“Headless Body in Topless Bar”

Since: Sep 07

Hygiene, Colorado

#621089 May 3, 2013
christianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
in the. mind maybe,
or have you seen any humans being iput into cages by apes?
LOL
Here:



Get your filthy paws off me, you damn, dirty ape!

That's also what every women should say to your average, insane Topix Christian.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#621090 May 3, 2013
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>

karl, you've been made worthy through the blood of Jesus!
well thanks

wish I could say something nice about you in return.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621091 May 3, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
I mean transitional fossils that prove that one animal changed into another. We wont find any but evolutionists are convinced that we don't need to find any in order to prove evolution as a fact without doubt. Now every species that we see that has evolved has not made a transition from another kind of animal but has evolved after its own kind with no new information added because whatever info that was unlocked was already there. Scientists have never found anything in the fossil record that suggests that "a dog came from a cat", "an elephant came from a mouse", or that "a turtle came from a fish", so to speak. What we observe is that every animal evolved after its own kind and not from (what scientists try to suggest as a fact) one common ancestor. We observe that each "new" animal introduced is the same exact "kind" of animal as before with no new information added but unlocked as a means of adaptation to the changing environment. This suggests that scripture holds an accurate account of the animals reproducing after their OWN KIND. Evolution seems to be missing this observable fact or just ignoring it.
Try paragraphs please.

You are really off base here. I think that you conceptualize evolution as one species giving birth out of whole cloth to an entirely new species - a cat birthing a dog, a mouse birthing an elephant, etc. That's not how it works. Slow, incremental changes add up over time. Simple as that.

And the evidence for common descent is overwhelming. Why else would we share much of our DNA with bananas?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621092 May 3, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya know, that's the same for when people want evidence of God. We want something in stone. Anyway, U mentioned that the ape's brain size increased with each transition but if that is so then why did man's brain size decrease from its last so-called transition? Why?!
You mean neanderthals? We did not descend directly from them. They were a part of the genus homo, but not our direct ancestor. We did interbreed, though.

And even if they were our direct ancestor, I don't see your point. So what if thr brain size decreased? You can't conceptualize evolution as striving "toward" anything other than survival. Humans were not it's "goal."

You have plenty of transitional fossils that would be clear evidence to any impartial observer. That's why you don't find many atheist evolution deniers, because we don't believe our salvation depends on denying it.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621093 May 3, 2013
Greens - tuf wrote:
<quoted text>
And the strength, where did the strength go?.
We would be no chance against a big ape in a arm wrestle.
If we are a better newer product then where is the strength ??
Lol
Sigh.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#621094 May 3, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>A human against most animals would lose BIG time were it not for our man made weapons, restraints, etc.
In the meantime, wild animals need no artificial weapons or tools of any kind to kill a human being.
Not sure since we humans do need accoutrement that we are "superior".
I'm thinking not so much.
The evolutionary trade-off teeth and jaws for brains , claws for highly articulated thumbs. Worked really well for the master of apex predators.



The other animals aren't in the ballpark, much less the same league.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621095 May 3, 2013
Jorge W Arbusto wrote:
<quoted text>That's not what he wrote. Your dishonesty is palpable.
Formulated by whom to be 6200 years old?
Are you cognizant that dogs were domesticated over 33,000 years ago? Are you postulating that we could have reached our current population in 6200 years from a pair of naked teenagers (good thing Adam didn't find the sheep sexy), especially in light of a maniacal, genocidal, world-wide flood where babies and fetuses were drowned in some failed attempt to fix an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent's mistake.
Your god is nothing more than a lousy, torturing middle manager. Welcome to YahwehMart.
Seriously. We start with 2 people 6k years ago, god calls for a mulligan and gets a do over halfway through, and then poof, 7 billion people.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#621096 May 3, 2013
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>perhaps you can answer an age old riddle:

how is it that humanist/socialist/atheists consistantly make such vicious judgements such as "you are unworthy", but claim in the same breath that Christians are the one's saying such things???

karl, you've been made worthy through the blood of Jesus!
I've never seen or heard of any atheist claiming anybody was unworthy, whatever that means.

Maybe unworthy of scientific respect.

That would be true of many.

