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.
Not the same. The entire scientific community that EVER subscribed in a geocentric cosmology largely consisted of high members of the Catholic and Orthodox churches who did very little substantive scientific research on the matter (all based on Aristotle, who was wrong), and you could fit nearly all of them on the head of a pin. It was the real scientists who came later and who actually did scientific research who refuted it (i.e., Kepler, who was not a Catholic), and many of them were oppressed for having done so. Today's scientists consist of millions of people from all walks of life, from every nation on the planet, nearly all of whom see the evidence for evolution not only as overwhelming, but as the only explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. Now, if you truly want to challenge the paradigm, present an alternative that actually explains the observable evidence instead of regurgitating religious propaganda. **** or get off the pot.
You were using the falacy of argumentum ad populum and if you don't see it I can't help you.
You were using the falacy of argumentum ad populum and if you don't see it I can't help you.
There is a difference between something being popular and something being widely acceptable by the scientific community. The theory of gravity is widely accepted. The theory of flight is widely accepted. The theory of evolution is widely accepted. Next.
You are right. Chimps are NOT our ancestors, and no scientist is claiming that they are. They aren't our ancestors. They are our evolutionary cousins. Their ancestors and ours are the same. That is a huge difference.
No, don't say that.
Ya remember that famous "Human Evolutionary Progression" picture? The one that started with the Little Ape, to the Bigger Ape, to the next knuckle-dragging kinda-human creature, to the Neanderthal caveman with the club, to Cro-Magnon man, to Modern Man? LOL!
There were a jillion of those made, I'm sure.
That's what "science" used to teach as I was growing up... it was considered (and taught) as FACT...for quite a while. You know...you were taught the same thing.
Greater knowledge of DNA, RNA, and Gnome-mapping has brought us beyond that...to what we now feel is a greater understanding.
But, who knows?...maybe that is just until they find out they are wrong about that too...and give us the latest "facts".
I'm sure that we evolved...so much so, I won't even debate it with those who say we didn't.
BUT...do not try to say that the details are fully agreed upon by all in the field...or that "Ape to Man Evolution" was not put out as "proven fact" and "settled science" for decades. I sure do remember what I (and hundreds of millions of others) was taught. And you too, if you are older than 45 or so.
No, don't say that.
Ya remember that famous "Human Evolutionary Progression" picture? The one that started with the Little Ape, to the Bigger Ape, to the next knuckle-dragging kinda-human creature, to the Neanderthal caveman with the club, to Cro-Magnon man, to Modern Man? LOL!
There were a jillion of those made, I'm sure.
That's what "science" used to teach as I was growing up... it was considered (and taught) as FACT...for quite a while. You know...you were taught the same thing.
Greater knowledge of DNA, RNA, and Gnome-mapping has brought us beyond that...to what we now feel is a greater understanding.
But, who knows?...maybe that is just until they find out they are wrong about that too...and give us the latest "facts".
I'm sure that we evolved...so much so, I won't even debate it with those who say we didn't.
BUT...do not try to say that the details are fully agreed upon by all in the field...or that "Ape to Man Evolution" was not put out as "proven fact" and "settled science" for decades. I sure do remember what I (and hundreds of millions of others) was taught. And you too, if you are older than 45 or so.
And nowhere on that drawing is there a Chimpanzee. Homo sapiens is an anthropoid ape, so that may be where your confusion is coming from.
And nowhere on that drawing is there a Chimpanzee. Homo sapiens is an anthropoid ape, so that may be where your confusion is coming from.
There were plenty of chimp-looking creatures in those Ape to Man Evolution charts: https://www.google.com/search?q=OLD+...w=1873&bih=931
Don't try to claim there wasn't. And don't claim it wasn't taught as FACT that man evolved from apes. It was...for decades.
We know better now...but that doesn't change the false info that was put forth as "valid information" by science. It was in all the textbooks and taught in all the schools. Any claim it wasn't is a lie...born of denial and/or "egg-on-the-face" about "science" putting out wrong data.
I think it's easy enough to blur the distinction between "coming from apes" and "having a common ancestor with apes."
Splitting semantic hairs doesn't alter the truth that we share DNA with virtually every creature on the planet - and, I might suggest - in the universe.
Which very strongly suggest we belong to each other because we share common roots.
You evolutionists need to all get together and get your facts straight. Some evolutionists say apes or chimps ARE OUR ANCESTORS. You say they are not. Get your facts straight first. Maybe all of you guys get together once and for all and straighten out your mess.
'Some evolutionists say apes or chimps ARE OUR ANCESTORS. ' Which ones? Note. 19th c. ones do not count. Maybe you are the one who needs get facts straight. So far your understanding of Evolution -theory has needed 'lack of' in front.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
I feel like a broken record here. You have no scientific PROOF that populations evolved from simpler life forms. So why even say it? Just because scientists say it is so does not make it so. The very best they should say is "It SEEMS to us that THIS COULD BE how it all happened."
