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

[Aric2000]

Creationists only need faith.

I just love that statement.

No, Creationists only have the word of someone that knew someone that knew someone that knew someone that said something like this. That first someone got together with a bunch of other first someones, edited the books for content, took out some books, put in others, and then put it together, called it the bible, and then said "this is the word of god" and you have faith that that is the truth.

I find it rather amusing in a sad kind of way.

But, if it gives you comfort, more power to you I suppose.

[Dataman]

I am humble,

[F16Fighter]

"Don't like what science says, DEMONIZE it."

"Science"?? Is that what you call an insane rogue conclusion predicated upon smoke and mirrors and wishful thinking?? LOL!

See you at the next Star Trek convention...And don't forget to wear your Spock ears.

[Aric2000]

I never pretended otherwise, but I noticed that you took out the part of my post that you did not like.

the "I don't know" part, but "I don't know" is really something that you don't want to deal with, or can deal with.

But "iddidititself" is good enough for you. I don't think you quite comprehend the implications of your belief

No, again, "I don't Know" is quite alright with me, there are some theories out there, but they are conjecture, no real scientific evidence at this point.

That is why I say I DON'T KNOW.

[Aric2000]

Ahh, another clueless creationist.

Ain't we got fun....

And hint, we are just another animal, we just happen to be the smartest one.

Is that what you call an insane rogue conclusion predicated upon smoke and mirrors and wishful thinking?? LOL!

No, I call that Creationism.

[conservababeJen]

faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth) n.

• Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
• Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
• Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
• The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
• A set of principles or beliefs.

[Dataman]

You can attack and obfuscate but it brings us to the simple fact you refuse to answer questions.

If you don't recognize the logical errors you make, then how can you recognize the logical errors of another? As for answering questions, you haven't answered mine.

[Dataman]

No, again, "I don't Know" is quite alright with me, there are some theories out there, but they are conjecture, no real scientific evidence at this point. That is why I say I DON'T KNOW.

Say it like you mean it. If you really don't know, then you don't know that God didn't start life, do you? Or do you KNOW that God didn't start life? Don't forget to be scientific when answering.

[F16Fighter]

"But 'iddidititself' is good enough for you. I don't think you quite comprehend the implications of your belief."

Hey DM -- Spiritually we realize this "implication" can only be accepted once man rejects satan's lie;

Scientifically, the Darwinist insistance on scientific impossibilies as "provable" just negates totally the integrity of such individuals, while indeed "proving" a political/religious agenda instead.

[F16Fighter]

"We are just another animal, we just happen to be the smartest one."

But hey -- what's a few IQ points between you and your pet?

P.S. -- Is your parakeet logged in to FR?? Let's ask Polly what she "thinks"....

[Aric2000]

LOL.

One is science, the other is religion.

I know better then to try and mix my religious views with science.

2 different animals.

Again, it talls me that creationists do not know what science is, and couldn't care less.

It's OK with me, just don't tell me that somehow your religious beliefs outweigh true scientifically verifiable evidence.

One takes faith, the other takes logic.

Don't try and confuse the 2. Or mix them into somethng that they are not, nor claim to be.

[Aric2000]

There we go, take a statement, and twist, HARD, in order to come to a ridiculous conclusion that I never stated, nor would I state.

Keep talking though, you show your ignorance each time you post.

And prove my points about creationists as well.

[Aric2000]

I don't know, is fine with me.

God could have done it, little aliens from the narcos nebula could have done it, amino acids could have pelted the earth from space and started it all.

I don't know, and scientifically I can't say.

God cannot be used as causation in science, therefore when we have these discussions, I do not speak of my religious beliefs. Because A: they have nothing to do with the subject at hand, and B: what my beliefs are, is no ones business but my own.

[F16Fighter]

"Again, it talls me that creationists do not know what science is, and couldn't care less."

All ANYONE asks is that science connect legitimate dots in "proving" its broad sweeping assertions.

Don't you find it a tad troubling that clearly NO scientific "proof" is presented to support evolution? None WHATSOEVER.

Until THEN the onus remains with science...

couple of serious questions: Do you believe in the metaphysical? The supernatural?

[TheCrusader]

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

First of all, I never said, "and all other methods of carbon dating", you did. I used the word "whatever" (method) after the three popular carbon dating methods, and by it I considered rock strata. (I had no idea that I'd be getting emails from scientists, but so be it). But I do apologize for not expanding on the word "whatever", that appeard after the carbon methods I listed. I detailed the rock strata method because of the Mt. St. Helens deposits that left in one minute a perfectly mimicked example of the "one million year old" Grand Canyon deposits, to put that method of dating where it belongs, in the trash bin of innaccuracy. As for radiocarbon dating, which almost nobody understands as accurate anymore, here are a few reasons why it can't be considered an accurate method of dating. Here are seven of these fragile assumptions: HAPPY READING:

(1) Each system has to be a closed system; that is, nothing can contaminate any of the parents or the daughter products while they are going through their decay process—or the dating will be thrown off. Ideally, in order to do this, each specimen tested needs to have been sealed in a jar with thick lead walls for all its previous existence, supposedly millions of years! But in actual field conditions, there is no such thing as a closed system. One piece of rock cannot for millions of years be sealed off from other rocks, as well as from water, chemicals, and changing radiations from outer space.

(2) Each system must initially have contained none of its daughter products. A piece of uranium 238 must originally have had no lead or other daughter products in it. If it did, this would give a false date reading. But this assumption can in no way be confirmed. It is impossible to know what was initially in a given piece of radioactive mineral. Was it all of this particular radioactive substance or were some other indeterminate or final daughter products mixed in? We do not know; we cannot know. Men can guess; they can apply their assumptions, come up with some dates, announce the consistent ones, and hide the rest, which is exactly what evolutionary scientists do!

