Ben Masada Posted February 20, 2014 #876 Share Posted February 20, 2014 You dont understand, all the mammals have the same organs as each other, whether whale or mouse. Really! All mammals? How do you explain our bodily reaction to any organ implanted on a human from a chimp? Things cannot be the way we wish they could just to prove a personal assertion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hideout Posted February 20, 2014 #877 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Really! All mammals? How do you explain our bodily reaction to any organ implanted on a human from a chimp? Things cannot be the way we wish they could just to prove a personal assertion. Seriously? Not even all humans can use each others organs, why the hell would we be able to use a chimp's? No one ever claimed this to be true. I believe you are trying to use a reductio ad absurdum argument here, and you are doing it wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenWolf Posted February 20, 2014 #878 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Please, have mercy! How about thousands of apes today with tales? How is it that they missed evolution? Easy, they "missed" because they still use(need) their tales. Some evolved to where they did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odin11 Posted February 20, 2014 #879 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Please, have mercy! How about thousands of apes today with tales? How is it that they missed evolution? Apes don't have tails. I think Nixon meant monkeys. Monkeys did not "miss evolution", its survival of the fittest which does not mean that the strongest survive, but that those that best fit their local environment survive. The thousands of monkeys today with tails still live in trees and still have need of their tails, so why do you think they should have evolved to have no tail like their cousins who moved to the ground? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted February 20, 2014 #880 Share Posted February 20, 2014 You are an expert at escaping all my questions without a logical answer. All the above, not to mean an offense, sound to me akin to verbal juggling that explains nothing. Instead of asking, "Who says matter could not have come into existence without cause" Means absolutely nothing if you don't provide me with the proper evidence that matter has come to exist without cause. Why don't you give me an example that matter is eternal or caused itself to exist? I don't think you understand what Logic implies. Besides, I just told you that my Creationism is based on Logic and not on faith. You turn and say, "Not logic based on a faith position." Who said any thing about Logic based on a faith position? I don't think you are reading me or understanding what you are reading. And for your question, "Who says matter could not have come into existence without cause" the answer is Logic. Logic says it. I think you should consult the dictionary about the definition of Logic. Logic only works when it is congruent,or used, with known facts. We know that matter can come into existence without an intelligent cause or design. We have no evidence at all that the creation of matter requires an intelligent designer. Thus your position is first based on faith/belief without evidence, to establish a premise, and then uses logic to arrive at a false conclusion because your premise is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted February 21, 2014 #881 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Seriously? Not even all humans can use each others organs, why the hell would we be able to use a chimp's? No one ever claimed this to be true. I believe you are trying to use a reductio ad absurdum argument here, and you are doing it wrong. I know that as far as I am aware, Medical Science has never tried the chimp for a transplant of an organ into a human being, but from the pig yes and there is more acceptance of the organ from the pig than many times from another human being but never from a chimp. The point here is to debate the claim that we descend from the chimp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted February 21, 2014 #882 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Easy, they "missed" because they still use(need) their tales. Some evolved to where they did not. In that case, evolution has been explained by means of mutations and adaptation. One adapts into a new situation when it no longer needs what it has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted February 21, 2014 #883 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Apes don't have tails. I think Nixon meant monkeys. Monkeys did not "miss evolution", its survival of the fittest which does not mean that the strongest survive, but that those that best fit their local environment survive. The thousands of monkeys today with tails still live in trees and still have need of their tails, so why do you think they should have evolved to have no tail like their cousins who moved to the ground? It is not I who think so but the believers of evolution of the species. We are not of the same specie with the apes. Evolution which comes by means of mutations and adaptation must be researched within the respective species and not from a specie into a different one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Masada Posted February 21, 2014 #884 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Logic only works when it is congruent,or used, with known facts. We know that matter can come into existence without an intelligent cause or design. We have no evidence at all that the creation of matter requires an intelligent designer. Thus your position is first based on faith/belief without evidence, to establish a premise, and then uses logic to arrive at a false conclusion because your premise is wrong. I have given you evidences in more than several occasions that matter requires a cause that has preceded it but you don't get it. On the other hand, there you go again with the same tune that, "We know that matter can come into existence without having been caused." Can you provide me with an example? How many times do I have to ask till you do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hideout Posted February 21, 2014 #885 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I know that as