans are descended from Neanderthals, but most paleontologists have ruled out that idea. The fossil record suggests the two groups co-existed in some areas. Some speculate that Neanderthals interbred with modern humans, but genetic studies suggest the two groups didn't mate.

    Homo sapiens idaltu

    160,000(?)

    In the June 12, 2003 issue of Nature, a team led by Tim White reports finding fossils worthy of a new subspecies of Homo sapiens: Homo sapiens idaltu. The skull of an adult male found in Middle Awash, Ethiopia, is slightly larger than the upper limits seen in contemporary humans, but it shares more characteristics -- in particular, less prominent brow ridges -- with modern humans than any other fossils found to date.

    Homo sapiens sapiens (modern)

    120,000 years ago to present

    Modern Homo sapiens, also known as Homo sapiens sapiens, have been around for at least the past 120,000 years. Homo sapiens living about 40,000 years ago made elaborate tools out of bone, antler, ivory, stone and wood, and produced artwork in the form of carvings and cave paintings. In the last 100,000 years, the fossil record shows that even among this species, there is a trend toward smaller tooth sizes and lighter body frames.

    Sources: Smithsonian Institute National Museum of Natural History, PBS
    Your lack of knowledge is astounding. Were you home-schooled?
    Last edited by LJ4ptplay; Jul 28, 2008 at 15:17.

  9. #174
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    Australopithecus


    Homo habilis



    Tools of Homo habilis:


    Homo erectus




    Your lack of knowledge is astounding. Were you home-schooled?
    I have enough knowledge to know that no form of life that ever existed on earth has the frontal lobe except mankind. Do monkeys of any kind have that? If they don't they are not human.

    And again with the 3.4 million plus numbers. Stop the madness, the system is faulty, and nothing you say or anyone else says will make me feel any different. The people who use it have issues with it, you have never saw a reading, so you are just choosing to want to believe it. Totally your choice. But don't throw this at me as if it's the only way to go when I have an article posted on ape men and all that scientists go through to try and convince us it's real. They don't call it the missing link for nothing bro lol.

    Thanks again for coming out.

  10. #175
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    I have enough knowledge to know that no form of life that ever existed on earth has the frontal lobe except mankind. Do monkeys of any kind have that? If they don't they are not human.

    And again with the 3.4 million plus numbers. Stop the madness, the system is faulty, and nothing you say or anyone else says will make me feel any different. The people who use it have issues with it, you have never saw a reading, so you are just choosing to want to believe it. Totally your choice. But don't throw this at me as if it's the only way to go when I have an article posted on ape men and all that scientists go through to try and convince us it's real. They don't call it the missing link for nothing bro lol.

    Thanks again for coming out.
    Well, it's well known that apes have frontal lobes.

    Humans and great apes share a large frontal cortex
    K. Semendeferi1, A. Lu1, N. Schenker1 & H. Damasio2
    1 Department of Anthropology, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093

    2 Department of Neurology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242

    Correspondence should be addressed to K. Semendeferi [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]


    Some of the outstanding cognitive capabilities of humans are commonly attributed to a disproportionate enlargement of the human frontal lobe during evolution. This claim is based primarily on comparisons between the brains of humans and of other primates, to the exclusion of most great apes. We compared the relative size of the frontal cortices in living specimens of several primate species, including all extant hominoids, using magnetic resonance imaging. Human frontal cortices were not disproportionately large in comparison to those of the great apes. We suggest that the special cognitive abilities attributed to a frontal advantage may be due to differences in individual cortical areas and to a richer interconnectivity, none of which required an increase in the overall relative size of the frontal lobe during hominid evolution.