Got any examples, or did you just make that up.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#621097 May 3, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Many things I could expound on. The ever increasing brain size found in our recent ancestors. Feet that go from being well adapted to climbing to being well adapted to walking upright. Go look at an artist's rendering of homo habilis, then homo ergaster, then homo eructus, then read up on them. Wiki can teach you a lot more than me. There is a clear progression from "ape like" to "human like." Even eructus, which is clearly on the "human like" side of the scale, displays a wide pelvis that is not quite suited to bipedalism.
I think the issue is that when people say "transitional fossil," they want some set in stone, clear 50/50 mix of two different species. That's not how it works. Small changes happen over time - it's not like one day a monkey woke up with a big brain, then the next day it woke up as a modern human.
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Many things I could expound on. The ever increasing brain size found in our recent ancestors. Feet that go from being well adapted to climbing to being well adapted to walking upright. Go look at an artist's rendering of homo habilis, then homo ergaster, then homo eructus, then read up on them. Wiki can teach you a lot more than me. There is a clear progression from "ape like" to "human like." Even eructus, which is clearly on the "human like" side of the scale, displays a wide pelvis that is not quite suited to bipedalism.
I think the issue is that when people say "transitional fossil," they want some set in stone, clear 50/50 mix of two different species. That's not how it works. Small changes happen over time - it's not like one day a monkey woke up with a big brain, then the next day it woke up as a modern human.
Oh, I'll agree, your "average creationist" as you put it...yeah...they're looking for Pegasus...definitely. But here's why. If the theory were true...even on a scale of small changes over time, there would have to be fossils that depict that middle ground...you know...that area where the full evolvement hadn't yet occurred. I have no problem with small changes over time...as I believe they do indeed occur. But the idea that man evolved from an ape...no...I disagree. Well known scientists and medical authorities have studied and documented that the first Neaderthal skulls shows signs of severe rickets...a deficiency disease characterized by defective bone growth, so to assume these fossils are transitional forms because the size, formation, etc... is uncommon, s really stretching. The distinctive difference may be a malformation and not a specific species or change at all...its more probable that it was a deformed skull. I mean if there were multitudes of them and they could be found all over the world, it'd be much easier to swallow, but that simply isn't the case. Look at Java Man...Dubois finds a few skulls which may or may not be apes, gibbons, whatever...then finds a human femur some 50 ft or so nearby and assumes the bones all belong together, then decides its a missing link, and names it Java Man. Dubois later recants his own find, but without it, science has a huge missing link...so the scientific world refuses to believe what the very man who discovered the ape told us. It is not the link. It was most likely a gibbon. Bottom line is...what science calls transitional fossils is mere guess work. I would imagine if a whole species had evolved it would be a little easier to find more than a few isolated fossils.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#621098 May 3, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never seen or heard of any atheist claiming anybody was unworthy, whatever that means.
Maybe unworthy of scientific respect.
That would be true of many.
Got any examples, or did you just make that up.
Are you scraping the bottom of the barrel for a sane reason?

And....do you expect a reasonable answer?

Just messing with ya, Hello Arrow..:)

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#621099 May 3, 2013
Jorge W Arbusto wrote:
<quoted text>That is so unintentionally funny. "Scientific hoo hah!" Huzzah! You cling to a dusty tome written by people with less knowledge than even the least educated today and you call it scientific hoo hah. Of course you get turned upside down. You're already off balance.
Several posters have pointed to transitions. I would wager that you were all three monkey in the see no evil statue at once.
Actually, Jorge, I WAS being intentionally silly...as I do like to keep the debates and conversation somewhat light. I'm not really into the whole...creationist hates atheist club that goes on in this forum. Personally, I have a world of respect for science, scientist, and many of the atheist posters on this site. Just because I don't necessarily agree doesn't, however, make me average and certainly doesn't warrant being called a monkey. I do find it interesting that you see those who wrote ancient writings to lack knowledge though. I will guarantee their knowledge of what was occurring thousands of years ago is far better than yours...I mean since they were alive and you weren't and all. But it's all good. If it helps you sleep at night to call those ancient men who built pyramids with their bare hands,, dimwits, well by all means...have at it.:). I think they were pretty darn intelligent myself.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#621100 May 3, 2013
Jorge W Arbusto wrote:
Topix does a huge service. It provides a home for the crazy Christian to keep them off the streets. The Topix Christian Insane Asylum is open for business.
And yet here you are...right square in the middle of the asylum, posting like a mad man...what's that say about you?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621101 May 3, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Oh, I'll agree, your "average creationist" as you put it...yeah...they're looking for Pegasus...definitely. But here's why. If the theory were true...even on a scale of small changes over time, there would have to be fossils that depict that middle ground...you know...that area where the full evolvement hadn't yet occurred. I have no problem with small changes over time...as I believe they do indeed occur. But the idea that man evolved from an ape...no...I disagree. Well known scientists and medical authorities have studied and documented that the first Neaderthal skulls shows signs of severe rickets...a deficiency disease characterized by defective bone growth, so to assume these fossils are transitional forms because the size, formation, etc... is uncommon, s really stretching. The distinctive difference may be a malformation and not a specific species or change at all...its more probable that it was a deformed skull. I mean if there were multitudes of them and they could be found all over the world, it'd be much easier to swallow, but that simply isn't the case. Look at Java Man...Dubois finds a few skulls which may or may not be apes, gibbons, whatever...then finds a human femur some 50 ft or so nearby and assumes the bones all belong together, then decides its a missing link, and names it Java Man. Dubois later recants his own find, but without it, science has a huge missing link...so the scientific world refuses to believe what the very man who discovered the ape told us. It is not the link. It was most likely a gibbon. Bottom line is...what science calls transitional fossils is mere guess work. I would imagine if a whole species had evolved it would be a little easier to find more than a few isolated fossils.
There's no such thing as "full evolvement." That's my point, there is no "in between" that can be definitively pointed to, because everything is a transitional fossil. However, when comparing early hominids to modern humans there is a clear progression.

