Home > FreeHovind > Content > Creation and Evolution > Discussion: Humanzee: Fact or Fantasy (by: Joshua Joscelyn)
Humanzee: Fact or Fantasy (by: Joshua Joscelyn)
16 Comments - 29114 Views
Evolutionists still trying to find a living apeman.
Submitted By bigdog on 09/05/22
FreeHovind, bigdog, Creation and Evolution 
This Discussion originally posted in the "FreeHovind" Group


Humanzee: Fact or Fantasy (Interesting)
Written by: Joshua Joscelyn
Humanzee. What is it? Is it a chimpanzee? A human? Perhaps it is a hybrid of the two. Well, according to many evolutionary proponents, the humanzee is more than just a creature. This hypothetical mixture of human and chimpanzee genes is a great hope to validate their ideological premise that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, in defiance of God's Holy Word, which holds a contrary position—that humans were created in the image of God, and given dominion over animals like the chimpanzee. To evolutionists, finding some way to prove that this is a possibility—that humans and apes can interbreed—is the pathway to legitimacy. However, history is littered with their failed attempts to prove such ridiculous claims.

In the 1920s, atheism found a perfect candidate to prove that humans and apes were related through crossbreeding. We read in the May 2009 issue of Acts and Facts of a biologist named Ivanov. Ilya Ivanov was a world-class specialist in the process of artificial insemination.1 If anyone could produce a hybrid offspring, he would surely be the one. And so, funded by the Soviet Union, Ivanov set out on his experiments. As the story goes, the atheistic and evolutionary agenda was to pair up genes of Asians with orangutans, Caucasians with chimpanzees, and gorillas with Africans, as these human "species" were more closely related to their ape counterparts than these three ape species were to one another! This racist plan failed miserably, and not one offspring formed.2 The facts demonstrated that crossbreeding humans with apes was not a viable experiment. But in the evolutionary mindset, trivial things such as facts should never get in the way of "science."

Indeed, hope springs eternal. And in the 1960s and '70s, the belief in the elusive humanzee received another shot in the arm. His name was Oliver. Oliver was an odd creature who seemed to be a chimpanzee, but who exhibited odd characteristics such as walking upright and a lack of facial hair.3 He did look somewhat more like a human—not that chimps don't already look similar to humans on some level. But evolutionists claimed that he was a hybrid—the offspring of a human-chimpanzee relationship. Some even claimed he had 47 chromosomes, instead of 46 like a human, or 48 like a chimp. However, in spite of the level of hype evolutionists and atheists were able to drum up, real science eventually got to work and demonstrated that Oliver was simply an odd chimpanzee with 48 chromosomes as would be expected of any chimp.4 Even though he acted and looked a little funny, he was still an ape. Oliver had failed the evolutionists.

Yet evolutionists and atheists today still parrot the bogus idea that a humanzee is a very real possibility, because they refuse to allow science to influence their views of reality. In fact, many even claim that Oliver is still evidence enough of a relationship between humans and apes. They claim that he is a mutant, whose similar appearance proves relation—even though no law of logic would support this idea. Similarities do not prove a relationship. But for atheists and evolutionists, the humanzee is not something to let go of, no matter how hard science tugs. For the humanzee is not a chimp named Oliver, or a test-tube baby from Ilya Ivanov's lab. The humanzee does not exist. The humanzee is the twisted, unproven, unfounded fantasy of a deluded, evolutionary heart, blind to the reality of God's Word and science.

Jerry Bergman. "Human-ape hybridization: A Failed Attempt to Prove Darwinism." Acts and Facts,
(May 2009): 12-13.
Ibid.
"The story of Oliver." Primarily Primates. http://www.primarilyprimates.org/videos/ppvid_Oliver.htm (accessed May 20, 2009).
Ibid.

» Reply to Comment
Re: Humanzee: Fact or Fantasy (by: Joshua Joscelyn)
12 hours - 1,085v
Posted 2009/05/22 - 5:41 GMT
This is a straw man argument, in which a misrepresentation of the issue is presented. A questionable experiment conducted over 80 years ago doesn’t say much about modern research or findings. Similarly, while a small group of scientists may have been fooled by Oliver the ape, it doesn’t mean those views are held today. Keep in mind that DNA wasn’t even discovered until the mid twentieth century.

This article also makes the mistake of using the words “atheists” and “evolutionists” interchangeably. Furthermore, it claims that “...evolutionists and atheists today still parrot the bogus idea that a humanzee is a very real possibility...”, and then goes on to refer to a collective “they”. Um, I’m both an atheist and an evolutionist, and I don’t believe in a “humanzee”. Yet another fallacy.

