Creation vs. Evolution

[gary-ramey]

Although, scholarly opinion is that the Jesus of the NT is not historical.

You guys often get made when unscientific folks make scientific observations but have no problem consulting left wing atheistic professors on the existence of Jesus without consulting any religious scholars.

 

[gary-ramey]

Marvel, thanks for pointing out that I omitted the forward slash, it certainly wouldn't help the quote challenged to follow the instructions as I mistyped them.

And my name is shoredivr, not shordivr.....you can see how easy it is to misquote if typing in a hurry or not proofing....

I've found the interface on this forum difficult to work with. If you hit quote, you don't get your original post. I think this is by design. But without context, arguments get lost. I simply highlight, cut, paste and quote into the post. I've been lazy to fix the editing piece.

 

[gary-ramey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ce4jesus
Chimps are chimps. I've seen the same charts. Many of your missing links are very sketchy based on a few pieces of bone. Complete skulls are non-existant.

A complete fabrication on your part. Complete skeletons, including skulls, have been found for most of our direct descendants. By complete I mean enough of the left/right sides have been found to reconstruct an entier skeleton (we are bilaterally symmetrical, after all).

Unless of course we had an ancestor who evolved with 1 leg. We could call him pogoman. By complete, I mean whole when found. I've seen some of the erector images and I see some apes and I see some humans just at cursory examination.

 

[wRick]

ce4jesus,

What's your problem with the brontosaurus? Are you denying its existence simply because its correct name is apatosaurus?

 

[gary-ramey]

doubt, if shown an image, you'd be able to tell the two apart. As a joke, a former colleague of mine (a radiologist) used to mix images of human and ape skeletons in his lectures to other MD's - in the 30-odd years he taught he only got called on it once. There are very few differences, aside from size, between chimp and human skeletons. The only notable difference is in the size of the brain case, and in the shape of the frontal bones of the skull.

In fact, its the relative similarity of the skeletons, along with the genetic sequencing, that has led many researchers to propose that humans and chimps belong to the same genus; rather than the genuses of pan and homo. To quote Richard Dawkins, in "The Dragons of Eden" "humans are little more than tall, hairless chimpanzees".

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2370/2198720736_8cc5abc506.jpg?v=0

That's because there's a tremendous amount of diversity in human skull shapes. I've got a friend whose head would be perfectly at home in the million year lineup. Big eye brow ridge (looks abnormal) along with a sloping forehead. His nickname is cromag.

Guess who this is



and a sketch of a modern man

 

[gary-ramey]

ce4jesus,

What's your problem with the brontosaurus? Are you denying its existence simply because its correct name is apatosaurus?

Bontosaurus was the body of an apatosaurus with the head of another dino attached. I've detailed the problem with it.

 

[Warthaug]

Unless of course we had an ancestor who evolved with 1 leg.

That would require the breaking of left/right symmetry,which would be one hell of a big evolutionary jump. You'd see a bit more than just one leg.

At the end of the day our right and left halves are the same - you only need one of those halves to generate the entire skeleton.

We could call him pogoman. By complete, I mean whole when found. I've seen some of the erector images and I see some apes and I see some humans just at cursory examination.

But that's the whole point - all you've done is a cursory examination. The people who do this stuff for a living do a bit more then that - rather, they do extremely detailed analysis, including (recently) computer reconstructions that allow for, among other things, determining resting posture, range of motion, CG and so forth.


Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2370/2198720736_8cc5abc506.jpg?v=0

That's because there's a tremendous amount of diversity in human skull shapes.

I'm not too sure exactly to what you are referring to here. If you're referring to the difficulty in differentiating between chimp and human skeletons, then aren't you just shooting yourself in the foot?

I've got a friend whose head would be perfectly at home in the million year lineup. Big eye brow ridge (looks abnormal) along with a sloping forehead. His nickname is cromag.

Guess who this is

Easy, its a juvenile chimp.

and a sketch of a modern man

How about a side-by-side:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c153/Borodog/chimp-vs-human.jpg

Notice the difference - the baby chimp is much more human-like than the adult chimp. There is a whole host of hypothesis as to how we changed, and one is a reduction in the maturation of the jaw bone and associated facia.

Bryan

Bryan

 

[gary-ramey]

In posting these it shows me how simliar the skulls are, and how someone when looking at an ancient beat up fossil could be fooled. If that baby chimp skull were unearthed in an old rock structure I'm certain it would have been given biped status.

 

[deco_martini]

You guys often get made when unscientific folks make scientific observations but have no problem consulting left wing atheistic professors on the existence of Jesus without consulting any religious scholars.

Yes, its the left wing atheist professors studing the original fragments of greek and hebrew making up the bible. Its the left wing atheist professors at the dig sites trying to verify biblical history.

What you don't realize and which I have mentioned several times is that much of this work comes from the scholarly believers. They are the ones who dated the biblical gospels as being written by much later than the time of Christ and thus not being historical accounts.

There is the difference between the historical Jesus being true and the accounts of Jesus not being historical. The latter being true does not mean the former is not.

You need to stop being so combative about these things and trying to draw battle lines where they don't exist.

I also resent the implication that somehow non-believers are left wingers by default. Have you ever heard of Penn and Teller? Two of the highest profile non-believers on TV?