Kansas School Boards Approves "Intelligent Design" Theory in Science Textbooks

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
A single quote from a 1970's Time article that even though taken out of context, really does nothing to support that H. neanderthalensis were just diseased humans?

Since I found the same statement verbatim on this "creation science" website:
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/emnh.htm
I'm assuming that's where you found it. You should note that the statement you highlighted is not a quote from Time Magazine. It is a statement from "the Creation Science homepage."
Again this quote provides nothing in support of Virchow's "H. neanderthalensis are humans with rickets."

You should really stop using outdated information based on a man's statement made upon incomplete information over a century ago. If you want to maintain some semblance of credibility, I suggest perhaps you provide some more recent articles, preferably peer-reviewed and in a reputable journal, and books published under academic press.

Again you're diverging a bit from the topic X, and being a bit misleading about what was actually posted. The original Neandrathal..found..was indeed identified as being a man with severe arthritis..and possible rickets. Others have been found since then..that have been determined to have walked upright, as oppossed to the original specimen examined by Virchow. You can ridicule this claim all you want, but it doesn't take away from the validity of it.

Moving on..Let's just simplify the Neandrathal argument X...what is the Neandrathal currently classified as? Is it currently classified as a homo sapien? Does the Neandrathal qualify as a "missing link" that bridges the gap between man and ape?

A simple yes or no will do.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Progressive meaning..advancing and enhancing an organisms life..and degenerative meaning..deteriorating an ogranism's life.

So again X is it your conclusion, that mutations of all types..found within natural organisms are generally found to be progressive and beneficial?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Frankly neither question is a simple yes/no question. If you had some understanding of molecular genetics you'd know that. I answered both your questions. The fact that you ask me again implies you didn't read anything I provided you with - examples illustrating that mutational processes can increase the C-value, amount of DNA, and how they can produce new functions. In which case do not ask for anything.

Again..upon you not answering the initial question twice..I'll assume the answer is once again "NO."

You don't want to answer the question, because it invalidates one of the major cruxes of your theory.that being..mutations some how mystically generate beneficial changes within nature, that result in large scale physical and genetic changes, creating new species of organisms. As it is often demonstrated within organisms.this is not the case. however I did give you a lead to prove that they do..I'll provide it to you yet again..bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

When you are done taking the lead..please explain to me the ratio of a possible beneficial "progressive" mutation taking place to a "degenerative" one within the timespan of over a billion of year period. Which mutation would have the higher rate of occuring..a progressive one...or a degenerative one..Please directly answer this question X.

Don't pull a Bill O'Riely, Whob, you know damn well that not all questions can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no". Trying to trap someone into answering "yes" or "no" when the answer is more complicated indicates that you are trying to lure a specific answer out of the person, this is further enhanced by your assumption that the answer is "no" because they didn't give an answer you wanted to hear. Steer clear of that, makes you look silly.

X listed numerous titles which you could look up and and check on for her answer, the fact that you are not willing to look at said titles while merely assuming the answer you want to hear is the correct one exposes a faulty argumentative structure on your part by not wanting to research all the data that is given to you.

Instead of assuming the answer, why don't you go look at the titles X mentioned. Seems like if you actually wanted to know all the information available and the real answer you'd go and check out the titles X mentioned instead of making faulty and hasty assumptions about the answer to your question.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Again you're diverging a bit from the topic X, and being a bit misleading about what was actually posted. The original Neandrathal..found..was indeed identified as being a man with severe arthritis..and possible rickets. Others have been found since then..that have been determined to have walked upright, as oppossed to the original specimen examined by Virchow. You can ridicule this claim all you want, but it doesn't take away from the validity of it.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Moving on..Let's just simplify the Neandrathal argument X...what is the Neandrathal currently classified as? Is it currently classified as a homo sapien? Does the Neandrathal qualify as a "missing link" that bridges the gap between man and ape?

A simple yes or no will do.

Again..upon you not answering the initial question twice..I'll assume the answer is once again "NO."

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You don't want to answer the question, because it invalidates one of the major cruxes of your theory.that being..mutations some how mystically generate beneficial changes within nature, that result in large scale physical and genetic changes, creating new species of organisms. As it is often demonstrated within organisms.this is not the case. however I did give you a lead to prove that they do..I'll provide it to you yet again..bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

When you are done taking the lead..please explain to me the ratio of a possible beneficial "progressive" mutation taking place to a "degenerative" one within the timespan of over a billion of year period. Which mutation would have the higher rate of occuring..a progressive one...or a degenerative one..Please directly answer this question X.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
You claimed that the separate species H. neanderthalensis is the same species as H. sapiens with pathological abnormalities. You based this upon Virchow's comments made over a century ago in which he attributed the structural differences between the species to rickets, arthritis and head trauma. Neither the original specimens nor multitude of subsequent specimens, were the result of disease pathology.