You sound like a broken record. You are the one demanding what you call 'scientific proof' by which you mean a fossilised step by step record of every change from blob to Bob. The problem is with your refusal to see the evidence as heavily indicating evolution as the best explanation. There is no sound evidence for creation. None.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
It is about ancestors. You know, critters who **supposedly** begot someone in your own genealogy?
This is woeful. You sound like a Monkey trial protester shouting 'I'm not one'. The 'ancestors' branched off from the line that branchesd off in another direction to monkeys and chimps. If the evidence indicated that they were on the same line, then we'd say what you are saying and indicate the fossil evidence to back it up. Since the evidence indicates a number of branches from a common ancestor, that's what we claim. Perhaps you are thinking of the amount of similar DNA. That just shows thay they shared a common ancestor once.
This is the best explanation of the evidence. If you don't want to call it 'proof' I can understand that. If you want to claim this leaves evolution as a sort of myth and somehow makes Genesis credible, that I can't understand, except as blinkered and denialist Biblefaith. It is nothing to do with science at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
You were using the falacy of argumentum ad populum and if you don't see it I can't help you.
No, the argument is from scientifically validated evidence and a certain eluctance of the religious to accept what it finds because it cuts across their trust in the literality of the Bible. ad pop is nothing to do with it.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-28-2014 at 08:23 PM..
No, don't say that.
Ya remember that famous "Human Evolutionary Progression" picture? The one that started with the Little Ape, to the Bigger Ape, to the next knuckle-dragging kinda-human creature, to the Neanderthal caveman with the club, to Cro-Magnon man, to Modern Man? LOL!
There were a jillion of those made, I'm sure.
That's what "science" used to teach as I was growing up... it was considered (and taught) as FACT...for quite a while. You know...you were taught the same thing.
Greater knowledge of DNA, RNA, and Gnome-mapping has brought us beyond that...to what we now feel is a greater understanding.
But, who knows?...maybe that is just until they find out they are wrong about that too...and give us the latest "facts".
I'm sure that we evolved...so much so, I won't even debate it with those who say we didn't.
BUT...do not try to say that the details are fully agreed upon by all in the field...or that "Ape to Man Evolution" was not put out as "proven fact" and "settled science" for decades. I sure do remember what I (and hundreds of millions of others) was taught. And you too, if you are older than 45 or so.
That's true, of course. More evidence adds to our understanding. Usually it makes it more complicated. But as repeatedly pointed out, even the earliest ideas are still valid even if some of the details are incorrect.
Copernicus was right as far as he went, even though he was proven wrong by Kepler as the planetary orbits were elliptical, not circular.
Einstein and indeed Newton are still as valid as they ever were, though Newton knew nothing of Quantum physics and Einstein positively denied it.
Similarly Darwin is still dead right, even though his ideas on the lines of evolution (popularized by Haeckels' diagram, trotted out ad nauseam by mocking Creationists (1), have been revised with more branches from a common ancestor.
Don't fall into the 'science is always changing its mind' trap. There is too much evidential water under the bridge for any hope of a Flat earth, a geocentric solar system or a Genesis - type creation to EVER become seriously credible.
There were plenty of chimp-looking creatures in those Ape to Man Evolution charts: https://www.google.com/search?q=OLD+...w=1873&bih=931
Don't try to claim there wasn't. And don't claim it wasn't taught as FACT that man evolved from apes. It was...for decades.
We know better now...but that doesn't change the false info that was put forth as "valid information" by science. It was in all the textbooks and taught in all the schools. Any claim it wasn't is a lie...born of denial and/or "egg-on-the-face" about "science" putting out wrong data.
Don't base your argument on bad art. The fact remains that no one is saying that Homo sapiens evolved from Chimpanzees. We are their cousins, not their direct descendants. If you don't understand the difference, perhaps you should find some other discussion to get involved in.
Don't base your argument on bad art. The fact remains that no one is saying that Homo sapiens evolved from Chimpanzees. We are their cousins, not their direct descendants. If you don't understand the difference, perhaps you should find some other discussion to get involved in.
I understand the difference just fine...it is YOU pretending not to understand.
I'm not talking about what is being said NOW...I'm talking about the "Ape to Man Evolution" that was put forth and taught for DECADES.
So, don't claim nobody ever said that Man evolved from Apes...because they did. Matter of fact...that was ALL they said back in the day.
Put forth as "proven fact" and "settled science". Nothing about apes and humans evolving from "common ancestors"...but that apes evolved into humans...and that was the progression.
That was considered scientific fact 45 years ago...and taught in every school.
Claims that "no one said that" is a lie. Matter of fact...for decades "science" said nothing but that...and taught is as fact.
As it turns out, that was wrong...man didn't "evolve from apes". So I can certainly understand the doubt some might have of whether the current info is valid.
I consider it valid...but can see that others might not...and just wonder what the next "correction" will say.
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.
accusing us of lying.