    Chimpanzee skull:



    The evolution of the frontal lobes : a volumetric analysis based on three-dimensional reconstructions of magnetic resonance scans of human and ape brains

    Author(s)
    SEMENDEFERI K. (1) ; DAMASIO H. (1) ; FRANK R. (1) ; VAN HOESEN G. W. (2) ;
    Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
    (1) Department of Neurology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242, ETATS-UNIS
    (2) Departments of Neurology & Anatomy, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242, ETATS-UNIS

    Résumé / Abstract
    Scenarios regarding the evolution of cognitive function in hominids depend largely on our understanding of the organization of the frontal lobes in extant humans and apes. The frontal lobe is involved in functions such as creative thinking, planning of future actions, decision making, artistic expression, aspects of emotional behavior, as well as working memory, language and motor control. It is often claimed that the frontal lobe is disproportionately larger in humans than in other species, but conflicting reports exist on this issue. The brain of the apes in particular remains largely unknown. In this report we measure the volume of the frontal lobe as a whole and of its main sectors (including cortex and immediately underlying white matter) in living humans, and in post-mortem brains of the chimpanzee, gorilla, orang-utan, gibbon and the macaque using three-dimensional reconstructions of magnetic resonance (MR) scans of the brain. On the basis of these data we suggest that although the absolute volume of the brain and the frontal lobe is largest in humans, the relative size of the frontal lobe is similar across hominoids, and that humans do not have a larger frontal lobe than expected from a primate brain of the human size. We also report that the relative size of the sectors of the frontal lobe (dorsal, mesial, orbital) is similar across the primate species studied. Our conclusions are preliminary, because the size of our sample, although larger than in previous studies, still remains small. With this caveat we conclude that the overall volume of the frontal lobe in hominids enlarged in absolute size along with the rest of the brain, but did not become relatively larger after the split of the human line from the ancestral African hominoid stock. Aspects other than relative volume of the frontal lobe have to be responsible for the cognitive specializations of the hominids.

    Homo habilis , a maker and user of crude stone tools, (click to see image of tools) ©1 appeared no earlier than 2.5 million years ago ( the earliest evidence of tool use). Fossils of this species span 750,000 years (at least 500,000 years)! Little physical change took place during this period, suggesting a successful and enduring species. The main features of the transition from Australopithecines to H. habilis are the use of tools and an enlarged braincase (700 cc). Physical features of H. habilis are almost identical to those of A. afarensis , showing that the primitive apelike characteristics served well for the role of this creature in nature for a very long time. H. habilis shows a sulcal pattern in the left frontal lobe, so H. habilis had at least the beginnings of speech.


    The only knowledge you have is either from the bible or from a creationist website. All those articles and quotes you give are from creationist websites where I've already exposed the misquotes or quotes out of context. How can you trust those sources when I've shown you they're dishonest? They have a motive to disprove scientific evidence because it exposes their religion to be untrue.

    Well then, it's obvious you make a serious effort to ignore information. I understand. It can be difficult to accept the fact that you've dedicated your life to something that doesn't exist. Totally your choice bro.

  11. #176
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    Well, it's well known that apes have frontal lobes.




    Chimpanzee skull:










    The only knowledge you have is either from the bible or from a creationist website. All those articles and quotes you give are from creationist websites where I've already exposed the misquotes or quotes out of context. How can you trust those sources when I've shown you they're dishonest? They have a motive to disprove scientific evidence because it exposes their religion to be untrue.

    Well then, it's obvious you make a serious effort to ignore information. I understand. It can be difficult to accept the fact that you've dedicated your life to something that doesn't exist. Totally your choice bro.

    These numbers are not really saying they are the same. Come on man. They are trying to relegate differential based on other things. That is not the same as simply saying, do our brains match. And that answer is no they don't, they never have, never will. No brain in existence is like the human brain. Period.


    Why is a scientific journal saying this
    A scientific journal reported on studies showing that "dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude." It said: "Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand."53?

    I doubt a scientific Journal would say this unless it was true. Hurts what they believe.

    And just tell me why it's called the missing link if you say it's a fact they exist? What link is missing?