You haven't provided anything other than Virchow's hundred year old comments and the view of a creationist website to support this. If you continue to assert that H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis are he same species without providing anything substantive and recent to support it then it has no validity, and you lose credibility.

H. neanderthalensis is not classified as the same species as H. sapiens (despite your unsupported claims.) H. neanderthalensis is not believed to be the progenitor species of H. sapiens, both diverged from H. heidelbergensis.

Are the Neandrathals classfied as humans, apes, or human/ape hybrids? This is a simple question X. All it requires is a simple answer.
But seeing as how you won't answer any of the questions I've asked of you directly..I'll go ahead and do it for you.

A Neandrathal is a "human" my friend.

You can babble about different "species" of human and the "credibility" of my sources all you like..but it still doesn't take away from the fact that they are indeed classified as "humans" and not apes or ape/men hybrids.

I've answered your questions and provided references for you to examine - which I'm unsure if you ever intended to do, so again why ask? No doubt you adamantly want me to use bacterial resistance because some ID or "creation science" website has provided you with a pseudoscientific counterpoint to it. As Backfire said you're attempting to lead specific responses to which you have prepackaged "answers." If you actually wanted answers to anything you would read the literature I have provided, instead of continually asking for a yes/no response.

Since I can not find any disagreement with my post in your response above..I'll assume that once again you are in agreement with me. Mutations in nature are generally demonstrated as being degenerative..rather than progressive. Thus defeating the whole..."Macro Evolutionary" argument...and the entire concept of Neo-Darwinism.

I've enjoyed arguing with you X, however, it's time for me to end my participation in this thread. It's obvious that I'm not going to convice you that your theory is nothing more than another "faith" my friend, reminiscent of the doctrines of many ancient pagan cultures. Again..you have the right to believe what you like, however, I don't believe that your faith or anyone else's for that matter should be given partiality in science class, particularly in a public school setting.

-Fin

Originally posted by whobdamandog You took it to the extreme. It was fairly apparent that he was being a bit satirical with the "men-monkey" description. What was essentially meant, from a technical standpoint..was that they're are no hominids consisting of both ape/human traits characteristics. Debate this point all you wish, however, it is the truth regardless of whether or not you accept it to be.

Basically there is nothing to respond to this post, I gave examples of early hominids that possessed both apelike and humanlike characteristics. Your response is that they don’t exist and no matter what I saw your view is the truth and mine in flawed. I disagree with you, as do millions of others, so apparently I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You are correct with that statement of Archaeoraptor, and not Archaepteryx as being recanted in National Geographic. I jumped the gun a bit to quickly with my assertion, without fully examining the terminology being used. However, I believe it is necessary to point out that alleged "Archaepteryx" fossils have been alluded by many as being ancient species of bird or reptiles, rather than a bird/reptile hybrid assertion pointed out by many Neo Darwinists.

First of all the fossil of the Archaepteryx is not “alleged”. It is a fossil. It did exist. Second of all whether you want to ignore it or not, that the fact remains that whether it was an early dinosaur with birdlike qualities or a bird with dinosaur-like qualities, the fact remains that there are similarities there worth investigating. An evolutionary link would not be a hybridization necessarily, but a number of examples indicating a slow change.

Originally posted by whobdamandog

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/473

It gives a rather non biased description of the debate. Most of what has been found..has alluded to alleged Archaeptyx fossils bearing little difference betweem the birds and reptiles we find in nature today.

How can you say this in honestly unbiased when this site has links to such things as:
“Truth Be Told, Exposing the myth of evolution”
“Bible Bullits”
“Anvil Ring: Answers To Alleged Bible Discrepancies”
and “Matter Of Fact: A Look At More Evidence For Christianity”

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You're wrong on this one Karma, Neo-Darwinism gives the impression that birds and mammals were descended from reptile/bird hybrids. Why do you think Neo-Darwinism labels them as "bird/reptile" intermediates...even the ever popular "Evolutionary" bible of Talk Origins..uses this terminology. Below is information to support this.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/com...termediates_ex1

Now you are talking semantics to further your argument/agenda. It is common knowledge among those with any interest in this subject that dinosaurs and reptiles differ on many levels. Are they related? Yes. Are they the same? No. Do people often call dinos ‘reptiles’ out of slang or habit? Yes.
The example that you posted said the following:

