Better videos... Human Origins
- nick c
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
- Location: connecticut
Re: Better videos... Human Origins
Homo Sapiens is a primate.
- Vecta3
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2015 8:30 am
Re: Better videos... Human Origins
We're not just talking about Darwin though are we, and like you say...he's saying, if he did in fact, that we're all from one source. Common evolutionary theory was only changed to "a common ancestor" when it was proved that we didn't evolve from any other living primate.Grey Cloud wrote:Darwin never said that man evolved from primates. What he said was that primates and humans evolved from the same progenitor. Given that , according to Darwin, everything evolved from the same origin one could make a similar comment vis a vis humans and oak trees.Vecta3 wrote:But the choice is not just between creationism and evolution. Also, emphatic as you put, there is still no proof that man evolved from primates. So how you can speak to others as if they have two heads doesn't really add up to me, but hey. Evidence in favour of is still not proof. Really, it should be easy to prove if it were so. Why is it not concrete? It's a fair question.
Everyone has seen the picture of apes becoming upright and changing to men. That picture has been deeply ingrained into the human psyche regardless of who said or implied what. Fact is is that picture has no basis in ANY proven reality. Fact Fact Fact. So it all stands and the evolutionist must resort to semantics and debate in light of no facts. And how often is a new missing link wheeled out only to be found not to be so & yet that bit doesn't get front page. Whatever they say...ape, chimp, common ancestor changing to man is what they sell w/o any any any factual proof. So it all stands...and if Darwin says we evolved from a common progenitor then he has not been proven right either...I could roll my eyes
If, in answer to the next post, we are called primates then change that to any primate other than human.
Why be an evolutionist or a creationist? Both imply encrusted opinion that can't drop anything old.
With a Silent Mind: Krishnamurti- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d3FoZ55wSw
If you understand the problem then the answer will come out of it as the answer is not separate from the problem.
If you understand the problem then the answer will come out of it as the answer is not separate from the problem.
-
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am
Re: Better videos... Human Origins
Let's recap. You stated: "Science itself has proven that we are NOT related to any living, dead or fossilsed primate." You stated this without anything to back it up. I responded with a great deal of evidence for the opposite conclusion. Five months after I gave you the evidence, to which you have no answer for, you come back and complain evidence is not proof. There is no "proven" theory in science, only theories with more and more evidence. Science is not math.Vecta3 wrote:But the choice is not just between creationism and evolution. Also, emphatic as you put, there is still no proof that man evolved from primates. So how you can speak to others as if they have two heads doesn't really add up to me, but hey. Evidence in favour of is still not proof. Really, it should be easy to prove if it were so. Why is it not concrete? It's a fair question.
You are the one in a weak position making claims of proof, not me. Given the evidence presented, the ball is in your court to refute it.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest