[_ Old Earth _] Ancient accounts of apemen

[Heidi]

Excuse, me, I misread his post. : Of course tigers can breed with other creatures but apes can't breed with humans so there's no way for apes or humans to produce each other as pffsrping. So his point is moot anyway. ;-)

It seems you're misreading a lot of people's posts.
Interbreeding is not a necessity for evolution.

excuse, me, but are you claiming that dinosaurs exist in the present world? If not, then how can one see it grow feathers? :o Or is this just another fantasy of what humans imagine happened to a dinosaur? ;-) So which is it? :-?

You didn't even bother to click on my link.

One day, while examining the forearm, or ulna, of a Velociraptor dug up in Mongolia in 1998, Turner made an interesting discovery.

"I just happened to feel these couple of bumps along the backside. And it was like, 'Oh, that's very interesting,'" he recalled. "And then I kind of let it pass. And then I was thinking about it more later on, and that's when I took it to the high powered microscopes and realized it has all these other features that you would expect to see if it was a quill knob."

The quill knobs found on Velociraptor are regularly spaced bumps along the ulna where flight or wing feathers would have been attached.

"And when you compare them to the ulna of a bird, you see that they correspond quite closely to these quill knobs," he added. "These wouldn't have been flight feathers in the Velociraptor, because it's an animal that's much too big to have flown. But it still shows that feathers were attached to the bone there."

At least I admit when I misread someone's post. And since we know that you're not omniscient and do make mistakes, then we know that you misread people's posts as well. You just can't be honest about it. ;-)

So, unless you address my 3 questions and my threads that you avoid, you have no case. Evasions don't win a debate. They just show that you have no defense of your position. So we Christians win because we have the truth on our side, which even evolutionists know or they would have no desire to avoid our questions. ;-)

 

[Dunzo]

Um, Heidi... bad news...

I answered those questions 12 hours ago!

Once again, proof you don't read my posts.
I'm not avoiding any of your questions, I answer close to every single one of them. You, on the other hand, have failed to address many of the points and questions I have made.

 

[Heidi]

Um, Heidi... bad news...

I answered those questions 12 hours ago!

Once again, proof you don't read my posts.
I'm not avoiding any of your questions, I answer close to every single one of them. You, on the other hand, have failed to address many of the points and questions I have made.

I've been looking for your answers but still haven't found them. So would be so kind enough to quote the post where you answer them? Thank you.

But you have not answered why humans don't produce giraffes as descendants because if you did, you would know why apes can't produce human descendants. So you still have that evasion to address. ;-)

 

[Dunzo]

Um, Heidi... bad news...

I answered those questions 12 hours ago!

Once again, proof you don't read my posts.
I'm not avoiding any of your questions, I answer close to every single one of them. You, on the other hand, have failed to address many of the points and questions I have made.

I've been looking for your answers but still haven't found them. So would be so kind enough to quote the post where you answer them? Thank you.

But you have not answered why humans don't produce giraffes as descendants because if you did, you would know why apes can't produce human descendants. So you still have that evasion to address. ;-)

I do believe that Jayls5, along with myself, has covered that question.

 

[Heidi]

I do believe that Jayls5, along with myself, has covered that question.[/quote]

Where? Please explain why humans don't breed giraffes as descendants.

 

[Jayls5]

That's a lie. Tigers do not procude anything but tigers unless they are cross-bred with lions. But their hybrid is then sterile as all hybrids are which means that humans could not be the hybrid of an ape and some other animal.

Actually, only the male hybrids of this type are sterile. We have also told you numerous times in this thread that crossbreeding is not necessary for evolution.

So if you have to lie to make a case, then you have no case. And I'm not going to stay here and liten to lies.

Point it out, and I will either elucidate or retract the statement.

Sorry, but if evolution is true, then there had to be a point when the last transitional species bred a fully formed human. So you are making false statements again. It doesn't appear that evolutionists can make any true statements.

Right, and the fully formed human was almost indistinguishable from his parents because they themselves looked SO much like humans that it was almost insignificant.

If we apply strict, numeric qualifications of attributes to define our species, then yes, at one point a non-human bred a human. However, nobody during that time period would have thought anything unusual had happened because the change was so minute.

:o How can you have seen a dinsosaur grow feathers when no dinosaur has been alive in the last "million" years? :o So that's another lie. One made-up story after another. :roll:

Scientists have not literally seen feathers on velociraptors. They have seen the presence of quill knobs in the bone, and they inferred that they had feathers from it. Here is the link if you need it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7004727.stm

There are countless other news sites that reported this recent finding.

