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

[Dataman]

Hmm and when did I insult anyone?

Were you accused?

Also I would be almost certain that the insults began on the creationist side

Oh, I see. He started it!

I never attacked the creationists

Again, were you accused?

I will not insult your side when insulted

That would be a good principle for Aric and many others to adopt.

[Sentis]

I merely asked a question. :) In fact I asked the question because you said my side did this and that. You addressed your post to me and you accused my side that implies I am part of that side. I am completely right to respond to a post directed to me :).

Some on my side need to be reigned in a bit as we will more easily win the debate when we take the high ground and leave the insults to others. With this in mind I wish to help Aric formulate his debate in more progressive ways in fact that was the gist of my posts to him.

Nevertheless the debate isn't about what names were called the debate is about questions that your side refuse to answer. That is the strength of our side and the weakness of yours and as such only you and your side can rectify the unanswered questions. maybe if you were honest and answered our questions the evolutionists would be convinced you are correct but in the absence of that knowledge we will never know.

[TheCrusader]

"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."

Actually, the atheist, pseudo scientists claimed that the shroud could be no more than 800 years old. PBS was only too pleased to broadcast these "scientific findings". But more recent tests, including DNA and other methods, have proved the Shroud to be at least 1,900 years old. Among many other findings, they found mold spores embedded in the Shroud from plants that are native only to Israel. And the scientists who did their "tests" in 1994 said the Shroud probably never left France and Italy. Seems they were wrong not only about its age, but also about its place of origin. Funny, isn't it, how the evolutionist "scientists" seem to discover what they were looking for in the first place. And no matter how many times they get proven wrong they maintain their arrogance. And here I was thinking that scientists were supposed to have open minds.

[TheCrusader]

"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."

Doesn't matter which method they use, they are all based on speculative methods. Carbon-14, potassium argon, argon-argon, whatever...it all presupposes a vertical buildup of sedamentation over the centuries. But the Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1980 blew this whole theory out of the water when it left multiple layers of pumice like strata in just a few minutes. The evolutionists and geologists were scratching their heads because this was identical to those found in the Grand Canyon, which they claimed took millions of years to take place. Dating the earth is VooDoo science. Go back to counting tree rings, it's more accurate.

[Junior]

The only thing the radioactive dating assumes is that radioactive isotopes decay at specific rates. It has nothing to do with the rate sediment is layed down. Note, please, that if radioactive decay was higher in the past then life would have been impossible. Also, the various radioactive dating methods agree with one another (a cross check). You've pretty much got nothing in your complaints against scientific dating.

[Sentis]

I hate to get into the debate on this level I prefer to make you answer questions :) but your description of Carbon 14 dating and all the other methods of radioactive dating are in a word wrong.

To quote you

"Carbon-14, potassium argon, argon-argon, whatever...it all presupposes a vertical buildup of sedamentation over the centuries"

These are not dependant on sedimentation in anyway shape or form. They are based on radioactive particle decay. Geologic formations can be used to support or dispute the dates given by these methods but it has nothing to do with them.



By the way can you answer a couple questions Crusader? How old is the Universe and how old is the earth? Give me your opinion thats all I want.

[Junior]

You cannot DNA test a piece of cloth, other than to tell what it's made of. It would have nothing to do with dating. You appear to be mixing apples and oranges. You might want to do a little web research before continuing along your lines of reasoning.

[Sentis]

In fact you could technically DNA test a piece of cloth which was made of a certain plant fiber. It may be difficult to find intact DNA strands in such cloth but this type of DNA test could be put to all sorts of uses. I wonder what plant fiber the cloth is made from. As an example cotton was unknown in Europe until the 14th century. If the shroud is made of cotton then it would be of middle eastern, east asian origin. If it is made of linen then it is most likely made in Europe. Hmm what is the shroud made of?

[Sentis]

I just looked it up the shroud is made of Linen. Now linen may have been available in the middle east during the time of christ but I'm not certain. Anyone know? Also if we were to DNA test the linen fiber we could determine if it was a European or Middle Eastern Linen. This would put an end to the debate for all time. I am pretty certain this type of test has not been done.

[Sentis]

BTW Linen is made from a plant called flax. Flax from different parts of the world are different species of Flax thus a middle eastern Flax would have a distinct DNA signature from a European variety. This post is for those who don't understand why testing the DNA would be important for discovering the origin of the shroud.This test will not determine the time period it was made however it should give a clue to where it is from.

[Sentis]

In fact we may be able to determine a rough time-line for the Shroud if we compared DNA from the shroud with DNA procured from linen samples in different time periods. Some genetic drift would have occurred over time and we could probably use that as a round about dating method if we can determine the date of linen from other samples. Foe instance if we found a sample of Linen in a 13th century grave and compared the two and the DNA matched then we would know that the shroud was 13th century. In fact this method could have all sorts of use. I need to write a paper. It's so much fun being an Archaeologist.. Thank you creationists you may have just helped me develop a method for dating cloth that is not found in situ.

[ALS]

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

Ironically, that could've be our only reply to all he's ever said.

factoid: Even the most casual observer can see that there's an element of the Eloonists on here that seek to succeed via denigration of any creationist strawman they can drum up. One need only to disagree to be that strawman. Personal convictions as to dates and the like are irrelevant to these lone Troop E army ants.

And then there's the crack about an Eloon "taking the high road". By hook or crook they aspire to be us, while condemning the same. More proof that their real anger is directed at religion in general or the mental anguish of lacking any themselves.