In the case just mentioned, we have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" (Sereno 1999), represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others (Carroll 1997, pp. 306-323; Norell and Clarke 2001; Sereno 1999; Xu et al. 1999; Xu et al. 2000; Xu et al. 2002). All have the expected possible morphologies (see Figure 3.1.1 from Prediction 3.1 for a few examples), including organisms such as Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, and the famous "BPM 1 3-13" (a dromaeosaur from China now named Cryptovolans pauli; Czerkas et al. 2002 ) which are flightless bipedal dinosaurs with modern-style feathers (Chen et al. 1998 ; Qiang et al. 1998; Norell et al. 2002). Additionally, several similar flightless dinosaurs have been found covered with nascent evolutionary precursors to modern feathers (branched feather-like integument indistinguishable from the contour feathers of true birds), including Sinornithosaurus ("Bambiraptor"😉, Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Microraptor, and an unnamed dromaeosaur specimen, NGMC 91, informally called "Dave" (Ji et al. 2001). The All About Archaeopteryx FAQ gives a detailed listing of the various characters of Archaeopteryx which are intermediate between reptiles and modern birds.

Notice the first statement “In the case just mentioned, we have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps"”. Not reptile, but dinosaur.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Like ID..TOE uses logical inference of all evidence to support the existence of the conclusion. In the TOE the conclusion being, the existence of "transitional" fossils. However..as you so humbly stated above..no valid transitionals have been found.

I did not say that, “no valid transitionals have been found” .Please don’t put words into my mouth. I said, “It seems that those who argue against evolution point to the fact that no 'single' missing link has been found.” Do you see the difference? You want an example that lies right between an early primate and modern man. A 1-2-3 type scenario. That is unrealistic and never has been a plausible argument put forth by rational people who believe in evolution.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
As a wise man once said, a theory that is presented as explaining everything, usually ends up explaining nothing.

Say for instance, something like, “God did it?”

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I'm not a literal interpretation Creationist, regarding the age of earth, however, many theories have been surmised regarding Dinosaurs existence and eventual extincition. One such theory is that there were actually fewer Dinosaurs than many Neo Darwinists lead many to believe, and perhaps these animals died of extinction during the "world wide flood" This seems to be supported, by the existence of many plant/animal/and Dinosaur fossils found in mountain ranges, basins, and other land formations which appeared to have been eroded by water over thousands of years.

So there were very few dinosaurs? Thousands and thousands of fossils are being dug up, but I guess we are finding all of the species that existed eh? As for the “world-wide flood” to which do you refer? There have been many. Each leaving a different strata of sediment in the rock which separate the millennia into different ages prove that the earth is more than 6000 years old. But alas, that is another debate.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
In addition to this. Many Historical texts mention Creatures akin to Dinosaurs..walking the earth during the same time as man. The Bible refers to such creatures as "Behemoths", and many other ancient cultures recount similar claims.

Which historical documents? Biblical ones? You do realize that elephants and rhinos are considered behemoths don’t you? The thought that dinosaurs and men existed at the same time is ludicrous and I choose to not even argue this ridiculous point. You also realize that valid historical documents actually record accurate descriptions of these animals as opposed to the fictional accounts of dragons. Why are there no accurate descriptions of dinosaurs in historical accounts?

Originally posted by lord krondor
Forgive me, but I didn't read this entire thread.
So, FeceMan, what do you belive in: Intelligent Design or Evolution?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Which historical documents? Biblical ones? You do realize that elephants and rhinos are considered behemoths don’t you? The thought that dinosaurs and men existed at the same time is ludicrous and I choose to not even argue this ridiculous point. You also realize that valid historical documents actually record accurate descriptions of these animals as opposed to the fictional accounts of dragons. Why are there no accurate descriptions of dinosaurs in historical accounts?

Sorry I know I stated that my previous post would be my last..but since I feel as if my points have been twisted and misrepresented, I believe it necessary to post once again...

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Basically there is nothing to respond to this post, I gave examples of early hominids that possessed both apelike and humanlike characteristics. Your response is that they don’t exist and no matter what I saw your view is the truth and mine in flawed.

Let's re-examine the "evidences" of ape-men that you've given.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
...proto humans such as Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei,

Australopithecus means "Souther Apes." Thus any particular fossil specimen classified under this particular category..is considered to be that of an "APE". Simple as that. What evolutionists believe seperates this particular "APE" from others, is the fact that it was once believed that it had the ability to walk upright. Unfortunately..in recent years, this has been found to be an invalid assertion. In fact..it has been found to be a downright fradulent one.

The famous Australopithecus afarensis" fossil named "Lucy" for example, was determined to be reconstructed..from a mutlitude of different human and ape fossils. Other fossils found representing Afarenis, have actually been used to dismiss the assertion that this ancient ape walked upright, but rather walked much like normal apes do.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
..Homo erectus,Homo ergaster, Homo habilis, Homo erectus or Neandertals (actually more of a relation than a proto human).

