Chimps Now to be Considered Humans

National Geographic ^ | 5/19/2003 | kkindt

[kkindt]

A new report argues that chimpanzees are so closely related to humans that they should be included in our branch of the tree of life. Chimpanzees and other apes have historically been separated from humans in classification schemes, with humans deemed the only living members of the hominid family of species

[ALS]

that was meant for Aric2000

[Aric2000]

Don't you love how he squirms?

Squirm over here, oops there's a question, squirm over there.

It gets rather old after a while...

[TheCrusader]

"The date of the Earth is derived from several radiological dating methods on the rocks which make it up; when those methods agree on a date (i.e., the date is double checked using other methods), then researchers can be confident they have a low-end reference point for the age of the Earth."

I see you want to play the dating game. It was this sophomoric attempt that "scientists" in 1994 tried to use to destroy the authenticity of the "Shroud of Turin", (the burial cloth of Jesus Christ). They used carbon dating and Electron Spin Resonance to conclude that the Shroud is only 800 years old, thus destroying the Catholic Church's position that the Shroud is 2,000 years old and is indeed the original burial cloth of Jesus. HOWEVER, the latest studies have proved that this Shroud is indeed over 1,900 years old, and that the original tests were deeply flawed. (seems you religion haters love to use bad 'science' for your proof). Carbon dating and similar methods presuppose some column of sediment that has build up over the centuries in a vertical position. But geologist Guy Berthault shot this theory to pieces in his painstaking experiments at the Engineering Research Center in Colorado. Furthermore, the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 deposited multiple layers of pumice-like strata in only a few minutes, which puzzled the hell out of geologists and EVOLUTIONISTS, since they were virtually identical to those found in the Grand Canyon, which they claim required millions of years to lay down. So much for the accuracy of carbon, postassium argon and argon-argon dating. I think evoltionists should go back to counting tree rings. hahahaha pax Christi, Jim

[Sentis]

Ive found that if you ask questions of creationists rather than answer their ludicrous claims you will learn a lot more. As an evolutionist I am open to answer any question I am asked. I have noticed Creationists wish to ignore questions such as How old is the universe, How old is the Earth, How does light from a star 10,000 light years away reach earth if the Universe is only 6,000 years old. Anytime a group is not willing to answer a question you must question their motives. Its sort of like debating with demoncrats they use the same obfuscation techniques.

[Aric2000]

Yes, or they go off on some tangent. claiming that their proof is scientific, when in fact they have misrepresented the findings to fit in with their worldview, read the above by crusader and you will see what I mean, but why am I explaining this to you?

You know EXACTLY what I am talking about.

[TheCrusader]

If evolutionists claim that a 99% similar DNA between chimps and humans is sufficient grounds to conclude we have a common ancestor, then I conclude that evolutionist scientists from now on must get paid by something that is 99% similar to money. This way, as they slowly starve to death while explaining their hypothesis, I can sit back and read my Bible in peace, and send my chimp out to the kitchen for popcorn.

[TheCrusader]

If evolutionists claim that a 99% similar DNA between chimps and humans is sufficient grounds to conclude we have a common ancestor, then I conclude that evolutionist scientists from now on must get paid by something is 99% similar to money. This way, as they slowly starve to death while explaining their hypothesis, I can sit back and read my Bible in peace, and send my chimp out to the kitchen for popcorn.

[TheCrusader]

If evolutionists claim that a 99% similar DNA between chimps and humans is sufficient grounds to conclude we have a common ancestor, then I conclude that evolutionist scientists from now on must get paid by something is 99% similar to money. This way, as they slowly starve to death while explaining their hypothesis, I can sit back and read my Bible in peace, and send my chimp out to the kitchen for popcorn.

[Sentis]

Yes I do. These silly claims about dating methods. I mean i could tell him I'm an archaeologist. I could tell him I use these dating methods all the time. I could also tell him what things will skew the data and what methods are more accurate and which aren't. There is no way however that he will never believe science that doesn't fit his cultural bias.

Commonsense is enough to prove the universe itself is older than 6,000 years. Stars millions and billions of light years apart with light having moved through space all that time is one simple proof among many. The funny thing about Young earth creationists is that they not only dispute archeology, evolution, geology, they dispute the finding of physics, astronomy, etc. I wonder how they even manage to believe their computer functions as it's based on the same physical principles that allow us to date objects.

[ALS]

I don't believe the earth is 6,000 years old, which means you just made an ass of yourself. Butt then again, you hang with the same clueless ilk.

[HairOfTheDog]

Did you stay up all night thinking up that bit of profundity?

It doesn't *say* anything!

It's a word salad.

[Sentis]

I never stated you did, nor did I address the post to you (In fact Aric knows who I am talking about). Calling me names and acting like that doesn't improve your debating skills neither does it say much about your maturity level.

[Junior]

You conveniently forgot to point out that the shroud was repaired during the Middle Ages after being damaged in a fire, and that the earlier tests may have been of the medieval material. Of course, for you to say that might obviate your claim that dating techniques are flawed.

BTW, radiocarbon dating is not used in determining the age of the Earth. There are more than a half-dozen radiation dating methods that are and they are used to cross-check each other. Of course, you can't admit that scientists double-check their findings as that would also obviate your conclusions.

[ALS]

Scroll up to examine your own maturity level.

you two should get a room

[Dataman]

I don't believe the earth is 6,000 years old, which means you just made an ass of yourself. Butt then again, you hang with the same clueless ilk.

x 10

[Sentis]

I have little clue what you mean. I never stated you believed anything. In fact you refuse to state what you believe and that is a damning statement in and of itself.

You address me in a rude way and in an immature way. The comments I post which were directed to Aric have nothing to do with you. If my comments in anyway resemble your belief system and you are offended because I said creationists refuse to answer questions then you should endeavor to prove me wrong and answer some questions rather than make unfounded attacks. If you continue to refuse to answer questions directed at you then you should quit posting and take up a job as a demoncratic representative.

[Dataman]

Calling me names and acting like that doesn't improve your debating skills neither does it say much about your maturity level.

Aric2000 :
#17: What kind of drugs are you on?
#23: Yo, monkey boy, right back at ya.
#75: god must have been a monkey.
#112: it is obvious that you are clueless
#112: You need to get a grip.
#152: Poor baby, science hits you right in the faith again.
#221: I hear a creationist loon spouting off
#250 You sure do talk a lot, it's too bad you're full of Sh$t...

You might try to get your side to clean it up before you start preaching.... (not that I want your side to enhance what little credibility it has) .... it's the blatant hypocrisy from the rats nest of evolutionists who claim to be intellectual men of science and then proceed to throw food.

[Aric2000]

Well, let's see here now.

The Yo monkey boy was aimed at Junior, so it was not a snide comment, it was a joke.

The rest of them were MY opinions and my opinions only, but they were also truthful, but then again, you wouldn't know much about that would you dataman?

[Sentis]

Hmm and when did I insult anyone? Also I would be almost certain that the insults began on the creationist side so pointing out some insults made by evolutionists isn't very enlightening. In fact I only posted about three times on this topic before I was being viciously attacked by your side. I never attacked the creationists in fact I was engaged in a conversation with a poster that is friendly to my side sharing methods of progressive debate.

I will not insult your side when insulted (I have in the past but never threw the first punch I will no longer to it again). It is very tempting but it does little but lower me to the level of savage.

[Dataman]

The rest of them were MY opinions and my opinions only, but they were also truthful, but then again, you wouldn't know much about that would you dataman?

WRONG answer! You're good at slinging mud but you can't take it! Furthermore, you are about to prove my point.

ALS: Watch him prove me right.