[Sentis]

I think the anger at creationists is directed more toward the fact that Evolutionists see creationists as being willfully ignorant, and either unable or unwilling to fathom basic science. This is not an attack it is an observation to why creationists are attacked so fervently. While I deplore the personal attacks sometimes I feel that most creationists would benefit from a basic science class or two. Maybe we creationists would benefit from some church but I had 18 years of that. The Southern Baptist in me was taught that you had to either believe all the doctrine is true or none of it. I guess when I found out the bible wasn't all true that that all or nothing attitude took over.

[longshadow]

sedimentary radioactive dating placemarker

[ALS]

"I think the anger at creationists is directed more toward the fact that Evolutionists see creationists as being willfully ignorant, and either unable or unwilling to fathom basic science."

The assumption of such is the problem. Like I've been saying, I have been personally attacked as ignorant or unable to comprehend if I don't comply to their idea of science.

Neither case is true. I have an IQ(at last check) of 167.
So that wipes out the "unable to comprehend" assumptions.
I've studied the subjects of evolution and creationism, so I'm not ignorant. It's more probable that someone who has done both, has a better grasp and greater comprehension of both. As we grow in life we carry with us many assumptions we've brought with us, without checking. In time we learn to check, and throw off some of these things. This was done by looking, not just accepting it because someone we trust did.
I don't require a bible to disbelieve in Evolution, and I've stated why in a previous thread. Of course, that was attacked using the methods you described above.

To me, science is based on observations. Any observation is subjective by nature. When the preponderance of observations attain the same level, a theory becomes a fact. But a fact is merely what is believed to be accurate at the moment. It's not necessarily the TRUTH. There's a difference.

In the case of evolution, it's still just ONE theory. To watch the reaction of some on here, you would think it's the gospel, and they the crusaders. They become the very creatures they portend to despise. For all the world looking like projectionists.

An "ongoing" argument always requires this basic ingredient to exist:
At least two, arguing two differing views.
Now I know that sounds obvious at first glance, but the initial glance is deceiving. Notice I said two differing views. I didn't say two differing views of the same thing.
As long as Aric2000 and his ilk continue to assign to me attributes I don't posess, then they will never understand "my argument". I'm sure they would accuse me of the same, but I know what their argument is. It's open to see, but they know not mine, as they don't even comprehend what my views are surrounding the basics, like dates, etc.
Without knowing that, they argue fruitlessly.
This is precisely why when I entered into "this fray", my sole contribution was that "evolution is crap".
I didn't say, "hey I'm a creationist, which makes your theory crap". But I have been accused of saying it, ever since.
I know these guys do not represent the "scientific" view against those who don't believe, but they are sucking up all your air as you attempt honest discourse.
Probably the best way to handle this is for the rational evolutionists to call them on the carpet for disrupting the flow of conversation.

And finally, just as everyone else on here, I am free to state my opinion without preparing a term paper as to why.
my opinion is that evolution is crap.

fini

[Sentis]

"Neither case is true. I have an IQ(at last check) of 167."

Please if you wish to not be attacked don't claim the high ground by stating unfounded assertions about your intellect. You sound like a young person and as such may not have learned this rule if you claim you are hyper-intelligent you will find people will bring up every little mistake you make. Anyone here can attack your position by stating if you don't know this simple fact or that simple fact then you are lying about your intellect.


Evolution isn't one theory it is actually a group of theories based on research from several different fields of science. Evolution is in general supported by all those branches of science and as such the theory becomes more and more complete with each passing day. To shake a stick at evolution you shake a stick at the foundation of almost all modern science.

Evolutionists are different from creationists because our theory changes and becomes more perfect over time as new information is added. Creationist rely on a dogma that cannot change and this static dogma is a basic weakness of their philosophy.


I agree it is fruitless to argue with you because we do not know what you believe. Aric and I have made an attempt to learn what you believe we have both asked you the question "What do you believe?" if you are unable or unwilling to answer the question is it any wonder we regard your arguments as childish or even unfounded?

You end your diatribe with the statement that in your opinion evolution is crap. Your opinion is a nice thing to have but a person with an IQ of 167 should be able to articulate his opinion in a more intellectual way. (See that 167 IQ thing is far to easy to use against you).

I understand that you may not agree with evolution but if you refuse to explain what you do believe other than calling things "crap" then there is little use debating you and we are wasting our time trying to educate a person who is closed to learning.

I am willing to admit I am wrong if I am proved wrong (and I am often wrong) are you? An IQ of 167 is no use to a man if he is unable to learn from his mistakes.

[ALS]

You seem to be hung up on my IQ. No need to analyze why..

I'm 45

evolution is crap

[Aric2000]

Poor ALS,

IQ of 167, and yet cannot come up with ONE real, SCIENTIFICALLY verifiable piece of evidence to back up his claim that evolution is crap.

That IQ really is impressive now, Isn't it?

Sorry ALS, an IQ is NOTHING without the knowledge to use it.

My IQ is not 167, and I would not claim it is, as a matter of fact, I do not know my IQ, all I know is that my teachers told me that I worked far BELOW my potential. I do not need to convince others of my intellect, I just need to show them that I am knowledgable enough to actually have an opinion and back it up.

You just prove that IQ is not everything, because without knowledge, even the smartest of people are ignorant.

And you are the poster boy for such a statement.

Be careful of what you share, it will come back to bite you, as you are so fond of doing to others, I shall do unto you.

[Aric2000]

Oh, and by the way, 45 is young, you need to go back to school, or you will die ignorant.

Which would be such a waste, with an IQ of 167.

You have such potential, too bad you waste it starting flamewars without any clue of what you are talking about.

[ALS]

"You have such potential, too bad you waste it starting flamewars without any clue of what you are talking about."

More projectionism. Seems to be a trademark Eloons share.