If Joshua Joscelyn submitted this article to a teacher in a university English class, he would automatically fail for his excessive use of logical fallacies and misrepresentative evidence. Perhaps Mr. Joscelyn should educate himself on the tactics of argumentative writing.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Humanzee: Fact or Fantasy (by: Joshua Joscelyn)
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/22 - 8:18 GMT
im not going to argue agaisnt the strawman, is just gonna show how it's a strawman.
 
"his hypothetical mixture of human and chimpanzee genes is a great hope to validate their ideological premise that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor,"
 
you make the claim alright, but you fail at understanding the term commen ancestor.
ITS NOT A SPLICE OF TWO MODERN CREATURES!
 
we and chimps, are both a differently modified version of that commen ancerstor, our different environments selecting for the difference in modification.
 
"in defiance of God's Holy Word, which holds a contrary position—that humans were created in the image of God, and given dominion over animals like the chimpanzee."
 
and this is the only alternative option...how? there's plenty more tales of how humand where created by a god.....yet you seem to fail to mention them.
 
"that humans and apes can interbreed"
the ONLY thing that that will prove, if it's possible,  is that the changes in DNA are still small enough to allow for cross breeding...however because of the chromosone difference....i don't think that will happen...
 
"is the pathway to legitimacy."
even IF we could, we could still argue "god made us so we can still interbreed, just like he made the entire fossil record to prove his poor creation skillz"
you get the point don't you?
no matter how much evidence i provide, you'll always plaster "GAAAWWWDDUNNIT" over it.
 
"Acts and Facts"
 
which is NOT a scientific peer reviewed journal, hell it's not even a science orientated journal like Natgeo, it's creationist propoganda...really. it IS propoganda..why? because it comes froma  source that starts with a motive, and will only try to legitimize that motive.
 
"As the story goes, the atheistic and evolutionary agenda was to pair up genes of Asians with orangutans, Caucasians with chimpanzees, and gorillas with Africans, as these human "species" were more closely related to their ape counterparts than these three ape species were to one another!"
 
that's the FIRST time i heard that.
and it sound liek a blatant LIE, becuase DNA wasn't discovered yet so they had NO IDEA of the actual degree of relatedness.
 
"This racist plan failed miserably,"
 
although the term racist is used correctly, it's not it the definition you want it to be......the definition you want to use to appeal to our emotions....
 
"Oliver had failed the evolutionists.'
 
how can he fail us when we don't have a motive to prove?
we practise SCIENCE, not APOLOGETICS.
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: Humanzee: Fact or Fantasy (by: Joshua Joscelyn)
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/22 - 8:22 GMT
"They claim that he is a mutant, whose similar appearance proves relation—even though no law of logic would support this idea."
 
HAHAHA in envoking logic, you fail to apply it.
 
if we find mutations that cause genese to function the same way in humans, we might just be up to how much of that 1.2% it takes to make a chimp look like a human.
 
" Similarities do not prove a relationship."
well they strongly incline it, and when you find so many of them in the same places......wel hell.
 
 
" evolutionary heart, blind to the reality of God's Word and science. "
 
THE IRONY!
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: Humanzee: Fact or Fantasy (by: Joshua Joscelyn)
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/05/23 - 0:34 GMT
Evolution contradicts science in so many ways, this being one of them. Evolutionists may be stubborn, but they argue against the very thing that gives us advancements in technology, medicine and abundant luxuries.
 
God bless, Joshua & Big dog for posting!
» Reply to Comment
Re: Humanzee: Fact or Fantasy (by: Joshua Joscelyn)
12 hours - 1,085v
Posted 2009/05/23 - 2:02 GMT
What it really comes down to is how you define science. I’ve already explained this, but I’ll explain it again.

The scientific method used by evolutionists (and all other major secular scientific fields) goes like this: Ask a question, formulate a null and alternate hypothesis, conduct an experiment/ collect evidence, and draw a conclusion that supports either the null or alternate hypothesis.

The creationist scientific method is backwards: Draw a conclusion, make a prediction that supports the conclusion, and collect evidence that supports the prediction while rejecting contradictory evidence.

