[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ameta / aus / choroy / hikki / monarchy / strek / sw / u ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Christchan is back up after maintenance! The flood errors should now be resolved. Thank you to everyone who submitted a bug report!

File: ff06a4d87dfa971⋯.jpg (569.51 KB, 656x1832, 82:229, Little Foot.jpg)

8a7c92 No.569416

>On December 6, an Australopithecus fossil dubbed "Little Foot" was displayed at the Hominin Vault at the University of the Witwatersrand's Evolutionary Studies Institute in Johannesburg, South Africa. The remains have been cleaned and reconstructed to reveal a skeleton that has more than 90 percent of its bones intact, save parts of its feet, pelvis, and kneecaps.

So, any initial thoughts?

0dcff2 No.569418

>>569416

It looks like a cyclops. The genetic disorder kind, not the mythical kind.


8a7c92 No.569419

File: 2d5ae0e4768f95a⋯.jpg (72.85 KB, 610x781, 610:781, The-skull-of-Little-Foot.jpg)

>>569418

Bit of a bad angle I think. Looks better from this side.


0dcff2 No.569423

>>569419

Much better.

Looking at this skull I see a strong jawline, which tells me it is likely it was male, and no teeth that look like canine teeth, which would imply it was a herbivore. This subject also has very large cheekbones. So I would guess this creature was more ape-like than human-like.

Take into account I have no proper education in biology, and so that this is pure conjecture.


792144 No.569426

Pretty neat, thanks for the heads up. I'll see if I can find the report and I'll read some of it after I read my Bible today.


8a7c92 No.569428

>>569423

Any thoughts on the cultural impact these findings may have in the creationist world? Given that the pelvis, arms, legs, hands, feet, and even ribs are very intact, I'd think more prominent figures such as David Menton (suggested Lucy was a small knuckle-walking pongid) will most likely have to recant their statements on these creatures. Can only imagine what Gish and Morris would say, had they lived to see this find fully realized.


8a7c92 No.569440

File: dc42db2f56d82ac⋯.jpg (254.92 KB, 1125x1188, 125:132, F4.large (3).jpg)

>>569423

Also, apparently it's a young female based on certain skeletal traits. The jawline usually isn't a good indicator with creatures this far back, just look at A. Afarensis.


235fce No.569444

How long do you guys think it will be before they reveal that this one is a fake too? Now that they have this one around are there any particular old fakes that you think they will give up on shilling? Also for anyone who still believes in evolution, death didn't exist before the fall, read your Bibles


8a7c92 No.569447

>>569444

>denying creation

You don't deserve those trips.


3a80c6 No.569462

>>569447

>being illiterate


8a7c92 No.569556

>>569462

>declares pieces of His crestion frauds, and denies what Scripture has made apparent

>not denying creation.


e7e5da No.569589

It's an ape, what's so cool about it?


8a7c92 No.569596

File: 165c381c038f96e⋯.jpg (26.93 KB, 282x668, 141:334, drawn-sleleton-paranthropu….jpg)

>>569589

An ape that can walk in the same manner as a human. A creature that, in the creation model, shouldn't exist.


e7e5da No.569597

>>569596

Why not?


75577a No.569599

>>569596

Where do you get your creation model that says this?


8a7c92 No.569601

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>569599

Reason given in the next response.

>>569597

David Menton, one of the most esteemed members of the AiG staff. Has declared Lucy nothing more than a knuckle-walker akin to the gorilla, and sediba as a "tree climbing ape," whatever that means in his terminology. Point is, the common stance of mainline creationists is Australopithecus=quadruped. They consider bipedalism a uniquely human trait.

There are a minority who do consider Aussies to be bipedal, but at least one of them isn't on good terms with the rest of the community.


18b3a0 No.569602

>>569601

>They consider bipedalism a uniquely human trait.

Maybe instead of trying to read hearts you could consider the possibility that they don't believe these specific apes were bipedal, not that a bipedal ape is impossible?


75577a No.569604

>>569601

>AiG staff

Oh, so not the actual word of God then.


e7e5da No.569606

>>569601

I think you need to reassess your reasoning. I think the only reason you even mentioned how creationism is incapable of taking into account a walking ape, which it's perfectly capable of accepting, is because you want to discredit it.


8a7c92 No.569608

File: a64e01de82c7412⋯.jpg (395.27 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, lucy-exhibit.jpg)

>>569602

Considering they proudly boast this in their Creation (((Museum))), I think they're opinion on the matter is settled.

>>569604

Considering they're one of the most prevalent creationist organizations, I'd say most would equate.

>>569606

As I said, there is a minority who believe otherwise, but their views are quite unorthodox. Major ones I can think of are Todd Wood and Jack Cuozzo. Wood, through craniometric data, determined that everything under the genus homo (this includes habilis, rudolfensis, and naledi) as well as australopithecus sediba is included in the human kind. By stark contrast, Cuozzo asserts in his book, Buried Alive, that australopithecines, habilines, and even homo erectus are not human-rated at all, but are rather "complex apes" that resemble man, but are not true men at all.


e7e5da No.569609

>>569608

You're writing, but you aren't saying anything. You aren't telling me why creationism can't take into account a walking ape. There is no information relevant to the topic in your post.


