Posted on 12/25/2008 7:55:05 PM PST by Soliton
After 10 years and many thousands of replies, I am leaving FR.
I don't really care, and I don't know why anyone else would.
I am leaving before I am banned (again). Truth doesn't seem to matter on FR. I don't know if it is donations or sympathetic opinions that do, but I have been suspended twice when I followed the rules and the people who complained to the moderators didn't, yet the moderators sided with them.
For the record, evolution is a fact and the Shroud of Turin is a fraud. I would prove it if the admin moderators would let me, but they won't. Your resident "expert", Swordmaker won't debate me because he can't.
I will work to build a forum where members have rights and truth matters.
Merry Christmas
You're being too logical for him.
I for one have never been able to figure out in the first place how there could possibly be anything 'wrong' with anything that is a byproduct of chemical evolution.
Cordially,
It most certainly does as Ergaster is nothign but a fantasy classification dreampt up by people desperate to link man to apes- Your ergaster is nothign more than a homo erectus with only minor changes too small to warrent hteir own classification of the species on their own. You well know this, but you post the pictures as though it’s still a valid example of a transition when it clearly isn’t
“In fact, evolutionist Ian Tattersall wrote under the title of “The Many Faces of Homo habilis” in the journal Evolutionary Anthropology: “...[I]t is increasingly clear that Homo habilis has become a wastebasket taxon, little more than a convenient recipient for a motley assortment of hominid fossils from the latest Pliocene and earliest Pleistocene” (1[1]:34-36, emp. added). In speaking of H. habilis, geologist Trevor Major summarized the situation as follows:
In fact, the whole issue of its place among Homo is highly contentious, and the species has become a dumping ground for strange and out-of-place fossils. Some paleontologists have tried to impose some order by reassigning australopithecine-like specimens to Homo rudolfensis, and the most modern-looking specimens to “early African erectus” or Homo ergaster (to which some would assign the Turkana boy). Apart from a small difference in brain size between australopithecines (less than 550 ml) and habilines (around 500-650 ml), there are no other compelling reasons to divide them between two genera (1996, 16:76, emp. added, parenthetical items in orig.).
Homo erectus/Homo ergaster
And what about Homo erectus? Until March 2002, most evolutionary anthropologists and paleontologists believed that two different creatures belonged in the H. erectus niche: Homo ergaster and Homo erectus. H. ergaster was believed to have emerged in Africa and then spread to Europe. H. erectus was believed to have existed mainly in Asia. But an article in the March 21, 2002 issue of Nature has challenged the traditional thinking about these two species. Writing under the title, “Remains of Homo erectus from Bouri, Middle Awash, Ethiopia,” Berhane Asfaw (of the Rift Valley Research Service in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia) and his coauthors discussed their discovery of a partial skull (referred to as a calvaria), which they labeled as H. erectus. The skull, discovered on December 27, 1997 in the Afar Rift of Ethiopia known as the Middle Awash, in a sedimentary section of the Bouri formation known as the Dakanihylo (“Daka”), has been dated at approximately 1 million years old (Asfaw, et al., 2002). The significance of what is now being called the Daka skull in the evolutionary debate is this:
The skull is almost identical to Homo erectus fossils found in Asia.... It is so similar, the team believes that it cannot possibly be that of another species. The Daka specimen suggests that Homo erectus was not limited to Asia, separated from its contemporary, Homo ergaster. Homo erectus instead was a robust, far-flung species that lived in Asia, Africa, and Europe (McKee, 2002).
Tim White, paleoanthropologist at the University of California at Berkeley and one of the coauthors of the Nature paper, put it this way:
This fossil is a crucial piece of evidence showing that the splitting of Homo erectus into two species is not justified.... What we are saying in this paper is that the anthropological splitting common today is giving the wrong impression about the biology of these early human ancestors. The different names indicate an apparent diversity that is not real. Homo erectus is a biologically successful organism, not a whole series of different human ancestors, all but one of which went extinct” (as quoted in “Ethiopian Fossil Skull...,” 2002, emp. added).
Asfaw, et al., wrote:
To recognize the basal fossils representing this apparently evolving lineage with the separate species name “H. ergaster” is therefore doubtfully necessary or useful. At most, the basal members of the H. erectus lineage should be recognized taxonomically as a chrono-subspecies (H. erectus ergaster) [2002, 416:318-319, parenthetical item in orig.].
