Human Anatomy- The Spiritual Perspective

[Immortal4life]

Edited May 28, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Immortal4life]

It should be clear that Australopithecus, Homo Erectus, Neanderthals, and Cro Magnons were apes, and animals. Not ancestors of humans.

 

 

They're animals not people-

 

Perfeclty rounded vs. warped and roughly oval-

 

Third Eye

 

 

Human

 

Man is something different than the animals and apes, a perfectly proportioned 5 pointed star

 

 

 

Our True Bodies-

 

 

Oh, and evolutionists think cromagnon ape-men created this

Clearwisdom.net - Selected Photos: Scientific Universe : Life Sciences

Clearwisdom.net - Selected Photos: Scientific Universe : Life Sciences

 

More about why man made finds place humans here even before the apes, or at least co-existing side by side

(translated) Strange Relics from the Depths of the Earth (1):Introduction | Pureinsight

 

Removing the Veil from Prehistoric Civilizations</i>, (Part 1) PrefaceAges You Never Knew

http://www.pureinsight.org/node/1324

 

Evolution possible? Sure, if you mean as in the word "Change" over many years. If you mean Darwinism then, no I don't really think so.

Edited May 23, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Marblehead]

Some people would like you to believe that your great, great, great, great, grandfather was a monkey.

 

We just finished discussing this subject a few days ago.

 

You want to play the game all over again?

 

But why? What would it prove?

 

Monkeys and the freat apes are a different linage of the tree of evolution. Please try to understand this.

 

You are going to run out of straws pretty soon if you keep grasping them and causing them to sink.

 

Try swimming on your own! You might make shore and be saved.

[Marblehead]

It should be clear that Australopithicus, Homo Erectus, Neanderthals, and Cro Magnons were apes, and animals. Not ancestors of humans.

 

Modern humans are animals too!!! They are of the great ape linage. Homo Erectus, Neanderthal, and Cro Magnon are of the same linage as modern humans are.

 

Ride you Creationist horse Immortal. Happy Trails!

[Immortal4life]

I have pointed out several differences in Anatomy distinguishing Human Beings from Apes.

 

You can classify different alleged "lineages" any way you want. You can say that monkeys are a "different" line than apes. But it's meaningless because if you go back far enough, evolutionists claim all species are of the same line eventually.

 

So you can say that Monkeys and Apes are different so called "branches".

 

I will say that Humans and Apes are different "branches".

[Marblehead]

 

 

I will say that Humans and Apes are different "branches".

 

Well, shit! If you add the word Modern in front of Humans then I will totally agree with you because evolution has taken the species down different paths.

[Apech]

I have pointed out several differences in Anatomy distinguishing Human Beings from Apes.

 

You can classify different alleged "lineages" any way you want. You can say that monkeys are a "different" line than apes. But it's meaningless because if you go back far enough, evolutionists claim all species are of the same line eventually.

 

So you can say that Monkeys and Apes are different so called "branches".

 

I will say that Humans and Apes are different "branches".

 

I read this three times I4L and it didn't make any sense unless you are agreeing with Marblehead.

 

You are not alone on here in not agreeing with evolutionary theory ... but your arguments and examples do not undermine the science in the way you think they do. This is because I don't think you have understood what the scientific position is in the first place.

 

For example your say this:

 

DNA is universal, however, the same gene that regulates the tail in one species regulates legs in another, this was the case since the beginning of life, so natural selection is wrong.

 

Humans aren't just simply the mutated result of a chain of 5,000 monkeys having butt sex plus survivial of the fittest and disease resistance over a million years, sorry.

 

Neither of these statements make any sense at all and seem to attempt to knock down arguments which science has not made in the first place.

[doc benway]

 

 

Some will try to take it farther, and claim your great, great, great, great, great, great, grandfather was soup. Yeah right.

 

The irony is that the rest of your posts regarding the falsehood of evolution are equally amusing.