(3) The process rate must always have been the same. The decay rate must never have changed. Yet we have no way of going back into past ages and ascertaining whether that assumption is correct. Every process in nature operates at a rate that is determined by a number of factors. These factors can change or vary with a change in certain conditions. Rates are really statistical averages, not deterministic constants. The most fundamental of the initial assumptions is that all radioactive clocks, including carbon 14, have always had a constant decay rate that is unaffected by external influences—now and forever in the past. But it is a known fact among scientists that such changes in decay rates can and do occur. Laboratory testing has established that such resetting of specimen clocks does happen. Field evidence reveals that decay rates have indeed varied in the past. The decay rate of any radioactive mineral can be altered [1] if the mineral is bombarded by high energy particles from space (such as neutrinos, cosmic rays, etc.); [2] if there is, for a time, a nearby radioactive mineral emitting radiation; [3] if physical pressure is brought to bear upon the radioactive mineral; or [4] if certain chemicals are brought in contact with it.

(4) One researcher, *John Joly of Trinity College, Dublin, spent years studying pleochroic halos emitted by radioactive substances. In his research he found evidence that the long half-life minerals have varied in their decay rate in the past! "His [Joly’s] suggestion of varying rate of disintegration of uranium at various geological periods would, if correct, set aside all possibilities of age calculation by radioactive methods."—*A.F. Kovarik, "Calculating the Age of Minerals from Radioactivity Data and Principles," in Bulletin 80 of the National Research Council, June 1931, p. 107.

(5) If any change occurred in past ages in the blanket of atmosphere surrounding our planet, this would greatly affect the clocks in radioactive minerals. Cosmic rays, high-energy mesons, neutrons, electrons, protons, and photons enter our atmosphere continually. These are atomic particles traveling at speeds close to that of the speed of light. Some of these rays go several hundred feet underground and 1400 meters [1530 yards] into the ocean depths. The blanket of air covering our world is equivalent to 34 feet [104 dm] of water, or 1 meter [1.093 yd] thickness of lead. If at some earlier time this blanket of air was more heavily water-saturated, it would produce a major change—from the present rate,—in the atomic clocks within radioactive minerals. Prior to the time of the Flood, there was a much greater amount of water in the air.

(6) The Van Allen radiation belt encircles the globe. It is about 450 miles [724 km] above us and is intensely radioactive. According to *Van Allen, high-altitude tests revealed that it emits 3000-4000 times as much radiation as the cosmic rays that continually bombard the earth. Any change in the Van Allen belt would powerfully affect the transformation time of radioactive minerals. But we know next to nothing about this belt—what it is, why it is there, or whether it has changed in the past. In fact, the belt was only discovered in 1959. Even small amounts of variation or change in the Van Allen belt would significantly affect radioactive substances.

(7) A basic assumption of all radioactive dating methods is that the clock had to start at the beginning, that is, no daughter products were present, only those elements at the top of the radioactive chain were in existence. For example, all the uranium 238 in the world originally had no lead 206 in it, and no lead 206 existed anywhere else. But if either Creation—or a major worldwide catastrophe (such as the Flood) occurred, everything would begin thereafter with, what scientists call, an "appearance of age."

[Aric2000]

First of all, science does not deal in absolutes, and as Dimensio is so fond of hitting me with, science does NOT PROVE anything.

Evolution has so much scientifically verifiable evidence backing it up, and is used in biology EVERY day, to say that evolution is untrue, is ridiculous.

It has answered MANY questions, Micrevolution happens ALL the time, this has been scientifically verified time after time.

Fossil evidence is getting neck deep, and the "transitionals" that creationists keep complaining about are showing up more and more, but then of course you move the goalposts, so to speak.

There is PLENTY of evidence that Evolution is indeed correct, not my fault that you ignore that evidence in order to keep your faith in creationism.

And to your last question, I keep this separate from any scientific discussion, because it IS NOT science, and I will never claim that it is.

Yes, and Yes.

[F16Fighter]

"It has answered MANY questions, Micrevolution happens ALL the time, this has been scientifically verified time after time...

...Fossil evidence is getting neck deep, and the "transitionals" that creationists keep complaining about are showing up more and more

"Micro-evolution," which IS provable, is a far, FAR cry from "transitional," which is hardly "neck-deep," evidence-wise.

Herein lies the problem -- Darwinists like yourself delusionally believe you are rounding third and heading home, when the truth of the matter actually lies somewhere between the batters' box and first base.

[Consort]

[Aric2000]

We have never claimed that science has all the answers, You are the ones that are demanding answers.

Of course the answers that evolution does answer are misrepresented and twisted by creationists in order to refute it.

Well, if you have to twist it in order to refute it, I believe the creationists have a problem.

I am going to say this again.

Evolution is science

Creationism is religion

One is based on scientific evidence, the other is based on faith in a book.

2 different animals.

If you wish to have creationism taught in public schools, get a philosophy class going, if you wish to disrupt evolution, then use science and come up with a better theory.

Sounds pretty simple to me.

Don't like evolution or it's explanations, then come up with a BETTER SCIENTIFIC theory to explain the evidence.

But to use creationism(religion) to disprove evolution(science) is just silly. Actually, it is downright laughable.

[Dataman]

Scientifically, the Darwinist insistance on scientific impossibilies as "provable" just negates totally the integrity of such individuals, while indeed "proving" a political/religious agenda instead.

You nailed it.