The graduate student who actually found the skull (and who is a coauthor of the Nature paper), Henry Gilbert, probably put it best when he said: “One of the biggest impacts this calvaria will have on the field is in making Homo erectus look more like a single species again” (as quoted in “Ethiopian Fossil Skull,” 2002).
Now that evolutionists have wiped out one-half of the Homo erectus niche by eliminating Homo ergaster, what shall we say about the single remaining member of the H. erectus category? Examine a copy of the November 1985 issue of National Geographic and see if you can detect any differences between the drawings of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens (Weaver, 168:576-577). The fact is, there are no recognizable differences. Almost forty years ago, Ernst Mayr, the famed evolutionary taxonomist of Harvard, remarked: “The Homo erectus stage is characterized by a body skeleton which, so far as we know, does not differ from that of modern man in any essential point” (1965, p. 632). His statement is as true today as when he first made it. Furthermore, the skull of H. erectus shared many features with the Neanderthals, yet with flatter brow ridges and a less prominent mid-facial region. Some of the H. erectus skeletons were short and stocky (like the Neanderthals), but one specimen—a nine- to eleven-year-old boy from West Turkana, Kenya—was quite tall and slender (Andrews and Stringer, 1993, p. 242). Cranial volume varied from 850 to over 1100 milliliters (ml) for H. erectus, and 1250 to over 1740 ml for Neanderthals. The average for modern humans is 1350 ml, but we exhibit a broad range of 700 to 2200 ml (Lubenow, 1992, p. 138).”
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/print/127
Jeremy Rifkin summed it up accurately.
What the “record” shows is nearly a century of fudging and finagling by scientists attempting to force various fossil morsels and fragments to conform to Darwin’s notions, all to no avail. Today the millions of fossils stand as very visible, ever-present reminders of the paltriness of the arguments and the overall shabbiness of the theory that marches under the banner of evolution (1983, p. 125).
No more correcting your ‘tutorials’ tonight- I have other htigns to do
Juyst onem ore hting before I leave though- Just recently, there was thought to have been a ‘neanderthal woman’ who was caught and raped and bore sons who had thick brows and muscular heavy boned bodies- and her skull was kept by this family- it indeeed looked very odd, and quite possibly like a ‘missing link’, but when examined- lo and behold- it was FULLY HUMAN, and she suffered from a form of encaphalo-something which ... get this ... deformed her skull ... gasp ... eeek ... and all those good exclamations.
There are two classes- Apes and Humans- and ge5t this- soemk within those two classes have unuisual skulls that ‘appear like’ another species- but we all know they truly aren’t- Well, at least those who understand the biological impossibilities of Macroevolution understand htis.
And just for hte record- I had a pituitary tumor that caused a condition known as Acromegally & guess what? Yup- enlarged brow, wide nose (although thankfully mine was caught before it got real noticeable)
And just another note on the woman who was thought to be neanderthal- Her skull was much smaller than ours & fell outside of the ‘normal range’, yet she was still FULLY HUMAN (If you care to look it up I beleive her son’s name was flint or clint- something like that- Russian I beleive)
They also did research into ‘small people’ recently and traced back a line of people still living today, with abnormally small skulls and body structures (No I’m not talking about hte flourensis find, or whatever they were called)- and htese folks are... get ready for it... fully human.
Seems these facts throw great doubt upon the classification techniques used to ‘classify’ Ergaster & other supposed ‘pre humans’ eh?
Nah- can’t be- We all know that there were nothign but perfect specimens millions of years ago as man was evolving from a common ancestor (Despite htere having to have been an absolute necessity for trillions of mutaitons in order to even hint at moving the species beyond hteir own kind- were it even biologically possible-) So yeah- any features such as large browline must have been from a perfect specimen and not some diseased person or ape- because all people and apes apparently shared perfect anatomical features back then eh?:
I’ll see your two dollar raise and reraise you 10
And I too was looking forward to the exchange on "Timothy" - but considering this thread it is probably for the best.
I’m pretty sure the reason Soliton shied away from debating you two on the topic was because he knew he was outclassed. I suppose I should feel some pride that he put me on his do-not-respond list, but really, all I feel is sadness for him, his approach, and his soulless philosophy.
Oh. Okay. Thanks for clearing all that up. Bye.
Thanks for your support and vote of confidence, both of you.
It’s hard to kick against the goads.
