Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Off Topic > Off Topic - General


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 07-21-2018, 10:50 AM   #7201
hcap
Registered User
 
hcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
Because the early humans weren't apes? You see...at some point in the evolutionary cycle the "great apes" (to borrow Hcap's phrase) ceased being great apes in order to "cross over" to become more like you and me.
Never said anything remotely like this. Man are you totally confused.
hcap is offline  
Old 07-21-2018, 11:00 AM   #7202
hcap
Registered User
 
hcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
Did you think up this incoherent anti-evolution "early man infancy" screed all by yourself, or were you divinely uninspired?

Like maybe an extremely heavy boulder falling on your head from on high?
hcap is offline  
Old 07-21-2018, 11:18 AM   #7203
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcap View Post
Never said anything remotely like this. Man are you totally confused.
Learn to read. I never said you did. I said I borrowed a specific phrase from you.

Evolution truly hasn't been kind to you.

However, you did use a non sequitur (i.e. a spider monkey) to make a totally irrelevant argument.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline  
Old 07-21-2018, 01:50 PM   #7204
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
The Law of the Jungel

I will focus on only three huge obstacles to slowly evolving hominids in their "infancy" stage of evolving to become humans. The first, is human reproduction. The second is human growth to maturity. (The third I'll discuss below.) In either one or both of first two regards, humans are unlike animals. Therefore, when "mother nature gave birth" (evolved) to the earliest humans, humans didn't come into this world like a litter of cats or mice or dogs or rabbits. In most cases, one human was born to a mother. Common sense should tell most of us, therefore, that the earliest humans were vastly outnumbered by all manner of wild beasts that would have presented all kinds of dangers to physically weaker, slower creatures who were also deprived of natural survival mechanisms.

The second problem is that the maturation rate for humans, in spite of our slowly evolved superior intelligence, is considerably longer than in other mammals. This, too, presented an additional handicap to "families" of humans, because of all the demands youngsters would have placed on their parents.

The third problem would have been competition for food. At some point in the evolutionary cycle, humans' dietary/nutritional needs would have changed and humans would no longer be able to sustain themselves on only the food of "great apes" or "spider monkeys". Humans would need substantial amounts of protein in their diet so that they could develop physically. How were earliest humans going to hunt for food before slowly developing to the point of making weapons, tools, etc.? Everything they would have hunted would have been faster and/or stronger than them.

The best you evolutionists can do is offer a lot of conjecture on how earliest man managed to overcome all these obstacles to not only survive but thrive. (Good job of back-fitting to get your evolution model to work!) In all cases, you have to appeal to various aspects of animal behavior and apply that behavior to humans. But even if the earliest humans inherited a family social structure, that kind of "team work" would not have been sufficient to overcome their vastly inferior population compared to their competition as a whole.

Of course, Creationists don't have these kinds of problems to overcome because evolution never happened. Evolution is the world's biggest fairy tale -- the very big lie foisted on the minds of men by the Father of Lies. So, let's see how the bible addresses these kinds of issues. We'll start by looking again at the Deuteronomy 7 text.

Deut 7:22
22 And the Lord your God will clear away these nations before you little by little; you will not be able to put an end to them quickly, lest the wild beasts grow too numerous for you.
NASB

Let's add some historical context to this passage. The setting is in the Wilderness, probably relatively close to the end of Moses' life. The ancient Hebrews were to inherit a huge parcel of land that was occupied at that time by seven nations that greatly outnumbered them. God, could have wiped out the seven nations in a heartbeat, which would have greatly facilitated Israel's God-ordained land grab, but because the land area was so big and the Hebrews so few, God would have had to kill many wild beasts over time or just "raptured" all that were already in the land and dropped them off to some other place on the planet. But instead of doing that, God told the ancient Israelites what the plan would be: slow and gradual occupation. And the reason should be obvious to everyone who has an IQ higher than his belt size. With so few Hebrews occupying such a large land area, this would have facilitated rapid population growth of all the "wild beasts". Animals reproduce and multiply many times faster than humans do. The Promised Land would have literally been overrun by wild beasts, making human habitation, even back then, very problematic. And the land was filled with all kinds of carnivores and scavengers -- bears, large cats, wolves, hyenas, jackals, alligators, large snakes, etc. As I implied in another post earlier today, those wild beasts, and all other animals below them on the food chain, would have rushed in to fill the void left by all the dead bodies of the peoples of those seven nations; thus, giving credence to the old adage, "Nature abhors a vacuum".

