Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Comments (Page 1,324)

Showing posts 26,461 - 26,480 of106,035
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27333
May 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
The question, as you have asked it, incorrectly presupposes that modern humans descend from only *one* of the archaic Homo sapiens populations. But genetics tells us that there was interbreeding between modern humans and both Neanderthals and Denisovans.
Also, you seem to ignore that the dividing line between various populations is always going to be fuzzy.
You're forgetting that if we can't provide a complete account of the entire history of life on Earth, step by step, mutation by mutation, organism by organism, for the full 4.5 billion years, up to and including abiogenesis and perhaps also the Big Bang, then any gaps of knowledge at all whatsoever mean that the whole of Darwinism is "suspect" and probably completely and utterly wrong and is only supported by the scientific community to continue the atheist evolutionist Darwinist paradigm?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27334
May 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Put it down. Leave the irony meters alone, argie.
Please now, I replaced your irony meter with an "outright stupidity" meter a long time ago. Funny how the two look the same so often.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27335
May 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Nerd wrote:
This isn't at all surprising, because they are a different species.
There is a difference in the gene which involves skull development.
This makes sense, because they are a different species.
Really? Since they reproduced with homosapiens.
The Nerd wrote:
Which actually supports the fact that Neanderthals are part of God's created "Animal Kinds" and have no real relation to Humans. In short, Neanderthals lack the "Image of God" whereas Humans have advance cognitive capabilities.
And what does God look like? Human whiteboy with a beard and wizard powers?

How do mere differences between neanderthals and humans support frakking GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC creationism, hm? I'd REALLY like to know how the scientific method works to support that one. Could you do that?

Please. Ignore evolution, it's already been thrown out, it's wrong, some super smart fundie somehow falsified it, and now the ball's in creationism's court. With the help of your neanderthal buddies and WITHOUT any reference at all to evolution at all whatsoever (since a theory must stand on its own after all) please show how neanderthals support Goddidit with magic. Thank you.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27336
May 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Nerd wrote:
<quoted text>
You say no here but your statement suggest that you are in agreement with me. Neanderthals and humans sharing a common ancestor would pretty much omit neanderthals from being the immediate predecessor to anatomically modern-day humans.
That's because you're WAY oversimplifying the concepts here.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27337
May 21, 2012
 
truth wrote:
Omg whites are ruining Africa? Uganda supplied food to feed the continent when the British had it as a colony. They left and 2 years later they were staving again killing each other off. My god woman they kill each other like its free. Let's not mention they can't invent or dig up iron they produce nothing but disease, war and of course millions of unwanted aids babies. They are starving but can't wait to pop more rats out and where is daddy. He is off tapering and killing and spreading his lovely aids. You should go live with these wonderful people. Really experience their proud cultures and study there great literature. Don't forget to marvel at the scientific and structural beauty they have worked so hard for. Then visit the wholesale slaughter places where the execute and torture kids. Actually make them kill their patents. These are proud and just people.
O hai! You're on the TOTALLY wrong thread. Please keep kittens healthy and happy and take it to the Rant Against Obama threads. Kthxbai!
1 post removed

Since: Apr 12

Somerville, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27339
May 21, 2012
 
The Nerd wrote:
<quoted text>
Because they were not humans. Having sex with some other species is a form of beastiality to me. It's been going on for tens of thousands of years and neanderthals would not be an exception.
<quoted text>
The genetic information tells a different story. There are a great number of difference within their genes which we can conclude that they are were indeed animals, it's even more apparent considering they have never possessed the advance cognitive abilities that modern day humans have. I've seen chimps make fire and they're not human either.
Neanderthal cranial capacity is thought to have been as large as that of modern humans, perhaps larger, indicating their brain size may have been comparable, or larger, as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2008/...

http://www.pnas.org/content/96/13/7117.long

Of course they were aniumals. So are we.

Since: Apr 12

Somerville, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27340
May 21, 2012
 
The Nerd wrote:
<quoted text>
So we can agree that they were not the immediate predecessors to anatomically modern day humans right?
More like cousins

Since: Apr 12

Somerville, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27341
May 21, 2012
 
The Nerd wrote:
<quoted text>
You say no here but your statement suggest that you are in agreement with me. Neanderthals and humans sharing a common ancestor would pretty much omit neanderthals from being the immediate predecessor to anatomically modern-day humans.
No one says that Nearderthals were immediate predecessors to modern humans. How can they be when we co-existed?
They were very much similar to us, and all evidence says that there was interbreeding between us. That means that they were very close to us genetically - probably a sub species. Cousins, metaphorically.

Since: May 12

Smyrna, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27342
May 21, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Since they reproduced with homosapiens.
Interesting. I shouldn't have to ask this question but I'm dying to know what problem do you have with that statement I made?
The Dude wrote:
How do mere differences between neanderthals and humans support frakking GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC creationism, hm?
I never made this claim.

Since: May 12

Smyrna, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27343
May 21, 2012
 
rpk58 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course they were aniumals. So are we.
How would you feel if I replace the word 'animals' with the word 'creatures'?

Since: May 12

Smyrna, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27344
May 21, 2012
 
rpk58 wrote:
<quoted text>No one says that Nearderthals were immediate predecessors to modern humans. How can they be when we co-existed?
They were very much similar to us, and all evidence says that there was interbreeding between us. That means that they were very close to us genetically - probably a sub species. Cousins, metaphorically.
I think you need to read my initial statement, which would explain why we are on the topic of neanderthals. Because based off your comment here I believe you jumped in the middle of this discussion thinking it's something in which it's not.
frank

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27345
May 21, 2012
 
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Social law? Funny, name one!
Exactly like I said, you are a coward refusing to be challenged. Be gone
Not just one, there are whole libraries on social laws, social law refers to the interaction of organisms with each other such as human beings :-)

Since: Sep 07

Canoga Park, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27346
May 21, 2012
 
The Nerd wrote:
<quoted text>
You say no here but your statement suggest that you are in agreement with me. Neanderthals and humans sharing a common ancestor would pretty much omit neanderthals from being the immediate predecessor to anatomically modern-day humans.
No one claims that Neanderthals are the immediate predecessor. Neanderthals were not in Africa when H. Sapiens arose.
frank

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27347
May 21, 2012
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/323...
As we dig up more, Neanderthals look less and less like brutish ape-men, and more like a different racial group of humans (the ‘all out of Africa’ theory has been shown to be impossible by several DNA studies). The latest reconstructions you see, like this Neanderthal child from Gibraltar, look more like modern humans with each re-modelling. Add to that that we know a lot of them had red hair…. I think the argument for them just being another version of human gets stronger.
http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.co...
They were different no doubt, but I have read from at least 3 different sources that from early to late , they see a clear progression in features becoming more human like.
And yes that was a reconstruction of a skull using the methods we have today, in forensic sculpting.
There is another example of this in the second link.
Surprisingly, DNA studies show that most humans have a touch of Neanderthal in them—at least 1 to 4 percent of a person's genetic makeup.

Since: Sep 07

Canoga Park, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27348
May 21, 2012
 
The Nerd wrote:
There is a difference in genes that correlates to cognitive development.Which actually supports the fact that Neanderthals are part of God's created "Animal Kinds" and have no real relation to Humans. In short, Neanderthals lack the "Image of God" whereas Humans have advance cognitive capabilities.
You've gone completely off the rails.

First, you can't discuss Neanderthals and use terms like "Animal Kinds". If you acknowledge that Neanderthals exist, then anything found in Genesis is mythology and had no bearing on the discussion.

Second, where do you get the idea that Neanderthals didn't have advance(d) cognitive capabilities?

Third, where do you get the idea that humans are the only things that do have such capabilities? How do you disprove that a whale as these abilities? Or an octopus?

Fourth, if man was created in "God's Image", you've got a lot of explaining to do about what God looks like and why.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27349
May 21, 2012
 
rpk58 wrote:
<quoted text>No one says that Nearderthals were immediate predecessors to modern humans. How can they be when we co-existed?
They were very much similar to us, and all evidence says that there was interbreeding between us. That means that they were very close to us genetically - probably a sub species. Cousins, metaphorically.
All indicators show they were not ones to tangle with up close and personal. They went after big game with spear in hand , and often got
hurt in the process. But I'm convinced we exterminated them, all indicators point to Sharpens being the warring tribes of numbers
poor neanderthal didn't stand a chance against hundreds when their groups were always no more than several dozen and mostly less.
But when I look at those reconstructions I believe they could pass as one of us now , at least until it opened it's mouth.
Yes then it's curious difference and unique oddity would give it away.

Since: May 12

Smyrna, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27350
May 21, 2012
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You've gone completely off the rails.
First, you can't discuss Neanderthals and use terms like "Animal Kinds". If you acknowledge that Neanderthals exist, then anything found in Genesis is mythology and had no bearing on the discussion.
How does Genesis contradict the existence of hominids?
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Second, where do you get the idea that Neanderthals didn't have advance(d) cognitive capabilities?
Where did you get the idea that they do? Based off certain scientific papers, we would could easily conclude that they didn't.

Researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany have documented species differences in the pattern of brain development after birth that are likely to contribute to cognitive differences between modern humans and Neanderthals.

Whether cognitive differences exist between modern humans and Neanderthals is the subject of contentious disputes in anthropology and archaeology. Because the brain size range of modern humans and Neanderthals overlap, many researchers previously assumed that the cognitive capabilities of these two species were similar. Among humans, however, the internal organization of the brain is more important for cognitive abilities than its absolute size is. The brain’s internal organization depends on the tempo and mode of brain development.

Discussions about the cognitive abilities of fossil humans usually focus on material culture (e.g. the complexity of the stone tool production process) and endocranial volumes. "The interpretation of the archaeological evidence remains controversial, and the brain-size ranges of Neanderthals and modern humans overlap," says Jean-Jacques Hublin, director of the Department of Human Evolution at the MPI-EVA in Leipzig where the research was conducted. Hublin adds, "our findings show how biological differences between modern humans and Neanderthals may be linked to behavioural differences inferred from the archaeological record."

http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx...
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Third, where do you get the idea that humans are the only things that do have such capabilities? How do you disprove that a whale as these abilities? Or an octopus?
How many whales or octopus's have you seen engage in abstract thought, create a musical symphony, plant flowers on a beautiful day, decorate homes to their specification, put in place on walls the beauty of thought provoking art. Create thought-provoking art, Engage in complex mathematics, make the choice by reason to go against "inherent personality" and "basic instincts". Be completely aware of mortality and reason what happens after one dies. How many whales have you seen engage in any of these complex cognitive abilities?
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Fourth, if man was created in "God's Image", you've got a lot of explaining to do about what God looks like and why.
Why can't God's Image be a non-physical representation?

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27351
May 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

john wrote:
darwinisom and hitlerisom are the same in one, both probacate one human over another , both , are corruped thinking and should be banned from human society, as they encourage bloodshed ,hate crimes . sectarianisom . once darwin is abolised and renounced as a hoax then all these political gangsters polpots, mao s hitlers, musolinies will be gone.....good riddance
So before Charles Darwin there was no bloodshed, no hate crimes, no political gangsters? You really need a history lesson.

BTW, Hitler committed all his crimes in the name of God, the Christian God. You should read more.

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27352
May 21, 2012
 
thewordofme wrote:
Well folks another religious fundamentalist wacko is predicting the end of the world as we know it (teotwawki).
Its going to be May 27th. this time...next Sunday.
Prepare yourself...for the laughter that will immediately ensue on Monday the 28th.
http://www.the-end.com/
Well... DARN! I was planning to attend Memorial Day Services this next Monday.

.....Do we still have time to have the cookout on Sunday though?

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27353
May 21, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You're forgetting that if we can't provide a complete account of the entire history of life on Earth, step by step, mutation by mutation, organism by organism, for the full 4.5 billion years, up to and including abiogenesis and perhaps also the Big Bang, then any gaps of knowledge at all whatsoever mean that the whole of Darwinism is "suspect" and probably completely and utterly wrong and is only supported by the scientific community to continue the atheist evolutionist Darwinist paradigm?
Now you've got it;)

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 26,461 - 26,480 of106,035
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••