far as I am aware, Medical Science has never tried the chimp for a transplant of an organ into a human being, but from the pig yes and there is more acceptance of the organ from the pig than many times from another human being but never from a chimp. The point here is to debate the claim that we descend from the chimp. This may be (and most definitely is) a moot point in regards to your argument, but I just want to clear up this misconception. We did not descend from the chimp, we shared a common ancestor with him. In some sense we are cousins, far removed of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted February 21, 2014 Author #886 Share Posted February 21, 2014 There was a group of apes that left the tress in order to hunt for more food because either from rival apes or predators or the changing climate, so going around the Savanna you dont use your tail, as a tail is like a 3rd limb or arm. So the tail grows shorter and eventually vanish. The only great apes that in trees are orangatans. The others chimp and great ape live on the ground. Chimps hunt in trees when after monkeys, great apes sleep in trees. Otherwise, they live on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted February 21, 2014 Author #887 Share Posted February 21, 2014 This may be (and most definitely is) a moot point in regards to your argument, but I just want to clear up this misconception. We did not descend from the chimp, we shared a common ancestor with him. In some sense we are cousins, far removed of course. We didn't descend from this ape, it was that ape over there. Is that what you are saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hideout Posted February 21, 2014 #888 Share Posted February 21, 2014 We didn't descend from this ape, it was that ape over there. Is that what you are saying. No, I'm saying all modern animals are modern animals. And no modern animal evolved from another modern animal. The concept of a shared ancestor isn't that difficult. There was a creature, a long time ago, that multiple modern animals have in their lineage. Again, it was a moot point in the argument, I just wanted to clear up that no one is claiming we evolved from modern apes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted February 21, 2014 Author #889 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Right not this ape but that ape over there gotcha. Now that has been declared we can all be happy to be cousins to poo throwing chimps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hideout Posted February 21, 2014 #890 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Right not this ape but that ape over there gotcha. Now that has been declared we can all be happy to be cousins to poo throwing chimps. I'm not sure if you're misrepresenting what I say on purpose in order to bait me into something, or if you literally just don't understand the simple explanation I gave you. It's not "that ape over there" it's "that ape that existed many many many many many years ago". And honestly, 'ape' might not even be the correct terminology. Educate yourself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenWolf Posted February 21, 2014 #891 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Right not this ape but that ape over there gotcha. Now that has been declared we can all be happy to be cousins to poo throwing chimps. O.K. Mr. Garrison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted February 21, 2014 #892 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I have given you evidences in more than several occasions that matter requires a cause that has preceded it but you don't get it. On the other hand, there you go again with the same tune that, "We know that matter can come into existence without having been caused." Can you provide me with an example? How many times do I have to ask till you do it? I haven't seen any "evidence " that matter requires a "prior cause" and certainly not a sentient directed cause. Science, on the other hand, suggests it does not. The latest scientific evidence shows that the state of non existence is inherently or naturally unstable and that existence ( energy/matter) just pops into existence because of this instability. But, of course that is so beyond your own conceptual belief structure that you cannot accept the concept.Your mind insists that Some intelligent being must be the cause of existence. That is an illogical concept because it begs the questions "If so, then how did that being come into existence? What was its prior cause?" Then the only answer is, "Well it is different to everything else in the universe. It is god." That is not logic. It is magical thinking. Your mind creates a solution to a problem your mind has created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted February 22, 2014 Author #893 Share Posted February 22, 2014 (edited) I'm not sure if you're misrepresenting what I say on purpose in order to bait me into something, or if you literally just don't understand the simple explanation I gave you. It's not "that ape over there" it's "that ape that existed many many many many many years ago". And honestly, 'ape' might not even be the correct terminology. Educate yourself It doesnt matter when that ape over there lived. Just as long as it isn't this other ape over here. Either way it is/was an ape. Now prove it. Man is according to you descendent from a chimpanzee type ancestor. Problem is we can't find that animal in the fossil record. How many times has it been announced that we have found the missing link. Your side cannot even decide what to look for. An upright ape or one with a big brain. Both have been found together and sepperate in the fossils. The records have them intertwined through out it. I was not misrepresenting anything you said. I just !EFT out the time because it doesn,t matter. And yes ape is the right name for the direct ancestors of chimps and humans. Unless you want to go all the way back to monkey or maybe fish or single celled life? You have to draw a line someplace. As I have said I believe in micro evolution not macro evolution. I also believe that man does not evolve if we did why would eximos need to wear fur in the winter. They have been there long enough to sport their own warm coat. But no they wear the fur of other animals to stay warm. As for your brain washing site keep