So then, how much more problematic would this kind of scenario have been for the earliest humans in the infancy stages of their evolutionary development? Look at the parallels. Huge amount of land and so few humans! And those earliest humans wouldn't have been nearly as well developed as their ancient Hebrew counterparts. Not only that, but the land that earliest man would have been born in was already occupied 100% by animals! The earliest humans, then, would have started out life behind the proverbial eight ball, coming right out the gate. The Hebrews, at least, would have lived for a brief period in the Promised Land before facing numerous hungry wild beasts. But the earliest humans would have been confronted by all kinds of hungry predators immediately.

So then...how did Adam and Eve, who came into this world stark naked, and all their immediate progeny after them manage to survive once ejected from the Garden of Eden? They, too, were kicked out into a huge land mass, (i.e. the rest of the planet!) that was occupied by animals -- animals that became wild and predatory after the Fall. How did Adam and Eve and their kids, and grandkids, and great, great grandkids, and great, great, great grandkids, etc. manage to survive? While Adam and Eve were vastly more intelligent than evolutionists' version of earliest primal humans, we find in scripture that sheer superior intellect alone would NOT have been sufficient for our first parents to have survived and thrived in a hostile environment wherein they would have been greatly outnumbered. Two passages address this very issue from slightly different perspectives.

Gen 1:28
28 And God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
NASB

So, at the very beginning, Man was made head honcho over all life. Man's stewardship over the world, included the animals. And this is why God brought the animals to Adam to be classified and named.

But even after the Fall, God made it very clear that man would not only rule over the animals but would now also be at the top of the food chain.

Gen 9:1-3
1 And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. 2 And the fear of you and the terror of you shall be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. 3 Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.
NASB

So, again...the historical context is postdiluvian. And even though Noah and the seven members of his family were cast out into a hostile world containing far more animals than what they numbered, and even though that number still paled by comparison to the number of animals that existed during the advent of earliest primal man -- nevertheless, God would have to instill the fear of man into the animals that survived the flood in order for Noah and his family to survive and thrive. The collective smarts of Noah's family would not have been sufficient for them to survive.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline  
Old 07-21-2018, 03:07 PM   #7205
Actor
Librocubicularist
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
How do you know that early humans weren't outnumbered?
Fallacy of the Non-Testable Hypothesis! This is the fallacy that that which has not been proven false must be true; however, the fallacy usually applies to concepts that haven’t yet been adequately tested or are beyond the realm of proof. Religious beliefs are founded on this "fallacy", but remember that a religious belief is, by definition, based on faith, rather than empirical proof or mathematical logic; that's what the phrase "leap of faith" refers to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
Because the early humans weren't apes?
Early humans were apes. Modern humans are apes. You and I are apes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
At some specific point in evolution, the earliest humans became extremely vulnerable because the lost they had gradually lost the physical strength and speed of their ancestors, while at the same time were far from realizing their cognitive potential.
What is your evidence for this hypothesis? How do you know the loss of physical strength did did not come after they realized their cognitive potential? Is it not possible that humans lost their physical strength because the number of smart humans that survived was more than the number of strong humans that survived?

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
...what "may have been" doesn't exactly count as fact!
Don't forget, that applies to your argument too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
... you have no idea how many species of predators existed gazillions of years ago --
Nor do you. Any claim to the contrary is the Fallacy of Special Pleading. I.e., you claim the rules that you apply to me do not apply to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
Even God agrees with me.