Your last statement is as much science fiction as the rest of your statements. What could happen in reality is called science fiction as the whole theory of evolution is which is proven by your fictitious statements. One made-up story after another.

I highly encourage you to actually debate the 'fictitious' statements I have made instead of dismissing them. That's the way you debate properly.

By the way, I did answer the giraffe question for you... a while ago.

 

[Heidi]

That's a lie. Tigers do not procude anything but tigers unless they are cross-bred with lions. But their hybrid is then sterile as all hybrids are which means that humans could not be the hybrid of an ape and some other animal.

Actually, only the male hybrids of this type are sterile. We have also told you numerous times in this thread that crossbreeding is not necessary for evolution.

So if you have to lie to make a case, then you have no case. And I'm not going to stay here and liten to lies.

Point it out, and I will either elucidate or retract the statement.

[quote:05deb]
Sorry, but if evolution is true, then there had to be a point when the last transitional species bred a fully formed human. So you are making false statements again. It doesn't appear that evolutionists can make any true statements.

Right, and the fully formed human was almost indistinguishable from his parents because they themselves looked SO much like humans that it was almost insignificant.

If we apply strict, numeric qualifications of attributes to define our species, then yes, at one point a non-human bred a human. However, nobody during that time period would have thought anything unusual had happened because the change was so minute.

:o How can you have seen a dinsosaur grow feathers when no dinosaur has been alive in the last "million" years? :o So that's another lie. One made-up story after another. :roll:

Scientists have not literally seen feathers on velociraptors. They have seen the presence of quill knobs in the bone, and they inferred that they had feathers from it. Here is the link if you need it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7004727.stm

There are countless other news sites that reported this recent finding.

Your last statement is as much science fiction as the rest of your statements. What could happen in reality is called science fiction as the whole theory of evolution is which is proven by your fictitious statements. One made-up story after another.

I highly encourage you to actually debate the 'fictitious' statements I have made instead of dismissing them. That's the way you debate properly.

By the way, I did answer the giraffe question for you... a while ago.[/quote:05deb]

Sorry, but asking me to answer your questions all the while evading mine doesn't win a debate. Only after you have responded to my thread on the difference between science and science fiction, can I know that you know the difference between them. But your lack of response shows that you don't. Whenever a person in a debate can't answer his opponents questions, his opponent wins the debate which I won a long time ago. ;-)

 

[Jayls5]

Sorry, but asking me to answer your questions all the while evading mine doesn't win a debate. Only after you have responded to my thread on the difference between science and science fiction, can I know that you know the difference between them. But your lack of response shows that you don't. Whenever a person in a debate can't answer his opponents questions, his opponent wins the debate which I won a long time ago. ;-)

The thread you are referring to is LOCKED, which means I am not able to respond to it. My lack of response shows my inability to respond to it and nothing more.

I didn't even ask a question in the post you quoted of me. Given this fact, It seems to me that you're the one evading the debate here. I welcome you to legitimately respond to my post without ad hominem fallacies.

 

[Heidi]

You're saying nothing different than I've said. You are still claiming that apes bred human beings whether it took a gazillions years or 9 months, are you not? By your claims we could have been the descendants of giraffes through minor changes over hundreds of thousands of years. Their necks became shorter, their faces got thincker, their tails dropped off, etc. :

Did you not read what I wrote?

You will not find an example of an human popping out of an ape. You will find examples of a slow and gradual change from an ape until you cannot distinguish it from a human. This does not occur in human lifetime, or even several human lifetimes. Humans do not live long in the scope of the natural world.

Hypothetically, given enough time and perfect circumstances, I don't see why a giraffe couldn't eventually go through enough changes so it resembled a human. The amount of time would be almost inconceivably long though. I don't think the question is really all that pertinent to the discussion. Both currently exist, so asking if one could be an ancestor of the other doesn't make much sense.

What you don't understand is that changes only occur within each species. That means that there will be a variety of humans within the human race. Thus, human parents will produce a variety of human offspring. Lion parents will produce a vareity of lion offspring. Tiger parents will produce a variety of tiger offspring, and so on and and so forth. That does not mean that any animal can turn into another animal because of the simple fact that not every animal can breed with other animals, nor can animals and humans interbreed. Thus one cannot be the descendant of the other. And that's where evolutionists go completely off the deep end.

Yes, we don't see tigers producing random other creatures. We do, however, have several instances of species that can breed with other creatures, which has been shown to you in detail in another thread. Interbreeding with other species is not necessary for evolution though. If you are asserting it, this would be another false claim against evolution.