it. Edited February 22, 2014 by danielost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hideout Posted February 22, 2014 #894 Share Posted February 22, 2014 It doesnt matter when that ape over there lived. Just as long as it isn't this other ape over here. Either way it is/was an ape. Now prove it. My last reply provided a link to a page full of evidence. If you don't want to sort through it, or are incapable of sorting through it, that is not my problem. I'm not here to give you a biology lesson. If you're happier with your mythology, I suppose that's fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted February 22, 2014 Author #895 Share Posted February 22, 2014 I editred my last post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hideout Posted February 22, 2014 #896 Share Posted February 22, 2014 I give up. I direct you to a website, which is a compendium of evidence. A site which in detail answers your fossil record argument, and I believe (though I'm not certain) that there is an answer to the "micro v. macro" argument posted there as well. The TalkOrigins site is probably the best accumulation of evidence and answers online when it comes to evolution. At least to my knowledge. I give you this wealth of scientific documentation, and you dismiss it as a "brain washing site". That, sir, is pathetic. Without even giving it a glance you dismiss it as false, simply because it conflicts with your preconceived notions. If you desire to stay in ignorance, to refuse to accept scientific data, and keep believing your bronze age myths, then go right ahead. I'll no longer waste my time when it's obvious that any attempt I make at helping you to learn more will be met with nothing but dismissal of the facts. Reply if you want, but I wont return to this thread. I've absolutely no patience for those who are unwilling to entertain the possibility that they could be mistaken. The beauty of science comes from it's willingness to correct itself when it makes a mistake, and the necessity of correction, peer review, and refutation. Where as the odiousness of faith, is that once professed, it cannot suffer anything to the contrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbenol Posted February 22, 2014 #897 Share Posted February 22, 2014 I know that as far as I am aware, Medical Science has never tried the chimp for a transplant of an organ into a human being, http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3246856/ The first heart transplant in a human ever performed was by Hardy in 1964, using a chimpanzee heart, Now you know differently. but from the pig yes and there is more acceptance of the organ from the pig than many times from another human being but never from a chimp. The point here is to debate the claim that we descend from the chimp. There are ethical objections to using chimp donors. The other consideration is an organ of the right size. Most primates are too small,eg babboons. For these reasons, pigs are considered the best option. A five minute search can find you this information. Your argument is lazily based on false premises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted February 22, 2014 Author #898 Share Posted February 22, 2014 I give up. I direct you to a website, which is a compendium of evidence. A site which in detail answers your fossil record argument, and I believe (though I'm not certain) that there is an answer to the "micro v. macro" argument posted there as well. The TalkOrigins site is probably the best accumulation of evidence and answers online when it comes to evolution. At least to my knowledge. I give you this wealth of scientific documentation, and you dismiss it as a "brain washing site". That, sir, is pathetic. Without even giving it a glance you dismiss it as false, simply because it conflicts with your preconceived notions. If you desire to stay in ignorance, to refuse to accept scientific data, and keep believing your bronze age myths, then go right ahead. I'll no longer waste my time when it's obvious that any attempt I make at helping you to learn more will be met with nothing but dismissal of the facts. Reply if you want, but I wont return to this thread. I've absolutely no patience for those who are unwilling to entertain the possibility that they could be mistaken. The beauty of science comes from it's willingness to correct itself when it makes a mistake, and the necessity of correction, peer review, and refutation. Where as the odiousness of faith, is that once professed, it cannot suffer anything to the contrary. And this folks brings us back to the opening post of this thread. If you don't agree with evolutionists you must need more education or your just too dumb to understand evolution. I am niether . I watch every show I can on evolution, and read books on the subject. But, all I get is more questions and no real answers. It is always we think or we guess or this theory or that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbenol Posted February 22, 2014 #899 Share Posted February 22, 2014 And this folks brings us back to the opening post of this thread. If you don't agree with evolutionists you must need more education or your just too dumb to understand evolution. I am niether . I watch every show I can on evolution, and read books on the subject. But, all I get is more questions and no real answers. It is always we think or we guess or this theory or that one. If you are so well read on the subject, how is that almost every post you make on the matter contains gross basic errors? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odin11 Posted February 22, 2014 #900 Share Posted February 22, 2014 And this folks brings us back to the opening post of this thread. If you don't agree with evolutionists you must need more education or your just too dumb to understand evolution. I am niether . I watch every show I can on evolution, and read books on the subject. But, all I get is more questions and no real answers. It is always we think or we guess or this theory or that one. You've shown over and over that you don't really want answers to your questions. Your questions have been answered over and over, but all you do is ignore it, say you understand evolution (which you don't), leave for a while, then come back in a new topic with the same questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now