First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Humans = Apes
6904 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Örebro, Sweden.
Offline
Posted 4/20/09
I'm gonna answer that, with one simple sentence.
The chimp is able to live. Right?
You see, the life cycle is based on depending on eachother.
36195 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Cloud 9.
Offline
Posted 4/20/09

You just contradicted yourself twice.
You said that human beings are perfect from the beginning but now you're saying the unhealthy one's aren't perfect. Be more specific when you talk imo.

You just said that lifeforms aren't created by something that doesn't exist. Then you said You can't prove that God or Jesus exist. So since you can't prove the exist, then who are lifeforms created by? So you don't believe jesus created human?
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 4/20/09 , edited 4/20/09

Toby- wrote:

I'm gonna answer that, with one simple sentence.
The chimp is able to live. Right?
You see, the life cycle is based on depending on eachother.


But its not perfect because of the design flaws in its knees right ?. Any single design flaw causes a being to be imperfect, after all the definition of "flaw" is "An imperfection", thus even a single flaw would cause the being to be imperfect correct ? Really the only life that can be considered anything close to perfect is bacteria, they are designed simply and efficently, so if any "life" could be considered perfect it would the many species bacteria.
6904 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Örebro, Sweden.
Offline
Posted 4/20/09 , edited 4/20/09
Nono, I can't prove that he exists because he's not visible. Get your facts straight. Yes, there's a deeper meaning of that (you'd know exactly why humanity was perfect from the beginning if you had the same belief as me). I'm a christian, christians believe sin and imperfection was created by satan aka lucifer, the devil etc etc. Thus, sin and imperfection was created AFTER humanity was created.
You can't actually argue with a christian unless you know what I believe in, that's why people like you fail to prove me wrong, and overall, IMO, I don't think I'm wrong, but I wouldn't say I'm right either because I don't have any proof. Do I? And neither do you.

THIS IS ALL BASED ON BELIEF. How many times do I need to say that? I'm not an atheist, I'm a christian.
And yes indeed, I said that lifeforms can't be created by nothing. Although, is God nothing? Not according to me. He's not visible, but he's not nothing. I really shouldn't be speaking for the entire protestant christianity, because someone with more knowledge could probably come with better arguements than me.

Exactly for how long do you plan to keep me up?
This is a pointless arguement, just let it go. I believe this theory is wrong, perhaps you believe it's right. Again, humanity is unique, therefore, we think differently. I think that and that, and you think and believe in something different.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 4/20/09 , edited 4/20/09

Toby- wrote:

Nono, I can't prove that he exists because he's not visible. Get your facts straight. Yes, there's a deeper meaning of that (you'd know exactly why humanity was perfect from the beginning if you had the same belief as me). I'm a christian, christians believe sin and imperfection was created by satan aka lucifer, the devil etc etc. Thus, sin and imperfection was created AFTER humanity was created.
You can't actually argue with a christian unless you know what I believe in, that's why people like you fail to prove me wrong, and overall, IMO, I don't think I'm wrong, but I wouldn't say I'm right either because I don't have any proof. Do I? And neither do you.

THIS IS ALL BASED ON BELIEF. How many times do I need to say that? I'm not an atheist, I'm a christian.
And yes indeed, I said that lifeforms can't be created by nothing. Although, is God nothing? Not according to me. He's not visible, but he's not nothing. I really shouldn't be speaking for the entire protestant christianity, because someone with more knowledge could probably come with better arguements than me.

Exactly for how long do you plan to keep me up?
This is a pointless arguement, just let it go. I believe this theory is wrong, perhaps you believe it's right. Again, humanity is unique, therefore, we think differently. I think that and that, and you think and believe in something different.


We do have proof, its called scientific evidence, all you have is your faith, which holds absolutely no ground, i presented you with the proof that you are both an animal and classified as an ape, but you just deny the proof i gave you(which has scientific backing) because of your faith, but then again its typical of pretty much all christains to throw logic right out the window and ignorantly deny solid proof simply because in your mind you disagree based on some faith that makes virtually no sense what so ever and has no solid proof to actually prove anything they ever drone on and on about.
36195 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Cloud 9.
Offline
Posted 4/20/09

Toby- wrote:

Nono, I can't prove that he exists because he's not visible. Get your facts straight. Yes, there's a deeper meaning of that (you'd know exactly why humanity was perfect from the beginning if you had the same belief as me). I'm a christian, christians believe sin and imperfection was created by satan aka lucifer, the devil etc etc. Thus, sin and imperfection was created AFTER humanity was created.
You can't actually argue with a christian unless you know what I believe in, that's why people like you fail to prove me wrong, and overall, IMO, I don't think I'm wrong, but I wouldn't say I'm right either because I don't have any proof. Do I? And neither do you.

THIS IS ALL BASED ON BELIEF. How many times do I need to say that? I'm not an atheist, I'm a christian.
And yes indeed, I said that lifeforms can't be created by nothing. Although, is God nothing? Not according to me. He's not visible, but he's not nothing. I really shouldn't be speaking for the entire protestant christianity, because someone with more knowledge could probably come with better arguements than me.

Exactly for how long do you plan to keep me up?
This is a pointless arguement, just let it go. I believe this theory is wrong, perhaps you believe it's right. Again, humanity is unique, therefore, we think differently. I think that and that, and you think and believe in something different.


Still confused, you just said that imperfection was created after humanity was created, i know this. But you said previously that from the beginning humans were perfect. So... once again another contradiction. I'm not even attempting to prove you wrong, just pointing out your horrible faults in arguments. I didn't say i was right or wrong either, i'm merely showing you that you're contradicting yourself a lot and not making sense. I want to understand, but once again you fail. I need to talk to someone like Dig, he's the only person here that knows his shit.
6904 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Örebro, Sweden.
Offline
Posted 4/20/09 , edited 4/21/09
Hey. How about you bring me back in time, show me how monkeys evolved to humanity, then lets continue this arguement. You see, you can't prove me wrong because unless something has been seen by someones own eyes, it's a stated fact.

What you have tried to say is that just because we are alike an animal, we originally were animals.
It's like telling me this delicious sandwich with cheese, used to be a sandwich with ham.. just because the bread is the same. No, thoose sandwiches are different because there's a different addition to it.
68120 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 4/20/09

Allhailodin wrote:

For all of you people who for some reason seem to think that humans are not animals or that humans are "above" animals, well that's simply not true, and I'm tired of seeing retards who think that, so I'm going to prove that humans are animals and humans are not above animals for all of you people who seem to think that we aren't animals and we are above animals. And I'm also going to prove that we are also classified as apes.



Human Being :

Domain : Eukarya ---> Kingdom : Animilia ---> Phylum : Chordata ---> Class : Mammalia ---> Infraclass : Eutheria ---> Superorder : Euarchontoglires ---> Order : Primates ---> Suborder : Haplorrhini ( tarsiers, monekys and apes so yes we are classified as apes ) ---> Infraorder : Simiiformes ---> Parvorder : Catarrhini ---> Superfamily: Hominoidea ---> Family Hominidae ---> Subfamily : Homininae ---> Tribe : Hominini ---> Genus : Homo ---> Species : Homo sapiens sapiens.

And these are our closest relatives, the other members of the "Hominidae" family.

Chimpanzee :

Domain : Eukarya ---> Kingdom : Animilia ---> Phylum : Chordata ---> Class : Mammalia ---> Infraclass : Eutheria ---> Superorder : Euarchontoglires ---> Order : Primates ---> Suborder : Haplorrhini ( tarsiers, monekys and apes ) ---> Infraorder : Simiiformes ---> Parvorder : Catarrhini ---> Superfamily: Hominoidea ---> Family Hominidae ---> Subfamily : Homininae ---> Tribe : Hominini ---> Genus : Pan ---> Species : Pan troglodytes.

Gorilla :

Domain : Eukarya ---> Kingdom : Animilia ---> Phylum : Chordata ---> Class : Mammalia ---> Infraclass : Eutheria ---> Superorder : Euarchontoglires ---> Order : Primates ---> Suborder : Haplorrhini ( tarsiers, monekys and apes ) ---> Infraorder : Simiiformes ---> Parvorder : Catarrhini ---> Superfamily: Hominoidea ---> Family Hominidae ---> Subfamily : Homininae ---> Tribe : Gorillini ---> Genus : Gorilla ---> Species : Gorilla gorilla (western gorilla ).

Orangutans :

Domain : Eukarya ---> Kingdom : Animilia ---> Phylum : Chordata ---> Class : Mammalia ---> Infraclass : Eutheria ---> Superorder : Euarchontoglires ---> Order : Primates ---> Suborder : Haplorrhini ( tarsiers, monekys and apes ) ---> Infraorder : Simiiformes ---> Parvorder : Catarrhini ---> Superfamily: Hominoidea ---> Family Hominidae ---> Subfamily : Ponginae ---> Genus : Pongo ---> Species : Pongo pygmaeus.

So anyone who think that we are not animals is wrong.


You wrote two things.
1. Humans are animals
2. Humans are not above animals

First of all a human being an "animal" depends on how you define "animal". If an animal is something that lives breaths eats reproduces then yeah humans can be called animals. However, humans can not be classified in the same group as animals. you sound educated so let me ask you something. what is the factor that makes humans, humans and apes, apes?
36195 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Cloud 9.
Offline
Posted 4/20/09

Toby- wrote:

Hey. How about you bring me back in time, show me how monkeys involved to humanity, then lets continue this arguement. You see, you can't prove me I'm wrong because unless something has been seen by someones own eyes, it's a stated fact.

What you have tried to say is that just because we are alike an animal, we originally were animals.
It's like telling me this delicious sandwich with cheese, used to be a sandwich with ham.. just because the bread is the same. No, thoose sandwiches are different because there's a different addition to it.


That made my day, that was possibly the dumbest, most idiotic use of a metaphor i've ever read. Haha, good day kid. Hahaa.
6904 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Örebro, Sweden.
Offline
Posted 4/20/09 , edited 4/21/09

spensaur wrote:


Toby- wrote:

Nono, I can't prove that he exists because he's not visible. Get your facts straight. Yes, there's a deeper meaning of that (you'd know exactly why humanity was perfect from the beginning if you had the same belief as me). I'm a christian, christians believe sin and imperfection was created by satan aka lucifer, the devil etc etc. Thus, sin and imperfection was created AFTER humanity was created.
You can't actually argue with a christian unless you know what I believe in, that's why people like you fail to prove me wrong, and overall, IMO, I don't think I'm wrong, but I wouldn't say I'm right either because I don't have any proof. Do I? And neither do you.

THIS IS ALL BASED ON BELIEF. How many times do I need to say that? I'm not an atheist, I'm a christian.
And yes indeed, I said that lifeforms can't be created by nothing. Although, is God nothing? Not according to me. He's not visible, but he's not nothing. I really shouldn't be speaking for the entire protestant christianity, because someone with more knowledge could probably come with better arguements than me.

Exactly for how long do you plan to keep me up?
This is a pointless arguement, just let it go. I believe this theory is wrong, perhaps you believe it's right. Again, humanity is unique, therefore, we think differently. I think that and that, and you think and believe in something different.


Still confused, you just said that imperfection was created after humanity was created, i know this. But you said previously that from the beginning humans were perfect. So... once again another contradiction. I'm not even attempting to prove you wrong, just pointing out your horrible faults in arguments. I didn't say i was right or wrong either, i'm merely showing you that you're contradicting yourself a lot and not making sense. I want to understand, but once again you fail. I need to talk to someone like Dig, he's the only person here that knows his shit.


Oh dear, what is it that you don't understand? Imperfection is created by sin, you following? Humanity was not born with sin, sin/imperfection was born because of what we do. THUS IMPERFECTION WAS INTRODUCED AFTER THE BEGINNING. I'm not contradicting myself, you're just trying too hard in order to find a contradiction.

So, finally. Let me rewind it, a bit slower this time, and perhaps less confusing.
Humanity was born with perfection.
After certain things happened, imperfection and sin was born.
How am I contradicting myself?

You two are the ones continuing this discussion, not me. I already told you, all this is based on my opinion.

Simple metaphor or not, the point is what matters.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 4/20/09 , edited 4/20/09

AresSilver wrote:



First of all a human being an "animal" depends on how you define "animal". If an animal is something that lives breaths eats reproduces then yeah humans can be called animals. However, humans can not be classified in the same group as animals. you sound educated so let me ask you something. what is the factor that makes humans, humans and apes, apes?


I define "Animal" as anything within the "Kingdom Animila" ( aka humans ) which I assume would be a non-plant multi cellular lifeform made up of eukaryotic cells( again humans fall into this category ), however there may be other life forms i don't know about which are also classified as "animals"

I define "Great? Apes" as any member of the Hominidae family, So yes I would say that Great? Apes = Humans + Various other Hominidaes. So there really is no line between humans and apes, because humans are a member of the ape family so to speak.

So yes humans can be and are classified in the same group as "animals" to be more specific in the same group as "Hominids"
10694 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/20/09 , edited 4/20/09
humans are animals. humans are primates. lastly, humans are apes. we are very closely related to apes sharing as close to 98% of the same genetic sequence with certain species of apes. you have to have an extensive background in DNA sequencing and years of experience in the field of taxonomy to even begin drawing an effective argument against this.
37756 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / アメリカ
Offline
Posted 4/20/09
Humans are not apes in anyform and you are a dumbass to believe it. Our closest relative was actually a prehistoric mole type creature/
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 4/20/09

Toby- wrote:

Nono. That's a load of crap (IMO). There's a word refered to as UNIQUE. Humanity is UNIQUE. We are the superior lifeform. If humanity really would be the result of a evolution, wouldn't the present monkeys or whatever be human, right now, just like us. Get it? I'm a christian, I have my belief. I believe us humans were created by God. Not some big bang, PERFECTION IS NOT CREATED BY A RANDOM BOOM. I'm refering to all the organs, the way we breath, everything.

Man you can't go around stating that facts like theese, are the truth. It's like me telling you that everything in the bibel is truth, and that everyone should believe it.

This is my opinion, nothing in a discussion is wrong or right.



What is Evolution?

Evolution Defined and Explained: Evolution can be a difficult concept for people to come to terms with, especially if they do not have much experience with life sciences. Is evolution a fact or a theory? Does evolution explain the origin of life or not? These are important questions which people need to be able to understand and answer. Evolution is not a minor matter - it is, in fact, the cornerstone of all modern biology.



Evolution can be a confusing term because it is used in more than one way. Many people in the general population have developed an incorrect understanding of evolution for a number of reasons. One is the misinformation spread by creationists - by misrepresenting evolution, they may hope that it will be easier to get people to disregard it. Another is simple ignorance of the topic itself and the specific ways in which science uses certain terminology.

There is some confusion about evolution as a fact and evolution as a theory. Often you can find critics claiming that evolution is 'just a theory' rather than a fact, as if that were supposed to demonstrate that it shouldn't be given serious consideration. Such arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of both the nature of science and the nature of evolution.
In reality, evolution is both a fact and a theory.

To understand how it can be both, it is necessary to understand that evolution can be used in more than one way in biology. A common way to use the term evolution is simply to describe the change in the gene pool of a population over time; that this occurs is an indisputable fact. Such changes have been observed in the laboratory and in nature. Even most (although not all, unfortunately) creationists accept this aspect of evolution as a fact.

Another way the term evolution is used in biology is to refer to the idea of “common descent,” that all species alive today and which have ever existed descend from a single ancestor which existed at some time in the past. Obviously this process of descent has not been observed, but there exists so much overwhelming evidence supporting it that most scientists (and probably all scientists in the life sciences) consider it a fact as well.

So, what does it mean to say that evolution is also a theory? For scientists, evolutionary theory deals with how evolution occurs, not whether it occurs — this is an important distinction lost upon creationists. There are different theories of evolution which can contradict or compete with each other in various ways and there can be strong and sometimes quite acrimonious disagreement between evolutionary scientists regarding their ideas.


There is one particular aspect of evolution that needs to be given specific attention: the somewhat artificial distinction between what is called 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution', two terms often used by creationists in their attempts to critique evolution and evolutionary theory.
Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population — changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species. Examples of such microevolutionary changes would include a change in a species’ coloring or size.

Macroevolution, in contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.

You can frequently hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution — one common way to put it is to say that dogs may change to become bigger or smaller, but they never become cats. Therefore, microevolution may occur within the dog species, but macroevolution never will.

There are a few problems with these terms, especially in the manner that creationists use them. The first is quite simply that when scientists do use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they don’t use them in the same way as creationists. The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution Variabilität und Variation. However, they remain in relatively limited use today. You can find them in some texts, including biology texts, but in general most biologists simply don’t pay attention to them.

Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.

When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons — this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.

In other words, creationists are appropriating scientific terminology which has specific and limited meaning, but they are using it in a broader and incorrect manner. This is a serious but unsurprising error — creationists misuse scientific terminology on a regular basis.

A second problem with the creationist use of the terms microevolution and macroevolution is the fact that the definition of what constitutes a species is not consistently defined. This can complicate the boundaries which creationists claim exist between microevolution and macroevolution. After all, if one is going to claim that microevolution can never become macroevolution, it would be necessary to specify where the boundary is which supposedly cannot be crossed.

Conclusion:
Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanisms of operation and change in all genes are the same. If you find a creationist arguing that microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, simply ask them what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter — and listen to the silence.






For a good look at the Tree of life.
" http://www.dhushara.com/book/evol/trevol.jpg "





Ardipithecus ramidus = Australopithecus anamensis = Australopithecus afarensis = Homo habilis = Homo ergaster = Homo heidelbergensis = Homo sapiens.

As you can see Neanderthals split off at Homo Heidelbergenis becoming there own race.




-- Homo habilis (2.6 M BC - 1.9 M BC)
-- Homo erectus (1.9 M BC - 0.4 M BC)
-- Homo heidelbergensis (0.8 M BC - 0.2 M BC)

All species except Homo sapiens (modern humans) are extinct. Homo neanderthalensis, traditionally considered the last surviving relative, died out 24,000 years ago. Fact....!



This is the first Race to have the word Homo infront of the name.. Homo is greek for Human.






For a better understanding of Evolution facts and Theory one should look up the name Stephen Jay Gould who is the leading expert in explaining Science facts and theories.

6904 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Örebro, Sweden.
Offline
Posted 4/20/09
Not going to bother reading it since I've already read similar 'facts'..Means nothing to me.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.