We do see minor changes between parents and their offspring. You can actually tell from the bone structure of the skeleton alone whether a human was of african american descent. If you accept that minor changes can occur, why can you not accept that the changes can eventually amount to something that is worthy of reclassification?

We have seen dinosaurs that eventually grew feathers, and we are inclined to ask ourselves "Why is it unreasonable to think that certain ones eventually changed into birds?"

[quote:1b25c]
So all you've shown is that not only do I correctly understand what evolutionists claim, but I also understand why evolution is impossible and evolutionists do not.

No, you have blatantly disregarded what I said.

So you have made false claims when you claim that I don't understand evolution. The "Natural selection" theory is also false because the fit and the unfit always co-exist within each species. The unfit don't die any faster than the fit do. In addition, proliferation in breeding doesn't maintain superior offspring because all offspring are just as susceptible to accidents, disease and natural disasters as offspring from non-prolific parents are. As a matter of fact, abortion and homosexuality decrease the number of viable offsrping which thus reduces the number of humans in the human race. So the natural selection theory is just as false as the theory of evolution is.

I have not made false claims that you do not understand evolution. I have made true claims that you do not understand evolution. That must be the case, or you understand evolution and choose to misrepresent it.

Natural selection is the most obvious and intuitive thing around. Granted, we do find plenty of examples where an inferior version of a species is co-existing with a superior. This is irrelevant. Think of any situation where a certain trait in a species is pivotal for survival. The classic, of course, is the lion chasing two Gazelle. The Gazelle that is quicker due to biological superiority will be the more likely one to survive. Coincidentally, the dead one is given a lot less time and likelihood procreating. We actually see multiple species fight for breeding rights, and the "best" animal is always the one to pass on its traits. If this practice was not beneficial, the species would have died out.

Whenever you ask yourself why a certain species looks a certain way, it always seems to be somewhat useful for surviving in the environment. Coincidentally, we also see countless species that have died out in the fossil record that happened to not have adequate traits for survival. It is this blind driving force to survive that leads to changes that can eventually justify reclassification.

Funny you should mention disease. Due to the huge numbers involved, we can see evolution happen on a micro scale within our lifetime. We currently have superbugs being created due to the widespread use of antibiotics. Some strains of bacteria have adapted and become resistant to our efforts to destroy them. My father has seen people with this at the hospital where he works, and they must be quarantined until they either die or their immune system slowly fights it off until the adapted strain has been completely annihilated.

Your mention about homosexuality and abortion is a whole different discussion. Assuming that neither are beneficial to the human race, the practice will eventually die out. First of all, a human that practices abortion does not mean that they abort all of their children. Secondly, there are plenty of instances of homosexual men who still procreate at some point in their life. In either case, we really don't know enough about either practice yet to have a firm grasp of their absolute causes and their relationship to an evolutionist perspective. That truly is a separate debate, which I will happy to investigate with you in another thread.

You have also neglected to tell us what superior species humans will develop into; gods? :o Please explain that one also. ;-)

I don't know what humans will develop into. I can tell you one thing though. Their traits will probably work well with the environment of the future.


(edit: typo)[/quote:1b25c]

Again, what could happen is called science fiction. What does happen in reality is called science. What could happen is from the imagination which makes it imaginary. What does happen in reality is called science because it's based on reality. And humans breeding giraffes doesn't happen in reality so that's called science fiction because it comes from your imagination and thus makes your beliefs as imaginary as claiming that apes also bred human descendants. :

So as usual, atheists have it backwards; their beliefs are as imaginary as the flying spaghetti monster and the beliefs of Christians are based on what is witnessed in reality. But that's how Satan deceives the world into thinking that the truth is a lie and that a lie is the truth as the theory of evolution proves beautifully. ;-)

 

[Jayls5]

Again, what could happen is called science fiction. What does happen in reality is called science. What could happen is from the imagination which makes it imaginary. What does happen in reality is called science because it's based on reality. And humans breeding giraffes doesn't happen in reality so that's called science fiction because it comes from your imagination and thus makes your beliefs as imaginary as claiming that apes also bred human descendants. :

So as usual, atheists have it backwards; their beliefs are as imaginary as the flying spaghetti monster and the beliefs of Christians are based on what is witnessed in reality. But that's how Satan deceives the world into thinking that the truth is a lie and that a lie is the truth as the theory of evolution proves beautifully. ;-)

You asked me a hypothetical question about if something was POSSIBLE. I didn't see why it would be impossible given (UNREALISTIC) circumstances, but it was a ridiculous question in the first place. The chances of this happening are so insignificant, it was basically "no" but you asked if it was possible and I essentially said "why not, given perfect conditions." This doesn't mean that I subscribe to the view that giraffes are going to turn into humans.

