Are there any human transitional forms?
Posted on: June 8, 2012 - 11:25am
Offline
Are there any human transitional forms?
Are there any human transitional forms?
I have heard in the past that the transitional
forms that were found were proven to be false.
for example :
Nabraska man
Lucy
And others
Are there any transitional human forms that
Are proven to be real? If so, please name a few.
appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.
- Login to post comments
Your answer is a presupposition .
No where in the bible does it say that God
Created sin. He created many things, but sin was not
His creation. Read genesis again, it is crystal clear.
What is your definition of sin?
appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.
Your answer is a presupposition .
No where in the bible does it say that God
Created sin. He created many things, but sin was not
His creation. Read genesis again, it is crystal clear.
What is your definition of sin?
appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.
Besides all of the above arguments, mine included, as it has already been mentioned : What does this have to do with the subject of transitional fossils ?
Granted, I have wandered way off topic myself, but you have yet to argue anything that disproves evolution or proves the existence of the Christian God.
Nor have you demonstrated that man is inherently bad and needs god to save him.
That is three different subject threads right there.
Which one do you wish to discuss ?
A. The evidence for evolution is proven by science.
B. You wish to discredit science because bad things have been done in the name of science ( by "bad" I mean the atomic bomb and World War 2)
C. Bad things are done by men because men are simply inherently evil.
D. God is not evil at all and bears no responsibility for the evil of his "beloved" creations.
I am not sure how all of this is supposed to fit together.
You also did not answer my question about the "hoaxes". A couple of supposed hoaxes do not disprove evolution.
So, where are we going with this discussion ?
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Your answer is a presupposition .
Darkness and disaster is not Sin.
Maybe you are confused on what sin is.
What is your definition of sin.
appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.
If god did not "create" sin, then who did ?
Why does god allow "sin" to exist ?
My definition of sin would probably be radically different from yours and I would not use the word sin.
I don't steal from people because of god, I don't steal from people because I am not a thief.
I don't murder people because of god or fear of imprisonment, I do not kill people because I am not a murderer.
I don't practice cruelty towards people because I am not a cruel man by nature.
I do not need a god to tell me what is right or wrong.
What is your definition of sin ?
Why would a god punish a man for questioning him ?
My dad never beat me for asking him why or how about a subject. Why would an almighty creator be so cruel ?
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
What is your definition of brain damaged ?
Of course I have read it, here is the thing, he created sin, if we follow your logic, god created humans, humans were created with flaws, one of those flaws is sin, as you say we are evil and corrupt, we are that we because we were created that way. Lucifer or the talking snake was his creation, he created it to be deceitful, god created the tree of knowledge, creating the full situation for sin to occur, all of this could have been avoided by simply not creating the talking snake or the tree of knowledge, ergo god created sin, he created all the circumstances for sin to occur. He created flawed beings and then punishes and blames them for being flawed.......when in reality god himself is flawed. See if the potter creates a flawed pottery, it is the potters fault not the pottery's fault. But this of course requires you to accept the fact that god is neither logical nor perfect in any sense, god is flawed....much like his creations.
It is normal for people like yourself to come to
That conclusion. The reason why people come that
Conclusion is because of lack of knowledge .
You see, in genesis god created everything and said that
It was good, including humanity. Therefore humanity
Was at some time perfect without flaws. God did not say he
Created everything and it was evil, or In Your words
"potter creates a flawed pottery".
The clay pots were made perfect in the bigining . It was
Later that the pots cracked themselves.
appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.
So where did the evil come from ?
If I build a pot improperly and it cracks because of a lack of the right materials, whose fault is that ?
Again, here we go around the mulberry bush.
Transitional fossils, evolution is not real, humans are inherently evil and god is good.
This equation does not add up.
Suppose what your saying is true, can you verify any evidence of creation other than the bible ?
Besides that, if no other human beings existed other than Adam and Eve, who was there to write all this down and document it ?
If the whole world drowned in Noah's Ark, who was the one that wrote the account ?
Who exactly knows about the conversation that took place with Abraham and god when he told him to sacrifice his son ?
Who was with Jonah in the intestines of a big fish to document what was going on ?
Generally, documented history has MANY texts to verify the proof of all this.
Your simply using parts of the bible to validate all of this.
Some christians call it symbolic, others call it literal word, and others seem to pick and choose what is symbolic and what is not.
All of this double-speak gets very confusing. If god wanted his message to be so clear, why didn't he get a better book that gave clear cut instructions, understood in all languages and recognized as only one religion throughout the world ?
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
So which version of the Bible is correct ? The way the Baptists put it ? The Catholics ? The Methodists ? The Pentecostals ? The Snake Handler Pentecostals ? The Jehovah's Witnesses ? The Mormons ? The Church of Christ ? The Church of the Seventh Day Adventists ? The Westboro Baptist Church ? Or how about the white supremacist religions of Christian Identity, that are behind such churches as Aryan Nations and such ?
Seems like a whole lot of people have a different interpretation of a book that they claim does not contradict itself, yet none of it's followers seem to be able to reach a common ground.