[doc benway]

 

Evolution possible? Sure, if you mean as in the word "Change" over many years. If you mean Darwinism then, no I don't really think so.

That's exactly what evolution means, change over time. Change in DNA leading to change in the associated physical manifestations coded for by genomes. Darwin was a brilliant scientist who began to connect the dots in the nineteenth century before any of the benefits of modern chemistry and biology. Mendel's work furthered our understanding of inheritance and how genes are passed on. Modern science has expanded on this knowledge using incontrovertible methods. Current evolutionary theory is extremely powerful and extremely comprehensive.

 

Evolutionary theory has not connected every dot or answered every possible question. Similarly, there is still no comprehensive, unified theory in physics. Do you contend that physics is therefore completely incorrect as a whole? What you refuse to see is that scientific theory is a tool and a very powerful tool. It is a description of reality using the most objective and discriminating methods currently available. Is it all completely correct? Of course not - only until a stronger alternative comes along. Creation theory (sic Intelligent Design) has no valid scientific theory to supply as a substitute, only a creation myth and a gratuitous assertion of the presence of a creator being necessary because physiologic systems are so complex. This is an assertion, not a theory. ID proponents have tried to redefine the words "scientific theory" to make an assertion into a theory with the unwanted side effect that it would then be necessary to recognize Astrology as a valid scientific theory. Please learn the difference if you want to converse in the scientific community.

 

It is only the desperate argument of someone who fervently believes in the Judeo-Christian creation myth that tries so hard to disprove these beautiful and elegant insights and discoveries using junk science.

[unmike]

Upright vertebral column, perfectly balanced pole of posture, these are not detriments to locomotion, as you seem to think. We are perhaps the most efficient machine on the planet, a true engineering marvel! To wit:

 

The human body is a giant inverted pendulum. When your center of gravity resides within the column, forward locomotion takes incredibly little effort. Moreover, we can quickly adjust our direction and stability in any direction, something many animals have difficulty with. A human can walk tremendous distances with very small energy expenditure. A 100 pounds adult male chimpanzee requires something akin to 6,000 calories per day. We are super savers. None of this, however, is the kicker.

 

We were built to run. With a straight posture and gradual run-up, a human's inverted pendulum nature is amplified. It starts with a gentle lean. The force of gravity pulls our center (now in front of where our feet reside) down, providing the impetus for locomotion, and a leg plants while the other begins to fall. The miracle here is again pendulum based; each leg is one in double! With slight effort from some of the biggest muscles in the body, the leg is lifted slightly and the fall action takes over. The top half of the leg falls forward, while the lower half follows slightly behind, allowing it to clear the ground, as well as accumulate extra momentum and stretch for what comes next. The foot hits the ground just behind the center of gravity (not in front of, as you see most adults do-each time it brakes you, stresses every joint involved, and destroys the efficiency of the system by forcing energy input to be much larger). With each motion, certain muscles and the fascial trains/meridians stretch, providing reciprocal spring action to help retract them on the next step, enabling more efficient motion the better one becomes at relaxing properly. As the first foot pushes off the ground, almost all of the energy is converted into force in the direction of travel, and the second leg performs its fall, starting the process all over again. We don't force; we fall forever. Danny Dreyer does a wonderful job of explaining the mechanics in Chi Running, and a wealth of material exists on youtube about it.

[Immortal4life]

That's exactly what evolution means, change over time. Change in DNA leading to change in the associated physical manifestations coded for by genomes. Darwin was a brilliant scientist who began to connect the dots in the nineteenth century before any of the benefits of modern chemistry and biology. Mendel's work furthered our understanding of inheritance and how genes are passed on. Modern science has expanded on this knowledge using incontrovertible methods. Current evolutionary theory is extremely powerful and extremely comprehensive.

 

Evolution means change over time in the most general sense and most basic dictionary definition. The "Theory of Evolution", and the Neo-Darwinian view of Evolution is another matter.