So don't go making wild comparisons to atheists being pastafarians. That's an erroneous statement.

 

[Dunzo]

Again, what could happen is called science fiction. What does happen in reality is called science. What could happen is from the imagination which makes it imaginary. What does happen in reality is called science because it's based on reality. And humans breeding giraffes doesn't happen in reality so that's called science fiction because it comes from your imagination and thus makes your beliefs as imaginary as claiming that apes also bred human descendants. :

Way to disregard the majority of a very lengthy post there, Heidi. The truth is that evolution does happen in reality. It just does. You claim that humans don't breed giraffes - I absolutely agree. This does not damage the theory of evolution because it claims that no such thing has ever happened. It could happen, but doesn't, therefore your refutation of this argument is unnecessary and pretty much a straw-man anyway.

So as usual, atheists have it backwards; their beliefs are as imaginary as the flying spaghetti monster and the beliefs of Christians are based on what is witnessed in reality. But that's how Satan deceives the world into thinking that the truth is a lie and that a lie is the truth as the theory of evolution proves beautifully. ;-)

Christian beliefs are based off reality... Satan is deceiving the world.
I'm sorry but I don't see the connection between Satan and reality.

 

[Heidi]

Again, what could happen is called science fiction. What does happen in reality is called science. What could happen is from the imagination which makes it imaginary. What does happen in reality is called science because it's based on reality. And humans breeding giraffes doesn't happen in reality so that's called science fiction because it comes from your imagination and thus makes your beliefs as imaginary as claiming that apes also bred human descendants. :

So as usual, atheists have it backwards; their beliefs are as imaginary as the flying spaghetti monster and the beliefs of Christians are based on what is witnessed in reality. But that's how Satan deceives the world into thinking that the truth is a lie and that a lie is the truth as the theory of evolution proves beautifully. ;-)

You asked me a hypothetical question about if something was POSSIBLE. I didn't see why it would be impossible given (UNREALISTIC) circumstances, but it was a ridiculous question in the first place. The chances of this happening are so insignificant, it was basically "no" but you asked if it was possible and I essentially said "why not, given perfect conditions." This doesn't mean that I subscribe to the view that giraffes are going to turn into humans.

So don't go making wild comparisons to atheists being pastafarians. That's an erroneous statement.

No I didn't. I asked why don't humans breed giraffes as descendants in reality, which you did not answer. I didn't ask you if they could breed giraffes because that's asking you to use your imagination like evolutionists do when they try to figure out what could have happened before there were any witnesses. I'm asking you to explain why humans don't breed giraffes as descendants. Do you know why human don't breed giraffes? It doesn't appear so since you said that it was possible. :

So since you don't know why humans don't breed giraffes as descendants, then I can see why you don't know why apes can't breed humans as descendants. : Nevertheless, apes don't breed humans in reality and humans don't breed giraffes in reality regardless of whether you know that or not. ;-)

 

[Jayls5]

No I didn't. I asked why don't humans breed giraffes as descendants in reality, which you did not answer. I didn't ask you if they could breed giraffes because that's asking you to use your imagination like evolutionists do when they try to figure out what could have happened before there were any witnesses. I'm asking you to explain why humans don't breed giraffes as descendants. Do you know why human don't breed giraffes? It doesn't appear so since you said that it was possible. :

So since you don't know why humans don't breed giraffes as descendants, then I can see why you don't know why apes can't breed humans as descendants. : Nevertheless, apes don't breed humans in reality and humans don't breed giraffes in reality regardless of whether you know that or not. ;-)

OH! I assumed you meant if it was possible because asking why is fairly obvious if one understands the evolutionist perspective.

Given the giraffe's environment, that is currently the most effective size/shape of an animal that assists in survival. If their necks were shorter, they wouldn't be able to get the food in the trees far up. Thus, the ones that couldn't reach the food would be more likely to starve and not procreate. This is a simplified explanation, as it will involve multiple traits in multiple scenarios in their environment that will affect its ability to live and procreate. Basically, a giraffe doesn't (and hasn't) changed into a human because it isn't (and wasn't) a better adaptation for survival in their habitat.

The giraffe will continue to slowly change and adapt to its environment just like any other creature.