  12. #177
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    These numbers are not really saying they are the same. Come on man. They are trying to relegate differential based on other things. That is not the same as simply saying, do our brains match. And that answer is no they don't, they never have, never will. No brain in existence is like the human brain. Period.
    Duh. I know our brains don't match perfectly with the other primates. That's why they are different species. I was simply refuting your argument that no other animal on the planet has a frontal lobe except humans.



    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    Why is a scientific journal saying this
    A scientific journal reported on studies showing that "dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude." It said: "Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand."53?
    At this point I can't trust your quotes. You've been misleading in the past. You'll have to give me a link to the actual journal so I can read it for myself. Not a link to a creationist website.

    But I've already addressed this argument. There are several methods of dating. Absolute dating methods and relative dating methods.

    The following are absolute dating techniques: Archaeomagnetism, Astronomical Dating, Dendrochronology, Electron Spin Resonance, Fission Track, Optically Stimulated Luminescence, Oxidizable Carbon Ratio (OCR), Potassium- Argon Dating, Racemization, Radio-Carbon Dating (Carbon-14), Thermoluminescence Dating and Uranium-Thorium Dating.

    Relative dating methods include floral evidence such as fossil pollen present, stratigraphy, climatic evidence, chemical changes, Cation Ratio, Cultural Affiliation, Fluorine Dating, Obsidian Hydration, Patination, Pollen Analysis, Rate of Accumulation, Seriation, Varve Analysis and Archaeological evidence.

    Scientists use multiple combinations of these methods to accurately determine the age of a fossil. They don't just use one and say, "that's it". The basis behind science is to be thorough to avoid skepticism and scrutiny.

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    And just tell me why it's called the missing link if you say it's a fact they exist? What link is missing?
    "Missing link" is an outdated term used to designate transitional forms. The above examples I gave (Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Sinanthropus pekinensis) are examples of these transitional forms or "missing links". The term "missing link" is really only used by the regular media and creationists, but is inaccurate and confusing.

  13. #178
    12th man
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Far far away from the orgy that consist of clyde, 8's, rady, smokes and rono
    Posts
    11,260
    Rep Power
    0

    Default


  14. #179
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    Duh. I know our brains don't match perfectly with the other primates. That's why they are different species. I was simply refuting your argument that no other animal on the planet has a frontal lobe except humans.
    Vast difference between monkeys and men. In many, many ways. And Our frontal lobe gives us far more capabilities than not only monkeys, but all other life on earth.

    There is no proof it evolved.




    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    At this point I can't trust your quotes. You've been misleading in the past. You'll have to give me a link to the actual journal so I can read it for myself. Not a link to a creationist website.

    But I've already addressed this argument. There are several methods of dating. Absolute dating methods and relative dating methods.

    The following are absolute dating techniques: Archaeomagnetism, Astronomical Dating, Dendrochronology, Electron Spin Resonance, Fission Track, Optically Stimulated Luminescence, Oxidizable Carbon Ratio (OCR), Potassium- Argon Dating, Racemization, Radio-Carbon Dating (Carbon-14), Thermoluminescence Dating and Uranium-Thorium Dating.

    Relative dating methods include floral evidence such as fossil pollen present, stratigraphy, climatic evidence, chemical changes, Cation Ratio, Cultural Affiliation, Fluorine Dating, Obsidian Hydration, Patination, Pollen Analysis, Rate of Accumulation, Seriation, Varve Analysis and Archaeological evidence.

    Scientists use multiple combinations of these methods to accurately determine the age of a fossil. They don't just use one and say, "that's it". The basis behind science is to be thorough to avoid skepticism and scrutiny..
    There will always be doubt in those systems because not every scientific group believes in them the same. Like jumping on a scale that says you weigh 4k lbs one day and 200 the next. And the main issue is that it is scientists saying these things, not every day people who don't know, or give a rats piss on cotton care about their dating method.