The literal meaning of "Homo" is "wise one." This prefix..is used to classify or denote, fossil specimens that are of "human" descent. With that being stated..Homo-erectus, Homo-Habilis, Homo-Ergaster, and Homo-Neandrathalis...are all different "races"..not species of "humans." Simple as that. To state otherwise is innaccurate, ignorant, and just plain deceptive.

By using yours/others rationale that humans can be divided into subsets because of minor physical/genetic diferences, one could easily classify a Caucasion, an African American, and an Asian as different "species" of humans. Real silly stuff.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
First of all the fossil of the Archaepteryx is not “alleged”. It is a fossil. It did exist.

Again..this is not what I alluded to in the post above...let's once again view what was written.

Originally postedbywhobdamandog
I believe it is necessary to point out that alleged "Archaepteryx" fossils have been alluded by many as being ancient species of bird or reptiles

I never made the insinuation that the fossil didn't exist..rather..I made the assertion that there were fossils that were misclassified as being "Archaepteryx." Once again..rather than attack the argument itself, you seem to be concentrating on semantical and syntactical nonsense.

Moving on. Many alleged "Archaepteryx" fossils have actually been deemed to be different species of reptiles and birds, rather than the general assumption of them being reptile bird/hybrids. The species itself, is generally thought to be a type of reptile by the mainstream scientific community.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Second of all whether you want to ignore it or not, that the fact remains that whether it was an early dinosaur with birdlike qualities or a bird with dinosaur-like qualities, the fact remains that there are similarities there worth investigating. An evolutionary link would not be a hybridization necessarily, but a number of examples indicating a slow change.

I believe all fossils should be objectively investigated, however, that is often not the case. As I stated before, many examine fossils in a subjective way..and disregard any evidence that may not support their personal belief system. Still, in order to give some credo to a theory..it is necessary to at least come up with substantial proof of the conclusions existence. Thus far..Neo Darwinism has failed to do this, particularly in the area of providing "transitionals" from the fossil record.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
How can you say this in honestly unbiased when this site has links to such things as:
“Truth Be Told, Exposing the myth of evolution”
“Bible Bullits”
“Anvil Ring: Answers To Alleged Bible Discrepancies”
and “Matter Of Fact: A Look At More Evidence For Christianity”

Again hypocrisy amongst Evolutionary supporters. It's okay for you to post information from sites supporting Evolution..however, the same can not be done by the opposing side, supporting their theories/beliefs. The site I presented is no more or less biased than Talk Origins, or any of the other Evolutionary sources listed within this thread.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Now you are talking semantics to further your argument/agenda. It is common knowledge among those with any interest in this subject that dinosaurs and reptiles differ on many levels. Are they related? Yes. Are they the same? No. Do people often call dinos ‘reptiles’ out of slang or habit? Yes.

Once again..hypocrisy and innacuracy is demonstrated in another one of your posts K-Dog. You should have just admitted to your mistake. Rather than dig yourself deeper into the hole.

Let's first address the innaccuracy..that being..that birds did not evolve from reptiles.

You must have missed the post that I quoted form the notable Vertaebrate Paleontologist and TOE supporter Michael Benton. He doesn't seem to agree with you. Birds as well as mammals..are indeed thought by many to have evolved from REPTILES...as opposed to evolving from DINOSAURS. Some believe that both birds and Dinosaurs evolved from reptiles. But rather than diverge from the topic..Let us just validate my statement..with Dr. Benton's own words.

Taken from http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html

These new specimens clinch the argument. Archaeopteryx is no longer on its own, a single species that attests to the reality of an evolutionary transition from reptiles to birds.

The evolutionary route from reptile to mammal is known in just as much detail. Between the Permian and Triassic periods, mammal-like reptiles evolved from basal forms that were fully reptilian.

Mr Benton is a fairly educated man, and would not use incorrect terminology when posting such information. Thus, your statement of birds not evolving from reptiles is is at worst innaccurate..and at best a half truth. Either way..contrary to your belief..the terms "DINOSAUR" and "REPTILE" are not used synonomously by Darwinists, when referring to bird evolution.

Now lets address the hypocrisy part of your post..

The hypocrisy being..that it is okay for Neo Darwinists to use loosely defined terms when giving evidence behind supporting their religion, however, once again..the same can not be done on the opposing side.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I did not say that, “no valid transitionals have been found” .Please don’t put words into my mouth. I said, “It seems that those who argue against evolution point to the fact that no 'single' missing link has been found.” Do you see the difference? You want an example that lies right between an early primate and modern man. A 1-2-3 type scenario. That is unrealistic and never has been a plausible argument put forth by rational people who believe in evolution.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
If you are looking for a link between a spidermonkey and people, you either think on too simple of level, or have not at all studied evolution.