Neanderthals aren't even one of our ancestors, just part of the genus homo.

Malformation? How would that account for similar characteristics found in seperate specimens across many different hominids? You're telling me that every single hominid specimen we have found, regardless of the species, have all shared the same exact bone deformation?

Your "java man" story is a mischaracterization of what happened. You are right that the femur and the teeth probably did not go with the skull, but he never recanted his find. He said it belonged to a "genus allied with the gibbon." Note that does not mean it was a gibbon. The skull is much too large to be an ape, although it still does retain some ape like characteristics. How is that not a transitional fossil?

Ignoring the fact that your conception of the "java man" is wrong, I will grant you that fossils are not an exact science, and that mistakes can and do happen because of the massive time scales involved. However, even if we had never discovered a single fossil, the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelming. The evidence from genetics alone is undeniable.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621102 May 3, 2013
Let's go with one of the most common pieces of evidence for evolution: humans have 23 chromosomes, and chimps have 24. Strange, right? Shouldn't we also have 24 chromosomes if we both descended from a common ancestor? But when you examine the genome, you find that there is clear evidence of two "ancestral" chromosomes fusing into one chromosome, which is why we have one less than our closest cousins. Human chromosome 2 contains vestegial telomeres and there is a vestigal centromere. The telomeres are in the middle where the centromere should be, and there is a centromere on either side of the vestigal telomeres. Additionally, the DNA of both "sides" of the chromosome correspond almost exactly to the corresponding chimp chromosomes that appear to have fused into human chromosome 2.

Since: Jan 12

Memphis, TN

#621103 May 3, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Try paragraphs please.
You are really off base here. I think that you conceptualize evolution as one species giving birth out of whole cloth to an entirely new species - a cat birthing a dog, a mouse birthing an elephant, etc. That's not how it works. Slow, incremental changes add up over time. Simple as that.
And the evidence for common descent is overwhelming. Why else would we share much of our DNA with bananas?
Yea, I understand that evolution requires time. I'm simply stating that the fossil record does not support life evolving from a common ancestor. Each fossil found is unique to its own kind no matter if it's a bird, mammal, fish, etc. Nothing is found to suggest any kind of cross-over from one common ancestor to another species to another species and so on. Why evolutionists believe otherwise is beyond science itself. The fossil record proves evolution to contain many major holes.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621104 May 3, 2013
DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea, I understand that evolution requires time. I'm simply stating that the fossil record does not support life evolving from a common ancestor. Each fossil found is unique to its own kind no matter if it's a bird, mammal, fish, etc. Nothing is found to suggest any kind of cross-over from one common ancestor to another species to another species and so on. Why evolutionists believe otherwise is beyond science itself. The fossil record proves evolution to contain many major holes.
Except for, you know, all the fossils we have that appear to be "in between" different "kinds." Archaeopteryx being one of the more prominent examples. There are many others. And again, even if we had never found a single fossil, the evidence for evolution would still be undeniable. Our knowledge of dna is all we need to prove common descent. Again, it is why we share dna with a banana.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621105 May 3, 2013
Nvm. I forgot. Your god put our glorious human dna into the lowly banana to mess with us. Those who fall for it go to hell! Haha! He sure is a jokester, that yaweh.