Obviously, the latter method is biased and will lead to unreliable results since valuable evidence is being deliberately ignored. Which scientific method do you think is more effective, 9tails?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Humanzee: Fact or Fantasy (by: Joshua Joscelyn)
12 hours - 1,085v
Posted 2009/05/23 - 21:24 GMT
And just an afterthought... has any aspect of creationism ever been empirically tested? As in multiple trials conducted in a lab or other controlled setting? I know there’s places like the ICR, but do they actually do experiments?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Humanzee: Fact or Fantasy (by: Joshua Joscelyn)
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/24 - 12:57 GMT
don't think so isabella. they have yet not shown any calculations on any test they have made about radiometric dating for example, just gives a lot of numbers and a really bad graph that is nearly impossible to read. They might just have made it all up... wait what?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Humanzee: Fact or Fantasy (by: Joshua Joscelyn)
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/23 - 2:40 GMT
/facepalm...

srsly, HOW THE HELL COULD IT CONTRADICT?!?! It's not a fucking made up story like the bible! Evolution = science
Creation = religion

GET IT?

"Evolutionists may be stubborn, but they argue against the very thing that gives us advancements in technology, medicine and abundant luxuries."
- This made me laugh, like creation is EVER gonna give anything to science or help our advancement in any way. sigh...

9tails what kind of education do you have?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Humanzee: Fact or Fantasy (by: Joshua Joscelyn)
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/05/24 - 22:00 GMT

There is nothing scientific proving that we come from monkey like creatures.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Humanzee: Fact or Fantasy (by: Joshua Joscelyn)
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/24 - 22:08 GMT
"There is nothing scientific proving that we come from monkey like creatures."
 
explain how it's not.
 
explain us the scientific method. come on...
and while ur at it, explain to us how creation "science" is science.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Humanzee: Fact or Fantasy (by: Joshua Joscelyn)
12 hours - 1,085v
Posted 2009/05/25 - 1:14 GMT
Bigdog, could you please define science for me? Your own definition, not a dictionary one. What does the word “science” mean to you?
» Reply to Comment
Re: Humanzee: Fact or Fantasy (by: Joshua Joscelyn)
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/05/25 - 2:41 GMT

What it means to me personally? Good question. It is simply: the process of finding out something. We chip away the fantasy and fiction until we discover the truth. We put assumptions aside. Then when we realize the truth we found is not truth anymore we discover more truth. For exapmple: We thought that the world was millions of years old because of radio-metric dating and the GM column. Well now we are finding out that Radio-metric dating is full of errors, especially when compared to historically dated objects, and that columns can form much quicker than previously thought.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Humanzee: Fact or Fantasy (by: Joshua Joscelyn)
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/25 - 5:31 GMT
"
What it means to me personally? Good question. It is simply: the process of finding out something. We chip away the fantasy and fiction until we discover the truth. We put assumptions aside. Then when we realize the truth we found is not truth anymore we discover more truth. For exapmple: We thought that the world was millions of years old because of radio-metric dating and the GM column. Well now we are finding out that Radio-metric dating is full of errors, especially when compared to historically dated objects, and that columns can form much quicker than previously thought."
 
even IF you did that...HOW can you arrive at a 6000 year old earth, that god created, the 900 year old ages in the biblce chronology can EASILY be explained by reading historical sources from 6000 years ago from that region.
 
the ancient SUmer recorded that their king lives for TENS OF THOUSANDS of years!, yet we know they only wrote that down because they wanted to glorify them, and we do see that later on the ages start becoming more accurate and realistic.
so WHY believe the bible, over these older sources (which geneology implies an older earth).
 
or why think that the ages of people in the bible are correect, when we can find easiy examples of other cultures, FROM THE SAME REGION, and see the same practice of ancestor worship.
 
you're STILL ignoring THAT evidence and just plastering ,GODDUNNIT, over the ACTUAL historical evidence, on which you claim  to base your age of the earth.
 
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: Humanzee: Fact or Fantasy (by: Joshua Joscelyn)
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/25 - 5:32 GMT
"It is simply: the process of finding out something. We chip away the fantasy and fiction until we discover the truth. We put assumptions aside. Then when we realize the truth we found is not truth anymore we discover more truth."
 
ok, you're gonna eed to elaborate more on how you think science WORKS,. because THAT is what we are asking you.
science works via a specific methodology.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Humanzee: Fact or Fantasy (by: Joshua Joscelyn)
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/25 - 10:38 GMT
Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

= this is not bigdogs version.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Humanzee: Fact or Fantasy (by: Joshua Joscelyn)
12 hours - 1,085v
Posted 2009/05/26 - 0:53 GMT
I think it’s a little more complicated than “...the process of finding out something.” If I was lost and had to ask for directions, would it be considered science if I found out which road to take?


GenTime: 0.0259 seconds

Site Design and Graphics Copyright 2002 - 2019 by Aubrey
Use of this site constitutes agreement to our » Legal Stuff