Earthling
David Henson
I have seen them. They are ape skulls. No human skulls. The assumption is then incorrectly made that there is some semblance of connection. There isn't.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Atheist Delusion
- Thread starter Earthling
- Start date
I have seen them. They are ape skulls. No human skulls. The assumption is then incorrectly made that there is some semblance of connection. There isn't.
Earthling
David Henson
Show me.
I don't recall if it is chimps or bonobos. Those are the closest, though.
On the contrary, there is a sequence going from a distinctly ape skull to an actual human skull in small increments. These increments are also dated to successive time periods.
Why do you think that the theory of evolution would say otherwise?
Audie
Veteran Member
I doubt our friend could consistently
distinguish between a reptile and a mammal
skull. But he knows all about the ape/
human skulls.
An honest person would just say he isnt
skilled in the art and cannot offer a meaningful
opinion.
A faker is someone who pretends.
But we all know that.
Audie
Veteran Member
You do know that he has repeatedly said
he does not want to know and has not
studied.
Speaking of that, creationists are quite
the study in cultural anthropology.
WalterTrull
Godfella
Aren't we all. I think more study is needed. I think our ability to rationalize is central.
Audie
Veteran Member
Sheesh, ya here ta argue, or what, ya swab!!
WalterTrull
Godfella
No, no. I find myself merely an amateur bandier in these parts. I do find the ability to swerve quickly is more useful than to stop on these skates.
Earthling
David Henson
That's the way I was taught in school and that's the way it has been presented to me in discussions such as these.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
So I gotta ask......how is it that you've spent so much time talking about evolution, yet you remain almost totally ignorant of its basics?
Well, then, perhaps you are relying on material that isn't so good. Evolutionary change happens over long periods of time (usually). It does NOT happen in an individual. It happens over generations, not over a lifetime. It works by small accumulations of change adding up to be large accumulations of change.
As an *analogy*, look at how languages have changed over time. At no point did 'Latin' morph suddenly into 'French'. No Latin speaker suddenly started to speak French. Each generation in the shift understood both their parents and their children. So the language didn't change so fast that those speaking noticed the changes. But still, the language changed over many generations. Now, the typical French speaker would not be able to understand Latin. They are different languages.
I'd point out that simultaneously, Spanish also formed from Latin by small changes accumulating over time. This is why both French and Spanish are called Latin or Romance languages: they have a common ancestral language. Both French and Spanish are languages in a common branch of human languages. Latin is *also* in that branch. So, French 'evolved' from a language in that branch into another language in that branch.
In this analogy, the 'branch' is analogous to the biological classification 'ape'. We can think of Latin being analogous to the ancestral ape and French as being analogous to humans. Spanish would be analogous to chimps. Just like French evolved out of the Latin language, which is in the same language family, humans evolved from an ancestral ape and are still classified as apes.
I hope this helps some.
Audie
Veteran Member
Wish he would, a slightly more intelligent / informed creo pov
would be more worthwhile.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Whenever I debate a subject, I at least make an effort to understand it so I don't come across as an uninformed idiot.
But maybe that's just me.
WalterTrull
Godfella
Ya know, from a theist point of view, I don't understand the metaphorical difference between creationism and evolutionism. The imagery could be seen as pretty much the same.
Audie
Veteran Member
Maybe you dont seek out and encourage
opportunities for people to ridicule you.
Peter 4 14 and all that rot.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I will simply answer the questions that were asked in the movie. If you then request a link to information that supports the answer, I will be happy to look some up for you.
To keep it from getting impossibe to follow, ask one question at a time.
I not only don’t mind questions, I think they are necessary. I am not an authority on any of this stuff.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I would advise caution. In another thread I said that God did not have to be mentioned and tried to explain to him how the Adam and Eve myth is not thought to be necessary to Christianity by quite a few if not most Christians and he could not understand that and took it as "mentioning God" when we had not even started. He appears to be another Christian that conflates his personal version of Christianity with the only possible version of Christianity. In other words proving him wrong "disproves God" which of course only extreme literalists seem to believe.
If you demonstrate that the Adam and Eve story is a myth he may take that as "mentioning God".
FlyingTeaPot
Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
I thought we were talking about how science is just made up.