Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exactly. The palaeontological, morphological and genetic evidence indicates that we are related to all the other animals and indeed, by the earliest cells, as a common ancestors, to plants.All life is connected, all matter is connected. We are made of the matter of exploded stars. To say 'we are all animals' is an argument for evolution, not against it.
Ah, well, It is not hard to 'prove' that nobody knows whether we can see the edges of the universe or not, but using analogy and reference to the Doppler effect, the evidence of an expanding universe is strong. There's probably other evidence, too. Our pal seems to be in head in the sand mode.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-10-2017 at 02:48 PM..
The evidence has been explained, but you ignore it. Keep going old mate, you are doing a great job for us.
This is one possible bright side of omega's expressions of extreme ignorance and refusal to engage in thoughtful discussion: It highlights this problem as it often applies to creationists (and anti-science people generally). Any intelligent creationist who drops in on this thread will have to cringe, and will probably think: "With friends like omega, who needs enemies?" (so to speak).
Or, another option might be possible: I'll call this the "ant poison" effect. In the unlikely event that any creationist is impressed by omega's contributions, they might take his ideas and replicate them. (I call this the "ant poison" effect because according to the label on ant poison, any ant that wanders into the trap carries the poison back to the nest and infects the entire colony.) If, for example, omega's "you can't detect the expansion of space" meme starts showing up in the "arguments" of other creationists, it will make them all look like idiots. That won't really happen, of course. Creationists aren't all that gullible, but it's an amusing thought, nonetheless. Or...it would be amusing if I weren't just a bit terrified that a majority of the general population might turn out to be susceptible to the poison. What if a majority of the population is unable to see the absurdity of omega's comments? Then the poison wouldn't just hit the creationist nests, but the population generally. Yikes! What a mess. This is a real danger of trolling and fake news, etc. In such a knee-jerk divisive atmosphere, such as we are living in today, thoughtful conversation gets almost entirely hijacked by the ear-splitting ruckus of partisan meme-parroting. These are highly unsettling times, and it is a scary way to approach the "singularity" in whatever form it takes. Hmmm...such a nice segue to the horror themes of Halloween season.
<sarcasm>Hey! I resemble that remark. It's the Kingdom kind. </sarcasm> Evidently kinds have a nested hierarchy. If an animal evolves, it's still an animal.
10-10-2017, 02:56 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanTerra
<sarcasm> It's the Kingdom kind. </sarcasm> Evidently kinds have a nested hierarchy.
The greatest one I have heard is that a bacteria is still a bacteria Mr. Evolutionist.
We (godless bastards) could be forgiven for feeling that it's looking good and we can be confident. After electing Trump - it's as if Dover had gone the other way and Creationism is taught in the science -class. It would be as unsettling as that.
Yet, it is looking good (1), and perhaps fear of the secular tendency was to blame for the opposite side to get busy, which is why churches can claim even more devotional activity. Tracie Harris in her Mustwatch video on religion and family values, noted that a pair who are religious but not terribly fanatic about it can have one partner deconvert. If they don't break up because of that, the other partner will often become more intensely religious.
Perhaps it is (I quote from Flashman on the battle of little Big Horn) "The last kick of a dying buffalo".
I recall the predictions (leaped on by the religious) that atheism would decline globally. They needn't be so happy about is as that is largely down to Islam, predicted to be the dominant religion.
But, while that may pan out, I think they overlooking the quiet revolution in thinking driven by the Internet. Notably the persistent and even louder rumbles about young Muslim who are (for the first time) hearing some other view that Islamic dogma dined into them at Islamic school and Mosque
And, as you say, Omega's efforts are doing Creationism no good. Sure the Creationist looking in to see him clobber fifteen atheists with one hand will still believe Creationism, but will think: "That's rubbish. There have to be far better arguments than that.@
That is often how the believer from Tracie Harris to Paulogia to Rachel Slick, and from Matt Dillahunty Rachel Slick, in looking to find the sound answers, found they weren't there. They may just go tot the Creationist or other apologetic sites, and find that quite convincing - if they don't look up the counters.
So here's a couple of not -too -long vids, one explaining how evolution produced the evidence even before Darwin. The evidence was already there. Just as natural selection by genetic mutations doesn't matter for proving evolution, and even if it was shown wrong, it wouldn't debunk it, even if Darwin's mechanism was proved false (and it taken more than long debunked arguments about complexity of the eye or dubious claims about statistical impossibility to do that), it wouldn't do a thing to debubk the fact of evolution, which has long been known, even though nobody before Darwin knew how.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-10-2017 at 03:24 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is not hard to 'prove' that nobody knows whether we can see the edges of the universe or not, but using analogy and reference to the Doppler effect, the evidence of an expanding universe is strong. There's probably other evidence, too. Our pal seems to be in head in the sand mode.