Kinda like the situation in Northern Ireland that went on for years. Catholics vs. Protestants. Both reading the same Bible and praying to the same god, which side was god on ? Since he is the potter, which clay army was right ?
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Define presupposition.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
The first pots did not lack material or anything. They simply
Prefered to become cracked . We do not know to much
About the first pots. We just know that they choose
To crack themselves. The pots that followed were split into
Two choices. Some choose perfection and the others prefered
To remain cracked.
appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.
Where are the transitional forms between the perfect pots and the cracked pots?
This thread is about transitional forms, right? Right?
There are no theists on operating tables.
However god created the sin, the tree of knowledge, without that tree no sin could occur, god created man flawed already for a perfect being would not made that decision. The pottery in this case was already cracked. You simply fail to understand that part. Perfect beings could not make an imperfect decision, unless they were imperfect already. Ergo god created imperfect flawed beings.
Sin existed before the creation of humanity . The tree
Of knowledge was not the biginig of sin.
What you don't understand is the power
Of freewill. Perfection with the power of freewill
Is still perfection. It becomes imperfect when the
Person chooses to act against perfection, in this case
Against God who is the origin of perfection and gave
Perfection.
No freewill is basically a programed robot who only
Knows what he is programed to do . Most people
Will say that a robot human is not perfect and complete
Because it lacks freewill.
Do you prefer to live without your freedom of speech ?
If you were a robot human, then how would your family
Know that you really love them, if all you know is to
Obey And not hate?
God prefers humans that have freewill for the
Propose of true love.
John 3:16
Or do you prefer to live
appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.
Something truly perfect would be 'incorruptible' or 'un-flawable' . Is your god not capable of such a creation? Your bible had to include this spin to complete it's circle of twisted reasoning.
The only thing corrupting this world is your hokey religion.
It leads you in circles mumbling with eyes glazed over like any nearly catatonic pushing a dry-mop around the floor of the mental ward. Medication time Sunday 9 AM. Group therapy for those still barely coherent.
"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia
Where is that in the Bible ?
Again, is there any evidence for these claims OUTSIDE of the bible ?
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
free will is simply a person's volition. It's an easily understood concept ( except to Christians )
...is it ?
then you've already changed the meaning of perfection to something that was never really perfect to begin with.
will you have free will in Heaven ? will you be able to choose sin ? ...you know, like Lucifer did and all the multitude of angels whose used their free will to turn against God ?
God created sin because God created evil (Isaiah 45:7). God created evil because he created Satan (or he created Lucifer and gave him pride ).
My definition of sin is the same as the Christian one - there is no sin (Romans 4:15).
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
No one can ignore Zarathusta's questions . . .
sin may have existed in the bible before humanity, however god would have created it since he is the creator of everything, good and bad (as stated in the bible). The tree of knowledge was not the beginning of sin, I said god created the three of knowledge therefore allowing the possibility of sin to happen....which a flawed being would eat and create human sin, as per the bible of course.
which now contradicts your WHOLE perfect being statement, a perfect being is incapable of making imperfect decisions or being corrupted as that would mean the being was imperfect to begin with. You lack of understanding what perfect mean is the problem here. You making an assumption that humans were created perfect but not understanding the problem with that statement or the problem of a perfect being making imperfect decisions. Free will does not apply here as a perfect being would know an imperfect decision and therefore would not be able to make that decision since it would mean that being was actually imperfect.
hence the issue of a perfect being, a robot, a slave to perfection, anything else would be imperfect therefore an imperfect being having been created perfect it cannot be imperfect and make imperfect decision. You can continue down this path of yours but in the end, you have the issue that god wants not free will but slaves for free will he would have to forgive them and never be able to condemn them to hell for making their own paths an not worshiping him. Otherwise what is the use of free will if the options are obey or punish?
For a more detailed treatment visit:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
There are plenty of books on this stuff and I have a bunch of them but the best resource for new discoveries is online. Books have a pipeline process that often means they miss the latest discoveries. Unless you're African, you're about 4 per cent Neanderthal, Jim, and if you're Melanesian or an Australian Aborigine you are 6 per cent Denisovan. Homo Floresiensis was a homo erectus that lived up until 14,000 years ago. No DNA extracted so far but the attempt goes on.
The human genome certainly contains the fossil record of the direct lineage of hominid evolution, discounting side-branches, if studies showing the presence of Neandethal and Denisovan DNA in modern humans holds true for all ancestral hominids. This is what we would expect to find.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
God wants true love and for true love , freewill
Is needed. Plain and simple. Look at the
People you love and think about. The
Answer is evident .
appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.
What do any of these labels mean. What is 'true love' outside the precincts of a Hallmark card?
What is free will? What is its objective measure? None of us accept that such a thing as freewill definitively exists. And if god wanted true love by free will, what's with all his appealing to the club?
The ANSWER....ooer. From the christian perspective the answer is belief in a feeble dogma, not an actual modifiable and partly proven solution to a problem of comprehending the more or less unknowable.
But we appreciate that you care enough to keep visiting us.
May Gaia bless and keep the evolving colony of Jim.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
The answer is evident where ?