Deut 7:22
22 And the Lord your God will clear away these nations before you little by little; you will not be able to put an end to them quickly, lest the wild beasts grow too numerous for you.
NASB
Scripture proves nothing. Do you want to go over that again? God does not post here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
Nor do you know that all life, including man, began in Africa. Why not the Middle East, which many believe is the "cradle of civilization"?
I'm not talking about all life. I'm talking about man specifically. We know that man began in Africa because that's where all the fossils are.
__________________
Sapere aude

Last edited by Actor; 07-21-2018 at 03:08 PM.
Actor is offline  
Old 07-21-2018, 03:20 PM   #7206
Light
Veteran
 
Light's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
The best you evolutionists can do is offer a lot of conjecture on how earliest man managed to overcome all these obstacles to not only survive but thrive.
First of all, are you aware that there have been at least 15 to 20 different species of "man"? So when you say "early man" you are not referring to us (modern man). We are not from that species. You need to be more specific.

The earliest documented Genus Homo lived 2.8 Million years ago, called Homo Habilis. This is NOT our species but a cousin like Neanderthal. The brains of these early hominins were about the same size as that of a Chimpanzee. And there is evidence of even them using stone tools 2.8 Millions years ago, so they weren't totally defenseless.

We are Homo Sapiens and we are the only surviving species of the Genus Homo. We started appearing approximately 200,000 years ago.

Our species cousins did not die out from being eaten to extinction. It is considered that disease, climate change, natural disasters, etc are possible reasons for their extinction but nobody sites the claims you make, that they were eaten to extinction.

Homo erectus survived until 70,000 years ago, and some scholars believe that the Toba eruption in Indonesia may have wiped them out.

Neanderthal man, who disappeared around 39,000 years ago are speculated to have disappeared due to glacial periods and/or competition from Homo Sapiens. Homo Sapiens lived in large connected groups where as Neanderthals who were superior to Homo Sapiens lived in smaller groups. There was strength in numbers.

Homo floresiensis are also speculated to have disappeared due to competition from Homo Sapiens.

There is also records of prehistoric era that before Homo Sapiens appeared, certain large stone age animals became extinct due to other species of man over hunting them.

Point is by the time we started appearing as Homo Sapiens, we were well equipped to defend ourselves due to the seasoning of our ancestral cousins for over 2 million years

The only species that we know that became extinct was from man or one of his cousin species or natural disasters. There is no record of an animal causing an extinction to any of the 15 to 20 different species of man.

I understand you citing the Bible regarding "beasts" eating early humans as prey. And scientist agree man was prey to an extent historically. But neither scientists nor the Bible say there was a threat of extinction due to that.
Light is offline  
Old 07-21-2018, 03:31 PM   #7207
hcap
Registered User
 
hcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
Learn to read. I never said you did. I said I borrowed a specific phrase from you.....
Learn to think. I USED the words "remotely like" bunky.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
Never said anything remotely like this. Man are you totally confused.
Pray tell, please define "borrow". Like I say the sky is blue, and YOU say the sky is red, do you mean you borrowed the word "SAY"?

Last edited by hcap; 07-21-2018 at 03:33 PM.
hcap is offline  
Old 07-21-2018, 04:13 PM   #7208
hcap
Registered User
 
hcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by bollixed_up_car
blah, blah, blah....
therefore, that the earliest humans were vastly outnumbered by all manner of wild beasts that would have presented all kinds of dangers to physically weaker, slower creatures who were also deprived of natural survival mechanisms.
Meaningless babble again. I have told you earliest humans shared many of the survival skills of primates they evolved from Including:

1-Running
2-Climbing trees
3-Living in social groups

Slowly changing but not deleting all of their earlier survival skills into more human skills Including:

1-Club using
2-Brain thinking
3-fire using



Slowly they acquired more human like characteristics, but at any stage there never was a lack of those skills in either in combination or alone, that left them as defenseless as you argue irrationally.

You are arguing for an all or nothing situation of evolution

I repeat for the 100th time. A fade out of primate skills and a fade in of human survival skills. As below

First a STATIC version that diagrammatically outlines broadly stages of man's evolution....



Now a "movie" for the intellectually challenged creationists among us.

Fade out ape-like boxcar
Fade in less ape-like boxcar




Last edited by hcap; 07-21-2018 at 04:16 PM.
hcap is offline  
Old 07-21-2018, 04:18 PM   #7209
hcap
Registered User
 
hcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
I forgot.
Mrs. boxcar


hcap is offline  
Old 07-21-2018, 05:31 PM   #7210
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light View Post
First of all, are you aware that there have been at least 15 to 20 different species of "man"? So when you say "early man" you are not referring to us (modern man). We are not from that species. You need to be more specific.