    YOU BELIEVE THAT! I can't. Especially since we can only go back 5000 years of accurate written human history.(that harmonizes with the bibles take on things by the way) That says it all to me. If we have all these great dating machines, and we can only go back 5000 years in human history accurately, what makes me trust these people who put a lot of zero's on their research with machines that they admit read inaccurately at times?

    And on top of that, I'm not impressed one bit when they claim to go back 3 million years. It's a pretty easy and convenient thing to claim when no one, or nothing is around to refute such a claim.

    Science will impress me when they can start accurately telling us about our future in exact details. Pretty easy to say well 50000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000 years from now this or that will happen. Tell us some evolutionary changes and such in our time. How people believe that, is beyond me. Especially coming from imperfect men who live no longer than 70 years on avg.

    But hey, you continue to put faith in men. That has always been a fruitful endeavor.

    NOT!



    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    "Missing link" is an outdated term used to designate transitional forms. The above examples I gave (Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Sinanthropus pekinensis) are examples of these transitional forms or "missing links". The term "missing link" is really only used by the regular media and creationists, but is inaccurate and confusing.
    Lets discuss a couple of the missing links. I believe the first one you mention, the africanus is discussed here.

    28 Another gap of vast proportions lies between that creature and the next one that had been listed as an "ape-man" ancestor. This is called Australopithecus—southern ape. Fossils of it were first found in southern Africa in the 1920’s. It had a small apelike braincase, heavy jawbone and was pictured as walking on two limbs, stooped over, hairy and apish looking. It was said to have lived beginning about three or four million years ago. In time it came to be accepted by nearly all evolutionists as man’s ancestor.

    29 For instance, the book The Social Contract noted: "With one or two exceptions all competent investigators in this field now agree that the australopithecines . . . are actual human ancestors."40 The New York Times declared: "It was Australopithecus . . . that eventually evolved into Homo sapiens, or modern man."41 And in Man, Time, and Fossils Ruth Moore said: "By all the evidence men at last had met their long unknown, early ancestors." Emphatically she declared: "The evidence was overwhelming . . . the missing link had at long last been found."42

    30 But when the evidence for anything actually is flimsy or nonexistent, or based on outright deception, sooner or later the claim comes to nothing. This has proved to be the case with many past examples of presumed "ape-men."
    31 So, too, with Australopithecus. More research has disclosed that its skull "differed from that of humans in more ways than its smaller brain capacity."43 Anatomist Zuckerman wrote: "When compared with human and simian [ape] skulls, the Australopithecine skull is in appearance overwhelmingly simian—not human. The contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white."44 He also said: "Our findings leave little doubt that . . . Australopithecus resembles not Homo sapiens but the living monkeys and apes."45 Donald Johanson also said: "Australopithecines . . . were not men."46 Similarly Richard Leakey called it "unlikely that our direct ancestors are evolutionary descendants of the australopithecines."47

    32 If any australopithecines were found alive today, they would be put in zoos with other apes. No one would call them "ape-men." The same is true of other fossil "cousins" that resemble it, such as a smaller type of australopithecine called "Lucy." Of it Robert Jastrow says: "This brain was not large in absolute size; it was a third the size of a human brain."48 Obviously, it too was simply an "ape." In fact, New Scientist said that "Lucy" had a skull "very like a chimpanzee’s."49


    Let's discuss homo erectus now, which has not even been classifed as ape.Another fossil type is called Homo erectus—upright man. Its brain size and shape do fall into the lower range of modern man’s. Also, the Encyclopædia Britannica observed that "the limb bones thus far discovered have been indistinguishable from those of H[omo] sapiens."50 However, it is unclear whether it was human or not. If so, then it was merely a branch of the human family and died off.

    Why are you putting a mark on it as if it was actually ape, when it could certianly be human?

    And if it's human, and it's indistinguishable from modern man, then one must say that modern man must have been around those millions of years ago as well.

  15. #180
    Veteran TunerAddict's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,183
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    So you believe that from man's creation, he could write down and record history? Wow, talk about naivety...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •