Mr Spinkles
Mr
It seems strange that no one noticed these signs prior to the widespread acceptance of Darwin's theory...
-
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!
did we come from monkeys
- Thread starter jasonparker
- Start date
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Well some of us religious groups noticed. 
It wasn't put into a 'scientific theory' but we realized that all life was related to one another.
wa:do
It wasn't put into a 'scientific theory' but we realized that all life was related to one another.
wa:do
The
Gap Between Man and Monkeys
A recent analysis of the DNA of chimpanzees and orangutans, as well as of certain monkeys and macaques, has revealed that their genetic makeup is not as similar to mans as scientists once thought. "Large differences in DNA, not small ones, separate apes and monkeys from both humans and each other," says Britains New Scientist magazine. "There are large deletions and insertions sprinkled throughout the chromosome," explains Kelly Frazer of Perlegen Sciences, the California, U.S.A., company that did the analysis. New Scientist characterized the differences as a "yawning gap [that] divides monkeys and us."
M
Majikthise
Guest
What about the remains and cultural signatures showing inteligent thought between primates and the creation by god of Adam? Is all this faked? Australopithecines,Homo erectus,Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens(modern man) all documented through physical and cultural remains are concrete markers of human evolutionary history.So what as Adam created as racially?Asian,African,European,Spanish,Scandinavian, I would love to go on and on but there are too many.It would seem to me that creatinism is a VERY racist idea.
Is all this faked? Australopithecines,Homo erectus,Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens(modern man) all documented through physical and cultural remains are concrete markers of human evolutionary history.So what as Adam created as racially?Asian,African,European,Spanish,Scandinavian, I would love to go on and on but there are too many.It would seem to me that creatinism is a VERY racist idea.
M
Majikthise
Guest
I would also like to add (and apologize for not mentining it before) thatcreationism is also SEXIST!
Wait. Wait! I know the answer to this one. You say "God Did It" and then pretend that you've actually said something of value.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
sorry linwood, humans are closer to one another by far. Humans have about 1% difference ammong thier 'races'.
Chimps on the other hand differ more from one subspecies to another. Thier genetic divercity puts our to shame
of cource 'larger difference than previously thought" means 95% rather than 99%
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1999-11/AAft-Csag-031199.php
wa:do
Chimps on the other hand differ more from one subspecies to another. Thier genetic divercity puts our to shame
of cource 'larger difference than previously thought" means 95% rather than 99%
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1999-11/AAft-Csag-031199.php
wa:do
HelpMe said:
The terms almost and about are subjective ones. 75,000 is about 100,000, just as surely as 0.75 is Almost 1. Please understand what your write before writing it, it will help your seeming intellegence as well as help the rest of us come up with valid arguements to the contrary.
Piltdown man, discovered in 1912, was "the most notorious scientific fraud of the century," It was exposed as such in 1953 after scientific tests proved that far from being a missing link in some supposed evolutionary chain of human ascent, the skull was that of a modern man and the lower jaw belonged to an orangutan.
"Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man."Man, God and Magic (New York, 1961), Ivar Lissner, p. 304.
when the evidence for anything actually is flimsy or nonexistent, or based on outright deception, sooner or later the claim comes to nothing. This has proved to be the case with many past examples of presumed "ape-men.
What
about those "ape-men" depicted in schoolbooks, encyclopedias and museums?
"The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination. . . . Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the faceof these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men."The Biology of Race (New York, 1971), James C. King, pp. 135, 151.
"The vast majority of artists conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. . . . Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it."Science Digest, April 1981, p. 41.
"Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man."Man, God and Magic (New York, 1961), Ivar Lissner, p. 304.
when the evidence for anything actually is flimsy or nonexistent, or based on outright deception, sooner or later the claim comes to nothing. This has proved to be the case with many past examples of presumed "ape-men.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
So, what's your point, May? That Piltdown man was a hoax?
TVOR
TVOR
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Apparently, the news of the hoax is just now reaching some parts of the world. Thank God for the internet, and the open minds of those with a thirst for knowledge.truthseekingsoul said:
TVOR
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Actually Piltdown man was controvercial from the start. Unfortunatly the discoverer was a very famous and very well connected gentleman. He was also a victem of the hoaxer and this made it difficult to publically denounce the hoax for many years.
Piltdown was basically ignored by 'polite' science since the 30's, again the evidence at the time was not yet solid enough to offically denounce the find and the work of an otherwise very well respected man. (though the criket bat was a bit of a dead giveaway )
The American Museum of Natural History during this time got away with ducking the issue by saying that the Piltdown man was a 'mix of human and ape fossils' and thus a chimera and not a true species of hominid.
In 1949 the dating tecnique called the 'Flourine absorbsion test' proved what had been suspected from the begining, that Piltdown was indeed a fake. Both the cranium and the jaw were of recent origin, the skull dated to the middle ages or about 650 years ago. The Orangutan jaw from about 500 years ago.
It took until 1953 for the offical paper on the finds to be published and Piltdown finally put to rest 'offically'.
The thing Piltdown shows better than any other 'discovery' is that Science is willing to test itself and prove itself wrong when it is wrong. Had Piltdown been a holy relic it would still have adoration and followers to this day. Instead Piltdown was poked and prodded and put under scruteny from the begining untill it gave up its secrets.
Piltdown was proven a Hoax not by the laymen or the clergy, but by Science, by the very people that the hoaxes discovery served to potentally harm the most. Nevertheless the Scientific process and philosophy demanded that such a fraud be exposed for what it was.
Piltdown is the best example of the differnce between Science and 'Fundimentalist' Religion. IMHO
wa:do
Piltdown was basically ignored by 'polite' science since the 30's, again the evidence at the time was not yet solid enough to offically denounce the find and the work of an otherwise very well respected man. (though the criket bat was a bit of a dead giveaway
)The American Museum of Natural History during this time got away with ducking the issue by saying that the Piltdown man was a 'mix of human and ape fossils' and thus a chimera and not a true species of hominid.
In 1949 the dating tecnique called the 'Flourine absorbsion test' proved what had been suspected from the begining, that Piltdown was indeed a fake. Both the cranium and the jaw were of recent origin, the skull dated to the middle ages or about 650 years ago. The Orangutan jaw from about 500 years ago.
It took until 1953 for the offical paper on the finds to be published and Piltdown finally put to rest 'offically'.
The thing Piltdown shows better than any other 'discovery' is that Science is willing to test itself and prove itself wrong when it is wrong. Had Piltdown been a holy relic it would still have adoration and followers to this day. Instead Piltdown was poked and prodded and put under scruteny from the begining untill it gave up its secrets.
Piltdown was proven a Hoax not by the laymen or the clergy, but by Science, by the very people that the hoaxes discovery served to potentally harm the most. Nevertheless the Scientific process and philosophy demanded that such a fraud be exposed for what it was.
Piltdown is the best example of the differnce between Science and 'Fundimentalist' Religion. IMHO
wa:do
unfortunatly people are lead to believe that these various so called discoveries are true , no wonder the average person on the street is misled into thinking we came from apes when even school text books teach it as true .Ramapithecus--- reconstructed only from teeth and jaws without a known pelvis, limb bones,or skull .Obviously, a great deal of wishful thinking must have gone into such an effort to make the evidence say what it does not.
But when the evidence for anything actually is flimsy or nonexistent, or based on outright deception, sooner or later the claim comes to nothing. This has proved to be the case with many past examples of presumed "ape-men."
For instance, the book The Social Contract noted: "With one or two exceptions all competent investigators in this field now agree that the australopithecines . . . are actual human ancestors."The New York Times declared: "It was Australopithecus . . . that eventually evolved into Homo sapiens, or modern man." And in Man, Time, and Fossils Ruth Moore said: "By all the evidence men at last had met their long unknown, early ancestors." Emphatically she declared: "The evidence was overwhelming . . . the missing link had at long last been found. ( But no,they were wrong ,it is all trial and error , but the bible is proved true, we were created acording to our kind.)
But when the evidence for anything actually is flimsy or nonexistent, or based on outright deception, sooner or later the claim comes to nothing. This has proved to be the case with many past examples of presumed "ape-men."
For instance, the book The Social Contract noted: "With one or two exceptions all competent investigators in this field now agree that the australopithecines . . . are actual human ancestors."The New York Times declared: "It was Australopithecus . . . that eventually evolved into Homo sapiens, or modern man." And in Man, Time, and Fossils Ruth Moore said: "By all the evidence men at last had met their long unknown, early ancestors." Emphatically she declared: "The evidence was overwhelming . . . the missing link had at long last been found. ( But no,they were wrong ,it is all trial and error , but the bible is proved true, we were created acording to our kind.)