It seems that those who argue against evolution point to the fact that no 'single' missing link has been found. No person ever argues back that there will never be a single missing link found because evolution does not occur at a pace where there is a sudden change it is a gradual process.

FYI...*link* generally refers to a "transitional" fossil. The implication given by you above is that more or less no transitional links have been found to validate the theory.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Say for instance, something like, “God did it?”

Or perhaps a better explanation would be.. "Nothing did it..."

Originally posted by KharmaDog
So there were very few dinosaurs? Thousands and thousands of fossils are being dug up, but I guess we are finding all of the species that existed eh? As for the “world-wide flood” to which do you refer? There have been many. Each leaving a different strata of sediment in the rock which separate the millennia into different ages prove that the earth is more than 6000 years old. But alas, that is another debate.

Which historical documents? Biblical ones? You do realize that elephants and rhinos are considered behemoths don’t you? The thought that dinosaurs and men existed at the same time is ludicrous and I choose to not even argue this ridiculous point. You also realize that valid historical documents actually record accurate descriptions of these animals as opposed to the fictional accounts of dragons. Why are there no accurate descriptions of dinosaurs in historical accounts? [/B]

Once again K-Dog..wrong with your assertions. Behemoth means "Giant Beast" Elephants are large..but in know way would one denote them as being Giant. Hell, elephants were used in a fashion reminiscent to horses in many ancient cultures during biblical times..as were Hippos

Behemoths were also described as having tails like "Tree Trunks" and bones like "Iron"..show me an elephant/Hippo that has a tail as large as a tree "trunk." Or bones as sturdy and strong as "Iron." Common sense stuff. As far as the examples of ancient cultures reporting existence of Dinosaurs..I can give you a few..

Dinosaur Extinction: The Evidence

taken from: http://www.dinosaur-extinction.com/

1. Human & Dinosaur Fossils. Human bones and tools coexist in the same fossil layers as dinosaur bones in Texas and the Dakotas.
Human & Dinosaur Footprints. Footprints of dinosaurs, humans and other mammals coexist in the same fossil layers in Texas and New Mexico.

2. Native American Petroglyphs. Cave and cliff drawings in Utah and Colorado crudely depict certain dinosaur species (dated from 400 A.D. to 1300 A.D.). Ica Stones. Ceremonial burial stones discovered in Ica, Peru depict numerous species of dinosaurs, some in activities with man (dated from 500 A.D. to 1500 A.D.).

3. Acambaro Figurines. Ceramic and stone figurines discovered in Acambaro, Mexico represent many species of dinosaurs (dated from 800 B.C. to 200 A.D.).

4. Dragon Accounts. China, Europe and the Middle East share similar accounts of “dragons” and other beasts. Some cultures revered these creatures. For instance, records of Marco Polo in China show that the royal house kept dragons for ceremonies. In other cultures, it was a great honor to kill these beasts. There are numerous records of warriors killing great beasts in order to establish credibility in a village.

5. Behemoth, Leviathan and the Dragons of the Bible. Job writes of great creatures, Behemoth and Leviathan, nearly 4000 years ago. Although more recent Bible translations use elephant, hippo or crocodile instead, the original Hebrew does not allow for these interpretations. The word “dragon” (Hebrew: tannin) is used numerous times in the Old Testament, and most directly translates as “sea or land monsters.”

These are but a few...but there are many others. Hopefully I won't have to post them again..however, if need be..I will.

Now before we part ways again..I leave you and others with a question. What moral benefits does evolutionary Doctrine offer us as a human beings? Survival of the fittest, natural selection, seem to be concepts that glorify violence and inhumane behavior. Do you and others truly feel comfortable supporting a doctrine that preaches human beings are nothing more than cattle to the slaughter...who can easily be eliminated if another more powerful/more intelligent organism comes along? Think long and hard about these questions.

I really don't have a strong belief either way. For all we know, our entire existence could be some more complex being's cup of dirt.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Let's re-examine the "evidences" of ape-men that you've given.

If you cannot acknowledge that there are basic qualities that are shared by humans and present great apes (on both a genetic, physical and even behavioural level) never mind the attributes that are present in both early hominids/primates and homo sapiens, then we can just sit here and argue forever, for we will never agree on this subject.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
The literal meaning of "Homo" is "wise one." This prefix..is used to classify or denote, fossil specimens that are of "human" descent. With that being stated..Homo-erectus, Homo-Habilis, Homo-Ergaster, and Homo-Neandrathalis...are all different "races"..not species of "humans." Simple as that. To state otherwise is innaccurate, ignorant, and just plain deceptive.