Well, the Person who said that to Saul on the road to Damascus would certainly outclass any of us. Sometimes it’s people like Soliton who get knocked off their intellectual horse, blinded & groping for some familiarity in their darkness, and end up surprising everyone involved.
Usually, that’s what it takes. I’ve heard of precious few people who put their faith in God simply because life was treating them well and they thought that it would be a really nice thing to do.
sometimes, but not often- there was only one Saul after aul- but who knows? Perhaps rthe light will find him
But if He doesn't it won't be for lack of trying.
I have never encountered a group of people who God has tried so diligently to reach. What with the number of people who have tried to explain God and Scripture to them, they are certainly without excuse.
That was BAADDD.
LOL- I thought it was quite funny- still laughing lol
Alrighty then, carry on....
I’ll catch up with you tomorrow. (er, later today...)
The all-encompassing nature of the Randian line may be illustrated by an incident that occurred to a friend of mine who once asked a leading Randian if he disagreed with the movement’s position on any conceivable subject. After several minutes of hard thought, the Randian replied: "Well, I can’t quite understand their position on smoking." Astonished that the Rand cult had any position on smoking, my friend pressed on: "They have a position on smoking? What is it?" The Randian replied that smoking, according to the cult, was a moral obligation. In my own experience, a top Randian once asked me rather sharply, "How is it that you don’t smoke?" When I replied that I had discovered early that I was allergic to smoke, the Randian was mollified: "Oh, that’s OK, then."
“...news flash to everyone: you can be conservative and non-religious.”
EXTRA!!!
How’s that? True conservative principles are based in the Moral Law... which comes straight from the mouth of God. Ir-religion (atheism) and conservative principles no more mix well together than do communism and freedom. To imply one by suggesting the other is oxymoronic. But, alas, the Revolution marches forward in the minds and works of prideful creatures.
An atheist may hold some “beliefs” that are typical to conservatives, such as free-market economics... but all the social aspects of genuine conservatism flow from the moral axioms of the Judeo-Christian paradigm.
Moreover, deviations from the moral code always involve or demand a violation of free market economic principles. Hence the claim to be fiscally conservative but socially liberal is disingenuous and ludicrous on its face. Such propositions, typical to the mindset of the ongoing Revolution, enshrine the cult of man, deny the Kingship of Christ, and invert His ordained social hierarchy by placing the creature above the Creator. Thus those who proclaim the Rights of Man, do so only by their abridgement and abrogation of the Rights of God.
The creature, having free will and intellect (an eternal soul created in God’s image), is free to choose right from wrong. However, the creature neither possesses, nor is at liberty to proclaim by way of “freedom” of conscience, a “Right” to do wrong. That subtle difference divides those who belong to the Revolution from those who are Counter-Revolutionaries. To wit: those who work to advance the cause of the father of revolution, Satin, and those who promote, practice and defend the estimable virtues of the Creator, Christ the King. This is the fundamental difference between liberalism and conservatism (I state this with the caveat that true conservatism preserves what is good, not because of nostalgia, but for reason that an institution or cultural practice serves God and fulfills His Commandments)
Liberalism proposes, promotes and protects all manner of evil, while it works to vilify, suppress, and undermine all that is good. Liberalism appeals to man’s base nature by inversion of the natural order, enslaving the will to the passions and destroying the faculty of reason. The natural order of man’s faculties is his free will, guided by reason informed by faith, in control of his sensory appetites. Liberalism inverts this divinely constituted order, exciting the passions, weakening the will, and corrupting reason to the point that the compromised will is besieged by the tyranny of the sensual appetites. Since both the will and reason constitute the two eternal aspects of man that make him unique to all God’s creatures, and in fact make him to be in the image of God, then the attack upon these two attributes constitutes an attack upon God Himself. Hence to promote disbelief in God, who may be known by reason alone without revelation, for His works attest to His glory, is to promote a denial of His natural order and by inference to aid the advance of liberalism and the Revolution.
He who denies Christ, or works to nullify His Rights of Kingship, denies God the Father, and thus is actively working to advance the cause of the father of lies who is the Satan, whether conscious of that alliance or not. A man cannot serve two masters; for he will love one and despise the other. Put simply: a man cannot ride two horses with one ass. Thus, one cannot claim to be both ir-religious and conservative, for the two attributes are, from their first cause, irreconcilable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.