Since: Jan 12

Memphis, TN

#621106 May 3, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>You mean neanderthals? We did not descend directly from them. They were a part of the genus homo, but not our direct ancestor. We did interbreed, though.
And even if they were our direct ancestor, I don't see your point. So what if thr brain size decreased? You can't conceptualize evolution as striving "toward" anything other than survival. Humans were not it's "goal."
You have plenty of transitional fossils that would be clear evidence to any impartial observer. That's why you don't find many atheist evolution deniers, because we don't believe our salvation depends on denying it.
Neanderthal? Naw. So let me ask, how many million more years would U say that it would take for sea gulls to develop gills for oxygen for diving for food? If evolution is true then this must happen. Why not? What further evolution should man go through? If intelligence isn't necessary then how could so-called non-intelligence decide at what stage which species is fit for the environment? Evolution says it just happens. If rats began to walk upright would they become more intelligent over millions of years?

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#621107 May 3, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>There's no such thing as "full evolvement." That's my point, there is no "in between" that can be definitively pointed to, because everything is a transitional fossil. However, when comparing early hominids to modern humans there is a clear progression.
Okay...let me clarify, not full evolvement...but from point A to present...but I disagree...not everything is a transitional fossil...EVERYTHING is a BIG word. Lol..just being picky for the sake of argument...
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Neanderthals aren't even one of our ancestors, just part of the genus homo.
Okay, so they aren't our ancestors. I concur. I was using the Neanderthal example because science sees the skulls of the Neanderthal as not only a transitional fossil but one of the many missing links. Take the Neanderthal fossils, who is not our ancestor, totally out of the picture, and how does that effect the scientic theory of evolution as it relates to mankind?
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>
Malformation? How would that account for similar characteristics found in seperate specimens across many different hominids? You're telling me that every single hominid specimen we have found, regardless of the species, have all shared the same exact bone deformation?
No that is not what I'm telling you at all. I'm talking about one discovery. If Dubois' discovery doesn't hold water, and we really can't definitively say it does because rickets may have accounted for the shape and size of the skulls...So let's, for the sake of argument remove those transitional fossils from history and what does that do for the theory as a whole? Similar characteristics means nothing to me. Humans share similar characteristics with countless other species...that doesn't mean we evolved from them or they evolved from us.
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your "java man" story is a mischaracterization of what happened. You are right that the femur and the teeth probably did not go with the skull, but he never recanted his find. He said it belonged to a "genus allied with the gibbon." Note that does not mean it was a gibbon. The skull is much too large to be an ape, although it still does retain some ape like characteristics. How is that not a transitional fossil?
Oh it could well be a transitional fossil...but there is absolutely no truth or definitive evidence to factually state that it a transitional fossil from ape to man, which is exactly what science wants us to believe. He said it belonged to a genus allied with a gibbon...to assume this is a missing link between ape and man, again is a stretch, but science throws that discovery right in the mix, because they need it to fill a gap.
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ignoring the fact that your conception of the "java man" is wrong, I will grant you that fossils are not an exact science, and that mistakes can and do happen because of the massive time scales involved. However, even if we had never discovered a single fossil, the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelming. The evidence from genetics alone is undeniable.
It isn't just MY conception on Java Man...there is widespread controversy regarding Dubois' find in Java. For Pete's sake! Dubois didn't even have formal training in geology or paleontology. He wasn't even qualified to determine the date and location of geological deposits in Java. After finding "java man" he changed the date to Tertiary to support the claim that the specimen was primitive. I think it's fairly safe to question any of his work on Java man. Also, I don't dispute evolution...I am disputing the Darwinian theory of the evolution of man...there is a significant difference.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#621108 May 3, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
Okay...let me clarify, not full evolvement...but from point A to present...but I disagree...not everything is a transitional fossil...EVERYTHING is a BIG word. Lol..just being picky for the sake of argument...
Every fossil is a transitional fossil.

We meow a lot meow about evolution meow.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
how long after taking the Vivitrol shot can i f... (Nov '12) 1 min betweenthetides 92
There is Everything Wrong with Abortion (Nov '07) 2 min Grunt56 221,791
Why Iím no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 2 min ChristineM 442,634
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min June VanDerMark 583,233
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 3 min Pegasus 270,582
Why do white men hate white women who want blac... (May '11) 15 min Brian 2,983
Poll Which is the Best SAP ABAP institute in hyderab... (Nov '12) 17 min KISHORE 32
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 39 min lisw 176,434
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 hr trifecta1 611,792
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 7 hr robertxiong 98,926
More from around the web