Homo-Habilis Kingdom: Animalia, Phylum: Chordata Subphylum: Vertebrata Class: Mammalia Order: Primates Family: Hominidae Genus: Homo Species: H. habilis

Homo-erectus Kingdom: Animalia, ,Phylum: Chordata, Subphylum: Vertebrata, Class: Mammalia, Order: Primates, Family: Hominidae, Subfamily:Homininae, Genus: Homo, Species: H. erectus

Homo-Ergaster Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Subphylum: Vertebrata Class: Mammalia Order: Primates Family: Hominidae Genus: Homo Species: H. ergaster

Homo-Neandrathalis Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Subphylum: Vertebrata Class: Mammalia Order: Primates Family: Hominidae Genus: Homo Species: H. neanderthalensis

Homo Sapien Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Mammalia Order: Primates Superfamily: Hominoidea Family: Hominidae Subfamily: Homininae Tribe: Hominini Genus: Homo Species: H. sapiens

The above species listed share the same Genus Homo
a genus (plural genera) is a grouping in the classification of living organisms having one or more related and morphologically similar species. In the common binomial nomenclature, the name of an organism is composed of two parts: its genus (always capitalized) and a species modifier. An example is Homo sapiens, the name for the human species which belongs to the genus Homo.

The above species all differ in their category of species.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
By using yours/others rationale that humans can be divided into subsets because of minor physical/genetic diferences, one could easily classify a Caucasion, an African American, and an Asian as different "species" of humans. Real silly stuff.

I am using the rationale of basic taxonomy. There is a difference between species and race. I thought you would know that.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Once again..rather than attack the argument itself, you seem to be concentrating on semantical and syntactical nonsense.

Yes, I see how this would bother you as you refrain from doing it so often yourself. (that was sarcasm)

Originally posted by whobdamandog As I stated before, many examine fossils in a subjective way..and disregard any evidence that may not support their personal belief system.

The same can be said for anyone who believes in creationism or ID. How can you believe in ID or God at all when such a pragmatic view that coincides with the above statement?

Originally posted by whobdamandog Again hypocrisy amongst Evolutionary supporters. It's okay for you to post information from sites supporting Evolution..however, the same can not be done by the opposing side, supporting their theories/beliefs. The site I presented is no more or less biased than Talk Origins, or any of the other Evolutionary sources listed within this thread.

The thing is, alot of the information that is listed in sites supporting evolution comes from varios paleo biologists that are studying certain species and have posted or written of their findings. Basically it is a wealth of information by many scientific resources compiled to get a better understanding of the world’s history. These finding are studied by others, some theories are developed, some theories are disproven. In many cases mistakes are found and corrected in order to maintain credibility. Those who believe in evolution are aware that mistakes will be made, but that the theories do have validity.

When you post sites dealing with creationism or ID those sites, one can see that answering questions is not so much the incentive as is the defence of religious beliefs and dogma. This whole approach leads itself to a dead end

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Once again..hypocrisy and innacuracy is demonstrated in another one of your posts K-Dog. You should have just admitted to your mistake. Rather than dig yourself deeper into the hole.

Let's first address the innaccuracy..that being..that birds did not evolve from reptiles.

quote:
Taken from http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html

These new specimens clinch the argument. Archaeopteryx is no longer on its own, a single species that attests to the reality of an evolutionary transition from reptiles to birds.

The evolutionary route from reptile to mammal is known in just as much detail. Between the Permian and Triassic periods, mammal-like reptiles evolved from basal forms that were fully reptilian.

Mr Benton is a fairly educated man, and would not use incorrect terminology when posting such information. Thus, your statement of birds not evolving from reptiles is is at worst innaccurate..and at best a half truth. Either way..contrary to your belief..the terms "DINOSAUR" and "REPTILE" are not used synonomously by Darwinists, when referring to bird evolution.

Interesting, though the full quote is as follows:

These new specimens clinch the argument. Archaeopteryx is no longer on its own, a single species that attests to the reality of an evolutionary transition from reptiles to birds. Below it, on the evolutionary tree, stretch countless theropod dinosaurs that become ever more birdlike through time, and above it stretch numerous bird species that bridge every step of the way from Archaeopteryx to fully-fledged birds. A long series of fossils through the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, a span of 140 million years, document the evolutionary transition from reptile to bird.

See, you left out the part where he states that , Below it, on the evolutionary tree, stretch countless theropod dinosaurs that become ever more birdlike through time, and above it stretch numerous bird species that bridge every step of the way from Archaeopteryx to fully-fledged birds. A long series of fossils through the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, a span of 140 million years, document the evolutionary transition from reptile to bird.

What is being said is that dinosaurs (theropods in particular) evolved from reptiles and the Archaeopteryx evolved from theropods, which are dinosaurs and not reptiles.

You intentionally pieced together parts of two paragraphs and left a lot of information out to make your point. This act of deception is so ridiculous and offensive that I will not even consider anything else you said in that post and will highly question any information (and the integrity withwhich it was posted) you post in the future.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
http://www.dinosaur-extinction.com/

Bible site, not admissible in this argument.

Any site that professes dinosaur fossils and human fossils and tools represent contemporary existance, along with links like:

http://www.dinosaur-extinction.com/How-Can-I-Know-God.htm

http://www.dinosaur-extinction.com/Life-Challenges.htm

are just as biased as you claim scientists to be, when they study fossils.

It's interesting that you say that supporters of evolution can't post links that aren't biased, but there are plenty of websites out there that are taking no part is the evolution v. creationism debate. They present the facts as they exist. I can post a link for a page on dinosaurs, while it not being a subversive way of posting a link for Jesus.

Originally posted by long pig
Am I right about you? Yes, of course. Always.

Were you right about me? No, never.

So, I'll just sit back and continue to troll around the General Discussion Form filled to the gills with you silly bunch of upper middle class suburban white kids trying to make yourself feel relevant by pretending you have an opinion on situations you have no experience with. 🙄

You're funny, but also embarrassing. 🙁

Nice sig....😆 How old are you again?

and the purpose of this was.....???

here let me try

are you an *******? yes you are
am i perfect in every way? yes i am

wow, you know what? that WAS fun
useless and asinine, but fun.
now go smoke a tailpipe and do the world a favor

Does anyone remember the high middle ages and the reniassance when the church was the leading scientific institution that regarded secular serious scientific study and the scientific method to be divine callings?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
If you cannot acknowledge that there are basic qualities that are shared by humans and present great apes (on both a genetic, physical and even behavioural level) never mind the attributes that are present in both early hominids/primates and homo sapiens, then we can just sit here and argue forever, for we will never agree on this subject.

Regardless of the our "similarities", you don't seem to acknowledge our largest and most important differences, those differences being..the abilities to reason and use self control. Apes don't possess these unique traits. And that's what seperates us from them. You can think of yourself as an animal if you wish, however, I am content with acknowledging my "humanity."

Originally posted by KharmaDog
***thinks to self******...Let me continue to post more Neo-Darwinistic tripe..the more I post..the more confused people will get..and the less ability they will have to discern that there is truly no substance behind my argument..hmm..what can I come up with..okay here goes..******

Homo-Habilis Kingdom: Animalia, Phylum..blah..blah..blah..😖leep:

The above species all differ in their category of species....blah..blah..😖leep:

I am using the rationale of basic taxonomy. There is a difference between species and race. I thought you would know that.

**thinks to self**way to go!! I definately got him there..particularly when I ended the statement with witty rapport. I hope no one actually reads his response to this post, it will completely shoot down everything I've just posted, using only a couple of sentences...guess I'll just keep my fingers crossed....whatever you do everybody..don't read the next post!! Don't listen to whob!!! he's wrong..don't look below!!! 😆😆*****

Originally posted by whobdamandog

You can babble about different "species" of human and the "credibility" of my sources all you like..but it still doesn't take away from the fact that they are indeed classified as "humans" and not apes or ape/men hybrids.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
The same can be said for anyone who believes in creationism or ID. How can you believe in ID or God at all when such a pragmatic view that coincides with the above statement?

Originally posted by whobdamandog

"Faith" is essentially the foundation of both "life origin" theories. Both claim to have scientific evidence to support them, however, much of the scientific data gathered for either theory is extremely biased. Seeing as how most scientists who gather and incorporate the data into the studies are generally "Creationists" / "Evolutionists" and are not objectively trying to gather information, but rather..subjectively gathering information to support their own personal belief systems.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
The thing is, alot of the information that is listed in sites supporting evolution comes from varios paleo biologists that are studying certain species and have posted or written of their findings. Basically it is a wealth of information by many scientific resources compiled to get a better understanding of the world’s history. These finding are studied by others, some theories are developed, some theories are disproven. In many cases mistakes are found and corrected in order to maintain credibility. Those who believe in evolution are aware that mistakes will be made, but that the theories do have validity.

When you post sites dealing with creationism or ID those sites, one can see that answering questions is not so much the incentive as is the defence of religious beliefs and dogma. This whole approach leads itself to a dead end...

I have no problem acknowledging that ID is more of a metaphysical and philosophical concept, why do you and so many others who believe in Neo Darwinism have difficulty doing the same?

Answer: You all have been indoctrinated with the lies that embody evolutionary theory..the sad thing about it is, you all have deceived yourselves into believing that you are not.