The earliest documented Genus Homo lived 2.8 Million years ago, called Homo Habilis. This is NOT our species but a cousin like Neanderthal. The brains of these early hominins were about the same size as that of a Chimpanzee. And there is evidence of even them using stone tools 2.8 Millions years ago, so they weren't totally defenseless.

We are Homo Sapiens and we are the only surviving species of the Genus Homo. We started appearing approximately 200,000 years ago.

Our species cousins did not die out from being eaten to extinction. It is considered that disease, climate change, natural disasters, etc are possible reasons for their extinction but nobody sites the claims you make, that they were eaten to extinction.

Homo erectus survived until 70,000 years ago, and some scholars believe that the Toba eruption in Indonesia may have wiped them out.

Neanderthal man, who disappeared around 39,000 years ago are speculated to have disappeared due to glacial periods and/or competition from Homo Sapiens. Homo Sapiens lived in large connected groups where as Neanderthals who were superior to Homo Sapiens lived in smaller groups. There was strength in numbers.

Homo floresiensis are also speculated to have disappeared due to competition from Homo Sapiens.

There is also records of prehistoric era that before Homo Sapiens appeared, certain large stone age animals became extinct due to other species of man over hunting them.

Point is by the time we started appearing as Homo Sapiens, we were well equipped to defend ourselves due to the seasoning of our ancestral cousins for over 2 million years

The only species that we know that became extinct was from man or one of his cousin species or natural disasters. There is no record of an animal causing an extinction to any of the 15 to 20 different species of man.

I understand you citing the Bible regarding "beasts" eating early humans as prey. And scientist agree man was prey to an extent historically. But neither scientists nor the Bible say there was a threat of extinction due to that.
Really? You're a genuine genius.

So...the "Point is", you missed the point to my entire argument. I haven't been interested in or discussing the end game to alleged human evolution. My entire argument has centered on the "beginning game" -- the infancy stages to human evolution! HINT: How did the thing that existed in the transition period between the "great ape" (or chimp or spider monkey or whatever) and your "Homo Habilis" mange to survive in a such a hostile environment when those things were greatly outnumbered by predators who were around for gazillion of years before they arrived on the scene? Maybe they were shooting AK47s at the competition to stay alive?

And just for the record because an inquiring mind is dying to know: Who would have the prehistoric record of any animal causing extinction and how would they have known? Was National Geographic around recording prehistoric events?

You evolutionists are one sad, pathetic sack of cow manure!
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline  
Old 07-21-2018, 05:42 PM   #7211
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcap View Post
Meaningless babble again. I have told you earliest humans shared many of the survival skills of primates they evolved from Including:

1-Running
2-Climbing trees
3-Living in social groups

Slowly changing but not deleting all of their earlier survival skills into more human skills Including:

1-Club using
2-Brain thinking
3-fire using



Slowly they acquired more human like characteristics, but at any stage there never was a lack of those skills in either in combination or alone, that left them as defenseless as you argue irrationally.

You are arguing for an all or nothing situation of evolution

I repeat for the 100th time. A fade out of primate skills and a fade in of human survival skills. As below

First a STATIC version that diagrammatically outlines broadly stages of man's evolution....



Now a "movie" for the intellectually challenged creationists among us.

Fade out ape-like boxcar
Fade in less ape-like boxcar



That's a stupid argument because at various stages in the evolutionary process, hominids had to have started to become more human-like and less ape-like, otherwise there would have been no evolution taking place. Even your stupid "movie" infers this!

Quote:
Slowly they acquired more human like characteristics, but at any stage there never was a lack of those skills in either in combination or alone, that left them as defenseless as you argue irrationally.
So...they "acquired more" without losing anything in the process? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth! It appears you're saying that apes and men were fully ape and fully men.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline  
Old 07-21-2018, 06:05 PM   #7212
hcap
Registered User
 
hcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
That's a stupid argument because at various stages in the evolutionary process, hominids had to have started to become more human-like and less ape-like, otherwise there would have been no evolution taking place. Even your stupid "movie" infers this!