 

Evolution theory claims that Genetic Mutations combined with the so-called natural selection can make one animal become another animal.

 

I do not believe the evidence supports this as an adequate explanation.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FriFgkPUq08&feature=related

[Immortal4life]

Upright vertebral column, perfectly balanced pole of posture, these are not detriments to locomotion, as you seem to think. We are perhaps the most efficient machine on the planet, a true engineering marvel! To wit:

 

The human body is a giant inverted pendulum. When your center of gravity resides within the column, forward locomotion takes incredibly little effort. Moreover, we can quickly adjust our direction and stability in any direction, something many animals have difficulty with. A human can walk tremendous distances with very small energy expenditure. A 100 pounds adult male chimpanzee requires something akin to 6,000 calories per day. We are super savers. None of this, however, is the kicker.

 

We were built to run. With a straight posture and gradual run-up, a human's inverted pendulum nature is amplified. It starts with a gentle lean. The force of gravity pulls our center (now in front of where our feet reside) down, providing the impetus for locomotion, and a leg plants while the other begins to fall. The miracle here is again pendulum based; each leg is one in double! With slight effort from some of the biggest muscles in the body, the leg is lifted slightly and the fall action takes over. The top half of the leg falls forward, while the lower half follows slightly behind, allowing it to clear the ground, as well as accumulate extra momentum and stretch for what comes next. The foot hits the ground just behind the center of gravity (not in front of, as you see most adults do-each time it brakes you, stresses every joint involved, and destroys the efficiency of the system by forcing energy input to be much larger). With each motion, certain muscles and the fascial trains/meridians stretch, providing reciprocal spring action to help retract them on the next step, enabling more efficient motion the better one becomes at relaxing properly. As the first foot pushes off the ground, almost all of the energy is converted into force in the direction of travel, and the second leg performs its fall, starting the process all over again. We don't force; we fall forever. Danny Dreyer does a wonderful job of explaining the mechanics in Chi Running, and a wealth of material exists on youtube about it.

 

Certainly Human beings have many capabilities, abilities, and freedoms. It is an interesting subject to think about the mechanics of movement or running, etc.

 

I'm not sure I would say Humans are built to run. Perhaps built to be able to run.

 

If what you are talking about is the "Man the Mighty Hunter" Evolution Myth though, that is not true. The Man the hunter evolution myth was already completely debunked by the 1990s. Even evolutionists themselves have abandoned the theory that humans evolved to be long distance runners on the African plains throwing spears around and slaughtering animals. It in no way explains human intelligence nor does it explain how Human Beings could have derived from Apes.

 

Also, think about it, red meat generally has many drawbacks and potential to damage health in humans too. Not someting humans would have evolved to eat as a primary food source, or something that could make their brans triple in size in a relatively tiny amount of time. That is ridiculous. Humans are simply a versatile being designed to be able to take in as many things as possible, but only as a last resort if necessary.

Edited May 23, 2011 by Immortal4life

[unmike]

I said nothing of hunting, only the mechanics involved in our locomotion from walking to running. We possess incredibly efficient locomotion from an energy expenditure standpoint. The musculature of animals is different than ours. The 100 pound chimp from my previous post is many times stronger than a normal adult male, and would presumably rip his face off in a fight. Humans really don't need the extreme strength and physical ability, which is why we tend to be fairly lean. This all paves the way for us to spend our energy on what really is our prowess: grey matter. Our thinking, problem solving, creative abilities are what we were born to use.

[Immortal4life]

I think there was a Chimp who ripped a person's jaw off

[goldisheavy]

First, some evolution is a fact that's not subject to reasonable doubt. Namely the shifts. For example, bird beaks get longer and shorter with the environmental changes. That's not disputed. People get gradually taller and shorter, that too is not disputed. The onset of puberty shifts from culture to culture and from time to time. Again, not disputed. Bacterial colonies evolve almost overnight, again, not disputed.

 

So much of the evolution is simply a fact, imo.

 

Second, yes, some of the transitional forms are hard to find. Does that disprove evolution? I don't think it necessarily does. Of course the presence of the transitional forms doesn't necessarily prove evolution either. So what does this mean? I think it means that if people want to think evolution is true, it's a reasonable way to think, but not exclusively so. But if you want to think it's false, you can only deny macroevolution and not micro. Microevolution is a fact that can simply be observed. It's not even a theory. So when you're denying something, you must always be careful to single out macro and leave micro alone, or else you sound like a looney.

 

Third, even if every creature spontaneously appeared, it does not whatsoever imply the existence of the creator. That's a HUGE leap of logic right there! For example, rain spontaneously appears from time to time. Does it mean the rain god is sending down rain? No it does not. Just because something happens spontaneously or exceedingly rarely proves nothing, and certainly it proves nothing about God.

 

Fourth, even if you assume the existence of the creator, for fuck's sake it's not Allah! Allah is the name from Islam, and Islam is a heinous doctrine that got started by a pedophiliac warlord called "Mohammed." Islamic doctrine is the worst religious doctrine there is.

Edited May 23, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Immortal4life]

Technically Islam is an Abrahamic religion and therefore the same concept and Deity as Christianity, Judaism, and possibly any other religion in the world that speaks of a "One God".

Edited May 23, 2011 by Immortal4life

[goldisheavy]

Technically Islam is an Abrahamic religion and therefore the same concept and Deity as Christianity, Judaism, and possibly any other religion in the world that speaks of a "One God".

 

Key word "technically." Give me one other religion whose main inspiration is a pedophile warlord? Go ahead, I'll wait.

[unmike]

Key word "technically." Give me one other religion whose main inspiration is a pedophile warlord? Go ahead, I'll wait.

 

Scientol

Oops. My bad. He was an embezzler, arsonist, illegal wiretapping fiction writer working to win a bet. Boy, did he win.

[Marblehead]

I love this spirituality oriented discussion of human anatomy.

 

WTF are we talking about?!?!?!?

[manitou]

Whaddya want to bet that Sasquatch is the missing link?

[doc benway]

Technically Islam is an Abrahamic religion and therefore the same concept and Deity as Christianity, Judaism, and possibly any other religion in the world that speaks of a "One God".

You ought to read about where the Abrahamic religions got there "One God" from.

Fascinating stuff. Karen Armstrong touches on it briely in her book, A History of God.

It was basically an arbitrary selection based on the presumed most powerful of the existing worshipped deities at the time. The lesser gods became what are now referred to as the various demons (Baal, Beelzebub, and so on...). Not sure I agree with your point here however. In Judaism, the one God principle is all encompassing. In Christianity, other more specific manifestations arise which negate the pure mono-Theistic principle of Judaism. I won't belabor this point as I have no interest in a drawn out theological debate but I think there is a meaningful difference.

[Marblehead]

Whaddya want to bet that Sasquatch is the missing link?

 

Well, it wouldn't be missing then, would it?

 

Hehehe.

[Immortal4life]

The connections between various beliefs and religions is something to look into, to discuss at some point.

[ralis]

The connections between various beliefs and religions is something to look into, to discuss at some point.

 

That has been discussed ad infinitum on this form.

[ralis]

You ought to read about where the Abrahamic religions got there "One God" from.

Fascinating stuff. Karen Armstrong touches on it briely in her book, A History of God.

It was basically an arbitrary selection based on the presumed most powerful of the existing worshipped deities at the time. The lesser gods became what are now referred to as the various demons (Baal, Beelzebub, and so on...). Not sure I agree with your point here however. In Judaism, the one God principle is all encompassing. In Christianity, other more specific manifestations arise which negate the pure mono-Theistic principle of Judaism. I won't belabor this point as I have no interest in a drawn out theological debate but I think there is a meaningful difference.

 

I believe Joseph Campbell discusses this in 'Masks of God' vol 1.