75577a No.569610

>>569608

>australopithecines, habilines, and even homo erectus are not human-rated at all, but are rather "complex apes" that resemble man, but are not true men at all.

It's called beasts of the field, anon.


613dd5 No.569611

File: be82525f3642fbf⋯.jpg (6.8 KB, 150x200, 3:4, images (28).jpg)


8a7c92 No.569612

File: 0f5930a8aef3c24⋯.jpg (79.75 KB, 700x432, 175:108, what-is-ape-man.jpg)

>>569609

Because these individuals have considered such creatures impossible to the point of considering them frauds. My point is, they've dug their own grave by denying such things in the past.

>why creationism can't take into account a walking ape

Because people are fickle, and many deal in absolutes.


e7e5da No.569613

>>569612

Okay, that's their problem that they need to sort out. Considering things frauds isn't a problem, though.

>Because people are fickle, and many deal in absolutes.

Just like what you're doing right now.


75577a No.569614

>>569612

>My point is, they've dug their own grave by denying such things in the past.

They haven't dug mine. These are beasts of the field and their existence is accounted for. Also they may be right that there have been frauds put together by evolutionists, but to me, this doesn't even matter one way or another.


8a7c92 No.569615

>>569613

I don't know. All I'm saying is that for the majority of creationists, this might be a problem.

>>569614

But what would suggest it was a fraud?


75577a No.569623

>>569615

>But what would suggest it was a fraud?

I don't really care.

Exodus 23:28-30

And I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee. I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee. By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land.

Deuteronomy 7:22

And the LORD thy God will put out those nations before thee by little and little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee.


7502de No.569624

File: 64285d55f4e83f7⋯.jpg (250.06 KB, 1280x800, 8:5, 1497082099592.jpg)

Evolution, as it is taught, is secular gnosticism. Evolution and Darwinism assert that things came from a lower order and ascended to more advanced forms, ultimately spawning mankind. This is opposite to what is scientifically perceived and observed in mutation, that being that mutation causes a change up of what is already inside a given thing's genetics, and sometimes causes a loss of information. Mutation is not a net benefit to life. Mutation is entropy on a micro scale. Evolutionists do not value life, and see death as a natural occurrence, as the fit overcome the weak. [1]

Gnosticism teaches that man is on a low order of existence and will transcend/ascend by knowledge or "gnosis." Gnosticism is a heresy and perversion of Christianity and the biblical creation. It teaches that man was enlightened by Lucifer the lightbearer or liberator, and that the Creator God, known as the "demiurge," was an evil tyrant and ignorant god, not worthy of worship. Gnostics do not value life and see death as a natural occurrence, as those enlightened by gnosis live on and the ignorant perish and are reincarnated in a sense via the divine spark. [2]

In the Bible we are taught that death is unnatural and is a result of the Fall and sin. Jesus has been sent and through His sacrifice on the cross and resurrection, and our faith in Him, we are saved and our sins are washed away. We are told in the end that a new heaven and a new earth will be made at which there will be neither death nor suffering. [3][4][5][6][7]

Both Gnosticism and Evolution deny the biblical account of creation in Genesis, both the allegorical concept and the literal understanding, both old earth and young earth interpretations. Transhumanism is the goal of both gnostics and evolutionists. Transhumanism opens the alchemical door to eternal life, and denies the salvation of Christ.

Theistic evolutionists, in their ignorance, appeal to naturalism, rationalism, and the scientists of the age over the Word of God, and thus are useful idiots to the formerly mentioned heretical camps and give credence to their false doctrines, to the detriment of the faith in the inerrant Holy Bible and Word of God.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

[2] http://gnosis.org/gnintro.htm

[3] 1 Corinthians 15

[4] Romans 5:12-21

[5] 2 Timothy 1:7-10

[6] Acts 22:16

[7] Revelation 21:1-7


c2bc56 No.569671

>>569611

Behold, a man!


af9e09 No.569897

>>569671

underrated and living in a barrel


af9e09 No.569902

File: 5b418a54152869b⋯.jpg (68.09 KB, 500x562, 250:281, fpnJQY3.jpg)


c138a4 No.569903

>>569416

I want to eat a treestar


8a7c92 No.570470

>>569902

I still don't get this.


16a775 No.570500

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

Not really related, but I thought this was kinda cool.


a00d21 No.570501

File: 17aab1706649901⋯.webm (1.88 MB, 480x640, 3:4, Walking Monkey.webm)


8a7c92 No.570502

File: d61b12b7c94b085⋯.jpg (71.36 KB, 388x500, 97:125, 3381250816_ec84a49b3d.jpg)

>>570501

While that is rather cute, monkeys aren't built to support their weight on two legs for the majority of their lives. These are creatures built for quadrupedal locomotion approximating an upright stance.


dbd41e No.571788

>>569601

>There are a minority who do consider Aussies to be bipedal

I'm from Australia and can confirm we do walk on two legs


638b7b No.572070

>>569444

Based orthobro


8a7c92 No.572986

>>572070

>Burpist

Why am I not surprised?




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ameta / aus / choroy / hikki / monarchy / strek / sw / u ]