So...they "acquired more" without losing anything in the process? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth! It appears you're saying that apes and men were fully ape and fully men.
No! Stop babbling incoherently. I never said the never lost any primate characteristics.

At any stage of the evolutionary development of man, there was a mix of primate and human survival characteristics. In varying degrees. Your problem as I keep pointing out, is you think only in opposites. I have told you there were thousands of shades of grey, or combinations of primate and human survival mechanisms.

I guess the "movie" of facial features changing slowly, has to be run again much more slowly to match the intellectual slowness between your ears. Repeat after me:


T-H-O-U-S-N-D-S

O-F

S-H-A-D-E-S

OF

G-R-E-Y




There Always was some "color" bunky.
FYI, grey is a color of varying combination of white and black. As is most of the universe

Last edited by hcap; 07-21-2018 at 06:07 PM.
hcap is offline  
Old 07-21-2018, 07:32 PM   #7213
thaskalos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar View Post
Really? You're a genuine genius.

So...the "Point is", you missed the point to my entire argument. I haven't been interested in or discussing the end game to alleged human evolution. My entire argument has centered on the "beginning game" -- the infancy stages to human evolution! HINT: How did the thing that existed in the transition period between the "great ape" (or chimp or spider monkey or whatever) and your "Homo Habilis" mange to survive in a such a hostile environment when those things were greatly outnumbered by predators who were around for gazillion of years before they arrived on the scene? Maybe they were shooting AK47s at the competition to stay alive?

And just for the record because an inquiring mind is dying to know: Who would have the prehistoric record of any animal causing extinction and how would they have known? Was National Geographic around recording prehistoric events?

You evolutionists are one sad, pathetic sack of cow manure!
Is this a proper tone for the "born again" to use?
__________________
Live to play another day.
thaskalos is offline  
Old 07-21-2018, 08:05 PM   #7214
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
[quote=Actor;2344574]Fallacy of the Non-Testable Hypothesis! This is the fallacy that that which has not been proven false must be true; however, the fallacy usually applies to concepts that haven’t yet been adequately tested or are beyond the realm of proof. Religious beliefs are founded on this "fallacy", but remember that a religious belief is, by definition, based on faith, rather than empirical proof or mathematical logic; that's what the phrase "leap of faith" refers to.[quote]

It stands to reason since other mammals existed long before pre-historic man and other mammals reproduce many times faster than humans and have a much faster maturation rate, as well.
How many times do I have to repeat myself? These are known facts today.

[quote]Early humans were apes. Modern humans are apes.[quote]

Of course! You're Tarzan the ape-man and your wife is Jane, the ape-woman, right?

Quote:
You and I are apes.
Don't presume to speak for me...ever. You're an embarrassment to all critically-thinking persons.

Quote:
What is your evidence for this hypothesis? How do you know the loss of physical strength did did not come after they realized their cognitive potential? Is it not possible that humans lost their physical strength because the number of smart humans that survived was more than the number of strong humans that survived?
So...the "smarter" ones became physically weaker because of the death of the dumber ones? Doesn't sound so smart to me. Seems to me the smarter ones would want to retain their physical strength.

Quote:
Don't forget, that applies to your argument too.
Fine! But then logically, you can't make that argument because you're arguing from ignorance -- i.e. purely on the basis of conjecture.

Quote:
Nor do you. Any claim to the contrary is the Fallacy of Special Pleading. I.e., you claim the rules that you apply to me do not apply to you.
See above. For you to argue otherwise is to back-fit your nonsense into the model of evolution to make it work.

Quote:
Scripture proves nothing. Do you want to go over that again? God does not post here.
And the fairy tale of evolution proves even less.

Actually, he does, since I'm an ambassador of Christ, and as such a spokesperson of God.

Quote:
I'm not talking about all life. I'm talking about man specifically. We know that man began in Africa because that's where all the fossils are.
Neither you or the high priests of scientism know anything. The "Out of Africa" theory is just that -- theory.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline  
Old 07-21-2018, 08:08 PM   #7215
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos View Post
Is this a proper tone for the "born again" to use?
No, it isn't but someone has to tell it is like it is.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline  
Closed Thread




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.