Try to look at what you posted above objectively K-Dog..if you still possess the ability to do so. Does what you posted above really sound all that scientific, unbiased, and unhypocritical?

You've already inadvertantly alluded to Evolutionary thoery as being a belief twice within this thread, without making any mention of logical inference..or the evidence that would lead one to the conclusion. Do some serious soul searching my friend. It's quite apparent that you..like many other proponents of Neo Darwinism, have become the very dogmatist and religious zealot you abhor.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
***thinks to self**let me post more tripe..to detract from the fact that once again..I've been proven wrong..here goes..***

See, you left out the part where he states that , Below it, on the evolutionary tree, stretch countless theropod dinosaurs that become ever more birdlike through time, and above it stretch numerous bird species that bridge every step of the way from Archaeopteryx to fully-fledged birds. A long series of fossils through the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, a span of 140 million years, document the evolutionary transition from reptile to bird.

What is being said is that dinosaurs (theropods in particular) evolved from reptiles and the Archaeopteryx evolved from theropods, which are dinosaurs and not reptiles.

You intentionally pieced together parts of two paragraphs and left a lot of information out to make your point. This act of deception is so ridiculous and offensive that I will not even consider anything else you said in that post and will highly question any information (and the integrity withwhich it was posted) you post in the future.

**thinks to self**beautiful can't mess with the magic of cut and paste..😆😆

You misrepresented Evolutionary theory K-dog. Pure and simple. Many evolutionists do indeed believe in birds/mammals being direct descendents of REPTILES..not..DINOSAURS..as opposed to your belief of...

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Of course, no one is saying that birds and reptiles are related, they are saying birds and dinosaurs are related (dinosaurs are not considered to be true reptiles)

Cry wolf..misrepresent, deceive, and cut/paste all the quotes you want, but the more you attack my crediblity..the more you discredit your own. At this point..I believe its fairly apparent that the debate between us on this topic is over, seeing as how I have thoroughly refuted everyone of yours/others arguments. Nothing else new is being added to the debate..except for the typical..strawman arguments.

However..I must say I'm a bit disappointed..I expected you to provide me with much more of a substantive arguments, rather than flowerful semantical wordplay..but I guess that was all I could expect..after all, as it was so gracefully stated in the following thread..

Being the artful dodger

"Picador" is not the greatest when engaging in "direct attacks"..😆 😆

PS...Make sure that
artful dod..erhem "PVS" participates a bit more during the next debate...😂

I copied this from The Onion. I was just going to post the link, but obviously I decided differently.

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."

Oh whob, it looks like this debate is now over. You have resorted to posting smiley faces, personal attacks and typing your ideas in my quotes to distract from the fact that I, and many others, have made your arguements moot by either proving you wrong or by showing how you intentionally tried to decieve others by posting lies or distorted information.

That's o.k., go on the attack and try to save some dignity. Maybe you can amuse one of the young or immature people on this forum with lame attempts at humour and personal attacks.

But deep inside you are p*ssed because you fell apart, I and others proved your arguement was weak, and I also showed you for what you are. So let the imaturity and personal attacks fly, immediatley followed by the banning that you will recieve for such behaviour.

Do I hear a dog barking?

Do I hear a cheerleader, Ithink I do. Just because you are upset with me from another thread is no reason to try and attack me here. But whatever makes you happy, go for it.

But you are going against the teachings of buddha, and for that you should be sad.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You misrepresented Evolutionary theory K-dog. Pure and simple. Many evolutionists do indeed believe in birds/mammals being direct descendents of REPTILES..not..DINOSAURS..as opposed to your [b]belief of...[/B]

No one has misrepresented evolution, except for you. Pick up a book that isn't the bible and you'll find out that you are talking out of your ass. No one believes that birds and mammels are descendants of reptiles.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Cry wolf..misrepresent, deceive, and cut/paste all the quotes you want, but the more you attack my crediblity..the more you discredit your own. At this point..I believe its fairly apparent that the debate between us on this topic is over, seeing as how I have thoroughly refuted everyone of yours/others arguments.

No one is crying wolf. You are sticking your head in the sand and pretending you're informed. These are your tactics:

-You lie

-You make things up

-you say that supporters of your opponents views have said things they haven't

-you lie

-you have no understanding of the difference between science and non-science.

-you ignore every fact that people have shown you

-you present your information, gleened from one religious site or another, as credible scientific facts

-you lie

-you pretend you don't see people other than Kharma asking you direct questions

-you assume that you have won some sort of debate; yet you fail to realize that just because you say you win, doesn't mean that you do.

-every time someone comes on and agrees with your position, you assume they're supporting you personally.

-you lie

-you seem to think, again, that because you 'say' you have refuted everyone's arguments...that you have.