God wants true love ? By giving people two choices : Follow him, worship him, praise him and thank him your short life on Earth and get to spend an eternity with him or question him and burn forever ?
Hardly sounds like a very loving idea.
Look at the people I love ? The bible is full of human sacrifices, people committing incest, and murdering each other.
Let's take Abraham. You think I would tell my sister, kill your son and daughter if you truly love me, just to test her ?
AND, if my sister said she would do it, I''d try to get her psychiatric help.
If some celestial being appeared to me out of the sky and told me to kill my girlfriend to prove that I love it, I would conclude that such a being were malevolent and either try to figure out how to destroy it or if that could not be done, I certainly would not worship it.
Let me ask you this : If god told you to sacrifice your son, would you ?
And why would god need to "test" the faith of anyone if he already knows what they are going to do ?
If god creates you, knows all about you and what you are going to do, then you don't have free will.
Besides, free will, as Bob Spence was quoted : Free will in the metaphysical sense does not exist. We do not live in a vacuum, are choices are limited by our environments, our structures, our pasts and many other influences. Free will is an empty concept.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Doesn't change the fact that humans were created flawed, there were never perfect humans and you avoid this by not answering it at all and changing the topic. Perfect beings cannot make imperfect decisions. God punishes it's creation for being flawed even though he created them flawed. That's all there is to it.
Genesis 1:31
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Here is the proof.
Now show me were does it say that it is flawed?
I understand the truth is hard to swallow .
You failed to present truth and evidence.
Your presupposition is not truth and evidence but a fallacy .
Farewell !
appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.
If we're going to go by your Bible, the creation was so good that he had to break it so he could still stay relevant. That's why he added the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the snake.
According to your Bible not only is creation flawed but it is intentionally flawed. Don't make refuting you so easy.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Where are the transitional forms from "good" to "flawed"?
Farewell ?
Not leaving so soon are you ?
You still haven't answered a huge majority of questions that have been posed to you and completely ignored AtheistExtremist's post about the transitional fossils ?
I thought you wanted answers.
You keep throwing around the words presupposition and fallacy without defining the terms.
An argument from the Bible could be considered an "argument from authority " fallacy for example.
Oh well.
Not the first theist to leave the discussion after putting forth a bunch of absurd notions and probably won't be the last.
Remember to pray for all of us now. Hehehe.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
:
Translation. You won't believe my naked assertions and the shit you say is wrong "obviously" so fuck you
Jesus must be proud, jim. Well done my good and faithful servant
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/
HAHAHAHAHA you have such a reading comprehension problem that it is unreal, where does it say humans were perfect to begin with? It just says god saw everything he had made and behold it was very good, not perfect, not that every being was perfect, not that humans were perfect, just that all of it was very good. It leaves a HUGE amount of space for flawed, just because it looks very good at the beginning doesn't mean flaws aren't there, it takes time for them to appear.....aww well, it's not like you were really interested in any actual answers, you simply want us to believe like you, like a brained washed sheep. Bye wanker.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
The thing about evolution is that almost all branches lead to dead ends(extinct species). So when the find a fossil, the odds are extremely high that the creature was ancestor of extinct species and not a direct ancestor of anything living today. So when they find these candidates for 'missing links' in human evolution, it invariable turns out that they are distant uncles and aunts of ours and not out direct ancestors, like Lucy. Finding million plus year old fossils of direct human ancestors would be finding a needle in a haystack, they may not exist.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
"Blessed are those who believe without seeing me."
-Jesus
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
". . . [T]here is little consensus on what our family tree is. Everyone accepts that the robust australopithecines (aethiopicus, robustus and boisei) are not ancestral to us, being a side branch that left no descendants. Whether H. habilis is descended from A. afarensis, africanus, both of them, or neither of them, is still a matter of debate. It is possible that none of the known australopithecines is our ancestor. The discoveries of A. ramidus and A. anamensis are so recent that it is hard to say what effect they will have on current theories. It is generally accepted that Homo erectus is descended from Homo habilis (or, at least, some of the fossils often assigned to habilis), but the relationship between erectus, sapiens and the Neandertals is still unclear. Neandertal affinities can be detected in some specimens of both archaic and modern sapiens.";
Wayne Jackson
appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.
And the response to the quote above is nicely done:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wjackson.html
When the term good is used here, from what frame of reference? Is this God, Moses, Adam, or Bob? Who's perspective of good are we talking about?
Is this good in "Great Job" and a "Slap on the Ass" or Good in an ethical sense? What good is this?
Let's just go ahead and stake a claim now, this isn't the Jesus "God is Love" good... Genesis by all accounts predates that position in the history of Christian "transitional" forms, and doesn't emerge until long after, in the lineage of christian philosophers. So we can exclude that ethical barometer.
In order for me to properly understand your interpretation of this quote. You'll need to define the perspective and the ethical character(Make-up) of the individual, this is usually the result, of providing co-existing, non-biblical references points, that support the ethical frame-work.
Who said this and what were they thinking was good?
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
Jim is too easy. Every time I respond, I obliterate everything he's said without any effort.
*Yawn*
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.